# UNITED STATES | Railway



## hkskyline

*California Rail Crash Caused by Broken Rail*

*Broken Rail Joint Blamed for Calif. Crash *
8 June 2005

PICO RIVERA, Calif. (AP) - A broken joint connecting two rails caused a 2004 freight train derailment that forced the evacuation of about 100 people and caused $2.7 million in damage, federal regulators concluded. 

The National Transportation Safety Board said in a report adopted May 31 that several track inspections before the derailment hadn't found problems. 

"In some instances, the inspections were done more frequently than required," the report found. "Nevertheless, the inspections failed to detect the developing problems and prevent the ultimate failure." 

The report said evidence indicated "slowly growing fatigue cracks in both joint bars and that at least part of each fatigue crack had been visible on the lower outer portion of the bar for some time before failure." 

No serious injuries were reported after about a dozen locomotives and cars traveling about 57 mph slammed into and damaged at least four homes Oct. 16 -- with one boxcar going through a roof -- and scattered debris in suburban back yards. An estimated 5,000 gallons of diesel fuel also spilled, the agency said. 

John Bromley, a spokesman for Omaha-based Union Pacific, said the company re-inspected all joint bars afterward and found a few defective ones, but nothing "systemic." 

"We certainly focused on bars and because of that, it'll make a safer railroad," Bromley said. 

He said the railroad had also talked to suppliers about providing stronger joints, instructed track inspectors on how to spot tiny cracks that could indicate problems, and increased ultrasound inspections of the joints to every 90 days instead of about three times a year. 

In 2003, 13 people were injured and several homes were damaged when a Union Pacific train jumped the track in Commerce, Calif., about 10 miles from Pico Rivera.


----------



## TRZ

The standards for Rail in the States are so pathetic and low grade, how they are a superpower with only an airline and highway industry for moving people is beyond me.


----------



## Cloudship

What are your opinions on passenger rail in America? Should something be done about it? Should it be left to commuter services, or what SHOULD be it's role?
How should it work?

I think passenger rail in America is in dire need of help. There needs to be an alternative to air travel, both for redundancy, for instance a series of bad storms that tie up air traffic, as well as to provide an alternative for people who don't like to fly. I also think it might prove beneifciall to the airlines if done right.

Amtrak is backward - they own the trains but not the track. That is like having the government own the airplanes and do all the flying, while letting provate companies own teh airspace and airports. Then expect them to coordinate the air traffic control themselves. What it SHOULD be is that Amtrak owns the rail infrastructure. They can designated certian routes for frieght only, passengers only, or combination. They should do all the traffic control, too. Let the private companies run the train service itself. Even let the airlines run train service. They can provide flights to key cities, and provide connecting service to smaller ones. This lets some of the smaller cities that can't support regular flights get service.

I also think they need to seriously upgrade the equipment. Acela is quite a popular service. Ironically, it does not run on a different route or anything - it is just a modern train versus teh ancient metroliner service. It shows that simply upgrading the service will bring in new passengers

Lastly, I think they need to refocus. Instead of long distance cross country routes, they should be thinking city to city. They need to tie in with existing road and airports - lines should service airports directly and then llink out to nearby communities and cities. I would love to see auto ferrys - utilizing a much quicker way of loading cars than the current autotrain, and use them to service routes of about 6- 12 hours driving time. Have a terminal outside the city itself but in the metropolitan region where traffic originates, and then connect to nearby regions. And market not just for end to end users but as a way to cut down on driving time mid journey - you would maybe drive an hour to the station, take teh aurto ferry for the bulk of the 8 hour trip, and then drive the last hour to your destination. This means putting stations not off the highways but near them.


----------



## waccamatt

I agree that passenger rail needs help. I also agree with the point of needing city to city transport. The train takes too long for long distance travel, but if shorter trips (< 500 miles) were easier and public transportation within the cities was better then rail could be very successful. The massive amounts of money being spent on highways needs to be redirected into mass transit, both inter-city and intra-city. Good luck with the presidency and much of congress owned by the oil companies, though.


----------



## Guest

If you had proper HSR like in Japan, France and Germany, or maglev like the UK will hopefully have soon you'd see coast-to-coast journey times shorter than those by plane once everything is factored in!


----------



## FM 2258

I think passenger rail in the U.S. is best served for short distances in high density areas. Otherwise light rail connections throughout a city and high speed rail links to the airports are best for our country. I think air travel serves it's purpose much better than what a cross country high speed rail system could do.


----------



## Cloudship

I agree that coast to coast high speed rail is not only unrealistic due to the extreem length, but also lacks the need. Coast to Coast travel is not particularly large except between NYC and LA, and some of the east coast cities and San Fran. Even if you did have flat out high speed rail it would be too slow compared to air travel to draw enough customers. Even if you had a good maglev service that operate at jet speeds, you are still talking terrain and route deviation enough to make it take longer, and there simply isn't enought traffic there to suppor the costs of it.

The real intercity markets are mostly the East Cost cties - not just the Bos-Wash corridor, but also reaching aAtlants, some of the mid-sized cities in the south, and the cities in Ohio and Indiana. Other markets include Florida, The west coast, and Texas/Southern Rockies. That was what I was refering to as a global perspective - Ait travel works best for really long distances, especially thin toutes, time critical isssues, and larger city pairs. Rail would provide better service to medium sized cities on a more regional basis, where air travel doesn't perform that well.


----------



## SuperDog

Since America covers everyone from Alaska to Argentina....I will throw my two cents in.

Mexico and not the US or Canada will be the next market. Mexico is due for a high speed train between Guadalajara and Mexico City by I believe 2006 or so.

Chile also has a very healthy passenger train system.


----------



## Vertigo

> If you had proper HSR like in Japan, France and Germany, or maglev like the UK will hopefully have soon you'd see coast-to-coast journey times shorter than those by plane once everything is factored in!


Coast to coast is not a realistic option for HSR or maglev... it's still too slow to be competative with air travel.

HSR could be succesfull though in a couple of densely populated corridors though... most importantly of course Boston - NYC - WashDC, but also around Chicago or in California. Hopefully that will happen one day...


----------



## archifreese

rail transit in america should be expanded and funding as well as benefits should go towards those who develop rail. Regional clusters are best, air is more efficient for anything over 500 miles or so. 

The problem is Americas lack of interest/identification with rail. We have such a car-bubble mentality that its hard to get it going in a lot of cities. Florida voted down a HSR from Tampa-Orlando-Miami (almost 10 million in that triangle) and then Miami and Miami Beach voted for localized lightrail but have already voted to delay critical portions of it by several years. 

If Americans could ever love light rail or streetcars (again) it would be so much more efficient economically and environmentally.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

I think we should focus in the near term on expanding capacity and capability of the existing network and implement true high speed rail when we build up passenger volume. Along the lines of what John Barriger proposed 50 years ago in his book "Super Railroads for a Dynamic American Economy." More recently Gil Carmichael has proposed "Interstate II."

The money squandered in Iraq would have done wonders if it had been invested on our own infrastructure instead. I would suggest the creation of infrastucture bonds that would be similar to tax free municipal bonds. The loss of tax revenue should be made up for by a tariff on oil imports of around $10 bbl to encourage energy independence, at our present level of oil imports that would raise about 40 billion dollars per year. Congress had proposed the issuance of 71 billion dollars of such bonds, the revenues lost would only amount to a few billion dollars per year but figure there are more than just railways to invest in to make the US energy independent.

I would shoot for about half of the 40 billion dollars being used to make up for the infrastructure bonds, leaving about 20 billion dollars to spend directly. That could be spent on new lines such as the "Loree Line" across northern Pennsylvannia. It could also build some tunnels that would eliminate bottlenecks, Amtrak could own these and would play the tenant to the railroads, reversing the existing role. 

An 8 mile tunnel could be built in the Blue Mountains of Oregon that would replace 26 miles of climbing and twisting track with 8 miles of level straight track. Some of the worst stretches of line could become the best. A tunnel of similar length could make the old Milwaukee Line across the Bitteroot Mountains of Idaho/Montana a shortcut between Spokane and the east. Altamont Pass, Siskiyou Pass, Stampede Pass are just a few areas where tunnels no longer than the existing Stevens Pass tunnel could vastly inprove America's railway network. A tunnel matching the one being built in Switzerland could transform the I-5 corridor between Los Angeles and the Central Valley.

Investing in our railways could obviate the need to spend greater sums on our highway system, such as the proposal to add 4 truck lanes to I-81 in western Virginia. Removing the trucks to the rails would also save a lot of wear and tear on the highways, each truck causes damage equal to that caused by several thousand cars.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

FAQ: The Rail Solution vs. the STAR Solution

What are the problems with I-81? 
·	Quite simply, there are many more trucks than the highway was designed for. Truck traffic has increased up to 200% on some sections of I-81 in the past four years alone. The number of trucks is almost three times what I-81 was designed to carry.
Drivers are fearful and accidents are frequent.
Instead of being modernized, the rail system in the I-81 corridor has been downgraded so that it can no longer handle its share of the traffic.

What solution does VDOT’s proposed contractor, STAR Solutions, offer? 
·	VDOT is negotiating with Halliburton Corporation-led STAR Solutions based on their proposal to enlarge I-81 to 8-12 lanes. Four lanes would be exclusively for truck use, separated from other lanes by a “rumble strip.” “Jersey barriers” would separate the on-coming truck lanes from each other.
·	Cars would be restricted to the outer two “mixed lanes; trucks would also use these lanes. 
·	Tolls of up to $128 for entire 325-mile route were originally proposed just for trucks, but Virginia’s Sec. of Transportation Whitt Clement stated that 60% of the toll revenue stream must come from cars. 

What’s wrong with STAR Solution’s proposed solution?
·	Air pollution and noise due to the projected doubling and tripling of truck traffic would jump dramatically. Diesel emissions ironically would be trapped by our beautiful ridge and valley topography.
·	Public health would deteriorate as childhood asthma and adult respiratory disease increase in proportion to increased ozone, particulate, and nitrous oxide emissions.
·	The chance for catastrophic accidents would be great, especially if larger trucks with triple trailers are allowed. 
·	The beautiful Valley of Virginia and Mountain Empire of Southwest Virginia would forever be marred with soundwalls and a gigantic industrialized highway replete with truck service strip development. 
·	Historic sites would be lost or encroached upon.
·	Agriculture and forestry would suffer from loss of land and ozone pollution. 
·	Wildlife would be increasingly stressed, it’s populations fragmented, resulting in increased danger from vehicle-animal collisions.
How would the Halliburton-STAR Solution proposal affect the regional economy?
·	Tolls collected from trucks are projected at $4-6 billion through 2020, an expense that will encourage shippers to find alternate routes, reducing projected revenue and clogging other roads such as Routes 11, 29, I-79, and I-95/85.
·	Local shippers and commuting residents, who have no alternative route, will be forced to pay the tolls.
·	Manufacturers and other large shippers will find it more costly to do business in our region and may move to other locations to do business.
·	Tourism and other leisure traffic will diminish as travelers will avoid I-81 during the 15- year construction period and because of it’s industrialized character.
·	In short, businesses that depend on truck traffic and tourism will find it harder to survive.
·	Financing this project will put Virginia at risk. If truck tolls do not meet optimistic projections the project will go into default, and Virginia’s credit will suffer. VDOT’s own spokesperson said “if there is a hiccup in the traffic, or if there is a hiccup in toll revenue, that would cause very grave concern among bond rating agencies.”
·	Other projects in the state will find it difficult or impossible to get funding as this project hogs capital and highway funds. In fact, the STAR proposal would forbid VDOT to make any other highway or rail improvements that might compete for I-81 traffic.

So, is there a better solution? Yes, definitely! 
·	Improve I-81 in the few places where it really needs improvement and accident rates are high. 
·	Upgrade rail lines paralleling I-81 from Harrisburg, PA to Knoxville, TN to dual track, high-speed “steel interstate” for both freight and passenger service. The freight service would be schedule and truck-time competitive to offer “just-in-time” deliveries, using truck service on either end of the rail route.
·	Operate a variety of high speed intermodal shipping options- similar to those in other countries we compete with economically - which allow trucks or just their trailers to use the new high-speed rail lines, reducing truck costs and diverting thru-truck traffic from I-81 altogether.
·	Demonstrating real vision and a remarkable consensus of local officials, 40 counties, cities, towns, and planning commissions in the Virginia I-81 corridor voted resolutions opposing the STAR-Halliburton proposal outright, opposing any proposal that relies on tolls, or supporting a major role for rail. 

What are the advantages of this alternative solution?
·	Traffic safety and congestion on I-81 would be drastically improved.
·	Cost of the improvements to the rail system and necessary highway improvements are estimated at about one half of the STAR proposal and no or much reduced highway tolls would be required. Construction time would also be halved.
·	The additional cost to trucks for using the rail system would be offset by reduced operating costs. Drivers would also have more options: either riding on the train with a more productive rest break (the load is still moving); or driving more short trips to a rail terminal with the opportunity for regular time at home.
·	The convenience of “dock to dock” deliveries now provided by trucks would continue.
·	The western and Southwest Virginia would become more attractive to potential industries, supportive of existing businesses and the travel industry.
·	There would be far less impact on I-81 traffic and businesses using that asset during the construction period. Exporting the construction to the rail line would be safer and less frustrating for all drivers.
·	Virginia would experience a savings (net of truck license and use taxes) of $.05 in interstate maintenance costs for every truck mile diverted to rail.
·	Other transportation improvement projects in Virginia would be neither prohibited nor impacted negatively. Specter of a super-sized I-81 “white elephant” would be avoided.
·	Pollution, noise, agricultural and business land loss, and dependence on foreign oil would be reduced, not increased.
·	A balanced system of highway and modern rail would provide travelers the option of taking the train instead of driving, and greater transportation flexibility during emergencies. 
·	The valleys and mountains of Virginia would continue to be one of the most attractive and historic places in the nation.
·	The railroad would have six times the capacity of its anticipated initial load, compared to the STAR plan, which will be saturated when completed.

Why doesn’t VDOT just build a railroad then?
·	Alaska’s Congressman Don Young, powerful Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, wants to build his pet project: an experimental highway for trucks only right here along I-81 in Virginia to showcase to Congress.
·	STAR Solutions, the Halliburton Corporation-led construction consortium, proposed just such a truck-lane “solution” to VDOT under the Virginia’s new public/private transportation act. 
·	In return, Young has inserted into the House omnibus transportation bill $900 million in federal tax funds as the first of two installments to subsidize this I-81 truckway. 
·	According to the Washington Post, ethically-blind Halliburton and other partners in STAR Solutions contributed to Don Young’s campaign fund. 
·	Further, the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s I-81 Advisory Panel, stacked with VDOT loyalists, chose the STAR proposal for further study, with the qualification that the federal government subsidize the $13 billion cost of the STAR proposal. Converting a free public interstate highway, built by taxpayers, into a toll road from which private companies would speculatively profit, would be a first in U.S. history. 
·	VDOT has entered into contract negotiations with STAR, despite the fact that the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) has not been conducted and what project is to be built, if any, is yet to be decided. 
·	This proposal second only in scope to Boston’s disastrous Big Dig has some of the same cast of characters-STAR Solutions member Parsons-Brinckerhoff was sued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts this March for allegedly hiding the knowledge in the early 1990s that costs and completion timelines on the Big Dig would double.
·	VDOT hired a former STAR Solutions partner, Vanasse, Hangen, Brustlin, Inc., to conduct portions of the Environmental Impact Study for the project. 
·	At the I-81 Advisory Panel hearing when the panel recommended STAR Solutions, only the competing plans were discussed. Contractors were not parsed on whether they are financially stable enough to undertake such a project, have a reliable history of ethical behavior, consistently bring contracts to completion on time and within budget constraints, or have the flexibility to build whatever comes out of the EIS as the final “build” scenario.
·	Halliburton’s financial stability-it’s KBR subsidiary filed for bankruptcy in December, not Halliburton or the other contractors ethical behavior-Halliburton was fined by the Securities and Exchange Commission in August for accounting for project cost overruns as profits without requesting acceptance from its customers; KBR is being investigated by the U.S. Government for its accounting of its Iraq operations and several whistle blowers are accusing the company of fraud.
·	If you think Halliburton can’t get sufficient access on Capitol Hill, consider that U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s brother, Randolph DeLay, sole proprietor of Public/Private Strategies Inc., is also a principal in the STAR consortium.
·	As STAR partner law firm, McGuire Woods’ own advertising slogan puts it “Relationships that drive results.” Relationships on this project appear far too cozy. Does this sound like a contractor you would hire to build the largest public construction project in Virginia’s history? Do they appear to have the interest of Virginians at heart?
·	Now Congressman Young’s truckway earmark is before a House-Senate conference committee. Virginia’s Senator Warner is a committee conferee. Virginia’s congressional delegation is sorely tempted by the thought of “free” federal pork behind this project, even though no local constituencies support the proposal. 
·	Virginia House members are afraid to oppose Chairman Young for fear of being punished by having future transportation projects excluded from the federal budget.
·	How can half a billion dollars start a $13 billion project? It can’t. The other $12 billion will be paid for by tolls on those of us who drive I-81 or pay Virginia taxes. Once started, there will be no stopping this gargantuan project, even if it costs twice as much and takes twice as long as planned, as the planners of the “Big Dig” experienced. 
·	Now Congressman Young’s truckway earmark is before a House-Senate conference committee. Virginia’s Senator Warner is a committee conferee; the “free” federal pork behind this project sorely tempts him and other members of Virginia’s congressional delegation, even though no local constituencies support the proposal. Virginia House members are afraid to oppose Chairman Young for fear of being punished by having future transportation projects excluded from the federal budget.
·	Virginia’s Secretary of Transportation Whitt Clement says that auto drivers would have to pay 60% of the $13 billion in tolls needed to pay off this scheme, even though all agree that it is truck congestion driving this expansion proposal. Is that fair?


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

MAXIMIZE RAIL, MINIMIZE ROAD EXPANSION

August 11, 2004

As the Commonwealth of Virginia considers how to cope with ever-increasing traffic on I-81, it is important to make the wisest choice, which will best serve Virginia and the Nation for the long-term. 

VDOT has chosen to evaluate the STAR plan, to expand I-81 by adding four new “trucks only” lanes, for an estimated total cost of $13 billion. We submit that this plan is shortsighted and will have many adverse consequences. It makes only minimal use of rail to deal with increasing truck traffic. 

We propose that an alternative plan, which makes much greater use of rail and reduces dependence on highway expansion, can be accomplished at less cost, faster, and with far greater benefit to the public. 

It is important to start with some current facts related to I-81:
·	Current truck traffic on I-81 is roughly 40% of total traffic. 1
·	Current average daily truck traffic on I-81 is 14,000 trucks/day 2, or 5.1 million trucks/year.
·	70% of all the trucks on I-81 are on trips of over 500 miles, called “long-haul” trips. 3
·	Total long-haul truck traffic on I-81 is thus approximately 9,800 vehicles/day.
·	Trucking companies find that on trips over 500 miles, it is attractive for them to use intermodal rail if the service meets three criteria: a.) Equal door-to-door transit time, b.) Convenience and c.) Reliability. 4
·	The predominant long-haul truck traffic in the I-81 corridor flows through Harrisburg, PA, following I-81 and I-40 to Memphis, TN, or I-81, I-75 and I-59 to New Orleans. 5
·	If intermodal service meeting the three criteria listed in (5) were available to the corridor described in (6), a large share of the long-haul truck traffic would voluntarily divert to the intermodal rail service. How much is uncertain. The SJR-55 Report6 suggests that, “total divertible traffic was over 2 million trucks annually”(based on 1996 data). Reebie7 suggests a diversion potential of 28.2 to 30.3% of average daily truck traffic, or 1.4 million trucks annually. Averaging these two estimates, we get a potential diversion of 1.7 million trucks/year, or 4,550 trucks/day, or 46% of all long-haul trucks.
·	Diverting 46% of all long-haul trucks from I-81 would certainly be beneficial, but we submit that this estimate is too conservative. The rail investments proposed in Reebie are modest (around $7 billion for the entire NS corridor and just $2.6-2.8 billion in Virginia.8) Intermodal service in the 2,000 mile Chicago/Los Angeles corridor currently captures “as much as 80% of all truck traffic.”9 We submit that an even more modern railroad could capture at least 65% of all long-haul truck traffic in the 1100-mile Harrisburg/New Orleans corridor or the 900-mile Harrisburg/Memphis corridor.
·	If this could be accomplished, it would represent a 46% decrease in truck traffic on I-81. 
·	On the hilly terrain, which is characteristic of I-81 in VA, a tractor-trailer in effect displaces 3-6 passenger cars10. Together with such a significant reduction in truck traffic a corridor rail enhancement reduces the need for additional lanes of pavement. Instead of adding four or more lanes over the entire 325-mile length of I-81, it should be possible to add lanes only where congestion concentrates and where trucks can’t maintain speed while climbing hills.

The modest “Virginia-only” rail improvements in the STAR plan, and also discussed in Reebie 9, project a diversion of trucks to intermodal rail of 500,000 per year, or 1,369/day, or just 15% of current long-haul trucks. 

It is doubtful that much diversion will be achieved by the proposed improvements, which are limited to adding passing sidings and signaling to the line from Front Royal to Manassas, and a few other upgrades. By using the Roanoke-Lynchburg-Manassas “Piedmont” line, the rail route is 65 miles longer in VA than I-81. Further, with only 1,369 trucks/day, and a train carrying 50 trucks, that yields just 27 train departures each day, or roughly one every two hours in each direction. These trains will occasion additional delay of up to two hours and further erode rail’s ability to compete with highway trucks for speed of service.

It is clear that to make a significant contribution in reducing truck traffic in the I-81 corridor, intermodal rail needs to be very successful. Modest measures to improve rail, although better than no rail improvements, will not have impact sufficient to mitigate highway congestion.

What rail enhancements will be required to make intermodal rail very successful in attracting trucks from I-81?

·	A modern, dual-track, high speed rail line, grade separated from all road crossings, capable of carrying intermodal and passenger trains at average speeds of 60-80 mph along Norfolk Southern’s line between Harrisburg and Knoxville TN, and possibly beyond to Memphis and New Orleans. RAIL Solution calls this high-performance railroad the Steel Interstate.

·	The Steel Interstate needs to closely parallel the highway corridor, avoiding unnecessary mileage. The Valley Route is much preferable to the Piedmont Route in this regard.

·	Strategically located transfer facilities along this rail line, probably near the I-64 and I-77 interchanges and Roanoke, as well as in other states. 

·	Railroad equipment that offers an “open intermodal technology,” capable of handling all highway trailers, complete trucks or containers, and facilities capable of loading and unloading them quickly. The intermodal trains would be expected to carry 50 equivalent truckloads each.


TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF STAR AND RAIL SOLUTION PLANS

STAR RAIL SOLUTION
Cost: (Virginia only) Investment in highway Investment in rail (VA) Trucks/year diverted to rail, based on current traffic % Of trucks diverted to rail Trucks/year capacity of rail improvement Total trucks/year on I-81 currently Trucks/year on I-81 in 2020 * Trucks/year on rail in 2020 * Total fuel usage for trucks and rail, for I-81 traffic in Virginia, in 2020, gallons Est. year of completion, Highway improvements Rail improvements $13 billion $0.5 billion 0.5 million 10% 0.5 million 5.1 million 9.7 million 0.5 million 534 million 2019 2008 $1.8 - 7.0 billion $3.6 billion 2.35 million 46% 10.5 million 5.1 million 5.5 million 4.7 million 376 million 2014 2010	
* Assumes total truck volume doubles from 2004 to 2020

Financing the improved infrastructure of the Steel Interstate:

The capital investment necessary to upgrade the railroad infrastructure, estimated to cost $3.6 Billion in Virginia alone, is beyond the capability of NS to leverage. Investment must come from the public, from state or federal government or a combination of the two, which could further leverage private monies. All investments would be repaid over time by a rail car user fee.

For the RAIL Solution proposal to be successful it must be profitable for the long-haul truckers to use it; it must be profitable for the railroad operator generating the revenue to pay back the public and private investment over a reasonable length of time. 

A rough analysis by RAIL Solution shows that with the diversions we predict, current truck operating costs, and current rates that railroads charge for intermodal service, truckers and railroad operators can make a profit and still pay a user fee for the new infrastructure that will reimburse the capital investment over thirty years.

What advantages will accrue from the proposed Maximized Rail/Minimized 
Road Plan?

·	Less expansion of I-81: Since the Steel Interstate will handle a large portion of long-haul truck traffic, the need to expand I-81 will greatly diminish. Detailed traffic analysis is needed to determine necessary upgrades to the highway, but it is believed that adding a lane in congested areas, adding a climbing lane where necessary for trucks on hills, adding safety and enforcement measures already planned by VDOT may suffice for the long term. It appears certain that the necessary upgrades to I-81 will not exceed the addition of a single lane in each direction for the full 325 miles in VA.

·	Lower cost: The cost of rail improvements proposed here, as estimated by RAIL Solution experts, is $3.6 billion. Without knowing what I-81 improvements will be necessary, it is hard to estimate their cost. But if the full addition of a 3rd lane is taken as a high limit, then Fluor’s estimates of $1.8 billion, later revised to $7 billion, may be used as an upper cost limit. Thus the total cost for rail and highway improvements in VA could be expected to fall between $5.4 and $10.6 billion.
Obviously, both rail and highway investment will be needed in other states in the corridor, but their results should be similar to what we’ve shown for Virginia: Lower cost by maximizing rail and minimizing highway expansion.

·	Reduced land use: If the land use of the STAR 8-lane plan is reduced to 6 lanes or less, it will require far less land acquisition. For the addition of two lanes, much of the addition can be done in the existing median, owned by the state. But with the STAR plan, additional lanes and truck lane separation areas require adding land outside the existing right-of-way. Additional land condemnation under this plan nearly doubles the original Interstate footprint.
The railroad will use NS right of way where practical. Elsewhere, it will require only a 40 ft. ROW. 

·	Improved fuel economy: An intermodal train uses roughly 1/3 as much fuel as a highway tractor-trailer per ton-mile transported.10 The potential savings is 158 million gallons/yr. of fuel in Virginia alone.

·	Reduced air pollution, resulting from reduced fuel consumption. Air pollution in the I-81 corridor is already a concern, with several cities, including Winchester and Roanoke, designated as borderline non-attainment areas. Reduced air pollution has both significant and measurable public health and economic benefits. Enhanced rail capacity reduces Virginia’s exposure to the introduction of Mexican trucks with inferior regulation and maintenance.

·	RAIL Solution’s proposed dual-track Steel Interstate railway will have the capability of handling trains with 5-minute headways, or 288 trains/day in each direction. That is six times the 45 trains/day in each direction needed to carry the projected 4,550 diversions/day. So the railroad will have six times the capacity of its expected initial load. Compare this with the STAR plan, which will be saturated when completed.

·	Removing trucks from the highway will result in fewer accidents and toxic release incidents because railroads have a superior safety record. Rail freight traffic separation is true freight separation, not mere “rumble strip” separation. Fewer accidents will occur on the Interstate because of fewer trucks. Not to be discounted, fewer accidents will occur on the Interstate because of reduced construction time.

·	Removing trucks from the highway reduces highway maintenance cost. The net cost of maintenance less user fees is $.05/truck mile11. Thus, diversion of 1.7 million trucks/yr will save the State $27.6 million annually. Also the State may be eligible for federal interstate maintenance monies if it is able to avoid highway tolling or reduce the amount of time that a toll is imposed.

·	Attractive intermodal service in the I-81 corridor will reduce long-haul 
shipping costs, improving the economy and industrial recruitment prospects of the region it serves.

·	The improved rail line offers the potential of high-speed passenger rail 
service in the I-81 corridor. This could improve tourist business in the region.

·	Redundancy: Statistics prove the growing dependence of the economy of eastern United States on I-81 trucking. This makes I-81 an inviting target for terrorist attack. President Eisenhower initiated the Interstate System to meet 
a national security need. The addition of the Steel Interstate, parallel to the 
I-81 corridor and its extensions into the Mid-South, will provide a second
artery, enhancing our national security.


What the NEPA review should be sure to include:

·	That public investment /financing could produce a sufficiently upgraded and improved rail line paralleling I-81 to permit rail intermodal operations to handle a meaningful volume of the trucking now on I-81, such that a lesser investment in highway infrastructure would be needed or justified.

·	That a useful analysis of rail vs. highway investments cannot be meaningfully undertaken based on the 325 miles within Virginia alone and with no consideration of the impacts on adjacent states. Such convergent analysis shortchanges the rail option and is not in keeping with VDOT’s more activist approach (requesting a waiver from the Federal Highway Administration regulations in order to impose tolls) for the STAR Solutions plan. Since the transportation congestion problem is a multi-state problem, a multi-state approach is required. VDOT should work in collaboration with other state transportation departments to determine the least costly and most effective transportation improvement concept for the corridor.

·	That financing availability aside, the desirability of a truly improved rail line in the I-81 corridor meeting the standards of a 21st Century Steel Interstate, be analyzed for its effectiveness and competitiveness in moving much of the freight traffic now and in the future along the I-81 corridor.

·	That the financial and environmental costs and benefits be evaluated between providing future truck carrying capacity with truck-only highway lanes and providing that same capacity with a super railroad instead, thus requiring limited highway improvements.

·	That in addition to modal analysis traditionally performed to see which shipments logically move by truck and which by rail, the NEPA analysis needs to include non-traditional forms of intermodal service, using concepts such as the “E<x>pressway” service in use on the Canadian Pacific RR or the truck ferry (Rolling Highway) as used in Europe.

·	That no environmental assessment can be complete without acknowledgment that petroleum prices (fuel costs) may be much higher in 2035 and disproportionately impact over-the-road trucking. World petroleum demand is currently equal to production capacity and will inevitably outstrip supply.

·	That the potentially adverse effects of tolling be fully evaluated regarding the impact on other roads and highways exposed to increased traffic avoiding tolls on I-81, and with regard to the potentially severe adverse impact on business, commerce, and tourism in western and Southwest Virginia (including economically distressed jurisdictions) compared to other areas served by non-tolled highways. Additional analysis should address the probable diversion to rail due to tolls and the capacity of rail to handle this diversion.


----------



## Cloudship

The whole rail infrastructure in this country is archaic at best, and I would even venture to say not worth much rehabilitation. Heavy freight and pasenger rail/light freight don't mix, and shouldn't have to mix. The first thing to do is to build a true nation-wide rail infrastructure, not privately owned but run like the airways and airports, with traffic control and private operators. A simple twin-track layout is not going to cut it - 4 lines in the major locations. There should be a separate network that handles passenger, car and truck rail-ferries, and light freight, with heavy freight getting it's own lines.

The problem is that road construction projects involve many companies, with many people getting their hands in on it. Rail projects really are quite limited in scope, and not that many companies are ready to take advantage of it. Which means that the companies and politicians aren't particularly motivated to do it.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

The program John Barriger outlined in "Super-Railroads; Fora Dynamic American Economy" back in 1955 would have provided for 40,000 miles of Super-Railroads. Most of it would have been upgrades of the existing lines, but 4000 miles would have required entirely new alignments. Total program cost in 1955 was 20 billion dollars. With the exception of mountains and terminal areas he called a ruling grade of 0.5% and curves of 1 degree minimum radius (and ideally 0 degrees 30 minutes to reduce the need for super elevation of the tracks to no more than 3 inches).

I think that with electrification we could allow for greater greater ruling grades since the energy lost in braking can be fed back into the system rather than being disippated as heat. If you can find this book you will find it very informative, my copy was found via the internet. Some of the results that would allowed for a 20 car passenger train to travel between New York and Boston or Washington DC in 2.5 hours, New York and Chicago in 12 hours, and Chicago and the Pacific Coast in 30 hours. Freight up to 500 miles away would have been delivered on a next morning basis.

Passenger trains would have traveled at up to 100 mph, and averaged 70 mph between terminals (which beats the Acela between Boston and New York) using F unit locomotives and streamliner cars of the era. He demonstrated how much more important it was to raise the average speed than the maximum, the Acela today illustrates his point, between Boston and NYC it averages 65 mph, and only runs at it top speed of 150 mph for a few miles along the border of Rhode Island and Connecticut. Freights would have been limited to 70 mph and averaged 50 mph terminal to terminal. These would have been merchandise freights like the old Pacemakers and Eagle Merchandise. At that time the average boxcar limited the maximum speed to 50 mph while the locomotives could easily handle 70 mph, so most freight cars were obsolete.

Most freight ton-miles today are in slow moving bulk good unit trains (coal/ore/grain) which would travel at 15 to 30 mph, this would be the traffic that is hard to mix with fast freight, intermodal, overland RO/RO ferry and passenger trains.

He also mentioned that 2 tracks could handle 4 times the traffic of a single track, 3 tracks 9 times as much and 4 tracks would handle 16 times the traffic of the single line. You would also need to incorporate cab signaling on these lines to maximize capacity.

I think his program would be valid today, we need to move freight using less energy, electification would allow the bulk of it to move totally independent of oil imports. The higher speed of intermodal and overland RO/RO ferry trains would strip freight from the highways to the rails. And for now we could concentrate on using passenger trains to compete with the auto rather than the airliner. 

Far more passenger miles go by the highway than the airway anyway, in particular for shorter distance travel. 70 mph end to end speed would beat the speed of a car, in greater comfort and with better amenities. Overland RO/RO ferry trains could travel 700 to 800 miles overnight. A lot of package freight could travel at the speed of passenger trains, allowing priority goods to travel coast to coast in under 2 days time.


----------



## Cloudship

> I think his program would be valid today, we need to move freight using less energy, electification would allow the bulk of it to move totally independent of oil imports. The higher speed of intermodal and overland RO/RO ferry trains would strip freight from the highways to the rails. And for now we could concentrate on using passenger trains to compete with the auto rather than the airliner.


And there you go - compete with the oil industry (which gets its supply from overseas but the corporations are based right here), and the auto industry, which is the culmination of pawning off...er, private investment in transportation.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

Cloudship said:


> And there you go - compete with the oil industry (which gets its supply from overseas but the corporations are based right here), and the auto industry, which is the culmination of pawning off...er, private investment in transportation.


And the supply of oil is subsidized by tax dollars spent to defend the oil supply, about 60 billion dollars while we import 4 billion barrels per year, works out to a subsidy of $15 per bbl. Socialize the cost, privatize the benefit. 

When we built the interstates we spent far more on public infrastructure as a percent of national wealth than we do today. The original financing model of a gasoline tax was good but it failed to address the burden that was imposed after 1971 when the US began to assume responsibily for defense "East of Suez." Imposition of a tariff on oil imports would correct this and would encourage new domestic sources, substitutes and more efficient utilization of petroleum.

Funding for Super-Railroads should be financed this way. If the roadbeds were owned by the federal government they would pay no property tax, this siphons off several hundred million dollars a year that could be invested in the railways. Property taxes on rail rights of way offer a perverse incentive to minimize fixed plant and were a contributing factor in shedding capacity. New Jersey actually taxed a railroad into bankruptcy back in seventies!

Improvement to fixed plant from electrification would result in higher property taxes, this works against achieving energy independence.


----------



## mopc

Which long distance passenger trains are electric in the USA?


----------



## shayan

is there a map of the network??


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

mopc said:
 

> Which long distance passenger trains are electric in the USA?


The only ones are in the northeast corridor between Washington DC, Philedelphia, New York and Boston. It used to only extend as far as New Haven, Connecticut but it was extended all the way to Boston for the Acela. There are also a few electrified suburban railways, around New York, Philedelphia and Chicago. 

Formerly we did have a few other electrifications, the best examples being the Milwaukee Road from Harlowtown, Montana to Avery, Idaho, and Othell to Tacoma in Washington. That was a 3000 VDC electrification which came down in 1974, now the route itself does not exist, taken up after 1980. The Great Northern, Virginian and Norfolk and Western had stretches of electrified mainline that were removed in the two decades following WW2.

The Milwaukee Road used some locomotives that were originally built for the USSR, they were nicknamed "Little Joes" in reference to Josef Stalin. The was a railway in you area which also purchased a few of them, I think known as the "Paulista?"


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

A number of the NHS High Priority Corridors have parallel rail routes or at least have rail lines connecting their end points. An example would be the (3) East-West Transamerica Corridor commencing from the Hampton Roads, going by way of Roanoke and ending up in New Mexico, going through Amarillo along the way.

Amarillo is on the BNSF transcontinental mainline which is already in very good shape, nearly all double tracked (with plans to close the few remaining gaps). A lot of intermodal traffic flows on this line between California and the Midwest. At one time Amarillo was a gateway from this line to Memphis via the Rock Islands "Choctaw Route," but this was severed in 1980 with the bankruptcy of the Rock Island.

Further east the short route between Nashville and Knoxville on the old Tennessee Central Railway has also been cut, but plans are underway to rebuild the missing link.

From line between Knoxville to Roanoke is on the route which has been proposed for upgrading as far as Harrisburg.


----------



## cjfjapan

Frank J. Sprague said:


> Interesting article, I've also spend a great deal of time in Japan and am amazed at some of the private railways which began as interurban's, and they keep getting better! For work I travel on the Keinan line between Moriguchi and Kadoma (Kansai region around Osaka), its only 2 stops but I've traveled the entire line in my off time including several branches.
> 
> There is a branch which travels to the town of Uji (with a temple shown on the 10 yen coin). 1997 was the first time I visited, in 2000 I went again and they had built a beautiful new station.
> 
> In Kyoto there was a line which traveled on the surface from a terminal at Sanjo station eastward to Lake Biwa, with in a few years it had been relocated to a subway which it shares with other subway trains.
> 
> The tempo of operation is amazing to see. Where the branchline to Uji meets the Keihan mainline there are 6 tracks IIRC. The eastmost pair handle the Uji branch trains, of the remaining 4 tracks the the inside pair handle both express and limited express trains with the other 2 handling locals. The local and express tracks in each direction share a platform, making transfers very easy.
> 
> You can watch as a local pull into the outside track and waits, a few minutes later the express arrives and the passengers can transfer bewteen trains. Then the express will leave, followed shortly by the local. This is where the mainline is only 2 tracks, closer to Osaka it is a 4 track main. This shows what is possible with light rail lines in the future.
> 
> In Japan people seem to have higher expectations which begets higher results. In the US we seem to settle for low expectations and end up with low results. The one flaw I see with the article is the bilingual PA system, a nation which sets higher expectations of its railway system will set higher expectations for immigrants, that they assimilate to us rather than we assimilate to them. Its hard to be a first rate nation when you become balkanized, Japan has not balkanized and they seem far ahead of us in many aspects. If the US is a first world nation they must be zero world nation.
> 
> The Indianapolis Interurban Terminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Of all the words on tongue and pen the saddest are what might have been."


@Frank--
I think there are a couple of reasons that the Japanese passenger rail system is in much better shape than the American. High expectations are definitely one reason.

Japanese rail companies and the government have consistently funded improvements (not necessarily expansion) over the past 50 years. In many families, it is rare to have two cars. 

Even in the suburbs, parking is often unavailable. Dad (almost always) takes the train to work, and Mom keeps the car during the day. 

Gasoline is also quite expensive here, compared to the US, although the gap has narrowed in the past year. 

Highways are also all toll here, and the narrow streets in most of Japan mean that fast driving is definitely not an option. That cant be said in most of the US...

I think that any expansion of rail in bigger car-dependent cities would have to be coupled with a reduction in car-capacity (either by reducing lanes or not expanding in the face of growth), to push people to transit. The cities will then build around it.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

cjfjapan said:


> Highways are also all toll here, and the narrow streets in most of Japan mean that fast driving is definitely not an option. That cant be said in most of the US...
> 
> I think that any expansion of rail in bigger car-dependent cities would have to be coupled with a reduction in car-capacity (either by reducing lanes or not expanding in the face of growth), to push people to transit. The cities will then build around it.


I think the philosophy should be to attract people to transit rather them push them to it, and I think the auto and transit should be viewed as complimentary to each other. The US over past several decades has failed to invest in all sorts of infrastructure for several decades, including both highways and rail. Investing in both would allow shared ROW such as the T-REX project in Denver, this is how many of our urban freeways should have built to begin with.

This type of construction would also allow for future conversion to automated rapid transit in the future. We also need to address why transit projects in the US have such high costs compared to other nations. An example is the River Line DMU in New Jersey compared with the Metrosur of Madrid.

Transit in Japan or Singapore is easier to use than in the US, and that is even considering that I do not speak Japanese! I am free to take long trips in Japan that I would not dare attempt in the US. In Seattle we have a bus tunnel beneath the city (actually shut down right now). A few years ago we were parked in the south end of town and took the bus through the tunnel up to Westlake Mall on a Saturday. Amazingly it shut down at 6:00PM (and never opened on Sundays) and we were forced to find our way back on another bus that ran on the surface, which took some doing.

In Singapore I can go to bus stop and they will have a sign telling each bus which stops there, and listing destinations and telling you which buses you can take to get there. Complete freedom to travel. I bought a pass in Singapore that you merely scan getting on and off the bus or MRT to deduct the cost of your ride, it even takes into account transfers so you pay only the extra cost of continuing your trip rather than paying for 2 separate trips.

My daughter is in college and wanted to take the bus, after 2 months she gave it up. She did not mind the extra time but the Byzantine rules that went with the monthly pass. She also wished to make other journeys on the card but finding information on the complete sytem is like pulling teeth. I'd like to take someone who runs a system like Singapore or in Japan and see what results they could get with an American transit system.


----------



## mopc

Frank J. Sprague said:


> Yes, however there are proposals to electrify the line that runs between San Fransisco and San Jose.
> 
> A very low percentage, I think about 5 billion passenger miles per year, in 1945 at the peak it was nearly 100 billion. To put that in perspective the airlines in the US handle about 700 billion passenger miles per year, and the highways handle several trillion. So it would be less than one percent.


Yeah, cuz trains never appear on movies, it´s like they don´t exist. 



> I'm not able to post HTML yet so I will give a few links:
> http://www.pell.portland.or.us/~efbrazil/russa_pb.html
> http://www.pell.portland.or.us/~efbrazil/russa_pb.html
> http://www.pell.portland.or.us/~efbrazil/cpef_delect.html
> That is a sad thing to see, it gives me a sense of deja vu. I recall in 1973 our family was returning home from vacation through Montana on I-90. At one point the Milwaukee Road ran parallel to the freeway and as luck would have it a freight train pulled by a "Little Joe" was going our way. We ran alongside for miles, that was so cool.


Great, thanks for the links!



> Later that year we had the Arab oil embargo and I thought how lucky the Milwaukee Road was to be using electricity rather than oil. How wrong I was, the next year they tore it out, I can still remember reading it in the newspaper and thinking we were stepping back from the future.


That was the time we implemented the Alcohol for Cars program in Brazil, but unfortunately scrapped most railroads, so today we have virtually no passenger trains.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

A network of passenger trains is being promoted by the Midwest High Speed Rail Association.










For a larger image click here, then click on the map for magnification. One of the groups proposals is the Abe Lincoln Express which would connect Chicago and St Louis 5 times a day. This follows the incremental approach and would allow for expansion in the future.

The federal government should set a policy of creating grade separation where ever a US Highway crosses a designated high speed corridor. Even if it is a single track the overpass (or underpass) should allow for a 4 track main in the future with electrification at 25,000 volts. In addition finacial aid and encouragement should be given to do the same with state and local highways and arterials.

As can be seen by the map the network is focused upon Chicago which would be logical given it relative size in the area. Future upgrades should connect other cities independently of Chicago, for example a line line between Indianapolis to Dayton would allow the former a highspeed connection to Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

The line between Chicago and Indianapolis would make an excellent conversion to a true high speed line delivering TGV and Shinkansen levels of service. On this stretch of line it could then improve service between Chicago and several other points such as Cinncinatti, Louisville and Dayton, and even further points such as Nashville.

The feeder bus lines could be converted to DMU, providing this can be done at German levels of cost rather that to costs of several recent examples closer to home. Then we could see something like the Talent in service along the old route of the Crandic Comets.

Through Iowa they make use of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. This uses the old mainline of the Rock Island Railroad and passes through Des Moines, Iowa, the largest city between Chicago and Omaha. Amtrak trains are currently routed to the south between these 2 points, missing Des Moines. This line presents an opportunity to create a higher speed rail line connecting Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha, leaving most of the existing traffic on the present UP mainline.


----------



## Cloudship

Really great idea, and a nice plan, but it still seems a bit like an overgrown commuter rail system still. It's cool for those people going to and from Chicago, but what about everyone else? What about connecting other cities? A good transportation system will drive business and development, and I think that the plan shown really only works for Chicago workers and business, and probably would be ignored by everyone else. That's why the idea of having local states control rail in their area is, I think a bad idea.


----------



## DonQui

The problem with this proposal is, what do people do once they arive at their destination? In Europe, you get on a high speed train in Madrid, and you can get off in Seville which has a great bus network as well as regional train network. Better yet, in a couple of years, high speed rail will connect Madrid and Barcelona, two cities with fantastic subway networks. Or an even better example is London and Paris, which have some of the largest public transport networks in the world.

If I take the train from Des Moine to Omaha, I will need to rent a car because there is no real public transportation (we know how Americans approach buses). So, what is the use of taking a train if I have to rent a car once I reach my destination?


----------



## strandk

DonQui, I agree with you. This is what I was thinking about US public transportation all the time. I live in DC-Baltimore area. DC and Baltimore are about 35 miles apart. It is like northern Tokyo and Yokohama. However, DC and Baltimore are pretty much two different cities while Tokyo functions together with Yokohama. DC metro and bus transportation are actually very good by the American standard. However, Baltimore public transportation is not well organized. I often travel between Georgetown in DC and Mount Vernon in Baltimore. It takes only 90 to 100 minutes by car. But if I use train and bus, it would take more than three hours, probably close to four hours. At the current gas price, it costs far less by car than by train and bus. Then what is the point of using public transportation? 

Expanding the public transportation in US is very difficult. The low population density is partially blamed on about the failure of public transportation in US. For example, there is a big residential area in Towson, north of Baltimore. However, the houses there are rather big and sparsely built, which means that even though we build train network there, there are not many people living around each station and there shouldn't be many passengers using the service. As a matter of fact if we can build nice metro rail connecting from north of Towson through Penn Station and Baltimore harbor to Fells Point and there are train services every 15 minutes from 6AM to 1AM, this train service should be very convenient for many people living in both downtown Baltimore and Towson. However, I doubt if this kind of project economically makes sense. But I would say that we need to think about the public transportation system from down-to-top rather than from top-to-down if we are really serious about it. 

In a way you can say that the city planning in US is a result of cheap oil. Even in Japan there are some sprawls in north of Tokyo, which is pretty much the result of popularity of private cars. In the era of cheap oil, freight transportation business by train hasn't been able to compete well with the business by truck and ship in Japan either. But as we already know, the era of cheap oil is ending. The city structure and the mode of transportation will be forced to change anyway. The transition would be hard because it will cost much more then than now to build nice train systems. Then the failure of building good public transportation system might be the result of errors of governmental policy to keep the gas tax low and to let car makers to make a lot of profits.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

Cloudship said:


> Really great idea, and a nice plan, but it still seems a bit like an overgrown commuter rail system still. It's cool for those people going to and from Chicago, but what about everyone else? What about connecting other cities? A good transportation system will drive business and development, and I think that the plan shown really only works for Chicago workers and business, and probably would be ignored by everyone else. That's why the idea of having local states control rail in their area is, I think a bad idea.


That was why I made the suggestion that Indianapolis be connected to Dayton, in addition Indianapolis to St Louis would allow more travel patterns. The NYC and Pennsylvania Railrods each had a line connecting these points, this was consolidated into a single line by Conrail.

You are correct that this needs to be a federal program in the long run, but the initial phases may well be local, just as the Pennsylvania Turnpike preceded the Interstate Highway System by twenty years. High priority corridors such as the Avenue of the Saints should be paralleled by upgraded rail lines to handle freight at up to 70mph and passenger at 100mph.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

DonQui said:


> The problem with this proposal is, what do people do once they arive at their destination? In Europe, you get on a high speed train in Madrid, and you can get off in Seville which has a great bus network as well as regional train network. Better yet, in a couple of years, high speed rail will connect Madrid and Barcelona, two cities with fantastic subway networks. Or an even better example is London and Paris, which have some of the largest public transport networks in the world.
> 
> If I take the train from Des Moine to Omaha, I will need to rent a car because there is no real public transportation (we know how Americans approach buses). So, what is the use of taking a train if I have to rent a car once I reach my destination?


Europe spent decades building their public transport infrastructure, we cannot expect the same results overnight. Unlike Europe I think we would need to have a greater emphasis on travel with the auto using RO/RO overland ferry trains. Something like the trains used to shuttle passengers below Alpine passes but traveling greater distances with overnight accomodations.

Personally I would find such a train which departed the outskirts of Seattle and traveled overnight to Bozeman, Montana very useful. Traveling to a city which has good public transport would also make a passenger train a better option, such as going from Des Moines to Chicago. I drove to Portland last year and it ended up that the places I visited were all next to light rail lines with the exception of a museum in McMinnville to the southwest. 

One thing against such a trip is getting to downtown Seattle and parking, there is a station closer with good parking in Everett but most of the trains do not run north of Seattle. In the long run the service should be hourly in both directions between Vancouver BC and Portland running on electrified trackage. It will take time to achieve this of course but a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. 

Changing a trend at three percent a year yields big results in the long term. We did not get hooked on imported oil overnight, it happened incrementally. Right now we import 4 billion barrels of oil per year, we won't be weaned off of it overnight. Reducing oil imports by three percent per year is a reasonable goal and in a decade the results will be dramatic. Whatever gets us there is a good thing, better fuel economy, synthetic fuel and substitutes to using oil (rail electrification) is worthwhile.

We spent, prior to Iraq, sixty billion defense dollars per year to assure the flow of oil from the Middle East even though most of our oil imports are obtained elsewhere. A $15 bbl import tariff on oil would yield 60 billion dollars per annum at present levels of consumption and serve to discourage oil imports while raising money to spend on infrastructure to make us less dependent upon imported oil. 

As the oil imports are brought down the tariff would need to go up to raise the same revenue. For example importing three billion barrels of oil per year would require a $20 bbl tariff to compensate for the oil defense costs. At a certain time you will reach the point where it is no longer possible to raise the funds to pay for defense of the Mideast oil supply, but that will be because imports are so low that defending the supply will no longer be needed (at least for the US).


----------



## strandk

Currently US import 60-65% of oil from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Venezuela. Canadian and Mexican oil fields have peaked recently. According to Mr. Simmons (a famous oil investor in Texas and a former advisor for Mr. Bush), Saudi Arabia oil fields peaked last year. US oil fields peaked in 1971. Since then US oil production has decreased year by year. US generate only 3-4% of electricity from oil. Therefore construction of coal and nuclear power plants does not help to reduce oil consumption (US are currently constructing about 100 coal-fired power plants and one nuclear power plant). US import about 30% of natural gas from Canada and Mexico. However, natural gas has already peaked in North America. Therefore US government is trying to build liquid natural gas facility in several places. The biggest natural gas reserves in the world are located in Russia and Middle East. Therefore US will have to import a lot of LNG from those countries very soon. Russia already used their natural gas reserves to give a wake-up call to Europe last week. US are not a favorite country in most of Middle East countries.

Since I am not a geologist, I am not in a position to evaluate the whole issues about oil peak. For those who are interested in this line of issues, please refer to some websites (http://www.theoildrum.com/, http://www.peakoil.ie/) and withdraw your own conclusions. Although US major media is silent about oil peak issue, BBC in UK and several major networks in Europe and Australia already reported the issue on air. As far as I see, it would be very difficult for US to be independent of imported oil. It seems to me that international geopolitical games revolving around oil have already started.

But still energy conservation is very important. In Europe about 60 to 70% of gas price is tax while in US only about 20% is tax. Therefore US gas price is far cheaper than European gas price although the gas price without tax is not much different between US and Europe. High gas price encourages Europeans to use small cars and mass transportation. European governments have spent the money on development of mass transportation systems. Europeans have worked on this policy step by step. Therefore people could adjust their life style gradually. On the contrary, US will have to do the same with a very short notice. People who bought big SUVs cannot sell their cars for small cars immediately. People who bought big Mac mansions in suburbia cannot sell their houses for small houses in downtown immediately. The city planning in US makes very difficult for Americans to be energy-efficient.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

Strandk, that was a very good post. Since I use Frank J. Sprague as my _nom de plume_ I must point out that nuclear energy can in fact replace oil imports via railway electrification. This is from replacing the oil used by our railroads, plus the oil used by transportation that is shifted to rail. Substituting trackless trolleys for buses has the same potential.

A $15 per bbl tariff on oil will also prevent any synthetic oil producers in the US from being strangled in the crib by OPEC, as Saudi Arabia did to the oil shale industry back in 1985.

I think Russia provided a valuable refresher course on the dangers of becoming dependent upon other nations for energy. A lot of our natural gas is actually being used to generate electricity, that is very wasteful. A tariff on LNG imports would keep us from getting in the same spot as we are with oil imports, anyway LNG tankers are a disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## strandk

There are numerous oil rigs in USA where workers collect small amount of oil each by each in very inefficient manners. At the current oil price this kind of business is very viable. Canadian oil shale is getting attentions because high oil price makes exploitation of oil shale economically competitive. However, oil shale business is very energy-intensive. It requires a lot of heat generated by natural gas whose reserve is now dwindling in North America. There is even an idea to build nuclear reactors for oil shale fields. The problem of the exploitation of small oil fields or oil shale is that we cannot expect a lot of oil from these oil fields. No matter how much money and efforts we spend, the amount of oil that we can get is getting smaller and smaller when oil fields get depleted. This is the fundamental problem derived from oil peak. Tariff is meaningless because we just don't have a lot of oil under the ground.

Therefore there are only two ways to deal with this problem, alternative energy and energy conservation. What you are suggesting is exactly what France and Japan are trying to do. France has 63 nuclear reactors (75% of electricity comes from nuclear energy. They are planning to add another one reactor by 2020) and good train systems. Japan has 56 nuclear reactors and is still constructing nuclear reactors (They said that they would double the power generation from nuclear reactors by 2050) and has probably the best train system in the world. When they need to reduce the number of cars, they could do without a lot of pains because of their good mass transportation systems. I saw energy news about the energy conservation plan in Japan. They said that they would aim to cut 30% of energy consumption by 2030.

US have entertained big advantages having a lot of oil, natural gas, and coal. Therefore if US have put comparable effort to France or Japan, US energy situation should have been much better than energy situations of any other countries. However, US have not done anything since Mr. Carter tried to start up the energy program. US wasted thirty years.

This is a Department of Energy-commissioned report of February 2005, "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management" by Dr. Hirsch. If you are not familiar with this report, this website will help you to understand it (http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615).











In the world of ideology of free economy, only viable way to force people to change their life styles is to change the price of merchandize. High oil price does the job in this case.


----------



## AndreKenji

By the way, I have a movie of a "Russa" of FEPASA in action. If someone here has some interess on it, just ask!


----------



## AndreKenji

The problem of Amtrak is that is a system based on poorer versions of the luxury trains of *fourty*, fifty years ago. Why, except a tourist, railfan or some happy children will want to travel, for an example, in the Southeast Chief, instead of flying between Chicago and LA?


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

Actually tariffs will encourage both conservation, substitution and alternative energy such as silviculture, thermal depolymerization and cellusose ethanol. Oil in and of itself has no intrinsic value, it is only a means to something else rather than an ends. Oil only has value due to the investment of massive amounts of both public and private capital.

Up to a point the public capital invested in making oil useful was collected mainly from the users of the oil, _eg_ gas taxes for roads. Assuming the burden of defense "East of Suez" in the decade following 1971 changed this. At the time getting involved in the Mideast was seen as a strategic distraction from the main event and the US prefered supporting the "twin pillars" of Imperial Iran and Saudi Arabia to direct involvement. With the winding down of the Cold War the Mideast now seems to be the _raison d’être_ of our defense rather than a mere sideshow.

In peacetime this reached the point where we spent sixty billion dollars per year to assure the free flow of oil from the Mideast. Even were a tariff to fail to reduce America's oil imports by a single drop it would still be worthwhile in that it would raise the revenue to cover these costs from where the costs are incured. Considering the number of years oil imports have gotten a free ride courtesy of the US treasury a tariff of $15 per bbl would actually be too low.

Right now we have 150,000 Americans deployed to Iraq, imagine what we could achieve if 150,000 Americans were erecting overhead catenary, laying extra track, building new railway lines and tunnels.


----------



## strandk

About 70% of oil is consumed for transportation in USA. More than 90% of it is used for car transportation. The rest is for airplanes. Energy used for train transportation is negligible compared with other modes of transportation. Therefore if we can replace all the gas guzzling cars with small hybrid cars, we should be able to cut the oil consumption by up to 20%. It is even better if we can use mass transportation on the scale of Japan. Then we could reduce oil consumption by another 20%. I think that Mr. Simmons was also talking about the number such as 20 to 30% oil consumption cut in one of his interviews. However, as I wrote, people who bought big SUVs cannot sell their cars for small cars immediately, and people who bought big Mac mansions in suburbia cannot sell their houses for small houses in downtown immediately. It takes time to change our lifestyle. But the time is limited. Even after this grandiose effort, US will still have to import a lot of oil.

There are many debates about biofuels in many websites (http://peakoil.com/index.php, http://www.theoildrum.com/). As far as I know, the availability of biofuels as alternatives for oil is very limited. If you think about coal and oil as the result of accumulation of solar energy for million of years, it is pretty natural that the energy that can be harvested from plants on the yearly basis is very limited. China started to construct two coal liquification plants. Japan started to construct a pilot gas-to-liquid plant which will be applied to gas fields in Indonesia. If you check out the Hirsh report, you will know that US government is considering everything including coal liquification plants. Dr. Hirsh is an expert in this field who used to work for Mr. Schlesinger, a former Secretary of Energy, Defense, and so on. Recently Mr. Schlesinger made a speech about the grave situation of energy at the congress. Any debates on this issue must start from the opinions of experts such as Dr. Hirsh.


----------



## strandk

Mr. Sprague, I agree with you about deployment of US military for infrastructure construction. Actually I was thinking about the same thing for a long time. The US government might start considering this when the situation is getting more desperate than now. Some people say that we need a plan like 'Manhattan project' to deal with this problem. Once we reach to some point, I think that we will start something very aggressive including deployment of military for infrastructure construction.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

Thanks for the links, that was very interesting. I found the Hirsh Report (pdf) and found it very interesting. They used estimated peak oil at 100 MM bpd but figured it could run 20% either way. Ken Deffeyes has gone on record as saying it already occured this past Thanksgiving.

Rails do at present consume only about 1.5% of our oil, most of the saving from electrification would come from shifting long haul freight to rail, of course it will take more than just electrifiction to be able to handle the traffic, more lines with multiple track, better signaling and realignments. Trucking consumes 16% of our oil so shifting half of our trucking ton-miles to rail could yield a savings approaching 10%.

I found the section on coal to liquids most interesting, the report stated that the Sasol 3 plant went on line threes after the decision to build it was made. The report estimated that five 100,000 bpd plants could be built per year, 4 years after the decision to construct them was made, on a crash program basis similar to to the synthetic rubber industry we built in WW2. It also carried the caveat that the US may end up exporting coal to another nation such as China to have it converted into liquid fuels. That would be very wasteful due to all the oil consumed in shipping.

In fact the one weakness I can spot in the report is that it had no mention of the oil used in shipping goods across the ocean that can be made nearer to the consumer. Sending a shipload of iron ore from Australia to South Korea, and then shipping the autos made from that ore to the US uses far more fuel than if the iron ore was sent to the US in the first place.

Finally I was thinking about your scenario of all the McMansion owners in exburbia unable to maintain their lifestyle after peak oil. Considering the vast investment that would be lost if they abandoned their homes it would be worthwhile for them to develop mass transit to protect their homes, in particular if the projects can be implemented for Spanish or Norwegian levels of cost rather than recent US experience. Say their suburb has 5000 homes (each costing an average of $400,000) located 10 miles from rapid transit. A ten mile line such as the Gardermoen line "should" be doable for about 113 million dollars. That would be for a double tracked and electrified line with some degree of tunneling involved. Their houses would represent two billion dollars in value. If their suburb happens to have a rails to trails pathway they can do a trails to rails program and come up with something like the Ammertalbahn for even less. In the past several trolley lines were built to promote real estate values, the present system in Cleveland began this way.


----------



## FM 2258

AndreKenji said:


> The problem of Amtrak is that is a system based on poorer versions of the luxury trains of *fourty*, fifty years ago. Why, except a tourist, railfan or some happy children will want to travel, for an example, in the Southeast Chief, instead of flying between Chicago and LA?


I agree, there's really no point in taking rail for long distances unles you live between Washington, DC and Boston, MA. Then again in that case maybe flying or driving is better. At least with trains you don't have traffic jams.....or I don't think they do. 



Aside from Amtrak, we need to figure out a rail solution for cities with lots of suburban sprawl. I recently took a flight from Houston to Austin and it was really sad because my drive home from the airport was a little over an hour while the flight was 30 minutes. I would gladly take a train to the airport if we had one. I'd have someone drop me off at a local station and hop on. No paying a shitload of money for gas, airport parking or taxi's.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

FM 2258 said:


> I agree, there's really no point in taking rail for long distances unles you live between Washington, DC and Boston, MA. Then again in that case maybe flying or driving is better. At least with trains you don't have traffic jams.....or I don't think they do.
> 
> Aside from Amtrak, we need to figure out a rail solution for cities with lots of suburban sprawl. I recently took a flight from Houston to Austin and it was really sad because my drive home from the airport was a little over an hour while the flight was 30 minutes. I would gladly take a train to the airport if we had one. I'd have someone drop me off at a local station and hop on. No paying a shitload of money for gas, airport parking or taxi's.


Houston is about 160 miles from Austin by a former SP line (this was in a 1948 rail atlas, I'm assuming the line is still intact). Figuring you were able to run a train between the two with a top speed of 110mph you could probably average 80mph end to end. That would make a trip of 160 miles in two hours time. That is of course over optomistic considering the condition of most track in the US but shows what could be achieved with moderate upgrades rather than going for TGV levels of service in one step.

Another posters on this thread have pointed out that intercity passenger rail in the US will be hampered by lack of good public transport. This will be less of a handicap if at least one of the cities on a route has good public transport. Using the DOT's High Speed Rail Corridors as a starting point we find some routes that would have this.

I would suggest that Amtraks coach fleet be redeployed to give good service on a few corridors rather than poor service on a larger route system. The routes must be no more than a few hundred miles long and have a large population base to draw from, with at least one point having go public transport. In deference to political reality in the US the benefits must be national in scope. To cut to the chase, if a majority of states benefit from this support can be had in the senate.

I would suggest phase one to include:
Northeast Corridor, with the southern end extended into Virginia as far as Richmond.
Southeast Corridor, reoriented to focus upon Atlanta in a Birmingham-Atlanta-Greenville-Charlotte service.
South Central Corridor, phase one would be Oklahoma City-Dallas-Austin-San Antonio.
Midwest Network would focus upon Chicago with routes begining in Milwaukee to Chicago and then going either to St Louis or via Indianapolis to Cinncinatti or Louisville.
California should include an interstate component of Los Angeles-Las Vegas.
Pacific Northwest would be the existing route.
The goal should be to offer hourly or at least every other hour service between all points during the day. Twentyfive states would benefit from this service.

Amtrak's sleeper cars should be redeployed to create overland RO/RO car ferries running overnight. An example of a route would be running east from Denver to the Kansas side of the Missouri River. 

It may also be expedient to create daylight trains running greater distances to serve more states such as a Butte-Pocatello-Salt Lake City run. Amtrak's car fleet has poor utilization, it should be possible to get at least twice the revenue miles than is done at the present time with existing equipment.


----------



## Cloudship

> Aside from Amtrak, we need to figure out a rail solution for cities with lots of suburban sprawl. I recently took a flight from Houston to Austin and it was really sad because my drive home from the airport was a little over an hour while the flight was 30 minutes.


Try flying from JFK to Boston during the evening push. Spend 40 minutes taxying around JFK. Spend 35 minutes in the air.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

The Ohio Hub Train System (pdf) would meet the system Midwest High Speed Rail Association at Toledo and Cincinnati, actually sharing track between Toledo and Cleveland. 

















With a network like this in place the addition of more links such as Dayton-Indianapolis-St Louis allows for many more city pairs to be connected. Likewise for the projected Columbus-Pittsburgh link which would also tie in with the Keystone corridor. The projected line between Toledo and Columbus could continue south to Charleston, West Virginia to allow it access to the network.

Not each city pair would need to be connected directly to make longer journeys possible, for instance a journey between Buffalo and St Louis could be make by a combination of Buffalo-Cleveland, Cleveland-Indianapolis and Indianapolis-St Louis trains. Of course at this distance the trip would not be competitive with the airlines but if the travel was between intermediate points such as Erie, Pennsylvannia to Terre Haute, Indiana it would be a different matter.

Anyway I think for now passenger trains need to worry more about competing with autos than planes, and the lines should also function to relieve freight from the highways. Since the bulk of the passenger travel will during the day while a lot of freight travels overnight it may be possible to have higher speed operation during the day for passenger trains.

Also any ROW around large cities should allow for at last four tracks to allow for commuter trains.


----------



## stlouiscityboy

I take the train alot to Chicago from stl and the serice is normaly great and takes just as long as a car and is only around 45 dollars roundtrip. Now when i go places like back home to Wichita or KC its still cheaper then a plane but the rail lines are in bad shape and the travel time is a bit longer and some of the stations are jokes, like the one here in stl. HOW in the hell does a city this size and at one time have the largest rail termional in the world not have anything better then a shack? Or my home town not even have amtrak run there? you have to drive a half hour north to newton kansas to get on the train and it only runs every 10 or 12 hours. 
Also the trains are always full and i can hardly ever find a place to sit on either trains.


----------



## Vinny was here

> you have to drive a half hour north to newton kansas to get on the train and it only runs every 10 or 12 hours.


  In the Netherlands on all railway's there is _at least_ every hour a train. In densed area's every 15 minutes.

Only on international connections there are less trains: Amsterdam - Paris runs 6 times a day, and the trains from Amsterdam directly to Germany (and Poland) runs just 3 times a day...


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

stlouiscityboy said:


> I take the train alot to Chicago from stl and the serice is normaly great and takes just as long as a car and is only around 45 dollars roundtrip. Now when i go places like back home to Wichita or KC its still cheaper then a plane but the rail lines are in bad shape and the travel time is a bit longer and some of the stations are jokes, like the one here in stl. HOW in the hell does a city this size and at one time have the largest rail termional in the world not have anything better then a shack? Or my home town not even have amtrak run there? you have to drive a half hour north to newton kansas to get on the train and it only runs every 10 or 12 hours.
> Also the trains are always full and i can hardly ever find a place to sit on either trains.


That was a beautiful station and they turned into a mall and left St Louis with an Amshack. Done properly it should be restored for use as a train station, with commuter trains and inter-city trains connecting to Chicago, Indianapolis, Louisville, Memphis and Kansas City at hourly intervals. Probably even some longer runs to other destinations like Oklahoma City, Dallas-Ft Worth, Atlanta and the twin cities.

If you can find an old atlas (pre WW2) you will find that they usually had a page which showed distance by rail between major cities across the US. I am using a reprint of a 1948 railroad atlas by Rand McNally. St Louis was the hub a well developed network. At one time we had three separate railroads that connected St Louis to Kansas City directly, one of those lines should be preserved and upgraded for passenger and express freight traffic. Wichita could be served as part of an Oklahoma City-Wichita-Topeka-Kansas City route.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

Probing Question: Why don't we have high-speed trains in the U.S.?
Thursday, April 27, 2006

By Lisa Duchene
Research/Penn State

The next time you need to get to New York or Washington, D.C., think how much easier it would be if high-speed trains were as common here as they are in Europe. Such trains would leave every hour and get you to your destination -- even right to the airport -- on time and faster than driving.

Here in the United States, high-speed trains are fantasy, but not in Europe or Japan. Eurostar trains run on the hour, speeding London passengers at up to 186 mph to Paris in about two and a half hours, for about $266 round trip. Trains between Barcelona and Madrid soon will reach 210 mph.

Japan's high-speed trains, the world's first, have linked Tokyo, Nagoya, Kyoto and Osaka since 1964. The shinkansen, or "bullet" trains now reach speeds of more than 186 mph, shuttling riders from Tokyo to Osaka in two and a half hours, for about $120 each way.

Here, Amtrak's Acela Express makes the trip from Washington, D.C., to Boston in about six and a half hours for about $321 round trip. The Acela typically runs at speeds up to 120 to 130 mph and on one short stretch at 150 mph, speeds that make it the fastest train in America but are considered slow by global standards.

Why are we so far behind?

The answer is simple, said John Spychalski, professor of supply chain management in Penn State's Smeal College of Business. The U.S. government won't pay for high-speed trains.

"(High-speed train service) is not going to be built by private enterprise, no more than the interstate highway system was built by private enterprise," Spychalski explained. "The U.S. would not have the air-transport system developed to where it is today without public-sector involvement."

A lack of political support at the federal and state levels keeps Amtrak in an annual battle just to survive, ensuring that high-speed train service is not available in most of the country, said Spychalski.

This political vacuum has been consistent over many decades among both Republicans and Democrats, he noted, and has its roots in public attitudes.

"What does the average person know of high-speed rail? Very little," Spychalski said. "Their mindset is centered on two things they know: autos and airplanes." Where trains are seen as a quaint part of our history, Americans view their cars as status symbols, an extension of ego and class distinction.

Over the 20-year period from 1978 to 1999, federal spending on rail travel totaled $18.3 billion, about 3.6 percent of total transportation spending. In the same period, the nation spent $251.5 billion on highways (49.9 percent), and $114 billion on air (22.6 percent). During these two decades, spending on rail dropped 1.9 percent annually as spending on every other transportation mode increased annually up to 10 percent, according to a recent report from the Mineta Transportation Institute.

Last year, President Bush proposed zero funding for Amtrak, but then signed Congress' final budget with $1.3 billion for rail service. This year, Bush proposed cutting Amtrak's budget back to $900 million. Amtrak officials say they need $1.6 billion to operate at the current level and can't afford to make any progress.

"Funding of Amtrak is always hard-scrabble," said Spychalski. "Amtrak is always trying to catch up."

The benefits of high-speed train service, he explained, would include relieving pressure on the air traffic control system in crowded regions like New England, California and Chicago by getting passengers city-to-city faster than air flights.

Environmentally, rail uses the least land to move the most people, and high-speed trains promise better air quality, he added.

Traveling by rail is safer than traveling by car, Spychalski says. Plus, rail tends to be less vulnerable to severe weather and to terrorism.

The better-linked a rail system is to autos and air -- i.e. the rail stations at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport and Frankfurt's Airport -- the more valuable it is, said Spychalski. "We need to look at the transport system from a total system perspective and look at how the air, rail and road relate to each other."

Despite the political barriers, there are some U.S. rail success stories, said Spychalski. They include restoration of rail service between Boston and Portland, Maine, and both inter-city and commuter rail passenger services serving key areas within California. Ridership is increasing in both places.

Here in Pennsylvania, the state and Amtrak are working on a $100 million project to make train service between Harrisburg and Philadelphia faster, safer and more convenient.

The many benefits of high-speed rail and these success stories keep Spychalski hopeful that someday U.S. trains will eventually climb that political mountain, just like the Little Engine that Could.

***

John Spychalski is professor of supply chain management in the Smeal College of Business and editor of Transportation Journal. He works on projects at the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, is working on a European freight rail project and serves as chairman of the board of the Centre County Area Transportation Authority. He can be reached at [email protected] via e-mail.


----------



## hkskyline

*US Rails to Thrive Even if Economy Slows*

*ANALYSIS-US rails say will thrive even if U.S. economy won't *
By Nick Carey 

CHICAGO, Aug 7 (Reuters) - When railroads reported second -quarter earnings last month, their stocks took a battering. 

Not because they missed expectations -- in some cases, they outperformed -- but because investors feared a coming economic slowdown could hit their future earnings. 

But the idea that railroad fortunes move in lock-step with the economy could be outdated. Some say railroads will continue to grow even if the economy weakens, boosted by rising imports from China, soaring demand for coal and ethanol, plus pricing power not seen for decades. 

"We are far less dependent on the economy than we were a decade ago," said Wick Moorman, chief executive of railroad Norfolk Southern Corp. . "Unfortunately there are some people in the market who have not yet embraced that idea." 

Shares of Union Pacific Corp. fell nearly 3 percent on July 20, despite earnings results well above expectations. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. fell nearly 8 percent on July 25, helped partly by package delivery company United Parcel Service Inc. , which missed analysts' forecasts and warned of a moderating economy that same day. 

Worries of a U.S. economic slowdown had many investors scrambling to sell. Conventional wisdom has it that the railroads are a bellwether of the U.S. economy. If economic activity slows, fewer goods move by train. 

But that thinking may no longer apply, making railroad shares attractive buys at current valuations. 

"We're still in the middle of a rail renaissance," said Tony Hatch of New York-based ABH Consulting. "Unfortunately, the only way to prove that the railroads will keep growing in a weakening economy is to experience a slowdown." 

HELPED BY IMPORTS, TRUCKING WOES, OIL PRICES 

Hatch and others believe that as the United States shifts its manufacturing base overseas, rising imports of cheap consumer goods from developing nations such as China will continue to grow, even as the U.S. economy slows. 

"If there is an economic slowdown we should see an improvement in that (import) business as people will be looking for lower-cost goods," said Matthew Rose, CEO of U.S. railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. . 

Soaring demand for coal from power plants is another source of growth for the rails, as natural gas becomes increasingly expensive. Oil prices are expected to remain high. 

High fuel prices have also helped the railroads take market share from trucking companies, which are less fuel-efficient and more costly to operate. Adding to the trucking industry's woes is a growing shortage of drivers. 

Also tied to the issue of oil is ethanol; demand for the biofuel is on the rise because U.S. refiners are now using it as a cleaner gasoline additive instead of water-polluting MTBE. 

All these trends have contributed to record rail profits. 

"While the railroads still carry goods such as autos and chemicals that are cyclical, more than half of what they carry cannot be considered dependent on economic cycles," said Peter Smith, an analyst at Morningstar. 

To be sure, there is still a hefty chunk of rail business that remains susceptible to economic slowdowns, but that is being offset by another another crucial benefit for the rails -- steadily improving pricing power. 

PRICING POWER 

For more than 20 years after the deregulation of the U.S. railroads in 1980, prices for hauling goods declined in real terms. Facing tight capacity and soaring demand over the past few years, in 2005 railroads hiked prices by at least 10 percent. 

Fresh price hikes have followed this year and some rail executives have indicated more are in the pipeline. 

"The pricing renaissance of the railroads means they have the best pricing power we've seen for a quarter of a century," said Ken Hoexter, an analyst at Merrill Lynch. "Even if growth moderates, we should see that pricing story continue because of tight capacity." 

"We remain confident about these stocks," he added, "though some investors will only be convinced by sustainable profit growth in the next few quarters despite a weakening economy." 

Believers like Hoexter and Hatch say now is a good time to buy railroad stocks because they are cheap. 

Union Pacific Corp. is trading 16.7 times earnings, BNSF is trading under 15 times earnings, Norfolk Southern is at 13.3 and CSX Corp. is below 13.6. The sector average is just under 21 times earnings. 

"These stocks are trading at near trough multiples," Hoexter said. 

In a July 27 research note Bear Stearns analyst Edward Wolfe reiterated the investment bank's "overweight" rating on Norfolk Southern, CSX and BNSF. 

"(T)his group remains near its historical low-end valuation despite the best fundamentals...," he wrote.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline

Good article hkskyline! Thanks for your research and sharing! :cheers:


----------



## kashyap3

is passenger travel still valuable to the rail companies? or is revenue mostly based on freight


----------



## Xusein

The private rail companies only rely on freight...

Passenger Rail is operated by the Public-owned Amtrak, which isn't that hot outside the Northeast US in revenues.


----------



## xAKxRUSx

Amtrak is really bad. Oi.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline

xAKxRUSx said:


> Amtrak is really bad. Oi.


I think that this article is mostly talking about Chicago's freight rail...
Well, it all depends, but I would say yes, it doesn't look too good the way it is heading! But I heard that there are some sort of HSR underway that might pick up the slack of amtrak tho, so we will see!
BTW, Metra on the other hand is do fairly well servering as Chicagoland commuter rail which IMHO, should also upgrade its existing technology should they like to continuing attract even higher ridership when the oil prices are at major concerns for the drivers!  :cheers: :runaway:


----------



## xAKxRUSx

Yea, Metra is pretty decent.
Could be a bit cheaper though. A bit expensive for a college student. lol


----------



## Cloudship

Intercity passenger rail is handled by the nationalized Amtrak, which isn't doing good anywhere, but it has almost no public support. Commuter rail (suburbs to city center) is actually faring OK, even though it is practically all public. It tends to get overlooked, particularly because it does such short runs with only basic accomodations. But I think at some point we might see two nearby cities combine, and perhaps then we might see a resurgence in passenger rail in the US.

I don't think any of the HSR proposals are particularly strong. The government unfortunately is not standing behind them, passenger rail is drastically over-regulated, and the dominance of freight railroads all conspire against it.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline

Cloudship said:


> Intercity passenger rail is handled by the nationalized Amtrak, which isn't doing good anywhere, but it has almost no public support. Commuter rail (suburbs to city center) is actually faring OK, even though it is practically all public. It tends to get overlooked, particularly because it does such short runs with only basic accomodations. But I think at some point we might see two nearby cities combine, and perhaps then we might see a resurgence in passenger rail in the US.
> 
> I don't think any of the HSR proposals are particularly strong. The government unfortunately is not standing behind them, passenger rail is drastically over-regulated, and the dominance of freight railroads all conspire against it.


But think about it tho, with the oil prices going nuts, the airfares are most likely to hike up due to its heavy reliance on gas and since HSR doesn't require gas, I think that government should think about the future NOW more so than ever! It isn't just good for the people, it is good for the national economy overall, unless we come to some sort of alternative energy plan, HSR seems to be well fit into the future long haul commuter rail area!  :cheers:


----------



## Cloudship

In the US, oil is still a major fuel source for electricity.

Having said that, I do think it is high time, in fact after todays events, I think it is now desperation time, for the US to build an alternative transportation system. But in order for that to happen, there has to be some major changes:

1) The railroad regulations need serious, drastic overhaul. I am thinking totally new agency, everything. 

2) We need national support for them. This means national support for lines and stations. A national control system. And a national organization. I think we need to build a new gauge and lay new lines - forget about trying to reuse old trakc.

3) We need to stop proping the airline industry up in deference to other forms of transportation

4) We need to stop this idea of individual payment of transportation. It is a medieval system of class control, keeping the rich rich and poor poor, preventing the poor people form getting around and getting ahead, and discouraging the mobilization of citizens.

5) We need to tell the frieght industry to go stick it - railroads aren't there to just serve them. They have been granted enourmous amounts of land, with the idea that they would help the people. By discouraging passenger traffic they are not living up to that promise, and I think they need to be held accountable for it.


----------



## hkskyline

*Rail Security Lapses Rampant Across US - Investigation*

*Newspaper: Rail security lapses rampant across U.S. *
16 January 2007

PITTSBURGH (AP) - Train lines that carry hazardous shipments have little or no police presence and shoddy security that makes them easy targets for terrorists, according to a newspaper investigation. 

During a several-month, nationwide investigation, a reporter with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review was able to penetrate 48 hazardous chemical plants and the freight lines that service them. The reporter, who left his business cards on the cars, was never questioned when he climbed trains, photographed derailing levers and peeked into signaling boxes that control rail traffic, the newspaper reported in a series of stories that began Sunday. 

"What you uncovered is a criminal tragedy, and it's a criminal tragedy that's just waiting to happen. It's also criminal what we haven't done about this," U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., told the newspaper. Biden has sponsored legislation to revamp rail security nationwide and pledged to hold hearings on the issue. 

The newspaper visited rail lines from Seattle to New Jersey that had been documented by the Federal Railroad Administration since 2003 for defects in security. The newspaper found that little, if anything, had changed since those first reports were issued. 

In Las Vegas, the Tribune-Review reporter reached 11 hazmat tankers either inside plants or along rail tracks. As a result of the findings, the Nevada Homeland Security Commission said it is investigating security shortfalls. 

"Closing gates, making sure workers and guards and police are aware of our chemicals, that's important," Commission Supervisor Larry Casey said. "Unfortunately, the farther we get from 9/11, the more people forget about staying vigilant." 

The Tribune-Review reporter left about 100 business cards on Union Pacific hazmat tankers from Las Vegas to Seattle. 

"Our only statement is that we believe what you did is dangerous and we strongly encourage people to stay away from railroad tracks," Jim Barnes, a spokesman for Union Pacific railroad, told the newspaper. 

Among other things, the newspaper also found defects or lapses in security in several other areas, including: 

--In Atlanta, the reporter climbed aboard unguarded stores of deadly insecticides, flammable petroleum distillates and acetone. Atlanta and Georgia homeland security officials declined to comment on the newspaper's findings. 

--Despite security cameras, roving patrols and high fences at Pioneer America's Tacoma, Wash., bleach plant, the reporter walked past rail switching levers and safety chocks to access a railcar filled with chlorine that was sitting outside the railyard gates. Pioneer's plant manager said police did patrol the area. 

--In the New Jersey suburbs abutting New York City, the Tribune-Review found the toughest chemical plant security of anywhere, but was still able to enter 12 chemical facilities or railroads. Richard Canas, director of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, said the state is vigilant about protecting its rail lines but there are some vulnerabilities. 

Nancy Wilson, vice president and director of security for the Association of American Railroads, said freight security has improved since 2001 but more must be done. There is about 240,000 miles of unprotected railroad line in the U.S. 

"You've got to remember the open architecture of railroads. We're not static facilities. We cannot protect every railcar, every rail yard or every customer's facility all the time," said Wilson, whose organization represents haulers who handle about 90 percent of the nation's hazmat truck cars. 

Homeland Security officials and the association said there's no indication that terrorists are plotting any rail attacks in the U.S. 

"To me, this is a no-brainer for terrorists in Atlanta or anywhere else," Sal DePasquale, a Georgia State University expert on counterterrorism and retired security director for chemical titan Georgia Pacific, told the newspaper. "It's toxic material. It's unprotected. If you're a railroad or a chemical plant and you won't have someone ready to kill the adversary ready to attack your plant, then what can you do?"


----------



## DonQui

keeping the homeland secure my ass.


----------



## hkskyline

*Amtrak*

*Amtrak exec says it can keep long-distance trains *
By John Crawley 

WASHINGTON, Jan 16 (Reuters) - Amtrak can operate more efficiently and maintain its long distance service, but success of the U.S. national rail system is going to depend heavily on state investment, Amtrak's president said on Tuesday. 

Alexander Kummant told reporters at Union Station, where senators unveiled a rail investment proposal, he has no plans to undo the financially weak but politically backed network of trains that operate outside the flagship Northeast line. 

Kummant said his view is to sustain the long-distance service but not preserve the business practices that have led to huge annual losses on trains that sprawl across the West, Midwest and South on tracks owned by freight railroads. 

Ten to 15 years in the future, Kummant hopes Amtrak service throughout the country would be underpinned by billions of dollars in state capital invested in short-haul corridors that connect cities but also stop in smaller locales. He believes that highway and air congestion, coupled with high fuel costs, will drive rail development. 

"I would say look at corridor conversion -- where can you take a long-distance train and break that into multiple state corridors where it makes sense?" Kummant said. "We want to approach that carefully but meaningfully." 

Kummant, a former freight rail executive, also says he hopes to wring more cost savings out from operations. 

Amtrak, a for-profit federal corporation, has muddled along for 35 years with annual federal subsidies that barely keep its trains in service and its infrastructure in good condition. 

It has lurched from crisis to crisis, almost shutting down once before the Bush administration strong-armed business and operating reforms to save money. The changes fueled expectations Amtrak would slash popular but poorly performing long-distance routes. 

Some of the administration's reform proposals, those that would have dismantled Amtrak and offered some of its routes to the highest bidder, have faltered. But two points remain and underpin the leading congressional rail funding proposal -- more state support and greater efficiency. 

"We can't keep asking Amtrak to operate like a business while we string along the company year to year," said Sen. Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican. 

The $19.2 billion plan by Lott and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, would provide $3.2 billion annually for Amtrak over six years. The rest would help states finance capital for rail development.


----------



## DonQui

In other words, "we are poor give us more money"

If the states that don't want to cough up don't see the value of Amtrak, fine, let them pay with congestion and traffic. No need to have Amtrak begging them to provide services that they don't want.


----------



## hkskyline

The highway network is more than capable of connecting people across the country anyway.


----------



## Cloudship

But what happens is that one state is able to hold rail service hostage for the other states. All you need is one state that wants to promote it's highway building an dmaintenance industry and oil industry, and they can easilly stop the trains runnig through by destroying the infrastructure.


----------



## DonQui

Cloudship said:


> But what happens is that one state is able to hold rail service hostage for the other states. All you need is one state that wants to promote it's highway building an dmaintenance industry and oil industry, and they can easilly stop the trains runnig through by destroying the infrastructure.


That would only be a real problem in the Northeastern US, as further west the states are too geographically huge to have that concern, some border town cases aside (like Kansas City and St. Louis). No one is going to spend more than 4 hours on a train, which given the pathetic state of our railways would mean probably traveling at best, at best, 320 km/200 miles on average. In a lot of states further west, you could be on a route for 200 miles and still be in the same state. :yes:


----------



## jmancuso

amtrak should just focus on the NE and chicago seeing as that's its bread and butter.


----------



## hkskyline

The US is not Europe. Cities are far apart and the country is huge. The focus should be improving air travel and having regional hubs to develop comprehensive highway connections (which is already there with the Interstate).


----------



## Nefast

Trains are a much better solution in respect to the environment. So I think the focus should be more on rail transportation in more densely populated areas in the US. In this way the dependence on fossil fuels and air pollution can be decreased.
It would be interesting if an efficient passenger rail service could be set up and promoted in a region such as California (for instance, a Sacramento-San Francisco-San José-Fresno-Bakersfield-Los Angeles train service). Of course this would go hand in hand with the construction of a commuter rail network.
In the long run there may be even longer distance trains which connect all mayor cities on the west coast, and the same goes for the east-coast. The maximum speeds of hs-trains are already above 500 km/h! However, I do think that intercoastal transport will probably always be most efficient by air.


----------



## Cloudship

DonQui said:


> No one is going to spend more than 4 hours on a train,


People easily spend 6+ hours to sit on a plane to go from the east coast to the west coast. And that's being stuck in a airline seat that is barely wide enough to fit in and you can't really get up and move around. Now compare that to something like an Acela coach, which has wider, comfortable seats, you can get up, walk around, go sit in a lounge car, watch the scenery passing by. It's a lot more pleasant place to spend your trip, and people would be willing to put up with longer journeys in trade for better comfort.

While that kind of distance may not work in a few western states, by and large your real rail states are going to be the area around the Great Lakes and Atlantic Seaboard, and the west coast. The vast open west isn't too friendly to rail OR air travel. Just not enough people except in certain cities.


----------



## jmancuso

hkskyline said:


> The US is not Europe. Cities are far apart and the country is huge. The focus should be improving air travel and having regional hubs to develop comprehensive highway connections (which is already there with the Interstate).


not in the northeast and upper midwest but the rest of the country...yeah.


----------



## hkskyline

jmancuso said:


> not in the northeast and upper midwest but the rest of the country...yeah.


Even in the Northeast, the Acela was supposed to show HSR works in the US, but due to technical faults, it has flopped quite badly. Competition from buses and the car is very intense, while the leisure traveler may not be willing to fork out the extra cash for Acela anyway. It's not a common mode of transport like Thalys, Eurostar, or TGV, etc.


----------



## Cloudship

Ironically, the Acela does quite well, and has been proven with recent spate of problems they had where they weren't using the high-speed (supposedly) trainsets, that people still liked the trains as long as the level of service was up there. Unfortunately Air Travel is showing some of it's weaknesses, and most of those are in places such as the northeast and Atlantic and Pacific coast, where High Speed Trains would be most beneficial. As much as everyone talks about the sprawl of the west, a large part of hte country where transportation is needed has close enough density to warrant trains.


----------



## deheni

*Santa Fe Depot-SD,CA.*


----------



## deheni

oops sorry


----------



## DonQui

hkskyline said:


> Even in the Northeast, the Acela was supposed to show HSR works in the US, but due to technical faults, it has flopped quite badly. Competition from buses and the car is very intense, while the leisure traveler may not be willing to fork out the extra cash for Acela anyway. It's not a common mode of transport like Thalys, Eurostar, or TGV, etc.


So as opposed to trying to see what could be done differently, you condemn us to having to take buses?

:crazy:

A Boston-New York-DC service travening the ~800 km in between these three services in 4 hours would KILL the airline traffic in between both cities. This would not be an astronomically fast service, averaging 200 km/h (about 125 miles per hour), but that alone would be enough to ensure that highspeed works in the North East. Push the envelope and try to get that to three hours, then shuttles between the three cities would cease. Connect this high speed line to airports, and I tell you that this could be one of the most sucessful high speed lines in the world.

It does not happen because people have the mentality that you are espousing, "well we tried a half-ass attempt at it and it sucks, let's get back on the highways."


----------



## Jean Luc

Nefast said:


> It would be interesting if an efficient passenger rail service could be set up and promoted in a region such as California (for instance, a Sacramento-San Francisco-San José-Fresno-Bakersfield-Los Angeles train service).


There is a proposed high speed rail system for California: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/. It's been talked about for at least ten years now, and whether it will ever happen is anyone's guess.



Nefast said:


> The maximum speeds of hs-trains are already above 500 km/h!


Not in regular passenger service. The normal maximum speed on most high speed systems ATM is 300 kph, and there is a 40 km section of the LGV Mediterranee between Aix-en-Provence and Avignon stations in southern France where 320 kph is currently being tested to determine its effect on trains and track. The results of this have given SNCF the confidence to allow 320 kph on the LGV Est, the new high speed line between Paris and (ultimately) Strasbourg in eastern France, which is due to open this year. They hope that the maximum speed can be increased to 350-360 kph eventually, not just on this line but on other existing high speed lines too. Where you mentioned the "above 500 km/h" speed you may be thinking of the world train speed record for steel wheels on steel rails, which stands at 515 kph, set by a TGV Atlantique train in May, 1990. Note that this unit was modified for the attempt, was comprised of only 3 carriages (plus the two power cars), and these modifications were reversed afterwards, before the train reverted to normal service.



Cloudship said:


> People easily spend 6+ hours to sit on a plane to go from the east coast to the west coast.


Maybe but that's the fastest option available to them, so they endure it. BTW, does "6+ hours" include check-in, waiting to board and collecting luggage at arrival? I would think that a flight from east coast to west coast (or visa versa) would take about 4 hours. Correct me if I'm wrong.



hkskyline said:


> Even in the Northeast, the Acela was supposed to show HSR works in the US, but due to technical faults, it has flopped quite badly.


Why did Amtrak decide to have a new train (admittedly based on the TGV) designed and built from scratch when they could have purchased off the shelf an existing, tried and proven high speed train, modified for local conditions if necessary? It probably would have been cheaper and could have been brought into service sooner. They even tested the Swedish X2000 tilt train and German ICE in the early 1990s. Were neither of these found suitable?



DonQui said:


> A Boston-New York-DC service travening the ~800 km in between these three services in 4 hours would KILL the airline traffic in between both cities. This would not be an astronomically fast service, averaging 200 km/h (about 125 miles per hour), but that alone would be enough to ensure that highspeed works in the North East. Push the envelope and try to get that to three hours, then shuttles between the three cities would cease. Connect this high speed line to airports, and I tell you that this could be one of the most sucessful high speed lines in the world.


This would still require trains to be sped up quite a bit, seeing that currently Washington DC to New York takes about 3 hours, and New York to Boston about the same or more (correct me if I'm wrong). How would this be done? Straightening out sections of track with tight curves, bypassing cities, improving signalling, general upgrading of track, or something else?


----------



## Cloudship

Jean Luc said:


> Maybe but that's the fastest option available to them, so they endure it. BTW, does "6+ hours" include check-in, waiting to board and collecting luggage at arrival? I would think that a flight from east coast to west coast (or visa versa) would take about 4 hours. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Actual flight time varies according to the actual cities and direction (the jet stream has an effect), but 6 hours is a good approximation of flying time. In many cases though, that's a direct flight - many people make connections which add at least another two hours or more into the flight time. That time is air time, and doesn't include time spent checking in at the airport, getting your luggage, or driving to the airport. Most airports in the US are located fairly far from the city center, and take some time to get to the city.


----------



## elfabyanos

Jean Luc said:


> There is a proposed high speed rail system for California: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/.
> 
> Why did Amtrak decide to have a new train (admittedly based on the TGV) designed and built from scratch when they could have purchased off the shelf an existing, tried and proven high speed train, modified for local conditions if necessary? It probably would have been cheaper and could have been brought into service sooner. They even tested the Swedish X2000 tilt train and German ICE in the early 1990s. Were neither of these found suitable?


There are more stringent crash test because european trains don't face billion-tonne denser-than-the-center-of-the-sun freight locomtoives to possibly have a collission with, therefore any train had to be adapted.


----------



## Jean Luc

elfabyanos said:


> There are more stringent crash test because european trains don't face billion-tonne denser-than-the-center-of-the-sun freight locomtoives to possibly have a collission with, therefore any train had to be adapted.


That applies where freight and passenger trains share the same tracks. Do any freight trains operate on the Northeast Corridor, where the Acela train operates?

Therefore, if the U.S. ever bit the bullet and built high speed lines for use *only* by passenger trains i.e. *not* by freight trains, these regulations would not apply, I presume.


----------



## Cloudship

Freight does operate on the Northest Corridor. As far as if the track were completely dedicated, well that is a bit of a question. Theoretically the FRA will issue waivers if traffic is seperated by space or time, but only up to a point. Even if they were totally separated, the regulations would still be more stringent.


----------



## Yardmaster

hkskyline said:


> The US is not Europe. Cities are far apart and the country is huge. The focus should be improving air travel and having regional hubs to develop comprehensive highway connections (which is already there with the Interstate).


In fact Europe and the US are approximately equal in area (I guess some people will debate what is and is not 'Europe") and have more or less equivalent populations.

My country has an equivalent area too, but not by any means an equivalent population. Europe is investing vastly in rail infrastructure: AMTRAK is struggling to stay alive. This has little to do with population density.

More significantly, "Radio National' here today reported that last Century's emissions would heat the world for one thousand years to come .... even if we turned off our pen-lights. 

And God Created Cadillacs ...


----------



## hkskyline

Yardmaster said:


> In fact Europe and the US are approximately equal in area (I guess some people will debate what is and is not 'Europe") and have more or less equivalent populations.
> 
> My country has an equivalent area too, but not by any means an equivalent population. Europe is investing vastly in rail infrastructure: AMTRAK is struggling to stay alive. This has little to do with population density.
> 
> More significantly, "Radio National' here today reported that last Century's emissions would heat the world for one thousand years to come .... even if we turned off our pen-lights.
> 
> And God Created Cadillacs ...


While Europe and US share about the same area, Europe is home to over 700 million people while the US just surpassed 300 million.

More information by country : http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-NK-05-015/EN/KS-NK-05-015-EN.PDF

If there is enough density, then the client base will be adequate to support the railway. If that happens, who cares if the government stops funding, because the operator will still turn a profit with their revenues already.


----------



## Aokromes

Size yes, population, no, 

USA Area 9,631,420 km² (3rd1) 3,718,695 sq mi 
Population 2007 estimate 301,049,000

Europe 10,400,000 square kilometres (4,010,000 sq mi) 
Population 710,000,000


----------



## Nephasto

^I think a comparisson between the EU area and the continental area (48 states) of the US would be more interesting:

US(48 states) Area : 7,884,254 km²
Population: 301,049,000
Density	38/km²

EU Area: 4,325,675 km²
Population: 493,000,000
Density	114/km²


----------



## Yardmaster

So is Australia already counted as part of the US ? hno:

From here, population-wise, India, & China are big nations. Indonesia is big too. Brazil? USA? Europe?

I hadn't really kept track of the population statistics, but quite seriously, the story I heard from national radio in the last two weeks was that Europeans were so degenerate that they couldn't even breed any more ... try www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint .


----------



## Nephasto

Yardmaster said:


> So is Australia already counted as part of the US ? hno:


Uh?!?





Yardmaster said:


> but quite seriously, the story I heard from national radio in the last two weeks was that *Europeans were so degenerate that they couldn't even breed any more* ... try www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint .


Yeah, right... we lost that abbility because a whitch cursed us!! :nuts:

Hum, that must be the crappest national television ever if it broadcasted trash like that...
:bash:


----------



## harsh1802

^^ :lol: 

Well the fact behind tht news is that the native European population is getting old....like in Japan. Unlike the immigrants who are relatively young compared to the native white population in European countries are reproducing in lesser numbers.


----------



## Yardmaster

Nephasto said:


> Uh?!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right... we lost that abbility because a whitch cursed us!! :nuts:
> 
> Hum, that must be the crappest national television ever if it broadcasted trash like that...
> :bash:


It's actually a radio program ... I wasn't saying that I agreed with that view, just that you get a lot of Europe-bashing in the media these days.

To give my national broadcaster the credit it deserves, this particular program was put in the schedule to present a 'conservative' view to offset the alleged left-wing bias of the programming as a whole.


----------



## elfabyanos

Yardmaster said:


> I hadn't really kept track of the population statistics, but quite seriously, the story I heard from national radio in the last two weeks was that Europeans were so degenerate that they couldn't even breed any more ... try www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint .


Speaking as a European, breeding is beneath us. Instead we adopt and nurture the foreign infidels, so that they can feed us soup in our old age, while we watch ozzy soaps. But then I don't really keep track of the population statistics....


----------



## aquablue

Ha, hahahahahahahahaha.....don't worry, there are plenty of african immigrants waiting to get into the EU....a population crisis could be quickly absolved.


----------



## hkskyline

*Grand Canyon Railway*

*Deal to buy historic Grand Canyon Railway accepted *
25 January 2007

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) - The owners of the fabled Grand Canyon Railway have accepted a buyout offer from one of the nation's biggest national park contractors. 

Xanterra Parks & Resorts will take over the assets of the railroad company, including the trains, rail route from Williams to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, the Grand Canyon Railway Hotel, an RV park, restaurant and several real estate parcels in Williams. The amount of the bid was not disclosed. 

Xanterra runs lodges, restaurants and other concessions at national parks and state parks and resorts, including Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Zion, Crater Lake, Death Valley and Petrified Forest national parks. 

"Xanterra is exactly the type of organization we hoped would purchase the railway. It's a well-run operation and we are looking forward to being a part of it," said W. David Chambers, president of Grand Canyon Railway. 

The railway has two steam engines and 29 cars currently in service, plus six diesel engines and 14 cars not currently used. 

The railway was shuttered for nearly 20 years before Paradise Valley residents Max and Thelma Biegert reopened it in 1989. In the early 1900s, it was the main mode of transportation to the Grand Canyon. 

The Biegerts put the operation up for sale last year and announced a tentative deal with Xanterra in September. The deal still requires approval from the National Park Service.


----------



## Songoten2554

*will Amtrak (United States) be sepearted like JR in Japan*

i want to know if Amtrak can sepearted like JR in Japan i mean JR wasn't JR it was actually JNR (Japan National Railways) then around the 1980's it became JR (Japan Railways) and sepreated them by regions i am wondering if Amtrak can do the same since its not working to well if its united you know like Northeast Amtrak, Southwest Amtrak,Southeast Amtrak, Midwest Amtrak, South Amtrak, Rocky Amtrak, Amtrak Cailfornia (Currently exists), Pacific Northwest Amtrak like that i mean and Central Amtrak, anyways like that will help Amtrak and can also bring High Speed Rail to the United States


----------



## Yardmaster

Songoten2554 said:


> i want to know if Amtrak can sepearted like JR in Japan i mean JR wasn't JR it was actually JNR (Japan National Railways) then around the 1980's it became JR (Japan Railways) and sepreated them by regions i am wondering if Amtrak can do the same since its not working to well if its united you know like Northeast Amtrak, Southwest Amtrak,Southeast Amtrak, Midwest Amtrak, South Amtrak, Rocky Amtrak, Amtrak Cailfornia (Currently exists), Pacific Northwest Amtrak like that i mean and Central Amtrak, anyways like that will help Amtrak and can also bring High Speed Rail to the United States


Wasn't it because the various regional passengers railways were collapsing that Amtrak was created?

Ask Margaret Thatcher ... she knew.


----------



## Songoten2554

i mean not to destroy amtrak i mean to sepreate them by Regions but still keep the amtrak name like i said before by regions like how Japan did with JR East, JR West, JR Central, JR Shiouku, JR Kynushu, and JR Hokkidao like that i mean to sepearte Amtrak to Regions and that Amtrak will be more profitable that way


----------



## Sen

JR is private.
Amtrak is owned by government.


----------



## Facial

Actually, Amtrak is de facto private - but its stock is wholly owned by the U.S. government.

Honestly, I don't know what's keeping Washington back from nationalizing Amtrak. I say go for it.


----------



## hkskyline

*Amtrak Struggles With Late Trains *
27 February 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Capitol Limited, an Amtrak train from Chicago, is scheduled to arrive in Washington every day at 1:30 p.m. But frequent rider Edda Ramos knows better than to make plans for the afternoon or evening. 

She knows a late arrival -- sometimes by an hour or two, sometimes by seven or eight -- "is the one thing you can count on." 

The 764-mile route is among Amtrak's most dismal performers, with just 11 percent of trains arriving within 30 minutes of their scheduled time last year. But the problem exists to one degree or another on the majority of Amtrak routes. 

The main reason: In most of the country, the national passenger railroad operates on tracks owned by freight railroads, and the tracks are badly congested. 

With freight traffic soaring in recent years, Amtrak's never-stellar on-time performance declined to an average of 68 percent last year, its worst showing since the 1970s. When the routes where Amtrak owns the tracks are excluded, the on-time performance last year fell to 61 percent. 

Even the lawmakers who vote on Amtrak's subsidies of more than $1 billion annually have gotten caught in the holdups. Earlier this month, House Democrats traveling to a retreat in Williamsburg, Va., arrived two hours late after getting stuck behind a CSX freight train with engine trouble. 

Alex Kummant, who took over as Amtrak's president in September, has made improving on-time performance a priority. A former executive at Union Pacific Corp. -- a freight railroad long considered hostile to Amtrak -- he says the relationship between Amtrak and the freight railroads is inherently complicated. 

"It is an intersection of a subsidized structure with a truly private-sector structure, so how do you coexist?" he said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. 

Kummant doesn't blame the freight railroads for most delays, saying they need government help to make the capital investments necessary to cope with soaring volumes. 

But passenger advocates and others accuse the freight railroads of failing to live up to their end of a bargain struck in 1970, when Congress agreed to let the railroads unload the passenger service they said was dragging them down. In exchange, the railroads were required to give priority on their tracks to trains run by a new national passenger railroad. Amtrak pays modest fees for use of the tracks. 

Amtrak performs far better on the Northeast corridor, where it owns the tracks. Last year, 85 percent of its high-speed Acela Express trains between Boston and Washington arrived within 10 minutes of their scheduled time. 

But where Amtrak depends on the freight railroads, the picture is far gloomier, and the Capitol Limited is not even the worst case. The Coast Starlight, which runs between Seattle and Los Angeles, had an on-time performance of 4 percent in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30. For the California Zephyr, connecting Chicago and San Francisco, the figure was 7 percent. In the current fiscal year, the California Zephyr has not once arrived on time. 

"The resulting damage to Amtrak's brand, reputation and repeat business is potentially devastating," Amtrak's former acting president, David Hughes, wrote in a letter last summer to the federal Surface Transportation Board. 

The freight railroads say they do the best they can and are investing heavily in capacity improvements. In its own letter to the board, CSX Corp. said Amtrak should add more time to its schedules to reflect reality. 

There is little incentive for the railroads to help Amtrak arrive on time, because the fees that Amtrak pays to use the tracks are paltry in relation to the billions of dollars the freight lines take in. Nor are there any real consequences for failing to accommodate Amtrak. A bill in the Senate calls for establishing penalties. 

In the last fiscal year, Amtrak paid all of its host railroads $90 million -- including about $15.5 million in rewards for on-time performance. If Amtrak had performed better, the railroads could have earned an additional $74.5 million in incentives. 

Kummant said he believes the freight railroads are making a good-faith effort. But he said track capacity has become maxed out as freight traffic has soared in recent years, thanks to increased demand for coal and a growing reliance on rail. 

That, in turn, has worn out the tracks, forcing Amtrak trains that normally travel 79 mph to slow to as little as 20 mph. Much of the rail network is single-tracked, meaning trains going in one direction have to pull over onto sidings to let trains coming the other way pass. 

But Kummant said the situation has shown some improvement in recent months. And in what he called a sign of better relations, he has been given a sneak peak at the railroads' capital plans, and "they're nothing short of stunning." 

To further speed up improvements, the freight industry is lobbying for federal tax credits for investments in track and other infrastructure to expand capacity. 

One late arrival of the Capitol Limited last week showed how complicated the issue is. The train lost several hours because of "freight interference" on Norfolk Southern Corp.'s tracks between Chicago and Toledo, Ohio. But its problems actually started when it left Chicago an hour and a half late because of mechanical problems, thus missing its time slot. It arrived at Washington's Union Station 3 1/2 hours late. 

The late arrival was frustrating for Ramos, 44, who started riding the Capitol Limited last year to visit relatives in Chicago. The Washington resident takes the train to avoid airport security hassles, but said she wouldn't risk it for business travel. 

"I would be fired!" she said.


----------



## jpIllInoIs

*Senate Bill would restore Madison-Milwaukee service*

Story from UWM campus news online
By: Rebecca Kontowicz

*Construction will begin two years after funding is approved. If the bill passes this year, the rail will be complete by 2010, said Randy Wade, Wisconsin DOT passenger rail manager*.

Students and commuters traveling between Milwaukee and Madison can either drive or hop on the Badger Bus, but if a new federal bill goes through, they could have one more option: a train.

The Milwaukee to Madison High Speed Rail initiative relies on S.294, a bill proposed by U.S. Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Trent Lott last week, asking for $12 billion in federal funding for nationwide Amtrak services over the next six years. 

The Milwaukee to Madison High Speed Rail corridor is part of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, a nine-state coalition to connect the region with high speed passenger rail service. It includes Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri and Minnesota. The network stems from Chicago and extends 3,000 miles. 

According to Randy Wade, Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) passenger rail manager, the cost of the rail, which would be an extension of Amtrak’s Hiawatha service between Milwaukee and Chicago, is now set at $316 million. About $227 million would go toward infrastructure, including the track, controls and running devices and $89 million toward new equipment.

If the bill is passed by Congress, the Wisconsin DOT would then apply for a federal/state cost share ratio of 80/20. Eighty percent of the rail’s funding would be provided by federal funding, while the remaining 20 percent, around $63 million, would be paid for with state funds, Wade said.

Construction will begin two years after funding is approved. If the bill passes this year, the rail will be complete by 2010, Wade said.

“(High-speed rails) give residents another mobility choice that is predictable, dependable and affordable, for pleasure, business and family travel,” said Marc Magliari, Amtrak’s spokesman. 

An executive summary of the project, which can be viewed at dot.wisconsin.gov, states that another benefit of high-speed rail is that it minimizes the environmental impact of travel. High-speed rails create less pollution than cars, airplanes and other modes of transportation. Rails also unite and benefit the economy of the connected regions, the site continues. 

For these reasons, the already existing Amtrak Hiawatha service is successful. According to Wade, ridership has dramatically increased within the last few years. From 2004-2005 it increased at only 0.8 percent but jumped to a 10 percent increase in 2005-2006.

The Hiawatha currently runs seven roundtrips Monday through Saturday and six on Sundays from Milwaukee to Chicago. Speeds peak around 79 mph, with a one-way trip lasting about 90 minutes, Magliari said. Speeds between Milwaukee and Madison are estimated at up to 110 mph.

“The Hiawatha service has the best on time performance of any Amtrak in the U.S. outside of California,” Wade said.

Hiawatha currently makes stops at Milwaukee’s Mitchell International Airport; Sturtevant, Wis.; Glenview, Ill.; and Chicago. The extension would create additional stops in Brookfield, Oconomowoc, Watertown and Madison. 

According to Magliari, it is too early to determine the cost of operation and fare as they are yet to be negotiated. However, he said it is relatively safe to assume that fare will be in the same range as Hiawatha’s current price of $21 for a one-way ticket to Chicago.

At this point, the State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation owns the 32-mile corridor extending from Watertown to Madison. Preliminary engineering and an environmental assessment have already been completed, but the status of the project relies on federal funding.


----------



## jpIllInoIs

*Chicago-to-Rockford Amtrak service studied*

From Chicago Tribune

Tribune staff report
Published March 5, 2007, 8:22 PM CST


A new study evaluating the possible resumption of passenger trains from Chicago to Rockford and Dubuque reported Monday that travel times would not be any faster than driving, but the rail service would help reduce traffic congestion on highways.

The study, conducted by Amtrak at the request of Illinois transportation officials, also laid out preliminary cost estimates for the first time.

Up to $62 million would be needed to improve the railroad infrastructure, but that does not include costs for railcars, locomotives or stations, the study said.

Operating costs to run a single daily round trip between Chicago and Dubuque via Rockford were estimated at less than $5 million annually.

The study mentioned travel times of about two hours between Chicago and Rockford, and less than 4½ hours between Chicago and Dubuque.

It has been more than 25 years since the last passenger train service from Chicago through northwestern Illinois ended. Amtrak Black Hawk trains ran through Rockford and Freeport to Galena and Dubuque from 1974 to 1981 using the former Illinois Central route.

Officials at the Illinois Department of Transportation said they received the study Monday from Amtrak and needed time to review it before commenting.


----------



## jpIllInoIs

*Excerpts: "Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service" (Rockford)*

Direct link to Amtrak:

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Conte...ews_Release_Popup&c=am2Copy&cid=1093554079196

The general population growth along the eastern portion of this corridor has been strong over the past decade, but passenger train service formerly provided by Amtrak ceased in 1981. Highway traffic volumes on Interstate 90 (Northwest Tollway) between Chicago and Rockford are significant; with frequent backups the closer one gets to Chicago. Rockford is a major residential and commercial center and the largest metropolitan area in Illinois without passenger rail service. Between Rockford and the O'Hare Airport area, many new residential developments have been established. Further west, Galena is a significant destination city for tourism, especially during the summer and fall. At Dubuque, there is an aggressive plan underway to redevelop the downtown property along the Mississippi River.

Following receipt of the study request, a number of alternative rail routes were identified as candidates for this service. Physical evaluations of the routes were conducted with host railroad personnel, including inspections, assessments of capital needs, and identification of operational challenges. Revenue/ridership forecasts were determined based on recommended schedules, and estimates of cost to operate the service were developed. The goal was to prepare a high-level and objective report of the findings, in response to IDOT's request, for further discussion.

Three alternative routes were identified as potentially feasible for establishment of Amtrak service between Chicago and Rockford, with only one route being practical between Rockford and Dubuque. An electronic version of the map showing the alternatives in .jpg format is available from Amtrak Media Relations, Chicago. Each requires a different level of capital investment to make the service a practical reality.

Although there have been general discussions and field inspections with the host freight railroads, the specific infrastructure improvement proposals, draft schedules and other railroad-related comments have not been negotiated or agreed to with the host freight railroads and reflect only the findings and best judgment recommendations of the study team. Should further progression of one of the alternative proposals be desired, detailed discussions and negotiations will have to be initiated with those rail carriers (emphasis added).

There is a map link on the Amtrak page that would be useful. Too bad I get an error when i click on it.


----------



## hkskyline

*Keeping America's Railroads Safe*

*Government increases railroad track inspections with new rail cars *
16 May 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) - Two new railroad cars will examine tracks around the country in an effort to detect flaws and prevent derailments, federal railroad officials said Wednesday. 

The custom inspection cars will use laser technology to find problems such as tracks that have been bent, or have the wrong distance between them. They are being added to the Federal Railroad Administration's fleet of three existing cars and will enable the agency to inspect three times as much track annually, or nearly 100,000 miles of track per year. 

"Finding track problems and getting them fixed before a train accident occurs is key to safeguarding communities," Joseph Boardman, head of the railroad administration said in a prepared statement. 

Over the coming months, the cars will inspect railroad lines owned by Norfolk Southern Corp., CSX Corp., Union Pacific Corp. and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., an agency spokesman said. 

Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office said federal railroad officials have made progress toward identifying the most dangerous parts of the nation's rail system in the wake of several accidents, but more work needs to be done to evaluate the effectiveness of that effort. 

While the railroad administration has developed ways to measure safety in such areas as accidents caused by human errors, track defects and equipment problems, it does not have ways to evaluate the success of its inspection and enforcement programs, the report found. The report also said inspectors are only able to examine less than 1 percent of the rail system every year.


----------



## mhays

A Portland-Seattle-Vancouver line would connect three growing cities with prosperous, transit-using centers that happen to be ideal distances from each other. 

We have decent (5 per day?) slower service from Seattle to Portland now, and a little service (2 per day?) to Vancouver. The first step is adding a few more per day to those routes. But HSR is very difficult because we don't have Hartford's plethora of rail ROW, and creating new ROW would be extraordinarily difficult and expensive.


----------



## monkeyronin

This is a map I drew up a few months ago for North American HSR. Looking back, its not perfect, as I would add a line to Halifax from Quebec City, and cover western Mexico. Colours indicate priority/speed of the route. 

1. Red
2. Blue
3. Green



(The line cutoff at the bottom would go to Panama City, and the one at the top to Edmonton)


----------



## xXFallenXx

it's a good start, at least.
www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov


----------



## Unionstation13

For here in the midwest, it would have to stop in every city with a population of 10'000 or higher, same for the rest of the country.


----------



## tocoto

kingsdl76 said:


> I've always wished that here in the US, the powers that be would build a 'Bullet' train system, comprable to the type seen in parts of Europe and Japan. If I could design the system, I would start in an area where I think the population would be the most receptive to it. I think the best area here in the States would be the northeast 'Megopolis,' which for those of you who arent familiar, is the massive urban area consisting of Boston/NYC/Philadelphia/Baltimore/DC. I think a bullet train would be ideal for that area and I would base it on the Express/Local system with two train options:
> 1. *Express* - This train would include all major stops - Boston - Grand Central Terminal - Philly - DC.
> 2. *Local* - Boston - New Haven - Grand Central Terminal - Philly - Baltimore - DC.
> 
> I would build the system so that the trains would have connections to each cities respective train/bus systems. What would you do?....and what areas in the States do you think would be best?


The Acela express already travels at speed up to 150 mph between Boston and DC with very few stops (Penn station in NY instead of Grand Central). The stations are already connected to local subway and commuter lines in each city. The trip takes about 6 hours. Probably faster than a car under good traffic conditions, and way more comfortable than a plane. Cutting the time in half would be really expensive.


----------



## OMH

well,in europe you have a following system(at least in Germany):
U-Bahn or subway which covers most of the city,sometimes even the suburbs!
S-Bahn or suburban rail network,which covers the city and the surrounding area,sometimes goes as far as 50 km from the city!
then you have following train systems:regional,IC(intercity) and ICE,(TGV in France),which is a high speed trail connecting major cities throughout Europe!i personally think its one of the best systems(i don't no the japanese one),but its very effective and fast!i think the US should model its system after this,but it obviously won't,since they believe in "American exceptionalism"hno:!


----------



## bobbycuzin

many cities in the US are too low-density for rail travel within cities, but high-speed trains would be very convenient between major cities linking them together, especially in places like texas where there's 4 major cities within 300 miles of each other


----------



## Unionstation13

OMH said:


> well,in europe you have a following system(at least in Germany):
> U-Bahn or subway which covers most of the city,sometimes even the suburbs!
> S-Bahn or suburban rail network,which covers the city and the surrounding area,sometimes goes as far as 50 km from the city!
> then you have following train systems:regional,IC(intercity) and ICE,(TGV in France),which is a high speed trail connecting major cities throughout Europe!i personally think its one of the best systems(i don't no the japanese one),but its very effective and fast!i think the US should model its system after this,but it obviously won't,since they believe in "American exceptionalism"hno:!


America is making great strides to get mass transit. 
NA and EU are layed out differently, and they have for hundreds of years.


----------



## kingsdl76

tocoto said:


> The Acela express already travels at speed up to 150 mph between Boston and DC with very few stops (Penn station in NY instead of Grand Central). The stations are already connected to local subway and commuter lines in each city. The trip takes about 6 hours. Probably faster than a car under good traffic conditions, and way more comfortable than a plane. Cutting the time in half would be really expensive.


Really??.....I never knew about this. How much does it cost?


----------



## OMH

Unionstation13 said:


> America is making great strides to get mass transit.
> NA and EU are layed out differently, and they have for hundreds of years.


i don't see much of this though!


----------



## Xusein

Please don't ruin this thread, it's actually quite a good subject.


----------



## OMH

TenRot said:


> Please don't ruin this thread, it's actually quite a good subject.


i'm not ruining it,but i'm just saying that i don't think the US is doing enough for PT!for example,the chicago el should get renovated,its slow and the wagons are old!!


----------



## Xusein

It's not...the US rail system is a joke, true, that's why we are thinking of hypothetical ideas. 

Telling stuff we already know isn't helping though.


----------



## OMH

TenRot said:


> It's not...the US rail system is a joke, true, that's why we are thinking of hypothetical ideas.
> 
> Telling stuff we already know isn't helping though.


so i maked an idea!another idea is:the US should start build an high-speed rail network,like the ICE or shinkanzen linking the major systems..currently the US only have one route,but i think they could build following routes:NYC-Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago and Chicago-Detroit-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec city!


----------



## virgule82

tocoto said:


> The Acela express already travels at speed up to 150 mph between Boston and DC with very few stops (Penn station in NY instead of Grand Central). The stations are already connected to local subway and commuter lines in each city. The trip takes about 6 hours. Probably faster than a car under good traffic conditions, and way more comfortable than a plane. Cutting the time in half would be really expensive.


The Acela one reaches 150 mph on a very short distance. The average speed is only about 70 mph, which less than half of the newest high-speed rail lines elsewhere. It would be really expensive to cut time in half, but probably well worth it. Trains should be able to outcompete planes in that corridor, which would both be better for the environment and relieve airport congestion.


----------



## svs

I've taken the Japanese bullet trains between Kyoto and Tokyo and the LGV between Paris and Lyon. The LGV is more like an airplane, you need to make reservations etc. The japanese bullet trains are like a subway, you just get on and find a seat. Both beat anything in the US. If we had a government with some vision, we could invest in already existing technology and eliminate the overcrowding which is making so many of our airports impossible. 

A good start would be a Chicago to New York line with stops in Toledo(with connector to Detroit); Cleveland; Pittsburgh; Philly; and central N.J. this could easily be extended to Boston. Second line from NY to Miami with stops in Philly; Wilmington; Baltimore; DC; Richmond; Charlotte: Atlanta: Savannah; Jacksonville; Orlando(with branch to Tampa); Fort Lauderdale; Miami.

West coast could connect LA; SanDiego; Palm Springs; and Las Vegas then extend to San Francisco; Sacremento; Portland; and Seattle. Eventually the areas in between could be filled in. The problem is the rail right of ways are generally reserved for slow frieghts. That's one of the reason AmTrak sucks even more than it has to. I believe government intervention is required to provide the US with a modern train system.


----------



## kingsdl76

virgule82 said:


> The Acela one reaches 150 mph on a very short distance. The average speed is only about 70 mph, which less than half of the newest high-speed rail lines elsewhere. It would be really expensive to cut time in half, but probably well worth it. *Trains should be able to outcompete planes in that corridor, which would both be better for the environment and relieve airport congestion*.


Yes....I agree with you. I think that bullet trains would better serve regionally. Once you start to deal with distances over 500 miles, it makes more sense to fly. Distances between several major cities in this country are just too far. I think regional lines would be great for Boston/NYC/Philly/DC and their respective metro areas. I also think that Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/Orlando/Tampa would be great, Chicago/Cleveland/Columbus, Houston/Dallas/San Antonio, San Diego/LA/Vegas, San Fran/Portland/Seattle. Also, second lines for NYC/Albany/Montreal, Seattle/Vancouver etc....


----------



## Tri-ring

kingsdl76 said:


> Yes....I agree with you. I think that bullet trains would better serve regionally. Once you start to deal with distances over 500 miles, it makes more sense to fly. Distances between several major cities in this country are just too far.


I won't be so sure about that, the major advancements that is achieved with maglev technology would make 500miles or 800 Km an hour and a half ride within two decades. Considering that it would take at least that much time to get it planned, approved, and procure the land to start construction, I think it would be safe to say that optimal distance for plane travel would be pushed up to 1200 miles or 1900Km once a network is completed.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

This summer when I was in Taiwan I rode on the new Taiwan High Speed Rail system. It runs between Taipei and Kaohsiung at 300 km/h. It's not the fastest in the world, but is pretty effective. The ride was completely smooth and no beverages spilled. There were also express and local trains that stop at major/minor stations. And the stations, OMG, they were spectacular! It was like a super-modern airport terminal minus the hassles of security. We can use the THSR and Japan's Shinkansen as a good example for a future USHSR system. Stay tuned for my idea (it will be specatular).....


----------



## geoking66

Until the FRA has some sense and drops a ton of the Tier II regulations such as train mass, Acela's not advancing any time soon. Anything higher than 150mph will actually destroy the tracks because the Acela is so heavy.


----------



## Grygry

monkeyronin said:


>


nice job, I never thought of going through Canada to go from NY to Detroit. Instead I would have gone through Cininati.


I think the main problem is that HST wins over plane for travels under 3-4hrs, let's say 1,000 km max.
In this regard I would write off many lines in blue or green through the american west and do more networks in densely populated states like California (with two or three lines around LA), Texas (Dalla Houston, Dallas Austin Sacramento), Florida or in the north east.

Also usually a HSR network must be thought of as two sets of lines, the new ones, and the old ones that must be improved (and electrified in the US) in order to reach the many cities _close _to the HS lines but not _on_ the lines. 
But of course this would take a lot of time to consider all options and draw something good.
Also, it is very important to think of the possible interconnexions between train and plane, et make those lines go through some big airports so that connecting flights get replaced with connecting trains.


----------



## trainrover

> If you could design a sophisticated rail system for US cities...


Why bother?  It's not like duh USA has any clue as to what it does... ... ...in life.
:nuts:

_Sophisticated_ (ooo! the word gives me goosy goosebumps!) is just some alien in 'mericuh.....


----------



## kingsdl76

*trainrover*



trainrover said:


> Why bother?  It's not like duh USA has any clue as to what it does... ... ...in life.
> :nuts:
> 
> _Sophisticated_ (ooo! the word gives me goosy goosebumps!) is just some alien in 'mericuh.....


*And the award for Biggest Douche Bag goes to*.....you guessed it folks!!....*trainrover*!! This award is given to him because of his outstanding ability to leave lightening fast, bolded, super-enlarged posts that outline his truly moronic, backwards way of thinking. The lack of reasoning or intelligence is impressive folks!! Way to leave a childish post *trainrover*!!....I'm sure someone out there is proud of you!! Folks.....make sure to throw him a tip next time you see him working behind the counter at Tim Hortons...I think he recommends the Apple Fritter...oh excuse me *trainrover*...the Beignet aux pommes. In closing, I'd like to further nominate him for the Slinky Award. This award is given to people that pretty much serve no purpose, but are fun to watch roll down a flight of stairs....just like a Slinky!! 
:banana: :banana:


----------



## xXFallenXx

:applause:


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

F***ing Canadians...., it's no wonder why they smoke so much pot and end up in gay marriages.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

^^^^^^
Laughing Americans


----------



## jpIllInoIs

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Conte...ase_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1178294057347&ssid=180


October 23, 2007 
Annual Amtrak Ridership Sets All-Time Record; Fifth Straight Year of Increases 

*Ridership Tops 25.8 Million*, $1.5 Billion in Passenger Revenue 
WASHINGTON — Amtrak ridership in Fiscal Year 2007 increased to 25,847,531, marking the fifth straight year of gains and setting a record for the most passengers using Amtrak trains since the National Railroad Passenger Corporation started operations in 1971.

This total, for the period October 1, 2006-September 30, 2007, topped the 24,306,965 for the previous 12 months and is greater than the passenger count of 25.03 million reached in 2004, before Amtrak transitioned some services to a commuter rail operator.

Total ticket revenue for the fiscal year, $1.5 billion was an 11 percent increase over the $1.37 billion in FY06. If other income from contract services is included, the railroad's total revenue was $2.2 billion for the fiscal year.

"Highway and airway congestion, volatile fuel prices, increasing environmental awareness, and a need for transportation links between growing communities, are some of the factors that make intercity passenger rail extremely relevant in today's world," said Alex Kummant, President and CEO of Amtrak. "Combined with the efforts of the hardworking men and women of Amtrak who make our service work, our investment in the Northeast Corridor is paying dividends with improved on-time performance (OTP), and that draws in more ridership and revenue.

"Our record setting ridership and ticket revenue in FY07 indicate the stage is set for Amtrak to take on a role as not only a contributor to the nation's transportation network, but as a leader among modes," he added.

*East Highlights*

Revenue growth was the greatest in the Northeast, where revenue reached $829.3 million, a 14 percent increase over last year's ticket revenue.

The popularity of the Acela Express service continued in FY07 as is evidenced by the 20 percent increase in ridership (3.1 million passengers) and 23 percent climb in ticket revenue ($403.5 million) versus last year. Acela Express service saw an increase in OTP, frequently surpassing its goal of 90 percent. At year-end, the OTP for Acela Express was 87.8 percent, up more than three percent over the same period last year. The popularity and high demand for this service also prompted the creation in July of another weekday Acela Express round trip between New York and Washington.

Regional Service ridership continues also to rise: 6.6 million passengers rode Regional trains in FY07, an increase of 1.2 percent. Additionally, Regional passenger ticket revenue for period rose 7.2 percent.

The Keystone Service, which operates between Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and New York City experienced significant growth with a 20.7 percent increase in ridership, reaching 988,454 in FY07. Moreover, ticket revenue increased by nearly 30 percent, to $20,582,838.

Last fall, Amtrak and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation with support from the Federal Transit Administration, introduced all-electric service with speeds up to 110 mph on the Keystone Corridor, which has reduced travel times between Harrisburg and Philadelphia and Harrisburg and New York City by between 15 and 45 minutes. Weekday roundtrips have also increased from 11 to 14 — with ten traveling through to New York.

The Downeaster, operating daily between Portland, Maine and Boston, Massachusetts, added a fifth round trip to its service this past August. The service achieved a seven percent increase in ridership in FY07, reaching 361,634. The Downeaster also brought in $4.8 million in ticket revenue, a 5.3 percent increase from a year ago.

*Central Highlights*

Huge gains are tied to increased frequencies in Illinois, with the three routes between Chicago and downstate communities showing large increases. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has more than doubled the size of its contract with Amtrak, providing three of the five round-trips on the Chicago-St. Louis corridor and two round-trips each on the Carbondale and Quincy routes, starting late last October.

On the Chicago-St. Louis Lincoln Service corridor, ridership on state trains more than doubled, rising by 108 percent, while total ridership on the corridor rose by 42 percent to 477,888. Ridership between Chicago and Carbondale, the route the Illini and Saluki trains share with the City of New Orleans, is up by 67.4 percent for the state-supported trains and 46 percent for the corridor, totaling 263,809. For the Chicago-Galesburg-Quincy route of the Illinois Zephyr, Carl Sandburg and other trains, ridership has gained 41.4 percent for the state-sponsored trains and 33 percent for the route, with 194,535 passengers.

Also from the Amtrak hub in Chicago is the Hiawatha Service, with up to seven daily round-trips sponsored by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation with IDOT. Nearly 600,000 passengers rode the trains between Milwaukee and Chicago last year, an increase of 2.6 percent.

The state-supported routes in Michigan — Grand Rapids-St. Joseph-Chicago Pere Marquette and the Port Huron-East Lansing-Chicago Blue Water — also posted increases. Ridership on the Pere Marquette was up 2.8 percent and on the Blue Water, 3.1 percent.

*West Highlights*

California's Capitol Corridor service which operates between Auburn and San Jose, carried more than 1.4 million passengers in FY07, a 15 percent increase over the same period last year. Ticket revenue topped $18 million, a 21 percent increase over the previous 12 months. In addition, the San Diego-San Luis Obispo Pacific Surfliner, showed a nine percent increase in ticket revenue, reaching more than $46 million.

National Highlights

Among the trains on the Amtrak national network, the Empire Builder is again the most popular overnight train. With more than a half-million passengers, the daily Chicago-St. Paul-Seattle/Portland train showed an increase of 1.6 percent.

Also, the Auto Train, which operates between the Washington, D.C and Orlando areas, posted a ridership increase of five percent from last year.

Long-distance trains recording above-average ridership performances include the New Orleans-Tucson-Los Angeles Sunset Limited (up 22.1 percent), Chicago-Albuquerque-Los Angeles Southwest Chief (up 5.4 percent) and Chicago-Memphis-New Orleans City of New Orleans (up 3 percent). In addition, the New York-Miami Silver Service trains (Silver Meteor-Silver Star) achieved ridership gains of 6.9 and 5.7 percent respectively and the Palmetto's passenger number jumped by 7.5 percent over the previous 12 months.


----------



## Jaeger

Having read some of the comments here you would think things were totally different in Europe, believe me we do have some of the same issues.

People still use planes and coaches to get around Europe.

Go to Victoria Coach Station in London and it will be full of East Europeans taking the European equivalent of the Greyhound home.

We have a network of coaches and buses just like America, which stretches right across Europe.

Taking the train is great if you are going from London to Paris or Brussels etc but not if you are going to Southern Europe or somewhere like Moscow, as by the time you change trains numerous times or have paid for ticket on a sleeper train it becomes more expensive than flying would have in the first place and takes a good deal longer.

A lot of people drive across Europe from the UK taking the high speed ferry routes such as Seacat from Dover (50 mins) to France, and the Eurostar Trains also takes cars (35 mins) 

There is a limit on how far it is viable to travel by train before the plane becomes the more sensible option.

Cheap Airlines such as Easyjet and Ryanair etc have revolutionised European Travel and it now costs very little to fly between most European destinations.


----------



## jpIllInoIs

*Funding boost for Amtrak*

*Finally the US Senate is looking at boosting rail service investment*. 


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119379172012276995.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news


For Amtrak, the Climate Changes 
By Christopher Conkey and Daniel Machalaba 
Word Count: 821 
Momentum is growing in Congress to bolster Amtrak and help states expand rail service as lawmakers grow concerned over global warming, transportation gridlock and high oil prices.

In what may signal a reversal of fortune for the nation's intercity passenger-rail network, the Senate yesterday approved a six-year, $11.4 billion bill that would authorize nearly $2 billion a year in Amtrak funding, up from roughly $1.3 billion now. The measure passed by a 70-22 vote.

The bulk of the bill's funding would go toward operating expenses and capital projects, but $1.8 billion would be devoted to paying off debt, and $1.4 ...


----------



## jpIllInoIs

^

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-30-3111648298_x.htm

Hey the USA Today has the same article for FREE


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

^^ 

About damn time. Other nations already have electrified passenger rail systems and we're still polluting the air with cars and airplanes. I mean, Japan had the Shinkansen back in the '60s, and we had just bombed the hell out of them (no offense). We are falling behind. hno:


----------



## Xusein

Guys, don't diss all Canadians for this troll.

Anyway, this is how my plan would look on a map. Black line is the Northeast corridor, which could be further improved in areas to make speed faster, and the red lines are the spur lines that I was talking about.

Come to think about it, extending lines to Pittsburgh, Buffalo/Rochester, and Montreal don't look too bad, although that will never happen in itself. Many of these red spur lines would need MAJOR work. I am not sure about the other ones, but the Hartford-New Haven line is not even electrified yet.


----------



## Tri-ring

TenRot said:


> Guys, don't diss all Canadians for this troll.
> 
> Come to think about it, extending lines to Pittsburgh, Buffalo/Rochester, and Montreal don't look too bad, although that will never happen in itself. Many of these red spur lines would need MAJOR work. I am not sure about the other ones, but the Hartford-New Haven line is not even electrified yet.


I was thinking of a route from New York - Buffalo - Toronto - Montreal route and maybe a branch route from Toronto to Detroit.
It will definitely create a stronger US-Canada economic bloc and revitalize Detroit.


----------



## Kramerica

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> I mean, Japan had the Shinkansen back in the '60s, and we had just bombed the hell out of them.


I think that they (along with the Europeans) had high-speed rail years ago in part BECAUSE we bombed the hell out of them. They had a fresh slate to start out with.


----------



## kingsdl76

TenRot said:


> *Guys, don't diss all Canadians for this troll*.
> 
> Anyway, this is how my plan would look on a map. Black line is the Northeast corridor, which could be further improved in areas to make speed faster, and the red lines are the spur lines that I was talking about.
> 
> Come to think about it, extending lines to Pittsburgh, Buffalo/Rochester, and Montreal don't look too bad, although that will never happen in itself. Many of these red spur lines would need MAJOR work. I am not sure about the other ones, but the Hartford-New Haven line is not even electrified yet.


I certainly wasnt implying anything negative about Canadians....I was just leaving a comment about him as an individual. I love Canada and I'm actually part French Canadian. 
Anyway, I think your idea looks great. What I would do, additionally, is add another line from Albany to Montreal. It would be awesome to take a bullet train from NYC to Montreal and vice versa....two great cities better connected!!


----------



## mgk920

One of the current problems WRT the USA-Canada border (ie, involving Seattle-Vancouver, NYC-Albany-Montreal and Buffalo-Hamilton-Detroit routes) is that for some-odd reason, the USA's border guards are very hostile to those crossing it by rail.

Until there is an EU-style customs union and 'open' border put into place, I don't foresee that changing anytime soon.

hno:

OTOH, with the way commercial aviation is fast becoming an insurmountable hassle, domestic routes in the 500-1000 km range seem to me to be primed and ready for some sort of high-speed passenger rail development (even routes as long as NYC-Chicago) - if the money can be politically found to develop them. Those routes were ALL operated at amazing rail speeds and service quality and frequency before air travel become popular, too.

As for freight rail service in North America - it is going great guns and many routes are operating above capacity. The private freight railroad companies are now constantly investing incredible amounts of money into upgrading and expanding their systems to handle it all.

Current rail freight and passenger activity patterns are directly opposite between North America and the EU.

Mike


----------



## Xusein

Yeah, except for the obvious reasons (for money and the drive to do it), there isn't that much of a reason why all these cities are already connected better. They have rail already.

HSR to Toronto and Detroit does sound like a great idea. If it ever happens (which it likely will not), we could even connect the hypothetical HSR network in the East Coast, to the plans in the Midwest! :bow:


----------



## philadweller

We have more roller coasters than rail networks here. People in the "United States of Whoremerica" view rail as an amusement ride and not as a necessity. The Northeastern US and Chicago are less car dependent than the rest of the nation.


----------



## tocoto

The Acela only goes 70 mph along the CT shore and that could be improved. It's already competitve with air for Bos-NYC; NYC Philly; NYC-DC; Pilly-DC. All of the largest cities in the northeast have extensive commuter rail and Bos, NYC and DC have large subway systems. Regional (slower) trains already ply the routes mentioned by 10rot in PA, VA and new Eng. Has anyone ever taken the Acela or a commuter rail line? Boston alone has something like 13 lines some of which go over 50 miles.


----------



## goldbough

Dallas/San Antonio/Houston definitely needs a rail link, but the next problem is that the cities are so big that you would need a car once you got there. Dallas has the largest in-city public transportation system and even it doesn't reach many places. Houston is so monstrous that even the city bus system doesn't go into the suburbs much.

If there was competent public transportation in those cities, the trains would be full every weekend.


----------



## tocoto

Texas is so flat and open high speed rail could be cost effective to build. The trains could stop once in each city at a station with bus, rental and zip cars. It could work but since air is so fast and driving is pretty easy getting to the center of the city won't have the benefits it has in the northeast or europe.


----------



## kphoger

Amtrak needs to stop trying to be an airline. There are people, of course, who prefer to travel cross-country by train, but they don't do it as a matter of convenience, only preference. The rest of America, on the other hand, either (1) would never take the train long-distance, because it takes too long, or (2) would rather take the bus, because it's cheaper, has more stops, and doesn't sell out. What Amtrak is trying to do is get more Type 1 passengers, rather than Type 2.

Greyhound runs about 1250 buses around the clock, to all parts of the country, and they're always full - and that doesn't count other, more local bus companies. Greyhound's ticket prices stay the same until one week before travel, and they tell you in advance what the last-minute price will be. If more people buy tickets than can fit in the bus, they don't say they're sold out, but simply add another bus to the route.

But, everybody knows that taking the bus is an unpleasant ordeal, at least if you're traveling long-distance. Nearly everybody out there would much rather sit in the comfort of a train than wake up at 3 AM to the arc-sodium lights of a truck stop. As they say: you don't ride the dog, the dog rides you. So what's the advantage? As I said, buying a ticket is hassle- and worry-free, and they run almost everywhere in the country. The slow progress doesn't bother them, the condition of the stations doesn't matter to them; what matters is that they can buy a ticket on short notice to wherever they need to go, and it won't break the bank to do so.

Amtrak could serve these people's needs by having a more local focus - stop trying to be an airline, and start trying to be a bus company. Add stops to the route, even if it slows the route down. Keep a reserve of rail cars at various locations to add to the string if too many people buy tickets. Eliminate reservation-only trains from the network. If giving Newton (KS) some daytime departures means people traveling Chicago - L.A. have to change trains, then make them change trains.

Flying long-distance will always be faster and more schedule-friendly than taking the train, so much of the flying population will never be swayed. But there are thousands of people on the bus who would much rather take the train, so let's try and serve THEIR needs instead.


----------



## grimesdr

Cloudship said:


> Try flying from JFK to Boston during the evening push. Spend 40 minutes taxying around JFK. Spend 35 minutes in the air.


The problems with NYC JFK & LaGuardia airports is the taxis lobby will not allow a rail solution!! 

What is needed in NYC is an airport monorail that runs between these two airports with stops at a main lines coming out of NYC. 

I took the Amtrak Acela from Boston to NYC to pickup an international flight during a snow storm and it was a joke getting from Grand Central out to JFK, I think I took 3 trains and a bus. In Hong Kong I took a cab from my hotel to Central Station where I did an airport check in of my bags and my boarding pass and then boarded the train and in 45 minutes I was at the airport.


----------



## islandtransit

HSR should be constructed in regional networks which could then connect to each other. NEC, Midwest, SE, FL, and Texas Triangle could make one killer system, and they'd all be built by different states budgets. CAHSR and NW are going to be system all on their own just because they're so disconnected from the rest of any other possible HSR. 

There should still be regular long distance trains though, and lots of them. Plenty of people still use LD service. All North American countries should get their systems up to world class. After that, have service between countries(Chicago-Mexico City?). There are a lot of successful cross border bus services.


----------



## Songoten2554

i looked at Chicago Union Station and i believe that High Speed Rail can call to that Station

it can be electrifed like Randolph Station and since it is a thru station it benefits for the other locations to be reached with Electifitcation


----------



## TheMann2000

I believe that HSR has potential in a few places in North America:

- *Northeast Corridor*
Boston, Providence, New Haven, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Norfolk
- *Canadian Corridor*
Detroit, Windsor, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec City 
- *California Corridor*
San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, Ontario, San Bernardino, Fresno, Modesto, San Jose, San Francisco
- *Pacific Northwest Corridor*
Vancouver, Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Portland, Eugene, maybe Sacremento and San Francisco
- *Southern Corridor*
Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Daytona Beach, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville, Savannah, Atlanta, Charlotte
- *East Midwest Corridor*
Chicago, Gary, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Erie, Buffalo, maybe Albany and NYC
- *South Midwest Corridor*
Chicago, Joliet, Peoria, Springfield, St. Louis, Jefferson City, Kansas City, Topeka, Wichita
- *North Midwest Corridor*
Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, La Crosse, Green Bay, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Duluth

Beyond that, for long distances Amtrak would smart to forget about the speed travel, and make rail the way to travel if you want to go substantial distances. Yeah, you can get there faster on the plane, but it will be more enjoyable on the train. With that in mind, make substantial bedrooms on trains, observation/dome cars for the view, luxurious compartments and all the refinements economically possible. Have all trains offer the auto train deal where you bring your car along if you want - which is easy, just add covered auto carrier cars on the ends of trains.

As for the moving of freight on rail, the USA moves vastly more freight on rail in American than in Europe, because the private companies have been battling for traffic for ages. This ain't the 1970s, the railroads make mountains of money and work beautifully, hauling freight nationwide. What might help is a nationally-owned freight rail line that rivals the private carriers.

As for the high-speeds, the TGV system developed bi-level trainsets. This would be good to do for the intercity lines.

Adding to this, I would reccommend that the passenger trains try to gain back the lustre of yesteryear. So, you get clean trains with good service and excellent surroundings, a part of your vacation rather than being on the way to it. International trains would be cool, too.

Oh, and get back the great names. Why Amtrak never ran the 20th Century Limited name is beyond me. But here's a better idea - an ultra-luxury 21st Century Limited, but instead of Chicago to NYC go for NYC to LA.


----------



## OettingerCroat

u must include Sacramento in your California Corridor, it will branch off in the mid-Central Valley for the Bay Area and Sacramento regions separately.


----------



## OettingerCroat

otherwise yes, i agree with these corridors very much.

HRS has huge feasibility in the US, but no potential thanks to the stranglehold of the oil companies. they dont want people using electric-powered trains to travel long distances, they want them traveling those distances in Chevy Suburbans and Greyhound buses! :bash:


----------



## TheMann2000

OettingerCroat said:


> u must include Sacramento in your California Corridor, it will branch off in the mid-Central Valley for the Bay Area and Sacramento regions separately.


I actually had the idea of Frisco being the link between California and Pacific NW, which puts Sacremento on the Pacific NW, between Redding and San Francisco.


----------



## OettingerCroat

TheMann2000 said:


> I actually had the idea of Frisco being the link between California and Pacific NW, which puts Sacremento on the Pacific NW, between Redding and San Francisco.


you know, a west coast corridor would be great. it would need to branch off before SF and Sacramento and rejoin afterwards, but it could easily stretch from the Canadian to Mexican borders. :yes:


----------



## Songoten2554

you have a great idea to the Rail Corridors

for the Chicago Union Station will be electirified with improved overhead wires for the HSR that will run to it since its a thru station it will benefits north, west, east, and south destinitations by Rail and it will provide HSR as well

that would be awsome and Chicago Union Station will look more cleaner and more grander then ever

North and South Stations to be connected by a connection railway which will be Part of the High Speed railway as well the North and South Link when will this happen???

South Florida Rail Corridor to be electrified from MIC and beyond currently uses Amtrak, Tri Rail, CSX and in the future HSR as well also between hialeah market and MIC built a new bridge with two tracks


----------



## islandtransit

HSR from Sacramento/San Fran area of Cali to Eugene isn't worth it. There's too much nothing in between. Let it just be Vancouver-Eugene and San Diego-San Fran/Sacramento. As far as bi-levels go, it works as long as theirs no height limit. Penn Station in NYC has a height limit b/c of the Hudson River tunnels. NJT had to specially design their bi-levels. Also, auto train on every train doesn't make sense. Between what stations will it operate on these other lines? Remember, the current Auto Train only makes ONE stop in SC to change crews. 

I personally think the only other auto train services should be directed towards Florida and MAYBE southern Cali. 

HSR can operate between those multiple corridors. Say, Chicago-Quebec, or NY-Atlanta. Not because most will use it between the two end points, but b/c there are people who would be in one corridor who want to get to another(say, DC to Atlanta, Charlotte to NY, or Chicago to Toronto)


----------



## UrbanBen

FM 2258 said:


> I think passenger rail in the U.S. is best served for short distances in high density areas. Otherwise light rail connections throughout a city and high speed rail links to the airports are best for our country. I think air travel serves it's purpose much better than what a cross country high speed rail system could do.


Density isn't an issue. You build the HSR, the density comes from it. You don't want to wait for density first, because then the land is too expensive to afford construction.


----------



## islandtransit

That's not anyway to get the US to build HSR. Besides, the only place where density is a problem, outside of the NEC, is in the actual cities. Otherwise, outside of the NEC, once you're out of the city, there's plenty of room to put a ROW where they can just open it up.


----------



## UrbanBen

islandtransit said:


> That's not anyway to get the US to build HSR. Besides, the only place where density is a problem, outside of the NEC, is in the actual cities. Otherwise, outside of the NEC, once you're out of the city, there's plenty of room to put a ROW where they can just open it up.


I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm saying that you want to build now. Now is always the best time to build HSR corridors.


----------



## islandtransit

You were basically saying build it and they will come, no? I was saying screw building where it's not dense. Big cities are where the passengers are now and always will be. Of course, between cities is not dense. But yes, the least dense the area, the cheaper the ROW. I was saying that between cities we are still okay on land prices, but in the big cities, the US will probably have to stick to existing ROWs.


----------



## UrbanBen

islandtransit said:


> You were basically saying build it and they will come, no? I was saying screw building where it's not dense. Big cities are where the passengers are now and always will be. Of course, between cities is not dense. But yes, the least dense the area, the cheaper the ROW. I was saying that between cities we are still okay on land prices, but in the big cities, the US will probably have to stick to existing ROWs.


I am saying build it and they will come, but I think we're using different definitions of "density" and "density". 

Yes, obviously, from big city to big city. But build it before the big cities get bigger! There's quite a variation in land prices in any given city from center to edge.


----------



## islandtransit

Ah, okay. So what you're saying is basically that cities like Cincinnati and St Louis are better off getting this done ASAP before they get even more built up than they are. I can dig that.


----------



## UrbanBen

islandtransit said:


> Ah, okay. So what you're saying is basically that cities like Cincinnati and St Louis are better off getting this done ASAP before they get even more built up than they are. I can dig that.


Yeah, we're totally on the same side here. Build it instead of all this awful highway expansion...


----------



## Songoten2554

would High Speed Rail be possible with Ron Paul as President if that is then Ron Paul could be my new favorite president next to Ronald Reagen, JFK, Teddy Roosvelt, Franklin Roosvelt, Lincoln does anybody agree


----------



## UrbanBen

Songoten2554 said:


> would High Speed Rail be possible with Ron Paul as President if that is then Ron Paul could be my new favorite president next to Ronald Reagen, JFK, Teddy Roosvelt, Franklin Roosvelt, Lincoln does anybody agree


Uh, no. It wouldn't - he wouldn't agree to federal funding for the project, and that's what you need at this point, because you have to start from scratch. You should learn how to spell the names of your favorite presidents, too.


----------



## Trainman Dave

Songoten2554 said:


> would High Speed Rail be possible with Ron Paul as President if that is then Ron Paul could be my new favorite president next to Ronald Reagen, JFK, Teddy Roosvelt, Franklin Roosvelt, Lincoln does anybody agree


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ron Paul is a libertarian !!!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:


----------



## Songoten2554

*Electrify America's Main Line Railways*

i have been thinking for sometime and some of the Main Railways thru out the United States has the potential to be electrified

South Florida Rail Corridor why i think this should be electrified because of the Traffic it has and the completion of the Double Track project and also completed the new River Bridge in Fort Laundale so its possible to be electrified also the traffic on this Rail Corridor is heavy

Current Traffic: Amtrak, Tri Rail, and CSX Miami

Future Traffic: Amtrak, Tri Rail, CSX Miami, and High Speed Railway so the traffic will double and triple and needs to be electrified

Chicago Union Station since its Underground the whole north and south Railway portions can be electrifed and alot of the whole Railways can be electrified for High Speed Rail and also Amtrak and Metra to use as well

the Rail Corridor south of Washington DC can be eletrified because it has traffic of Amtrak, VRA and Frieght

California is closer to elctrification because of the high speed rail

can anybody discuss about this??


----------



## Songoten2554

why isn't that the United States is Electrifying Main Line Railways in that they have alot of Traffic i know that it has to depend on the Traffic Load but i see potential in High Traffic Railways

like the Railways that go into Chicago Union Station has the Potential of being Electrified because they go underground and not only that carries a high amount of traffic

like Amtrak, Metra, Frieght Trains thats the current Traffic


----------



## Songoten2554

hello does anyone want to add some points into this i am getting viewers


----------



## Svartmetall

#1. Transportation of electric current over long distances = problematic. 
#2. Money involved in upgrading such a vast network = problematic.
#3. Poltical will = problematic. 

Expand on that.


----------



## UrbanBen

Svartmetall said:


> #1. Transportation of electric current over long distances = problematic.
> #2. Money involved in upgrading such a vast network = problematic.
> #3. Poltical will = problematic.
> 
> Expand on that.


#1 - is a false issue. You don't transmit electric current over long distances, you use sections, just as every other electric railway in the world does.

#2 - cheaper than doing it in 20 years.

#3 - of course. We sprawl. We won't fix that until it's far too late to save our economy from energy prices.


----------



## phattonez

Instead of electrifying railways, how about creating new and upgrading railways. Did you know that right now, if you wanted to use rail to go to SF from LA, you could either take a 20 hour trip or take a bus trip to Bakersfield and then take the much faster train from there. Neither sounds good to me.


----------



## UrbanBen

phattonez said:


> Instead of electrifying railways, how about creating new and upgrading railways. Did you know that right now, if you wanted to use rail to go to SF from LA, you could either take a 20 hour trip or take a bus trip to Bakersfield and then take the much faster train from there. Neither sounds good to me.


*cough*California HSR*cough*

I believe a bond issue should be on the state ballot this year?


----------



## Songoten2554

this is benefitual Europe has been doing for years while can't america do it???

then how did the Northeast Corridor became electrified because of PRR then this means it can be possible

someone said it can be done by sections it doesn't have to be electrified all the way it can be done in sections and then make it to the designtations


----------



## phattonez

UrbanBen said:


> *cough*California HSR*cough*
> 
> I believe a bond issue should be on the state ballot this year?


Haha, I know about that, and I'm definitely voting for it if it's finally put on the ballot, but even if it is approved, it is at least 20 years away. Upgrades to rail can be done much more quickly and are needed now. I-5 is constantly loaded with freight traffic, and a lot of people abhor how long it takes to get onto a plane to go between SF and LA. HSR is great and it's desperately needed in the state, but until we get it, let's improve our current passenger rail corridors.


----------



## UrbanBen

Songoten2554 said:


> this is benefitual Europe has been doing for years while can't america do it???
> 
> then how did the Northeast Corridor became electrified because of PRR then this means it can be possible
> 
> someone said it can be done by sections it doesn't have to be electrified all the way it can be done in sections and then make it to the designtations


Europe does it because the national governments (the collectors of income tax) invest in it. The NE corridor was electrified before the US government really got started competing with the private railroads with a free highway system.


----------



## UrbanBen

phattonez said:


> Haha, I know about that, and I'm definitely voting for it if it's finally put on the ballot, but even if it is approved, it is at least 20 years away. Upgrades to rail can be done much more quickly and are needed now. I-5 is constantly loaded with freight traffic, and a lot of people abhor how long it takes to get onto a plane to go between SF and LA. HSR is great and it's desperately needed in the state, but until we get it, let's improve our current passenger rail corridors.


Honestly, you're going to hate to hear this, but even *talking* about upgrading rail infrastructure before that bond issue passes will only create uncertainty and doubt about HSR, and probably kill the project. That's what keeps happening up here in Seattle! "Bus Rapid Transit" suddenly gets very exciting for five minutes before every rapid transit vote. Of course, it dies immediately when someone actually considers the cost of bus-only corridors.

Here's what can really happen: Get CA HSR passed. Then talk about this - and frame it as adding funding to the HSR project to let them start incrementally upgrading immediately.


----------



## phattonez

Well that bond comes up in November, so it can be discussed very soon.


----------



## himbaman

how can it be that the richest country in the world has such a bad public transport system? i once read that the automobile lobbies put pressure on the government not to invest in public transport, as it may result in lower car sales!
is this true?


----------



## UrbanBen

himbaman said:


> how can it be that the richest country in the world has such a bad public transport system? i once read that the automobile lobbies put pressure on the government not to invest in public transport, as it may result in lower car sales!


It can be traced back to one thing: We recognized roads as a public good, but the government didn't have the power to nationalize passenger rail when the more established European governments did - so they regulated rail to death instead, and were left having to build free-to-use highway infrastructure. No private railways can compete with the free roads.


----------



## ADCS

UrbanBen said:


> It can be traced back to one thing: We recognized roads as a public good, but the government didn't have the power to nationalize passenger rail when the more established European governments did - so they regulated rail to death instead, and were left having to build free-to-use highway infrastructure. No private railways can compete with the free roads.


On top of that, the only way private railroads can stay profitable these days is to maintain a freight-only network, as a passenger network requires much higher quality standards and speeds. Plenty of lobbying goes on to make sure that passenger rail is as much of a pain in the ass as possible.


----------



## UrbanBen

ADCS said:


> On top of that, the only way private railroads can stay profitable these days is to maintain a freight-only network, as a passenger network requires much higher quality standards and speeds. Plenty of lobbying goes on to make sure that passenger rail is as much of a pain in the ass as possible.


I wouldn't call it "on top of that" - how do you compete with heavy airline and road subsidies?


----------



## hkskyline

*With Amtrak strike looming, commuters brace for shutdowns *
15 January 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) - Commuters stranded from Virginia to Massachusetts. A flood of extra cars on already congested highways. 

That nightmare could become a reality unless a dispute between Amtrak and nine unions is resolved by January 30th. 

There's never been a strike in Amtrak's 36-year history. And it's likely that one will be averted this time, too, because Congress can intervene if there's no agreement. 

But if the workers do walk out, the 71,000 people who take Amtrak every day won't be the only ones who suffer. Hundreds of thousands of people who ride commuter trains also would have their plans disrupted. 

That's because many commuter rail services use Amtrak's infrastructure. In some cases -- such as the Virginia Railway Express and MARC -- Amtrak employees actually staff the commuter services. 

Commuter lines are scrambling to come up with backup plans. But officials warn there's no way they'll be able to accommodate all the travelers who would be displaced.


----------



## geoking66

Althouhg I'm a huge advocate of electrification on railways, it's only sustainable if there's enough traffic on the line to make use of it. Remember, 25kV 60Hz AC (standard supply) is quite expensive, almost $1m per mile. My line on NJT (M&E) has a train every 10 minutes and it's worthwhile, but in other places it's just pointless. However, the Pacific Surfliner and Capital Corridor along with DC-Richmond seem like profitable electrified rail routes.


----------



## UrbanBen

geoking66 said:


> Althouhg I'm a huge advocate of electrification on railways, it's only sustainable if there's enough traffic on the line to make use of it. Remember, 25kV 60Hz AC (standard supply) is quite expensive, almost $1m per mile. My line on NJT (M&E) has a train every 10 minutes and it's worthwhile, but in other places it's just pointless. However, the Pacific Surfliner and Capital Corridor along with DC-Richmond seem like profitable electrified rail routes.


That's chicken and egg. The ONLY way to get passenger rail back in competition with the highways (which is necessary if we want to stay solvent through $10 gas...) is to subsidize the hell out of it until the infrastructure investment level gets a lot closer to the capital we've laid out for highways already.


----------



## Facial

UrbanBen said:


> I think, though, that it needs its own funding source - going to Congress every year for handouts doesn't work.


And what, exactly, would that funding source be? Everybody's been wondering for 30 years, and we all know that anything private won't work.


----------



## xote

Facial said:


> And what, exactly, would that funding source be? Everybody's been wondering for 30 years, and we all know that anything private won't work.


:yes:

How about a $0.15 gas tax a gallon for public transport.

:naughty:


----------



## UrbanBen

xote said:


> Ever heard of the Acela?
> 
> 
> Fantabulous. But for 90% of the trip, HSR is incompatible with conventional rail. So I repeat, the two are not mutually exclusive, as they serve largely different needs with different infrastructure.
> 
> Frankly, I don't really care about the rest of the country when it comes to rail; I am more concerned about what happens in my neck of the woods, the Northeastern US. If the car-dependent West Coast can't get its act together, there is no need for us to suffer.
> 
> We already have conventional rail in the NEC that is as good as it gets by way of the ACELA service. The only logical improvement in the NEC is a dedicated HSR line.


I think you're missing the point. If you want HSR, you have to change development patterns and build potential ridership.


----------



## UrbanBen

xote said:


> :yes:
> 
> How about a $0.15 gas tax a gallon for public transport.
> 
> :naughty:


In Washington, where I am, a gas tax is protected by state law as roads-only. Public transport funding is complex and tenuous, but we're getting it done on a local level. As that drives up ridership on the Amtrak Cascades route, we'll add trains, and as we add trains, more people ride (it's a wonderful cycle) and we see more support for eventual HSR.


----------



## xote

UrbanBen said:


> I think you're missing the point. If you want HSR, you have to change development patterns and build potential ridership.


And my point is that in the North East we already have the development patterns and public transit ridership to justify a new dedicated HSR line from Boston to Washington via NYC!

If the West coast has not done so yet as to justify a new HSR line, it is no reason to hold us back.


----------



## UrbanBen

xote said:


> And my point is that in the North East we already have the development patterns and public transit ridership to justify a new dedicated HSR line from Boston to Washington via NYC!
> 
> If the West coast has not done so yet as to justify a new HSR line, it is no reason to hold us back.


Who's holding you back? You don't even have the political capital over there to separate grade crossings for Acela. Sure, Washington (state) isn't anywhere near that level of service, but we've found a framework in which we can improve.


----------



## xote

UrbanBen said:


> Who's holding you back? You don't even have the political capital over there to separate grade crossings for Acela. Sure, Washington (state) isn't anywhere near that level of service, but we've found a framework in which we can improve.


With a federal government that takes $0.15 of every $1.00 that is sent to it by my part of the country, it is not a question of will, but of funding. 

That is what is holding us back, a federal transportation policy dictated by an overly car dependent nation, the West coast above all.


----------



## UrbanBen

xote said:


> With a federal government that takes $0.15 of every $1.00 that is sent to it by my part of the country, it is not a question of will, but of funding.
> 
> That is what is holding us back, a federal transportation policy dictated by an overly car dependent nation, the West coast above all.


I'm not sure how it is you disconnect funding and politial will.


----------



## xote

UrbanBen said:


> I'm not sure how it is you disconnect funding and politial will.


:crazy:

No $ = no projects.


----------



## UrbanBen

xote said:


> :crazy:
> 
> No $ = no projects.


And you *get* that money through political will.

You don't get any money if you don't have supporters. The only method of getting that support that's effective in the long-term is to incrementally upgrade existing services. We don't have anywhere near the support necessary to build something from scratch.


----------



## xote

UrbanBen said:


> And you *get* that money through political will.
> 
> You don't get any money if you don't have supporters. The only method of getting that support that's effective in the long-term is to incrementally upgrade existing services. We don't have anywhere near the support necessary to build something from scratch.


No, you don't get that money because it is being used to prop up backwards parts of the country. 

YOU may not have the demand necessary. I assure you that in the NEC we do.


----------



## UrbanBen

xote said:


> No, you don't get that money because it is being used to prop up backwards parts of the country.
> 
> YOU may not have the demand necessary. I assure you that in the NEC we do.


So, uh, fix it. If we're doing upgrades here, you guys should be grade separating Mass.


----------



## xote

UrbanBen said:


> So, uh, fix it. If we're doing upgrades here, you guys should be grade separating Mass.


Round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows :doh:

And how are we supposed to pay for upgrades when Washington DC robs us blind to bankroll the Bible Belt? Post-its that say "IOU?"


----------



## UrbanBen

xote said:


> Round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows :doh:
> 
> And how are we supposed to pay for upgrades when Washington DC robs us blind to bankroll the Bible Belt? Post-its that say "IOU?"


Uh... raise state taxes. Sorry to break it to you. We're doing it in WA.


----------



## xote

UrbanBen said:


> Uh... raise state taxes. Sorry to break it to you. We're doing it in WA.


You are raising state taxes for a practically non-existent public transit system. 

How do you think we in the North East fund our ALREADY EXISTING systems? Through taxes! 

So I repeat, where do we get new funding given that our tax rates are already higher?


----------



## UrbanBen

xote said:


> You are raising state taxes for a practically non-existent public transit system.
> 
> How do you think we in the North East fund our ALREADY EXISTING systems? Through taxes!
> 
> So I repeat, where do we get new funding given that our tax rates are already higher?


I really just don't understand what's so hard here. What are you even arguing for? Fixing the federal government? Give me a break.


----------



## xote

UrbanBen said:


> I really just don't understand what's so hard here. What are you even arguing for? Fixing the federal government? Give me a break.


Give you a break? Perhaps if your state was getting robbed bindly by DC, you would be a little bit more ticked off that your rail development was being stifled so that a new road can be built in Alabama.

You really should not be patting yourself on the back with an air of smugness because of a slightly improved suburban rail infrastructure. Washington State may be better than Texas when it comes to transit, it is still DECADES behind the North East.

This significant difference also relates to the suitability of HSR investment, which, as you can guess, I can consider being decades ahead in the North East than in the Pacific North West.


----------



## UrbanBen

xote said:


> Give you a break? Perhaps if your state was getting robbed bindly by DC, you would be a little bit more ticked off that your rail development was being stifled so that a new road can be built in Alabama.
> 
> You really should not be patting yourself on the back with an air of smugness because of a slightly improved suburban rail infrastructure. Washington State may be better than Texas when it comes to transit, it is still DECADES behind the North East.
> 
> This significant difference also relates to the suitability of HSR investment, which, as you can guess, I can consider being decades ahead in the North East than in the Pacific North West.


Um... maybe I'm not ticked off because I know that the best thing I can do about it is build local rail, and that banging my head against a brick wall (the federal government) will just make me burn out?

Right now, I have a local transit agency to defend and a state rail department to support, and if I started complaining at the federal level for more Amtrak service, those battles might be lost.

If you want HSR investment, look to your state government. The FRA weight requirements won't change until we fix our land use.


----------



## Facial

xote said:


> That is what is holding us back, a federal transportation policy dictated by *an overly car dependent nation, the West coast above all*.


And above that, very powerful people who ensure to brainwash us into thinking that cars and petroleum are the only and best way for living, and who love to greenwash themselves and their industry on page-wide newspaper ads and television commercials...


----------



## Facial

15 cents sounds like too little.

23 cents per gallon gas, 7 cents per gallon diesel sounds more like it to me. Quite simply put, the people who guzzle the most will pay more, but at the same rate as everyone else including those who conserve their gas.

Also, as former California gov. Gray Davis wanted, we need to triple the car tax.


----------



## UrbanBen

Facial said:


> And above that, very powerful people who ensure to brainwash us into thinking that cars and petroleum are the only and best way for living, and who love to greenwash themselves and their industry on page-wide newspaper ads and television commercials...


Oh yeah, I don't disagree with that (or what xote said), I just know we can't change that until we change our local policies.


----------



## Xusein

Facial said:


> 15 cents sounds like too little.
> 
> 23 cents per gallon gas, 7 cents per gallon diesel sounds more like it to me. Quite simply put, the people who guzzle the most will pay more, but at the same rate as everyone else including those who conserve their gas.
> 
> Also, as former California gov. Gray Davis wanted, we need to triple the car tax.


Counting state fuel taxes, Connecticut has a 62 cent fuel tax. 

The result? One of the highest gas prices in the nation.

Yet, car usage is in the 90th percentile.


----------



## geoking66

10ROT said:


> That would definitely be a no brainer, but as pathetic as it sounds, Hartford and Providence are not directly connected by rail (or highway, for that matter). There are rail lines between the cities indirectly, but they are mostly abandoned or taken out. I wish it was possible though.


I had an idea for an HSR line for the Acela Express that would alleviate the 90mph restriction that would split from the NEC, go up to Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford to rejoin at Providence. It would reduce travel time by over 45 minutes assuming speeds of 135-150mph.


----------



## UrbanBen

geoking66 said:


> I had an idea for an HSR line for the Acela Express that would alleviate the 90mph restriction that would split from the NEC, go up to Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford to rejoin at Providence. It would reduce travel time by over 45 minutes assuming speeds of 135-150mph.


Why not just eliminate the grade crossings? Or is there another speed limitation in that section?


----------



## foxmulder

Why not just building a dedicated fast track?


----------



## kokanee2

Songoten2554 said:


> hello does anyone want to add some points into this i am getting viewers


I would imagine once there's a government financing program in place, that the rail-lines will be electrified faster-than-you-can-shake-a-stick-at-it.

....

In northeastern BC (Canada), there was once a freight line that was electrified, with specially built loco's... 6,000 kW, or something like that. The number is right, the unit may be wrong. The line was built to service a couple of coal mines, off the BCR mainline. The main reason for the electrification as I remember it was, because there was a very long tunnel, and there were ventilation problems with diesel.

Any way, long story short, the railway didn't seem too keen in running the system. I seem to remember there were maintenance problems with the one-of-a-kind loco's. Then the coal price plummeted, and the railway got a special dispensation to run diesel loco's. I'll see if I can't find a link.

...

Also that "new" tunnel that the CPR has in the Rockies (built late 1980's) was bored out oversize to accommodate for future electrification catenary.


----------



## Billpa

Trainman Dave said:


> Over the last five years, I have not noticed any difference between the airports in the US and in Europe. They are all over crowed and the skies are seriously congested


I can't speak to air travel in NA vs Europe, but I will say their motorways are, for the most part, a LOT better than those found in the US and Canada.
I could ALMOST live with our poor rail service if our roads and highways were much better than those found in Europe...but they're not. So for all of the talk about the US and its highways lobby, we can't even get that right.


----------



## UrbanBen

foxmulder said:


> Why not just building a dedicated fast track?


Because building a dedicated fast track is much more expensive, and therefore much less likely.


----------



## UrbanBen

Billpa said:


> I can't speak to air travel in NA vs Europe, but I will say their motorways are, for the most part, a LOT better than those found in the US and Canada.
> I could ALMOST live with our poor rail service if our roads and highways were much better than those found in Europe...but they're not. So for all of the talk about the US and its highways lobby, we can't even get that right.


There's a simple reason we "can't get it right". Building a stretch of highway encourages development around it that is lower density than that required to recover the taxes necessary to pay for the extension that enabled it. As we expand our highways, we become less able to pay to maintain them.

In the absence of national land use policy, like European nations and Japan have.


----------



## Chicagoago

Songoten2554 said:


> why is it that the United States one of the greatest countries in the world has a third world railway network that is something i am figuring out why???


Do you mean passenger rail? We don't have a 3rd world railway network, we just have a poor passenger rail network.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal



> U.S. railways carried 427 billion ton-miles of cargo annually in 1930. This increased to 750 billion ton-miles by 1975 and had doubled to 1.5 trillion ton-miles in 2005.[1][2] In the 1950s, the U.S. and Europe moved roughly the same percentage of freight by rail; but, by 2000, the share of U.S. rail freight was 38% while in Europe only 8% of freight traveled by rail.[3] In 1997, while U.S. trains moved 2,165 billion ton-kilometers of freight, the 15-nation European Union moved only 238 billion ton-kilometers of freight.[4]


There are over 228,500 KM of railway in the US.....


----------



## UrbanBen

Chicagoago said:


> Do you mean passenger rail? We don't have a 3rd world railway network, we just have a poor passenger rail network.


Agreed. I've *been* to third world countries with higher levels of service. Remember that we also have more freight than anyone else, and we're bigger consumers than anyone else. Our highway freight is higher than everyone else as well.

In terms of what to do about the passenger rail part:

1) Support local commuter rail. This is where your long-haul ridership comes from - those commuter rail stations that share Amtrak stations are key to sustainably creating a passenger base. Dense urban development around these stations should be encouraged. Park-and-rides, while an acceptable stopgap measure, are generally not conducive to long-haul riders - once a passenger is bringing baggage, mode change from car to train is much less likely.

2) Support light rail. The same reasons apply as commuter rail, but because light rail tends to be electric, people become aware of the differences between diesel and electric trains (noise, for one thing) and get used to riding on better quality track than that shared with freight. I can't reiterate enough - intercity rail simply won't survive unless a good percentage of potential users have urban rail. Until people are used to being riders instead of drivers, they will drive intercity.

3) Support state funded intercity service. Amtrak Cascades is my local example - Washington State supports Seattle-Portland and Seattle-Vancouver BC round trips, and has been funding small, incremental service upgrades. Our Sound Transit commuter rail service, Sounder, has also paid for upgrades to BNSF track that have benefited Amtrak Cascades. An upcoming project will actually separate freight and passenger traffic in an old corridor now owned by Sound Transit, and there are future plans to add state-owned passenger bypass tracks in other parts of the corridor. This all requires money, which means lobbying by us!

Things to keep in mind here:
- Maglev is ridiculous given how hard the fight is just to get another round trip a day. Start small.
- New corridors just aren't happening except in limited regard - even the California High Speed Rail Project is using mostly existing right-of-way. Don't eschew small upgrades just because they're owned by freight railroads.

I would say that CalTrain is our best hope for near-term electrification. Freight electrification will only happen when diesel gets even more expensive - without a subsidy or property tax break (which could be a good idea, possible at the state level), we're not going to see that soon.


----------



## mgk920

The *ONLY* way there will be a wholesale electrification of North America's railroad network is if/when the economic numbers are there for it. That is, if the price/availability of petroleum fuels gets worse than the cost of electrification. Remember that to install an electrification, it requires building new and expanded power plants, new and expanded wholesale power lines (can you say NIMBY?), stringing the catenary wire, buying an entire fleet of new locomotives and new shop space and parts lines for them, along with ongoing maintenance and energy costs. No small change.

Mike


----------



## UrbanBen

mgk920 said:


> The *ONLY* way there will be a wholesale electrification of North America's railroad network is if/when the economic numbers are there for it. That is, if the price/availability of petroleum fuels gets worse than the cost of electrification. Remember that to install an electrification, it requires building new and expanded power plants, new and expanded wholesale power lines (can you say NIMBY?), stringing the catenary wire, buying an entire fleet of new locomotives and new shop space and parts lines for them, along with ongoing maintenance and energy costs. No small change.
> 
> Mike


Yeah, but it all comes down to electricity being cheaper than petroleum (in terms of system cost to a given railroad). Electricity won't suddenly become a fixed amount cheaper - they'll start diverging. At that point, the rate at which they diverge will almost immediately overwhelm fixed costs - it'll just be a matter of leveraging the capital necessary. The railroads' access to liquid capital will be all that matters.

In terms of NIMBYism in electrical generation - this year we've got Nanosolar shipping (or so we hope) $1/watt panels, with a target of 30c/watt. It's just going to be a matter of time before the grid adapts, and we already have hydros strategically placed across the country to serve as phase locks. NIMBYs don't really affect distributed solar, and while you're right that they continue to be a problem for wind generation, that is changing.


----------



## geoking66

UrbanBen said:


> Why not just eliminate the grade crossings? Or is there another speed limitation in that section?


How about the entire MNRR New Haven line that's limited to 90mph?


----------



## UrbanBen

geoking66 said:


> How about the entire MNRR New Haven line that's limited to 90mph?


I'm not familiar with it, but is it limited because it's not grade separated? Or just because of curves, or signals?


----------



## mgk920

UrbanBen said:


> Yeah, but it all comes down to electricity being cheaper than petroleum (in terms of system cost to a given railroad). Electricity won't suddenly become a fixed amount cheaper - they'll start diverging. At that point, the rate at which they diverge will almost immediately overwhelm fixed costs - it'll just be a matter of leveraging the capital necessary. The railroads' access to liquid capital will be all that matters.
> 
> In terms of NIMBYism in electrical generation - this year we've got Nanosolar shipping (or so we hope) $1/watt panels, with a target of 30c/watt. It's just going to be a matter of time before the grid adapts, and we already have hydros strategically placed across the country to serve as phase locks. NIMBYs don't really affect distributed solar, and while you're right that they continue to be a problem for wind generation, that is changing.


I was thinking more of major power transmission lines as being NIMBY fodder. It seems like every major new 345 Kv transmission line that is proposed here in Wisconsin, for example, gets all the lawyers and enviro-whackos out of hiding and into the courtroom. And a typical mainline freight train here in Wisconsin requires 6-8 megawatts (two AC4400CW or equivalent locomotives) to adequately power - and add another 2-3 MW for climbing Byron Hill on CN's ex WC, nee SOO mainline southbound out of Fond du Lac, WI. A general rule of thumb that I use is that each 100 MW capacity of power plant requires about one 120 car (about 14,000 t) trainload of coal per week to feed.

Those are not just 'plug into the wall' amounts of power.

Mike


----------



## hkskyline

*Amtrak identifies 2 potential Virginia routes *
30 January 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) - Amtrak says the most promising routes for additional Virginia passenger train service are from Washington to Lynchburg and Washington to Newport News. 

The railroad says in a report that the Interstate 95 corridor from Washington to Richmond has the greatest potential, but that adding service to Lynchburg would be easier. 

Amtrak has cars in storage that could be used for the train, and Norfolk Southern tracks it would use are in good shape. 

The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit asked Amtrak to identify new markets as part of its statewide rail plan. 

Amtrak says it could add a train to Lynchburg if the state subsidizes the operation with nearly $2 million a year, plus an undetermined amount for capital costs.


----------



## hkskyline

*Could Amtrak service through southern Idaho return? *
27 January 2008

POCATELLO, Idaho (AP) - The stars may be aligning for a return of the Amtrak Pioneer passenger train to make a comeback in Idaho, politicians and an Amtrak official say. 

The Pioneer route between Salt Lake City and Seattle was discontinued in 1997 after losing $20 million the previous year. 

Although Amtrak has never returned a discontinued route to service, Don Saunders, Amtrak's vice president for state and commuter partnerships, said passenger rail expansion is more likely now than it has been during his 20-year career. 

Legislation will soon be presented in the U.S. House of Representatives to bring back the Pioneer, U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, told the Idaho State Journal. 

Simpson said the House version calls for continuation of the route, rather than to simply study the route that was contained in a version approved by the U.S. Senate last year. 

"I'd like to do more than just the study," Simpson said. "I'm optimistic we can move this along and one day, hopefully not far from now, we can get the Pioneer route back." 

Under the Senate version, Amtrak would receive $11.4 billion over the next six years. The House version might involve a different dollar figure and require the resurrection the Pioneer and other routes Amtrak has eliminated through the years, Simpson said. 

Amtrak President and CEO Alex Kummant has voiced strong support for the Pioneer feasibility study. 

Legislation to bring the Pioneer back could be completed this year, Simpson said. 

Amtrak started the Pioneer in 1977, about six years after Union Pacific got out of the passenger rail business. 

Simpson said Congress has changed its mind about requiring Amtrak pay for itself as the cost of gasoline continues to rise and airline ticket prices soar. 

"The Pioneer went away because the ridership didn't measure up to the cost to do it," Simpson said. "But that was back when gas was a buck a gallon. I'd think that now you'd see an increased use of the Pioneer from when it was there last." 

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said he would prefer legislation to bring back the Pioneer, rather than a feasibility study of the route. 

"If the House can succeed in including language that directs a reopening of the line, it's a much preferable solution and I'm very supportive of that," 

Crapo agreed the climate toward passenger rail is different than in the 1990s, when Congress put funding restrictions on Amtrak, resulting in the rail service cutting the Pioneer and other routes. 

Retiring U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, U.S. Rep. Bill Sali and Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter do not want to bring the Pioneer back without a feasibility study. Otter might be the toughest sell. 

The governor's position on mass transit is that it needs to pay for itself, Otter spokesman Jon Hanian said. 

Saunders said if Congress passes legislation to bring back the Pioneer, the passenger service could return in the next three to five years. 

It could take three years just to get the engines and passenger cars needed for the route, he said. 

"We don't have the cars for the Pioneer service. We don't have any extra equipment left," Saunders said. "Our equipment demand is at full capacity." 

Restarting the Pioneer would involve examining the old route and possibly making changes to it, he said. 

It would take a cooperative effort from the federal government, communities and states along the Pioneer route, Amtrak and Union Pacific, Saunders said. And it would likely require state funding, as well as federal dollars, he said. 

Saunders said Amtrak is interested in the Pioneer because of the two corridors that make up the route Salt Lake City to Boise, and Nampa to Portland, Ore. 

Amtrak believes there's enough growth potential along both corridors to warrant further study, he said. 

Passenger rail is a more energy efficient form of travel than automobile or airliner, Saunders said. Coupled with congestion on U.S. highways and the inconvenience of air travel, it is the right time to push for new passenger rail routes, Saunders said. 

Among the others who feel the time is right for the Pioneer's return are Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, a GOP candidate for the Senate seat Craig will vacate when he retires. 

Risch said bringing the Pioneer back is a great idea that most Idahoans would support. 

McCall Democrat Larry LaRocco, Risch's opponent in the Senate race, also wants the Pioneer to make a comeback.


----------



## UrbanBen

mgk920 said:


> I was thinking more of major power transmission lines as being NIMBY fodder. It seems like every major new 345 Kv transmission line that is proposed here in Wisconsin, for example, gets all the lawyers and enviro-whackos out of hiding and into the courtroom. And a typical mainline freight train here in Wisconsin requires 6-8 megawatts (two AC4400CW or equivalent locomotives) to adequately power - and add another 2-3 MW for climbing Byron Hill on CN's ex WC, nee SOO mainline southbound out of Fond du Lac, WI. A general rule of thumb that I use is that each 100 MW capacity of power plant requires about one 120 car (about 14,000 t) trainload of coal per week to feed.
> 
> Those are not just 'plug into the wall' amounts of power.
> 
> Mike


None of the power where I live comes from coal - we have hydro and wind. I have to say, I haven't heard a peep about power constraints from our new light rail system - 35 light rail vehicles, each 90 tons. I suspect you're talking about a problem that really isn't part of the public discussion here - let's address that if it actually *becomes* a problem. If we're building in urban areas, new transmission lines probably won't be necessary.

Note that CA's HSR project hasn't run into any discussion of electrical capacity.


----------



## UrbanBen

Fantastic! As a Seattlite, I'd love another new destination.


----------



## Songoten2554

what Election?


----------



## UrbanBen

Songoten2554 said:


> what Election?


In the US, we've got a presidential campaign going now. Both Democratic contenders have committed to dramatically increasing the FTA's budget, which is exactly the stepping stone we need now to build electric rail for passengers. It'll be demand for long-distance passenger rail that gets our mainlines electrified.


----------



## Songoten2554

yes good vote for that too give the FTD and the FRA more funds thats good and High Speed Rail in the United States will be more possible

and also more metros, Light Rail, Amtrak being more better now, Regional Rail more better now and in more places as well, also Frieght Rail more better yes vote for it


----------



## sotavento

phattonez said:


> Haha, I know about that, and I'm definitely voting for it if it's finally put on the ballot, but even if it is approved, it is at least 20 years away. Upgrades to rail can be done much more quickly and are needed now. I-5 is constantly loaded with freight traffic, and a lot of people abhor how long it takes to get onto a plane to go between SF and LA. HSR is great and it's desperately needed in the state, but until we get it, let's improve our current passenger rail corridors.


SF-LA is not a good way to start a HST network ... but it can be ammended

LA Area:

"Dock Line"
Los Angeles - Long Beach (harbour) = 79mph ... electrified 

"South Line"
Los Angeles - Orange - San Diego - Tijuana = 220km/140miles ... electrified ... doubletacked and at 110mph <<< some commuter at 30m intervals can be run in "urban" Los Angeles ... forced usage of in cab

"East Line(s)"
Los Angeles - San Bernardino - Palm Springs - Calexico/Mexicali = 340km/210miles ... electrified ... doubletacked and at 110mph <<< some commuter at 30m intervals can be run in "urban" Los Angeles ... forced usage of in cab 

"North East Line"
Los Angeles - San Bernardino - Las Vegas = 480km/300miles ... electrified ... doubletacked and at 110mph <<< usage os Turbo Trains or diesel/electric units ... 

"South East Line"
Los Angeles - San Bernardino - Palm Springs - Phoenix - Tucson = 850km/530miles ... electrified ... doubletacked and at 110mph <<< some commuter at 30m intervals can be run in "urban" Los Angeles , "urban" Phoenix and "urban" Tucson ... forced usage of in cab 

"Coast Line" 
Los Angeles - Burbank - Ventura - Santa Barbara/Goleta - Santa Maria (and north?) = 300km/187miles ... "electrified" ... schenic railway ... 110mph 

"Valley Line" 
Los Angeles - Burbank - Santa Clarita - Palmdale - burbank - "north" = 250km/156miles ... "electrified" ... double tracked and 110mph 



there are a lot of possibilities over there:
- comuter railways (operated by "traditional" BUS companies)
- intercity (200miles and less) services operated jointly by BUS/airwys operators
- improved infraestructure favours/beneficts freight traffic 

^^ This is the "secret" ... franchise equals busines ... and one has to know how to "sell" intercity railways ... HST wannabees "dumping" isolated networks on everyones laps don't go that far away nowadays. :cheers:


----------



## sotavento

Svartmetall said:


> #1. Transportation of electric current over long distances = problematic.
> #2. Money involved in upgrading such a vast network = problematic.
> #3. Poltical will = problematic.
> 
> Expand on that.


#1 ... transiberian = electrified the hole lenght
#2 ... rails suitable for fast freight are also suitable for HST ... freight gains from HST
#3 ... its economy ... political has nothing to do with it

A "slow" 160km/h european train: 










It's Electric and Diesel ... can run both under wires and on its own power ...


----------



## sotavento

mgk920 said:


> I was thinking more of major power transmission lines as being NIMBY fodder. It seems like every major new 345 Kv transmission line that is proposed here in Wisconsin, for example, gets all the lawyers and enviro-whackos out of hiding and into the courtroom. And a typical mainline freight train here in Wisconsin requires 6-8 megawatts (two AC4400CW or equivalent locomotives) to adequately power - and add another 2-3 MW for climbing Byron Hill on CN's ex WC, nee SOO mainline southbound out of Fond du Lac, WI. A general rule of thumb that I use is that each 100 MW capacity of power plant requires about one 120 car (about 14,000 t) trainload of coal per week to feed.
> 
> Those are not just 'plug into the wall' amounts of power.
> 
> Mike



^^ Never thoght someone would say diesel is better than electrification and use "climbing" as an argument ... 

Even if you rely on carbon ... carbon gets to the power plant on ... freigh trains so it's another excuse/argument for the freight companies to be "receptive" to electrifications. 

In my country we use some packs of 2x5600KW (11,2MW) locomotives to push some "light" 2000ton. coal trains ... its a pretty hilly ride. 



mgk920 said:


> Remember that urban LRT tram cars and 15,000t freight trains require somewhat different amounts of energy to power (yes, they run them that heavy here in North America).
> 
> Mike


The heavier the train ... the more "economic" is the usage of electric traction ... but for the usual USA freight and distances "contained" haulage (huge and powerfull diesel locomotives) is still better than generalised electrification.


----------



## mgk920

sotavento said:


> ^^ Never thoght someone would say diesel is better than electrification and use "climbing" as an argument ...
> 
> Even if you rely on carbon ... carbon gets to the power plant on ... freigh trains so it's another excuse/argument for the freight companies to be "receptive" to electrifications.
> 
> In my country we use some packs of 2x5600KW (11,2MW) locomotives to push some "light" 2000ton. coal trains ... its a pretty hilly ride.
> 
> 
> 
> The heavier the train ... the more "economic" is the usage of electric traction ... but for the usual USA freight and distances "contained" haulage (huge and powerfull diesel locomotives) is still better than generalised electrification.


It's not unusual for a 3 or 4 MW 'pusher' locomotive to be added to the end of a train for that hill (about 10 km of 1% grade, quite long and steep by midwestern USA standards). It is uncoupled when the train reaches the top of the hill and then returns to the yard. The remainder of grades on that line are much more gentle.

Right now, yes, the economic numbers very much favor diesels in North American (Canada, Mexico and USA) freight service. If/when the numbers start favoring electrificaion, it will be done very quickly.

Mike


----------



## Songoten2554

but wait a minute so if a Railway Corridor is busy and its used alot then why not bring in Service to it like Regional Rail or Electrify the Rail Corridor that is busy i mean doesn't that bring in Revenue in alot of countries this is how it works how come in the USA it doesn't? werid on that


----------



## sotavento

That depends on how local comunities evolved ... east coast is full of long distance "comuter" companies (NJ Transit ?) and west coast was full of highways (los angeles ?) and buses are everywhere ... the rest depends on how and where people are traveling.

2 cities some 200 miles apart could seek a High Speed train .. .but only if they had enough comuters going from one to the other everyday ... in dose distances people usualy just catch the bus/plane or go on their own car ... since the other town is also "lacking" on public transportation. hno:

But nonetheless in the USA you got lots of electrified lines ... could be more (expecialy in Texas , The lakes and California) ... 

Ans considering that "diesel" locomotives are "self generator" electric locomotives it's a compromise ... someday it will probably change. :cheers:


----------



## Svartmetall

sotavento said:


> #1 ... transiberian = electrified the hole lenght
> #2 ... rails suitable for fast freight are also suitable for HST ... freight gains from HST
> #3 ... its economy ... political has nothing to do with it
> 
> A "slow" 160km/h european train:
> 
> It's Electric and Diesel ... can run both under wires and on its own power ...


I mainly posted that list of three to stimulate discussion as this thread was largely disregarded. It prompted responses and got discussion going - that's a good thing. 

I'm all in favour of a European model (having lived in Britain for most of my life).


----------



## Tcmetro

Electrifiying rail in US will never happen.

The system is a joke already. When Amtrak took over in 1971 they cut half of the passenger network immidiately. My local station (Mpls-St Paul(Midway)) is a joke. Amtrak decided to close the Minneapolis and Saint Paul stations, they decided to open a station halfway between the two cities. It is in the backyard of a rundown industrial area. Most people don't even know where it is. The train service is a joke:

EB to Chicago - 7:50 AM/8h5m trip/417 mi/$54-119
WB to Portland/Seattle - 11:15 PM/35h5m trip/1789 mi/$143-318

A commuter rail will open in 2009, but it will not go to Saint Cloud so it is basically a worthless line, except for suburban commuters. Several more are scheduled to open, but not for a while.

A light rail to the Airport and Mall of America opened in 2004. A line to St. Paul will open in 2014, but this may be delayed or cancelled because of troubles with the FTA.

An intercity rail line to Duluth may reopen in 2012. It will serve the commuter station in Downtown Minneapolis. This line will have 79 or 110 mph service. It was closed in 1985 by Amtrak.

The Union Depot may reopen in Saint Paul, but probably not for a long while.

Even the Megabus.com beats Amtrak to Chicago:
1) Cheaper Fare
2) 3 Departures per day
3) Serves Downtown Minneapolis and Chicago Union Station
4) Faster - Only 7 hours
5) Non Stop Express Service


----------



## elfabyanos

^^ There's something seriously wrong if a bus is faster than a train!


----------



## UrbanBen

elfabyanos said:


> ^^ There's something seriously wrong if a bus is faster than a train!


Indeed there is. That is due to the heavy federal highway investment.


----------



## sotavento

^^ There is something ridiculously wrong if a BUS is faster than the "arvertisement" RAIL link of America. hno:


I remember seeing time and time again the video footage in History channel of a little inoxidable train running at 100mph between chicago and the twin cities somewhere in early XX century. :lol:


----------



## mgk920

sotavento said:


> ^^ There is something ridiculously wrong if a BUS is faster than the "arvertisement" RAIL link of America. hno:
> 
> 
> I remember seeing time and time again the video footage in History channel of a little inoxidable train running at 100mph between chicago and the twin cities somewhere in early XX century. :lol:


The Chicago and North Western railroad built a true high-speed passenger mainline between Chicago and MStP in about 1910-1915 (I am unsure of the exact year). It went through Milwaukee and on northwestward through open countryside passing through no towns of note except for Adams, WI before connecting with existing lines at Wyeville, WI in the western part of the state. This line (called the Adams line) still exists and is used by Union Pacific as a general freight and expedited intermodal route.

When that line was completed, CNW inaugurated their '400' series of passenger trains - advertising downtown Chicago to downtown Minneapolis in 400 minutes.

Mike


----------



## Bond James Bond

*US: New Era Dawns for Rail Building*

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120179835382432337.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone

*New Era Dawns for Rail Building
Lines Add Tracks, Upgrade Tunnels To Take On Trucks*
By DANIEL MACHALABA
February 13, 2008; Page A1

MERIDIAN, Miss. -- America is back to working on the railroads.

For decades, stretches of track west of this town were so rough that trains couldn't run faster than 25 miles an hour. Lanie Keith, a locomotive engineer for Kansas City Southern, recalls waiting for hours when trains stalled on a steep curve on a stretch of single track between Meridian and Shreveport, La.

But over the past two years, at a cost of $300 million, track crews have transformed the 320-mile route. Installing 960,000 crossties and 80 miles of new rail, they've turned a railroad backwater into a key link in a resurging national transport network. Mr. Keith now skims parts of the improved track, called the Meridian Speedway, at nearly 60 miles an hour. "You went from moving like a turtle to a jack rabbit," he says.

The upgrade is part of a railroad renaissance under way across much of the U.S. For the first time in nearly a century, railroads are making large investments in their networks -- adding sets of tracks, straightening curves that force engines to slow and expanding tunnels for bigger trains. Their campaign is altering the corridors of American commerce, more so than any other development since interstate highways spread to the interior.

For decades, railroads spent little on expansion, even tore up surplus track and shrank routes. But since 2000 they've spent $10 billion to expand tracks, build freight yards and buy locomotives, and they have $12 billion more in upgrades planned.

The buildout comes as the industry transitions away from its chief role in recent decades of hauling coal, timber and other raw materials in manufacturing regions. Now, increasingly, railroads are moving finished consumer goods, often made in Asia, from ports to major cities. Their new higher-volume routes, called corridors, often serve the South, where the rail system is less developed and the population is rising.

Railroad operators are pressing for advantage over their main competitor, long-haul trucking, which has struggled with rising fuel prices, driver shortages and highway congestion. Railroads say a load can be moved by rail using about a third as much fuel as it takes to haul it by truck. And rail transport is becoming more efficient still, they say, as operators speed their lines and logistics companies build huge warehouse areas along routes.

Demand for rail service increased sharply when the U.S. economy and Asian imports surged starting in 2003. Tight capacity on major routes enabled railroads to raise prices. The growth in freight volume has slowed along with economic growth, but shippers say they're still planning to increase their use of rail transport because of the cost.

"The railroad industry is finally making some money," says Charles "Wick" Moorman IV, chief executive officer of Norfolk Southern Corp., based in Norfolk, Va. "And we're pumping that money into our infrastructure."

Trucking accounted for 82% of the U.S.'s truck-and-rail intercity-freight spending in 2004, up from 78% in 1990, according to Eno Transportation Foundation, a research organization in Washington, D.C. But trucking companies, notably industry giant J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc. of Lowell, Ark., are using railroads for the long-haul part of some trips because it's cheaper. Some rail promoters believe that as a result of their investments, they could cut into the business of the two million long-haul freight trucks in the U.S., which account for 350 million shipments a year.

*Attracting Interest*

For the first time in years, the industry is attracting interest among big-name investors. Last spring, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., disclosed an 11% stake in Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., the second-largest U.S. railroad by revenue. Berkshire has since raised the stake to more than 18%. In a move recalling rail boardroom battles of the past, Children's Investment Fund Management LLP, a London hedge fund, and other shareholders have put up a slate of directors for a coming annual meeting of the nation's No. 3 railroad, CSX Corp. (Union Pacific Corp. is the largest U.S. railroad in revenue terms; Norfolk Southern and Kansas City Southern are fourth and fifth, respectively.)

The expansion is stirring conflict with some old customers, the shippers who move raw materials such as chemicals, grain and logs, who feel they're being charged unnecessarily high rates to pay for capital improvements. Trade groups representing such shippers are seeking federal legislation to rein in railroad rate increases.

"I think the railroads are investing in corridors to serve a different customer, and heavy U.S. industry will be left in the dust," says Kenneth Walker, a transportation manager of Graphic Packaging International Corp., a cardboard manufacturer in Marietta, Ga.

It's been a century since railroads embarked on a similar spate of capital investment. Between 1900 and World War I, they launched a huge rebuilding program across the U.S. midsection to handle freight and passenger trains. Traffic was booming as the economy roared back from a financial panic in the 1890s. Railroads added second, third and fourth sets of tracks along main routes, built tunnels and bridges and installed stronger locomotives.

After World War II, though, cars began wiping out passenger-train service. New interstate highways unleashed trucks as a freight competitor. By the 1970s, U.S. railroads were deep into a decline, other than adding new track to the coal fields of Wyoming.










Burlington Northern was the first to pursue the strategy of building a high-capacity corridor to link ports with population centers needing consumer goods, rather than linking industrial centers. In the 1990s, it set out to complete a second set of tracks on its Chicago-Los Angeles Transcon line. "It came right out of the 'Field of Dreams': Build it and they will come," says Rob Krebs, a retired Burlington CEO.

Wall Street analysts objected to the big spending, and Mr. Krebs throttled down the expansion in 1999 and 2000. But his successor, Matt Rose, resumed work on the project in 2003, and it is now nearing completion.

Problems with old infrastructure were becoming clear elsewhere. Union Pacific was plagued with freight jams and service breakdowns during a surge of Asian imports a few years ago. Union Pacific hired thousands of new train crew members, and it has since launched a massive track-installation program across the Southwest.

It is upgrading its Sunset Route, from Los Angeles to El Paso, Texas, with a second set of tracks. It's planning to build new freight yards and a fueling station along the way. When the $2 billion project is finished in 2010, Union Pacific will be able to roughly double the number of freight cars crossing the Sunset each day to more than 9,000 from about 5,000 currently.

Railroads are generating development in the same way they spawned towns and industrial sites over a century ago. Warehouse complexes are popping up next to new rail yards designed to load and unload trains carrying containerized goods. Major distribution operations have opened or are planned in places like Elwood, Ill., Kansas City, Mo., and Columbus, Ohio.

The social consequences are evident in developments like AllianceTexas. In the late 1980s, Hillwood Development Co., founded by Ross Perot Jr., son of the former presidential candidate, built a cargo airport outside Fort Worth, thinking that would be the best way to attract companies to 17,000 acres of land north of the city. As an afterthought, the company says, it made room for a rail yard.

A decade later, it's the rail yard that has attracted huge warehouses, for companies such as J.C. Penney Co. and Bridgestone Corp. These and others get container loads of jeans, electronics, tires and such from Southern California ports. "I never would have thought having a rail hub in the middle of our development would have attracted so much interest," says Thomas Harris, a Hillwood senior vice president.

The development, which employs 27,000, has spawned a nearby minicity of shopping centers, a golf course, a racetrack and 6,200 houses. More than 300 of the homes are high-priced models in gated communities.

Railroads have found friends among environmentalists, who see moving freight by train rather than truck as a way to reduce fuel burning and emissions. Method Products Inc., a San Francisco maker of nontoxic home and personal-care products, says it plans to use rail for 50% of its shipments this year, up from 33% in 2007. "We view rail as a solution to lower our greenhouse-gas emissions," says Jason Bowman, the firm's global logistics manager.

*States Climb Aboard*

States have also started to climb aboard. In a 2002 report, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials said transportation capacity could be increased more cheaply in some intercity corridors by adding railways rather than expanding highways.

Norfolk Southern is seeking public funding to accelerate rail-corridor projects, arguing that they provide a public benefit by limiting fuel use, traffic congestion and air pollution. The idea is gaining backers. Virginia created a rail-enhancement fund in 2005 from car-rental fees and is spending $40 million to improve a Norfolk Southern freight line in the state. The railroad industry is urging Congress to pass a railroad investment tax credit to fund rail improvements.

Many old lines need work. Norfolk Southern's most direct route to the Midwest from the docks of Norfolk, Va., has tunnels high enough for coal trains. But they are too low for double-stack trains, which haul shipping containers one above the other. Norfolk Southern has begun a three-year, $260 million project to raise the height of 28 tunnels on the route, which it has renamed the Heartland Corridor.










Norfolk Southern's most ambitious project is the Crescent Corridor, a network of tracks between the New York City area and New Orleans. The company touts the corridor as a cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative to widening highways such as Interstate 81, which runs through Virginia's scenic Shenandoah Valley.

Trucks make four million to 4.5 million trips annually along I-81 in Virginia, according to the Virginia Department of Transportation. Norfolk Southern envisions a route with enough speed and capacity to displace about a million truck trips a year. It is seeking funding for most of the $2 billion project from the U.S. government and states along the corridor.

Tim Lynch, an executive of the American Trucking Associations in Arlington, Va., says it's "folly" to think rail corridors can take the place of additional highways. "You need to do both, because you have growth in freight traffic that will keep both modes busy," he says.

Work continues on the Meridian Speedway between Meridian and Shreveport. Kansas City Southern bought the line in 1994 as a shortcut for freight moving between Los Angeles and Atlanta, bypassing crowded gateways in Memphis, Tenn., and New Orleans. The railroad began to improve the line, at one point easing a hilly curve near the river town of Vicksburg, Miss., that for years hampered Mr. Keith and other engineers when trains stalled there.

*Additional Overhauls*

Two years ago, Norfolk Southern agreed to contribute more than $300 million for additional overhauls in exchange for a 30% stake in the Speedway. The money has helped replace tracks and install a signal system on a line that had none. It allowed construction of sidings so trains can pass each other in more places.

Union Pacific uses the Speedway for a leg of a longer run that begins near the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif. Improvements on the line have enabled Union Pacific to launch a new train packed with Asian goods that can cross the Southern U.S. in 72 hours, down from the 120-hour service it offered in past years. Such numbers translate into big savings for railroads, which figure that each mile per hour of speed they can add systemwide translates into fewer cars, locomotives and crew members.

Mr. Keith says his trips between Meridian and Vicksburg now take six or seven hours, compared with 11 or 12 before the upgrades. He says he saved 30 minutes on a recent run by pulling onto a newly lengthened siding in Meehan, Miss., to pass another train.

Mr. Keith says the work will clear the Speedway to handle more and faster trains. "I love it," he says. "It guarantees me work stability."


----------



## Bond James Bond

BTW if you click on the link it's got a pretty neat interactive graphic showing where all the current improvements are, as well as showing where other ones in the late 1800's were made.


----------



## Songoten2554

yes finally the United States is coming back to what it made the country grand in the first place is the Railways finally thank you USA for relizing this.

yes you know what this means Amtrak will be alot better with more routes and High Speed Rail is possible and not only that Metro's and Light Rails will be more common with Massive Expansions in the United States Finally thank you for this awesome news.


----------



## geoking66

Songoten2554 said:


> yes finally the United States is coming back to what it made the country grand in the first place is the Railways finally thank you USA for relizing this.
> 
> yes you know what this means Amtrak will be alot better with more routes and High Speed Rail is possible and not only that Metro's and Light Rails will be more common with Massive Expansions in the United States Finally thank you for this awesome news.


This is about freight rail, and since freight companies dominate the FRA, nothing will get done. We still have insane Tier II laws that make trains incredibly heavy and delays will continue to plague the system until new right of ways solely for high speed and commuter rail are built.


----------



## Kailyas

I doubted that train would be back likes in the early 1900 as the main transportations for the people of amerika. The main reason train is less mobile ans slower compared for example car and airplane even if the really fast train likes maglev being used by Amtrak however I do beleive that train will still exist even until 22 century in Amerika.


----------



## phattonez

Freight improvement is great, and if we change federal laws concerning passenger rail, then this will improve commuter rail as well.


----------



## Tyson

Milwaukee Road also ran the Hiawatha express trains between those two cities. According to wikipedia these trains may have unofficially exceeded the world steam speed record (and broken US railway speed rules in the process) on more than one occasion.


----------



## Jay

I think Amtrak needs to work on safety. Look at the incident that happened in Illinois on 1999 (Which I am currently doing a project on.) 13 people died on the train because it hit a semi truck, that should NOT happen, no one in a train should EVER be harmed because the train struck a road vehicle, amtrak genesis's are the most horribly constructed locomotives ever and need to be put out of service, it's like their constructed of tinfoil, there have been too many incidences of genesis loco's derailing from striking road vehicles. Sorry I just can't stand the locomotives that Amtrak uses.


----------



## elfabyanos

^^ There's only one real answer to this problem - remove the level crossings. No matter brilliantly the locos are designed some dozy driver can still park a 40 ton truck in the way of the train, and at 80 mph any train would probably derail unless the train cut clean through the truck. Even a small piece of metal from any collision, in the wrong place, can cause derailment.


----------



## ChrisZwolle

Kailyas said:


> I doubted that train would be back likes in the early 1900 as the main transportations for the people of amerika. The main reason train is less mobile ans slower compared for example car and airplane even if the really fast train likes maglev being used by Amtrak however I do beleive that train will still exist even until 22 century in Amerika.


I think so too. Even the US is too large for a nationwide HSR-network. Maybe Maglev, but it would still cost you like 15 hours to travel from Boston to Seattle. 

Although i think some Maglev lines could be useful, for instance along the eastern seaboard and in California, mainly as a replacement for short-range flights.


----------



## Jay

I agree that level crossings should be eliminated, however, if passenger loco's were designed more like frieght locos amtrak trains would never derail. Safety is important for any vehicle, two 140 ton gensis loco's with 12 60 ton amfleet cars (about 1000 tons) should easily protect people in the train from dying when hitting a 40 ton truck, this is not the first case of genesis derailing because of a road vehicle, it's happened on several occasions, while other locomotives plow through anything, the gensis is lightweight and lacks steel frame, and probably the AEM too. It's a simple solution, if we don't want deaths at crossings, locomotives need to be built tougher with better guards for the wheels.


----------



## elfabyanos

It would be a solution, though derailment is always still a possibility but less likely, the issue is getting all that extra weight up the speeds needed to make passenger rail viable costs so much more in fuel. The rest of the world is actively trying to reduce the weight of it's passenger vehicles.

The other solution is to have better designed crash-worthyness of the trains. There were recent derailments of a TGV hitting a truck on a level crossing - even the train driver survived - only fatality the truck driver and also the Pendolino derailment in Scotland at 100 mph and only one person died I believe, the entire body of the train remained in tact.


----------



## Jay

^Totally agree, in the 1999 accident in Illinois 13 people were killed on the train, no one else. There is no excuse for that but falty train or track construction.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=r2r139F9CUo&feature=related

The front would never look like that if it were a frieght locomotive, even though it helps give cushion to those traveling on the train, at crossings it has proven to be deadly with Genesis's. I don't know if an AEM has ever struck a road vehicle, Aem's only weight 101 tons but are very solidly constructed.


----------



## elfabyanos

The loco did look a bit dead! The TGV in comparison had the skin wrecked but you could see the bulkhead was undamaged by it's impact (on another thread somewhere).


----------



## tampasteve

Well, I am going to ride Amtrak for a short vacation in April....should be fun! :banana: We will only be going from Tampa Florida to Winter Park (near Orlando) Florida, so it is only a little over two hours for the trip, so it is not long at all. I just thought I would throw that out there!

Steve


----------



## geoking66

Jay said:


> I agree that level crossings should be eliminated, however, if passenger loco's were designed more like frieght locos amtrak trains would never derail. Safety is important for any vehicle, two 140 ton gensis loco's with 12 60 ton amfleet cars (about 1000 tons) should easily protect people in the train from dying when hitting a 40 ton truck, this is not the first case of genesis derailing because of a road vehicle, it's happened on several occasions, while other locomotives plow through anything, the gensis is lightweight and lacks steel frame, and probably the AEM too. It's a simple solution, if we don't want deaths at crossings, locomotives need to be built tougher with better guards for the wheels.


If we designed them to withstand freight collisions and derailments with freight standards, we would do horrible amounts of damage to the rail network. Tier II laws (obsolete and extremely stupid) force passenger trains to be heavier than they should be, wapring and crushing rails in the process, requiring increased amounts of track repair that cost ungodly amounts of money. If we look at European and Japanese passenger trains, they are extremely lightweight yet have incredibly higher safety records and run more efficiently. If we separate freight and passenger enough and eliminate level crossings, safety will become extremely better and performance will improve.


----------



## elfabyanos

To further that point I can't believe the locos are 140 tons, that's an amazingly large amount of pointless weight. A 5-6000hp Eurostar loco is under 70 tons, less than half the weight, and even this is deemed too much by today's standards looking towards 350+ km/h operation. The US's rail regulations and general operation's policies are entirely contrary to what would be deemed viable for passenger operations. I'm not an expert on tier II laws, but it looks to me like a bad choice of making the locos almost indestructible rather than spend more money in the short term making the infrastructure safer with barriered crossings, bridges and a more reliable signalling system. They've shot themselves in the foot because the passenger use of the railway is crippled - vehicles that cost twice as much to purchase because they are twice as heavy, they can't go at a useful speed because they then destroy the track, passengers don't bother because they are so slow, end result - really inefficient uneconomic railway.


----------



## geoking66

elfabyanos said:


> To further that point I can't believe the locos are 140 tons, that's an amazingly large amount of pointless weight. A 5-6000hp Eurostar loco is under 70 tons, less than half the weight, and even this is deemed too much by today's standards looking towards 350+ km/h operation. The US's rail regulations and general operation's policies are entirely contrary to what would be deemed viable for passenger operations. I'm not an expert on tier II laws, but it looks to me like a bad choice of making the locos almost indestructible rather than spend more money in the short term making the infrastructure safer with barriered crossings, bridges and a more reliable signalling system. They've shot themselves in the foot because the passenger use of the railway is crippled - vehicles that cost twice as much to purchase because they are twice as heavy, they can't go at a useful speed because they then destroy the track, passengers don't bother because they are so slow, end result - really inefficient uneconomic railway.


That's because the corrupt American government's FRA is run by freight companies and the FRA won't change those regulations anytime soon.


----------



## hkskyline

*Amtrak to randomly screen bags, step up patrols *

WASHINGTON, Feb 18 (Reuters) - Amtrak, the only long-haul passenger rail service in the United States, will for the first time randomly screen passengers' bags and deploy armed security officers on trains and platforms, the railroad said on Monday night. 

Details of the shift in security strategy at Amtrak will be released on Tuesday, but the railroad said the steps were not in response to any threat. 

Since the hijacked airline attacks on U.S. landmarks in 2001, the Madrid train bombings in 2004 and the London subway bombings a year later, Amtrak has tightened security for ticketing and boarding and employed other behind-the-scenes measures. Some of them are permanent, while others, like bomb-sniffing dogs, are used randomly. 

But the overall response for rail security pales in comparison with the multibillion-dollar systems for screening passengers and their bags for bombs and weapons at U.S. airports. 

Critics point to relatively easy access to trains and their infrastructure as a serious security vulnerability. 

Amtrak previously considered other programs to screen passengers but rail and U.S. security officials often pointed to the difficulties of trying to secure a sprawling rail network that feeds into commuter and subway lines. 

Amtrak alone carries more than 25 million people annually over a 21,000-mile (33,800-km) route system. Its heavily traveled flagship line runs from Boston to New York and Washington. 

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration, which oversees airline and some rail security operations, said it supported Amtrak's new initiative.


----------



## Songoten2554

so the united states is dead in Rail Transport there won't be HSR or great metrorail projects and such in the USA oh man i feel sad about this?


----------



## jpIllInoIs

I hate to bring this threads down but as long as we have big oil minded - moronic leaders in the whitehouse, we will not be doing any real mass transit investment.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-railfeb20,1,7031872.story

States to compete for $30 million for improvements to passenger train service
By Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune reporter 
February 20, 2008 

The Bush administration, which has proposed sharp cuts to Amtrak funding again next year, invited Illinois and the other states Tuesday to compete for only $30 million in federal help to improve and expand long-distance passenger train service.


----------



## trainrover

elfabyanos said:


> The US's rail regulations and general operation's policies are entirely contrary to what would be deemed viable for passenger operations.


^^ Canada oughta be categorically included. I suspect you yourself know this already, but locos are ultra hefty over here for the supposèd notion that their being overweight makes them collision-proof should they plough into a mile-long train.

Why this state of rail over here? Coz N Americans reckon don't like the business prospects posed by passenger rail. As much as they like paying lip-service to "green talk" over here, powerbrokers prefer the practice of consumers buying their own automobiles. Heck, just take a peek at the majority of passenger stations over and you'd notice that the scant facilities would make any passenger feel unwelcomed.

However, what now interests me is greater Montreal's wish to (possibly) introduce a couple of «Tram-train» services, whereby the tram services would serve freight-only spurs off of mainlines. It seems to me that the trams would be really costly due to having to be capable of withstanding colliding with some mile-long train....


----------



## geoking66

Songoten2554 said:


> so the united states is dead in Rail Transport there won't be HSR or great metrorail projects and such in the USA oh man i feel sad about this?


Only in the Northeast and West Coast. New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, California, Oregon, and Vermont are the only states that are putting in much effort, and even then they're not a huge percent of the American population. However, the New York metropolitan area has a great transport system that is in the process of revitalisation.


----------



## trainrover

geoking66 said:


> However, the New York metropolitan area has a great transport system


I disagree -- e.g., Jamaica Center's got only eight platforms....


----------



## Facial

30 million dollars? It should be 30 billion.


----------



## mgk920

The Black Mesa and Lake Powell is a completely isolated railroad that runs between a coal mine and a power plant in northeastern Arizona - essentially a very interesting conveyor belt. I'm not even sure how far they are from the nearest interchanging railroad, but it is likely at least 150 km. They use electric because, well, they have a convenient source of power.

And because they are isolated, _all_ of the stuff that they use, locomotives, cars, rails, ties, etc, have to be trucked onto the property.

Anyways, I would love to hear some real railroaders discuss the future potential of converting North American mainlines to straight electric propulsion.

Mike


----------



## manrush

Maybe electrifying the existing MBTA commuter rail routes would be good. First of all, there is less distance, as Massachusetts is a pretty small state area-wise. Second of all, it will stimulate the environmentally-conscious to take the train. Third of all, electrification means less cost for refueling each of the diesel giants that ride the rails.


----------



## Songoten2554

not only that the providence Rail line for the MBTA could use electric trains because it runs now with the Acela and Amtrak regional.


----------



## grimesdr

*UNITED STATES | Railways*

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=636663

Please add your thoughts as to what we need in New England.

We need more then Amtrak. 

Currently we have MBTA in Boston and Metro North in Connecticut / NYC 
http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/rail/

Metro North 
http://www.mta.info/mnr/html/mnrmap.htm
:cheers:


----------



## grimesdr

*High Speed FedEx DHL UPS Trains*

FedEx should consider high Speed Trains based on the Bombardier Talent DMU. These trains could go between major US cities via tilt type trains so as to get better speeds.








:hammer:


----------



## Knuddel Knutsch

where is that pic from?

Those trains are in use in Germany at various locations, and do their job quite fine.

But they have nothing to do with High-Speed-Trains.
What you see on this pic is a regional train for maybe a distance of 60-80 km.


----------



## elfabyanos

Its really unecessary to keep opening all these threads when there are already recent threads covering much the same subject. I also looked in here expecting some kind of news, but it's just a wish thread.


----------



## grimesdr

elfabyanos said:


> Its really unecessary to keep opening all these threads when there are already recent threads covering much the same subject. I also looked in here expecting some kind of news, but it's just a wish thread.


Put the links to the threads, I was thinking of North America needs. Also this picture is from the Otrain in Ottawa,CA


----------



## scalziand

There need to be connections between metro north/shoreline east and the mbta(besides acela)


----------



## sumisu

Otrain, at Carleton University! my Alma Mater!


----------



## trainrover

Better electrify the railroads before highway electrification!


----------



## manrush

Good idea. I don't know if Deval Patrick would make it a big priority, though.


----------



## Quente

*US$15 billion for Amtrak and innercity rail!*

CNN link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/amtrak.congress.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

I haven't closely followed Amtrak's trials and tribulations over the years, but this seems like a H U G E step forward in terms of getting the resources needed to begin upgrading our pathetic rail system!:banana:

Assuming this doesn't get vetoed, Amtrak would receive $14.9 billion over the next 5 years. The House bill would direct the US Department of Transportation to seek proposals from private companies to create a high-speed service that would take travelers from Washington to New York in two hours or less. (The Senate version of the bill doesn't contain this requirement.)

The House bill also provides $1.5 billion for Washington DC metro over the next 10 years.

It's sad to think that it took $4.00 a gallon gas to finally get us serious about re-investing in our rail infrastructure (I thought we'd been given a major wake-up call after 9-11 closed down the airports), but if that's what it takes, I won't complain every time I fill up my tank.:cheers:


----------



## hkskyline

*House overwhelmingly passes Amtrak funding bill *
11 June 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) - A nearly $15 billion Amtrak bill passed the House Wednesday as lawmakers rallied around an alternative for travelers saddled with soaring gas prices.

The bipartisan bill, which passed by a veto-proof margin of 311-104, would authorize funding for the national passenger railroad over the next five years. Some of the money would go to a program of matching grants to help states set up or expand rail service.

Besides the $14.9 billion provided for Amtrak and intercity rail, an amendment to the bill would authorize $1.5 billion for Washington's Metro transit system over the next 10 years.

The White House has threatened a veto, saying the bill doesn't hold Amtrak accountable for its spending. But similar legislation has passed the Senate, also with enough support to override a veto.

"Nothing could be more fitting to bring before the Congress today, on a day when gasoline has reached $4.05 a gallon across the United States on average," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., a longtime Amtrak critic who teamed up with Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., on the legislation.

Amtrak's previous authorization expired in 2002. The railroad's supporters say a new authorization will allow Amtrak to make long-range plans and take advantage of what they say is a growing appetite for passenger rail.

Unlike the Senate version, the House bill includes a requirement for the Department of Transportation to seek proposals from private companies to create a high-speed service that would take travelers from Washington to New York City in two hours or less. The idea has long been championed by Mica, who says the United States must catch up with European and Asian countries on high-speed rail travel.

Critics say the proposal would undermine Amtrak by peeling off its most valuable asset, the Northeast Corridor.

But Pennsylvania congressman Bill Shuster said provisions such as the one that open the door to private investment should help ease the concerns of fellow Republicans who have balked at supporting Amtrak.

But those provisions could complicate things when the House tries to work out a compromise bill with the Senate.

Amtrak said it was pleased that both the House and the Senate had acted.

"This reflects strong support for intercity passenger rail service, and we look forward to working with Congress as they move forward to reconcile a final authorization bill," spokesman Cliff Black said.

The Bush administration and other Amtrak critics want to see the company move toward self-sufficiency, but Amtrak supporters say passenger railroads around the globe require government subsidies and point to the large sums of federal money spent on highways.

A bid by Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., to send the bill back to committee to add an alternative fuel study was rejected.

"In the areas where American budgets are being hardest hit by gas prices, consuming 16 percent of gross incomes, they have very little access to Amtrak," Davis said. "How does this bill help those Americans deal with our energy crisis?"

Amtrak's boosters say the high cost of driving has made people eager for more and better rail service.

A record 25.8 million passengers took Amtrak in the last fiscal year. The railroad expects ridership to approach 28 million this year, Black said.

May was the biggest month in Amtrak's 37-year history, with total ridership up 12 percent over last year and ticket revenue up 16 percent over last year. Black said Amtrak's marketing research indicates that about half the increase can be attributed to gas prices.

------

The bill is H.R. 6003.


----------



## hkskyline

*FACTBOX-Amtrak gets a surge in riders *

June 11 (Reuters) - As oil prices rise, many Americans are rediscovering the railroad. Amtrak saw record numbers in May when ridership rose 12.3 percent from a year earlier, and ticket sales climbed 15.6 percent, according to Amtrak data.

The following are facts about the national passenger railroad in the United States.

* Amtrak carried more than 25.8 million passengers in its fiscal year to Sept. 30, 2007, on a nationwide rail network in 46 states serving about 500 destinations on 21,000 miles (33,796 km) of routes. Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska and Hawaii are excluded.

* In its current fiscal year to date, ridership is up 10.9 percent to 18.4 million passengers. In May, the number totaled 2,577,189, a 12.3 percent increase over May 2007. May ticket revenues, including revenue from commuter agencies, totaled $153.4 million, up 15.6 percent from a year earlier.

* The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak, was formed on May 1, 1971, as a quasi-public corporation to manage a basic national rail network and operate trains under contracts with the railroads. It was created by an act signed by President Richard Nixon on Oct. 30, 1970.

* According to Republicans in the U.S. Senate, Amtrak has received over $21 billion in federal tax dollars to cover operating and capital costs since 1971 and loses more than $700 million annually.

* Amtrak's total passengers equal less than 1 percent of the traveling U.S. public. In contrast, Britain, France and Germany all have passenger rail systems that account for about 6 percent to 8 percent of total annual passenger travel miles.

* Amtrak's premier service, the high-speed Acela Express, averages 82 miles per hour (132 km per hour) although it can hit 150 mph (241 kph) in parts of Rhode Island and Connecticut. By contrast, Japan, France and Germany have developed nationwide rail systems capable of speeds of 150 mph (241 kph) to 185 mph (297 kph) on dedicated tracks with sophisticated signaling systems designed for high-speed trains.

(Sources: Amtrak, the Amtrak Historical Society, U.S. Senate Republicans)


----------



## elfabyanos

Apparently it passed with such a majority it can't be vetoed.


----------



## UrbanBen

Indeed it did. The bills have yet to be reconciled, but that'll happen soon.

The key point here is that most of the money goes to partnership grants - a lot of it will end up going to the California High Speed Rail Project, and some more will go to state partnership projects like Amtrak _Cascades_ (in Washington and Oregon, connecting Vancouver, BC - Seattle, WA - Portland, OR - Eugene, OR). I live in Seattle, and we've had a capital plan to improve _Cascades_ for years, but no money to do it. With the feds offering us 80% grants, that should change.

Frank at Orphan Road found the wording:
http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2008/06/more-amtrak-bill


----------



## Sean in New Orleans

*New Orleans Public Belt Celebrates 100 Years*

Many aren't familiar with this railway, but, it is one of the largest contributors to rail transport in the United States. Here is their website to learn much more: http://www.nopb.com/nopb/


----------



## Songoten2554

thats good you see with gas prices up Amtrak soars with greatness.


----------



## He Named Thor

hkskyline said:


> *House overwhelmingly passes Amtrak funding bill *
> 11 June 2008
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) - A nearly $15 billion Amtrak bill passed the House Wednesday as lawmakers rallied around an alternative for travelers saddled with soaring gas prices.
> 
> The bipartisan bill, which passed by a veto-proof margin of 311-104, would authorize funding for the national passenger railroad over the next five years. Some of the money would go to a program of matching grants to help states set up or expand rail service.
> 
> Besides the $14.9 billion provided for Amtrak and intercity rail, an amendment to the bill would authorize $1.5 billion for Washington's Metro transit system over the next 10 years.
> 
> The White House has threatened a veto, saying the bill doesn't hold Amtrak accountable for its spending. But similar legislation has passed the Senate, also with enough support to override a veto.
> 
> "Nothing could be more fitting to bring before the Congress today, on a day when gasoline has reached $4.05 a gallon across the United States on average," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., a longtime Amtrak critic who teamed up with Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., on the legislation.
> 
> Amtrak's previous authorization expired in 2002. The railroad's supporters say a new authorization will allow Amtrak to make long-range plans and take advantage of what they say is a growing appetite for passenger rail.
> 
> Unlike the Senate version, the House bill includes a requirement for the Department of Transportation to seek proposals from private companies to create a high-speed service that would take travelers from Washington to New York City in two hours or less. The idea has long been championed by Mica, who says the United States must catch up with European and Asian countries on high-speed rail travel.
> 
> Critics say the proposal would undermine Amtrak by peeling off its most valuable asset, the Northeast Corridor.
> 
> But Pennsylvania congressman Bill Shuster said provisions such as the one that open the door to private investment should help ease the concerns of fellow Republicans who have balked at supporting Amtrak.
> 
> But those provisions could complicate things when the House tries to work out a compromise bill with the Senate.
> 
> Amtrak said it was pleased that both the House and the Senate had acted.
> 
> "This reflects strong support for intercity passenger rail service, and we look forward to working with Congress as they move forward to reconcile a final authorization bill," spokesman Cliff Black said.
> 
> The Bush administration and other Amtrak critics want to see the company move toward self-sufficiency, but Amtrak supporters say passenger railroads around the globe require government subsidies and point to the large sums of federal money spent on highways.
> 
> A bid by Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., to send the bill back to committee to add an alternative fuel study was rejected.
> 
> "In the areas where American budgets are being hardest hit by gas prices, consuming 16 percent of gross incomes, they have very little access to Amtrak," Davis said. "How does this bill help those Americans deal with our energy crisis?"
> 
> Amtrak's boosters say the high cost of driving has made people eager for more and better rail service.
> 
> A record 25.8 million passengers took Amtrak in the last fiscal year. The railroad expects ridership to approach 28 million this year, Black said.
> 
> May was the biggest month in Amtrak's 37-year history, with total ridership up 12 percent over last year and ticket revenue up 16 percent over last year. Black said Amtrak's marketing research indicates that about half the increase can be attributed to gas prices.
> 
> ------
> 
> The bill is H.R. 6003.


Awesome awesome awesome!:banana:

Hopefully this money gets put to good use. It's about time Amtrak was actually given some. Just gotta make sure the White House doesn't screw this up.


----------



## El Mariachi

philadweller said:


> "The USDOT does not have the money to build a high speed train in dense areas because the cost of land is very high in urban areas in the US"
> 
> Yeah but we have the money to send the Space Shuttle up and money for military.
> And now offshore drilling?
> 
> So basically it is our country's greed that fails us with rails.


Its not about greed. Where is there the demand for a highly connected rail system outside the Northeast? The convinence and affordability of air travel has made a good train system pointless. And so has the highway, car, and cheap oil. High gas prices will probally change transportation patterns in the future though. 

Offshore drilling? What does that have to do with anything aside from a random attack on Bush who just signed off on a great idea? A great idea that any sane country would have done years ago.


----------



## WA

philadweller said:


> "The USDOT does not have the money to build a high speed train in dense areas because the cost of land is very high in urban areas in the US"
> 
> Yeah but we have the money to send the Space Shuttle up and money for military.
> And now offshore drilling?
> 
> So basically it is our country's greed that fails us with rails.


The USDOT doesn't have an unlimited amount of money. Money is split, it may be a bad split in your view, but none the less the money is put into different things.


----------



## Nouvellecosse

zazo said:


> Because of the air system


Yea, I think it's the air system as well. The US has the world's busiest air system, and many smallish US cities have busier airports than some major world cities. The US is just so large that there are many places for which taking the train is more time consuming, even highspeed train. The combination of air for long trips and the world's most extensive expressway system for shorter trips is pretty much a 1-2 punch against rail.


----------



## LtBk

Our freeway system may be extensive, but its slow method of transportation do to speed limits and police patrol. And thanks to variety of reasons, airlines are becoming much more expensive to travel on.


----------



## -Corey-

I preffer to travel on a plane than a train.


----------



## Oaronuviss

Ummm............ever see Canada's?
I'd kill for anything better.


----------



## hudkina

It has little to do with cars and people's desire to drive. It is MOSTLY because we have an extensive airline system that is significantly faster but can be only slightly more than a train ticket.

Why is our rail system so pathetic? Because our airline system is so extensive.

Where people in Asia and Europe might take a train from one city to another, Americans would take a plane. There is a reason why 13 of the 23 busiest airports are in the United States.


----------



## Galls

Chriszwolle said:


> Exactly. Air travel is quite cheap, and faster. However, with increased security issues in Europe, the train can be faster. Nobody is gonna sit 60 hours in a train from NYC to LA if you can do it by plane in like 5 hours.



I have :banana:


----------



## ChrisZwolle

^^ I bet it's an incredible trip, but not for business travellers


----------



## Galls

Chriszwolle said:


> ^^ I bet it's an incredible trip, but not for business travellers


Well I certainly wouldn't go to LA for pleasure. I will concede that I have the luxury of time in my business that others do not.


----------



## SCL

Car companies have a lot of lobbying power and can influence the amount the government spends on highways.


----------



## Chicagoago

Right, once you get west of say Omaha (which is already in very low density areas of the Midwest), you really don't have much of anything developed in any way except for a few smaller cities here and there, and Denver and Salt Lake City.

Once you get into this area, it's the equivilent of traveling from London to Athens before you hit the populated areas on the West Coast.

That's a LONG way to travel through on a train to get between populated areas. If you travel between London and Athens in Europe on a train, you're going to pass through areas with tens of millions of people. Trains make more sense to pick up and drop off people along the way.

In the US, there aren't millions upon millions of people between the Midwest and the West coast that you can reach except for maybe 1 or 2 rail lines through the isolated cities. People will naturally prefer to fly before they take a train 3,000KM through the wilderness. Certainly not very cost efficient for the train companies either!!


----------



## Chicagoago

If you look at the Amtrak route map, it looks very sparse and pathetic out in the western US, but why would they throw down a really dense blanket of train options? 

You've got almost 2,500,000 square KM between the northern Amtrak line and the Denver line. In that area you've only got maybe 4 million people spread out all across the area in small towns and ranches. Imagine how much money it would cost to link together 4 million people spread over an area three times the size of France.


----------



## Koen Acacia

Chicagoago said:


> Right, once you get west of say Omaha (which is already in very low density areas of the Midwest), you really don't have much of anything developed in any way except for a few smaller cities here and there, and Denver and Salt Lake City.
> 
> Once you get into this area, it's the equivilent of traveling from London to Athens before you hit the populated areas on the West Coast.
> 
> That's a LONG way to travel through on a train to get between populated areas. If you travel between London and Athens in Europe on a train, you're going to pass through areas with tens of millions of people. Trains make more sense to pick up and drop off people along the way.
> 
> In the US, there aren't millions upon millions of people between the Midwest and the West coast that you can reach except for maybe 1 or 2 rail lines through the isolated cities. People will naturally prefer to fly before they take a train 3,000KM through the wilderness. Certainly not very cost efficient for the train companies either!!


It's a bit odd, though, that when it comes to "why aren't there faster trains in the BosWash area?", the answer usually is that it's too crowded, and when the question is "why aren't there faster ones in the US?", the reason suddenly is that it's not crowded enough.


----------



## trainrover

Galls said:


> I have :banana:


Like me on your own transcontinental trip, had you by any chance also been delayed by 27 hours?


----------



## Galls

trainrover said:


> Like me on your own transcontinental trip, had you by any chance also been delayed by 27 hours?


Nope I usually get lucky and avoid the bustitutions and delays. In fact I usually enjoy it when I ride the Late for Sure Limited (NY-Chicago via water level route)


----------



## YeahWho

Judge Phillip Banks said:


> Its not about greed. Where is there the demand for a highly connected rail system outside the Northeast?


Well, the whole west coast plus Las Vegas & Reno, the Texas Triangle all the way up to Kansas & St. Louis, Florida to Atlanta or perhaps even Memphis, Minneapolis-Chicago-Indianapolis-3 C's in Ohio.


----------



## YeahWho

Oaronuviss said:


> Ummm............ever see Canada's?
> I'd kill for anything better.


You can't even compare Canada's to USA's due to the huge population disparity. The only area that is feasible in Canada is from Windsor/Hamilton to Quebec City.


----------



## Xusein

Even the Northeast Corridor is pathetic. In it's current form, true HSR (like that of Japan and France) is impossible. The rails are too old and can't take it. I don't care what anyone says, Acela is *NOT* HSR, IMO.

Most of the excuses that I hear about why the US doesn't have a good rail system does not apply here. We have similar population densities to Europe. And there is demand. Rail is more feasible for someone going from New York to Boston or DC than by plane. Yet, nothing much. 

That's more pathetic, in my opinion than not having a HSR cross-country...when the situation is like this is in it's more workable region, I don't know what to say.



Koen Acacia said:


> It's a bit odd, though, that when it comes to "why aren't there faster trains in the BosWash area?", the answer usually is that it's too crowded, and when the question is "why aren't there faster ones in the US?", the reason suddenly is that it's not crowded enough.


Haha, pretty much.  :lol:


----------



## El Mariachi

^agreeing on a very expensive, high speed rail in a region made up of many different states would naturally be a hard sell.


----------



## nomarandlee

Koen Acacia said:


> If you were really determined you could also blow up a highway, that's going to cause deaths as well. Are you saying that that possibility makes car travel unfeasible in your country?


1) My argument isn't that since HSR provides no real long term security/time beneiftt that it isn't worth doing. Just that that aspect of the argument is inherently flawed because the potential to do sabotage or terrorism to a train probably is easier then a plane.

Still, HSR can provide time savings because of things like easy inner city locations and less cumbersome transferring.

2) The threshold to ensure safety on public transport isn't the same as when using a private vehicle. Rightly or wrongly people feel in control when in their own vehicle as opposed to the lord knows who decides to get on a train/plane with them so as a consequence the threshold for invasion to privacy is much higher for public transit.

If things do go boom on trains one or a few times and there are massive causalities people will ask why the same can't be done to ensure safety on trains as what is done on planes. Politicians aren't most likely going to sell to the public that steps that are made to ensure they don't die by sabotage on trains shouldn't be applied to ensure them safety on trains as well. The majority of the public will not demand time over safety just like there hasn't been a major public push for time over safety by the public when it comes to air travel.


----------



## Crownsteler

Chicagoago said:


> Why MUST we have a very well developed rail system?


Well developed infrastructure forms the basis of any economy. (Passenger) rail is an integral part of a well developed infrastructer. That is why the US needs to have a very well developed rail system.



nomarandlee said:


> If things do go boom on trains one or a few times and there are massive causalities people will ask why the same can't be done to ensure safety on trains as what is done on planes. Politicians aren't most likely going to sell to the public that steps that are made to ensure they don't die by sabotage on trains shouldn't be applied to ensure them safety on trains as well. The majority of the public will not demand time over safety just like there hasn't been a major public push for time over safety by the public when it comes to air travel.


Things go boom on trains quite often as well FYI, actually more often than on planes really. Fact remains that the potential damage done during a terrorist attack on a train is a magnitute smaller than the potential damage done with a plane. Besides, due to the fact that the train is confined to the rails and can be remotely stopped, makes the danger of highjacking, a big security risk for planes, virtually non existant.


----------



## Koen Acacia

nomarandlee said:


> If things do go boom on trains one or a few times and there are massive causalities people will ask why the same can't be done to ensure safety on trains as what is done on planes. Politicians aren't most likely going to sell to the public that steps that are made to ensure they don't die by sabotage on trains shouldn't be applied to ensure them safety on trains as well. The majority of the public will not demand time over safety just like there hasn't been a major public push for time over safety by the public when it comes to air travel.


Well - this seems to be the crux of your argument, but it's simply not true.
After the London Metro bombings, it was pretty clear to everyone that, tragically regrettable as it is, shit simply can happen, and trying to aim for a 100% "safe" system would do nothing but cripple that system. 
In my country, we've had several train hijackings in the past as well, still doesn't mean that you have to go through a metal detector before boarding a Dutch train.
Your theory that, regardless of mode of transportation, everything will over time evolve toward "terror free" simply is not supported by the facts on the ground.


----------



## Arizona92

HSR is a socialist scheme to rip off individual liberties (like driving your car) in America and to make people depend on the nanny state which provides everything but takes away all your freedom. America, please don't fall for this and don't give up your gas guzzlers, your guns and your bibles unless you want to become like the Workers' Paradise Maoist Freedomless Europe. Go McCain!


----------



## Galls

Arizona92 said:


> HSR is a socialist scheme to rip off individual liberties (like driving your car) in America and to make people depend on the nanny state which provides everything but takes away all your freedom. America, please don't fall for this and don't give up your gas guzzlers, your guns and your bibles unless you want to become like the Workers' Paradise Maoist Freedomless Europe. Go McCain!


You do not overthrow a government through democratic reform.


----------



## Chafford1

Galls said:


> You do not overthrow a government through democratic reform.


I think Arizona92's comments were tongue in cheek!


----------



## zozio32

Arizona92 said:


> HSR is a socialist scheme to rip off individual liberties (like driving your car) in America and to make people depend on the nanny state which provides everything but takes away all your freedom. America, please don't fall for this and don't give up your gas guzzlers, your guns and your bibles unless you want to become like the Workers' Paradise Maoist Freedomless Europe. Go McCain!


just to be sure, you are driving your car on a nice road provided by the government I assume, but well I am sure you're free to drive only on tracks left by animals, or in the desert.
And what about planes: hopefully the governement helps building the airports, and I guess that has never prevented any american to drive between 2 airports if they want. If you consider that HSR mainly compete with airlines for travel of less than 5 hours (around a 1000 km, depending), you can consider the rail infrastructure on the same level as airports.

and finally, for a short trip to Paris from Nice, or Edinburgh (where I am leaving now) I'll take the TGV or Eurostar against my car a tousand times. I can then use the good transport system of Paris, *free* of the hassle of the car (traffic jam, finding a parking, etc). But well, there is also a top class motorway all the way from Nice to Paris if you really want to spend your eight/nine hours driving at 75 mph.
_
Sorry if I am a bit sarcastic there, I am just picking the thread here, and I had to register to write that..._


----------



## trainrover

UrbanImpact said:


> http://tti.tamu.edu/publications/researcher/v41n3/images/corridor.jpg


I don't understand how Montreal keeps getting tapped into HSR wishes...it's too expensive a destination for (N) America to be negotiating toward (sorry, Montreal)...






Slartibartfas said:


> New Orleans - Atlanta are 663 km


I hadn't realised this, thanks.....you're right: _nothing; (it's a) piece of cake!_


----------



## sotavento

nomarandlee said:


> Yea, the Mountain West is really where any ideas or pramatism about cross country HSR go to die.
> 
> We should concentrate on regions first (Bo-Wash, Midwest, Texas, Cali, Pacifec NW, and Florida and go from there. Perhaps if Canda carried through its Windsor-Qeubec line that could also come into play.





Slartibartfas said:


> Thats the usual lame excuse. No one asks for a nation wide gap free network. There are several large regions in the US with sufficient density. They all lack appropriate High speed service.
> 
> The highspeed corridor map, urbanimpact posted above, shows how the network could already look today. The lack of density argument simply does not work there.


As usual your are looking at it from the wron side of the gunbarrell ...


HSR starts to work when THERES NOT a city to connect inside a short range.

For example ... use these calculations:


> 1- draw a circle of 150km radius around chicago (comuter trains area)
> 2- draw a circle of 300km radius around chicago (fast interurban trains)
> 3- draw a circle of 450km around chicago (high speed trains)
> 4- draw a circle of 600km around chicago (lower "even" line between HST and planes)
> 5- draw a line 750km around chicago (higher "even" line between HST and planes)


A quick check:

1- cities in a circle of 150/200km radius around chicago (comuter trains area)
- reachable by a 160/200km/h train in about ~1h/1h30 
- Kenosha , Milwaukee "corridor" (to North)
- Madison , Janesville (to NW)
- Elgin , Rockford (to NW)
- Aurora (to west) 
- Peoria (to springfield , SW)
- bloomington (to springfield , SW)
- Champaign (to SW/S
- Lafayete (to Indianapolis , South , SE)
- ... etc etc etc

2- cities in a circle of 300/350km radius around chicago (fast interurban trains)
- reachable by a 160/200km/h train in ~2h or by a 300km/h train in ~1h/1h30
- Green Bay 
- Cedar Rapids
- springfield
- indianapolis
- Fort waine
- Toledo

3- cities in a circle of 450/500km around chicago (high speed trains)
- reachable by a 160/200km/h train in ~2h30/3h or by a 300km/h train in ~1h30/2h
- saint Louis


4- cities in a circle of 600km around chicago (lower "even" line between HST and planes)
- reachable by a 160/200km/h train in ~3h/4h or by a 300km/h train in ~2h/2h30
- Mineapolis/St.Paul


5- cities in a line 700/750km around chicago (higher "even" line between HST and planes)
- reachable by a 160/200km/h train in ~4h/5h or by a 300km/h train in ~2h30/3h
- Sioux Falls
- Omaha ,Lincoln ,DesMoines
- Topeka , Kansas City
- Memphis
- Nashville , Knoxville , 
- Pitsburg 
- Buffalo
- ... etc etc etc 


for these a direct flight would already be faster (if it takes less than 3h/4h)
NYC = 1100km
Philadelphia = 1000km
Washinghton = 950km
Atlanta = 950km
Dallas/Ft.Worth = 1300km
Houston = 1500km 
New Orleans = 1300km
Miami = 1900km 
Wichita = 950km
Denver = 1450km 
etc etc etc 

... now just pick these ones and redo the math from scratch ... and try to associate High speed routes to the upgrading of "freight" routes (beter signaling , renewed tracks and electrification) , electrified urban rail networks in towns served by HSR and airport connections by rail ... among other things. 


hno:


(sidenote: most medium/large cities can have 2 main HSR stations ... one in the center and one in the airport .. .just an example)
(sidenote2: air carriers can operate HSR services) :cheers:


----------



## sotavento

Chicagoago said:


> Why MUST we have a very well developed rail system? It's pathetic because it hasn't been developed. God forbid we don't do everything like Europe.
> 
> We designed our system around cars for close travels, and our enormous air travel system for longer trips. It worked fine for us for decades, and is now coming under pressure because of rising oil prices.
> 
> Yes it needs to be addressed and we're currently in trouble, but so many people are acting like since we didn't use the high speed rail scenario when we developed transportation in the country that we're BASTARDS.
> 
> We developed air and auto over train. We chose to do it and even though it has its problems, that's what we settled on decades ago. SORRY. I'd love to have a local high speed rail system in place, but I'm a little annoyed at all the high and mighty people who just wander through these threads bashing and yelling at the Americans now that our transportation needs to be addressed.


Atlanta = 89,379,287 passengers in 2007 ,wich is a 5.3% from previous year


> Hartsfield-Jackson held its ranking as the world's busiest airport in 2007, both in terms of passengers and number of flights, by accommodating 89.4 million passengers and 994,346 flights respectively.[3] Many of these flights are domestic flights from within the United States where Atlanta serves as a major transfer point for flights to and from smaller cities throughout the Southern United States.
> 
> the airport is increasingly becoming a major gateway for passengers boarding flights for other countries. In 2007, Atlanta's airport saw international traffic jump 10.2 percent over the previous year. More than 4.4 million passengers boarded international flights


89,4 - 4,4 = 85 million "comuters" around Atlanta ??? :lol:

Chicago O'hare = 76,159,324 


> Prior to 2005, O'Hare was the world's busiest airport in terms of takeoffs and landings. That year, mainly due to limits imposed by the federal government to reduce flight delays at O'Hare,[3] Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport became the busiest by that metric. O'Hare currently accounts for over a sixth of the nation's total flight cancellations.


Chicago Midway Airport = 19,378,885 passengers


> Chicago Midway International Airport ranked third amongst large airports in the nation for "Best On-Time Arrival Rates" in June 2007, with 75.4% of all flights (8,087) arriving on time


add Miami and Orlando (florida) , Detroit , Charlotte , Dallas , Phoenix , LA , SFrancisco , Minneapolis , Denver , NY/Newark , Las Vegas , etc and you get a lot of traffic out of these major hubs ...


----------



## sotavento

Chicagoago said:


> Right, once you get west of say Omaha (which is already in very low density areas of the Midwest), you really don't have much of anything developed in any way except for a few smaller cities here and there, and Denver and Salt Lake City.
> 
> Once you get into this area, it's the equivilent of traveling from London to Athens before you hit the populated areas on the West Coast.
> 
> That's a LONG way to travel through on a train to get between populated areas. If you travel between London and Athens in Europe on a train, you're going to pass through areas with tens of millions of people. Trains make more sense to pick up and drop off people along the way.
> 
> In the US, there aren't millions upon millions of people between the Midwest and the West coast that you can reach except for maybe 1 or 2 rail lines through the isolated cities. People will naturally prefer to fly before they take a train 3,000KM through the wilderness. Certainly not very cost efficient for the train companies either!!


I would defenitely would go for a "urban HSR ring" in LA ... or better yet .. .an HSR Y ... something like Hisperia-Sanernardino-PalmSprings-Yuma and an arm to S.Diego.

but the real problem will always be how to cross the 100km wide LA metro area in a fast way ??? 

From Hisperia there would be 2 HSR networks ... one heading to S.Francisco/Sacramento and other heading to LasVegas (1h30 ... and mayby to Salt Lake city? but only at 225km/h ? 4/5h ?).
And from Palm Springs there would be a HSR to Yuma (1h) Phoenix(2h) and Tucson(2h30). 

El Paso is at 400km(1h30/2h) from Tucson (west) , 360km (1h15/1h50) from Albuquerque (North) and at 850km (2h30/4h) from San Antonio , Austin, Waco and Dallas (east) ... 

In texas we don't ask where one would put a HSR network ... one asks WHY THERES not one built already.

Denver could be the axis of a HSR nework itself ... From fortCollins(north) to Pueblo(south) ... it didn't even have to be "high speed" ... at 160km/h it would take less than 2h 

etc etc etc


And to those wo claim that there is no HSR ... there are lots of places in europe where there in neither HSR nor overgrown airports ... :cheers:


----------



## sotavento

Chicagoago said:


> If you look at the Amtrak route map, it looks very sparse and pathetic out in the western US, but why would they throw down a really dense blanket of train options?
> 
> You've got almost 2,500,000 square KM between the northern Amtrak line and the Denver line. In that area you've only got maybe 4 million people spread out all across the area in small towns and ranches. Imagine how much money it would cost to link together 4 million people spread over an area three times the size of France.


and you get yourself 4 major airport hubs in the extremities:

- Seattle 
- Salt Lake City
- Denver 
- Minneapolis 
(one could add others) 

So just link "regional" transport (bus or short air travel) those 4 tips with either long distance HSR or long haul air travel ... HSR is there for when short/medium haul can be advantageous compared to flying (too much time lost in a small trip) or taking your own car (takes too long to get there) ... not to REPLACE everything else. hno:


----------



## Basincreek

Funny thing is that people always support these things in polls, but how they'll actually vote on them we will have to see and I'm not overly optimistic even though I hope these HST lines get built.


----------



## quashlo

UrbanImpact said:


> The USA has plenty of areas that can support HSR. I'm hoping one of the next presidential canidates will push it (doubtfull). The map below clearly shows the areas that can support routes.
> 
> http://tti.tamu.edu/publications/researcher/v41n3/images/corridor.jpg


I'm skeptical of most of those. Aside from the NE Corridor and California (and perhaps Chicago), I have a hard time believing any of the routes in that map will be cost-effective. In terms of distance and travel time, they may be competitive with air travel, but do they have the ridership to justify the huge infrastructure costs? I doubt it. I can just see billions being spent to build lines that will probably only carry a couple thousand a day. I'd much rather they fund local transportation instead.


----------



## urbanfan89

quashlo said:


> I'm skeptical of most of those. Aside from the NE Corridor and California (and perhaps Chicago), I have a hard time believing any of the routes in that map will be cost-effective. In terms of distance and travel time, they may be competitive with air travel, but do they have the ridership to justify the huge infrastructure costs? I doubt it. I can just see billions being spent to build lines that will probably only carry a couple thousand a day. I'd much rather they fund local transportation instead.


It's doubtful we could see the entire map to be justified. But it will be much more cost-effective for the government to take over the infrastructure (maybe pay off the freight companies with trackage rights), separate passenger and freight lines (since we already have two parallel systems in many areas), and then upgrade them into the 21st century so that trains can run at 150 km/h.

Perhaps in 10 years we'll have coast-to-coast trains that run in 40 hours to cater to the average Joe who can no longer afford flying.

If it can be justified, full-scale HSR could be built on the busiest routes.


----------



## quashlo

urbanfan89 said:


> Perhaps in 10 years we'll have coast-to-coast trains that run in 40 hours to cater to the average Joe who can no longer afford flying.


But why do we need this? The US is just way too large for this kind of network. The days of romantic cross-country train travel are over. I'm poorer than your average Joe, but I sure as hell am not going to confine myself to a train for 40 hours just to get to New York. I would either save the money to go by plane or simply not make the trip.


----------



## urbanfan89

quashlo said:


> But why do we need this? The US is just way too large for this kind of network. The days of romantic cross-country train travel are over. I'm poorer than your average Joe, but I sure as hell am not going to confine myself to a train for 40 hours just to get to New York. I would either save the money to go by plane or simply not make the trip.


Once the airline industry goes belly up, we'll have a two-tier transportation system: the rich can afford to fly, and everyone else takes cross-country train trips. This is the case in Russia and China, so it's entirely possible on the North American continent.


----------



## quashlo

^^I think that's where we differ in opinion... Assuming the airline industry goes "belly up," I don't see people taking the train to get across the country. They're either going to fork over the cash for a plane ticket or just not go (and perhaps find another means to accomplish whatever they intended to accomplish for their trip in the first place). It's getting easier and easier to do business and such without having to leave the home or office at all... Seriously, do you think your average working adult wants to waste what amounts to 2-3 days on a train just to save a few bucks? If it's a trip they really need to make, they'll go by plane... If not, they probably won't make the trip at all.


----------



## urbanfan89

quashlo said:


> \They're either going to fork over the cash for a plane ticket or just not go (and perhaps find another means to accomplish whatever they intended to accomplish for their trip in the first place).


You're underestimating the latent demand for travel. I'm a four-hour flight away from where my family lives. We're kind of well off, but what if a return air ticket costs $5000 or more? I will still want to travel, so I'll take the longer rail travel times instead and pay much less. Likewise many people will want to travel even if they can't fly. Under this circumstances the government will be forced to build a vast passenger rail system.



> It's getting easier and easier to do business and such without having to leave the home or office at all...


The reverse is true. Does everything in the store magically appears? Freight costs have skyrocketed lately.



> Seriously, do you think your average working adult wants to waste what amounts to 2-3 days on a train


People in Russia and China and India do it all the time.



> just to save a few bucks?


It will be saving a few *thousand* bucks. Which for everyone not making six-figures, is the only choice.



> If it's a trip they really need to make, they'll go by plane... If not, they probably won't make the trip at all.


There will still be demand for travel whether they can afford to fly or not. How do you think all those millions of Chinese factory workers commute?


----------



## elfabyanos

hkskyline said:


> 350 km/h is going to be a very challenging speed unless the route doesn't stop along the way. How much will it cost to make such tracks available?


Not relevant. The route can have many stations but that doesn't mean the train has to stop at them. Rarely do HSR trains stop at all stations except in Japan where they manage to fit stoppers inbetween the expresses which overtake the stoppers at stations, on some routes, but it is the only HSR in the world to do so.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888

The U.S. is a very low-density country so high speed rail would not be efficient. The northeast has densities approaching that of Europe and Asia, which is why a pseudo-high speed rail is viable, ie: Acela. Apart from the crowded northeast, there is absolutely no reason to invest in rail transport b/c its just too inefficient. Why aren't people asking why Australia and Canada lack significant high speed rail systems? Why is a country like China, with comparable size investing heavily in HSR?

Answer: rail is a density dependent investment and areas under a certain density make HSR unfeasible


----------



## Chafford1

The US is a country where there is a high demand for short-haul air travel. If oil becomes too expensive, electrified high speed rail will become the viable alternative.


----------



## hoosier

Chriszwolle said:


> Exactly. Air travel is quite cheap, and faster. However, with increased security issues in Europe, the train can be faster. Nobody is gonna sit 60 hours in a train from NYC to LA if you can do it by plane in like 5 hours.


When in the air, planes are are faster but you are not considering all of the delays that make air travel a big fucking hassle.


----------



## Xusein

Why are people even bothering to bring up a nationwide HSR network? This was never an aim by anyone.


----------



## hoosier

Judge Phillip Banks said:


> Its not about greed. Where is there the demand for a highly connected rail system outside the Northeast? The convinence and affordability of air travel has made a good train system pointless. And so has the highway, car, and cheap oil. High gas prices will probally change transportation patterns in the future though.
> 
> Offshore drilling? What does that have to do with anything aside from a random attack on Bush who just signed off on a great idea? A great idea that any sane country would have done years ago.


Off shore drilling is a horrible idea. Invest in conservation, mass transit, and renewables.

Air travel is a mess in this country. I take it you don't fly. Long delays, higher fares, and safety concerns are the tip of the iceberg.

Intercity rail was hugely popular in the U.S. before governments tore up their cities and reinvented them around the car. People use cars and planes because that is all they have available to them. Give people more options, and I guarantee they will use HSR.


----------



## hoosier

Judge Phillip Banks said:


> ^agreeing on a very expensive, high speed rail in a region made up of many different states would naturally be a hard sell.


But spending billions on highways is OK?hno:


----------



## hoosier

hkskyline said:


> Can the population in some of these corridors support and sustain service? The ultimate question is whether the government needs to drain a lot of money for the regular upkeep when the route's economic feasibility is questionable.
> 
> For example, Atlanta to New Orleans seems to be a very long way and would be more feasible for air service instead. Given the cost of laying track for HSR, is it worth the investment?


Yes the density is high enough to support rail.

And laying new track is less expensive and consumes less ROW than building freeways. There is no legitimate reason to oppose HSR unless you are a fucking ***** for the oil industry.


----------



## hoosier

Chicagoago said:


> Why MUST we have a very well developed rail system? It's pathetic because it hasn't been developed. God forbid we don't do everything like Europe.
> 
> We designed our system around cars for close travels, and our enormous air travel system for longer trips. It worked fine for us for decades, and is now coming under pressure because of rising oil prices.
> 
> Yes it needs to be addressed and we're currently in trouble, but so many people are acting like since we didn't use the high speed rail scenario when we developed transportation in the country that we're BASTARDS.
> 
> We developed air and auto over train. We chose to do it and even though it has its problems, that's what we settled on decades ago. SORRY. I'd love to have a local high speed rail system in place, but I'm a little annoyed at all the high and mighty people who just wander through these threads bashing and yelling at the Americans now that our transportation needs to be addressed.


So you are upset that people on here want things to change? How dare they!hno:

Relying on the car and plane has led to insanely high per capita CO2 emissions in the U.S. plus ridiculous sprawl and traffic congestion.


----------



## hoosier

hkskyline said:


> Yes, THSR is the Taiwanese high speed rail project. Korea's KTX also had significant cost overruns, which is why I am doubtful 2 non-primary American cities would be in line for such a multi-billion dollar investment. Considering past government support for such big projects such as Boston's Big Dig was not a very pleasant experience, I highly doubt politicians would want their names behind anything supporting such a huge expenditure. 30 billion dollars is a lot of money.


Well America has spent nearly $700 BILLION in Iraq and there are plenty of politicians supporting that fucking war so your argument is shit.


----------



## hkskyline

hoosier said:


> Well America has spent nearly $700 BILLION in Iraq and there are plenty of politicians supporting that fucking war so your argument is shit.


Just because the government decided to spend a few hundred billion for oil doesn't mean they'll shift the money to create HSR even if the war in Iraq never happened. Money doesn't rotate from one objective to another so easily. No government works like that.


----------



## hoosier

Arizona92 said:


> HSR is a socialist scheme to rip off individual liberties (like driving your car) in America and to make people depend on the nanny state which provides everything but takes away all your freedom. America, please don't fall for this and don't give up your gas guzzlers, your guns and your bibles unless you want to become like the Workers' Paradise Maoist Freedomless Europe. Go McCain!


I hope to god you are joking.

Since when does HSR force people to not drive a car?

How does a nanny state take away freedom? Please refer to which constitutional amendments are violated by a "nanny" state.


----------



## hoosier

Chafford1 said:


> The US is a country where there is a high demand for short-haul air travel. If oil becomes too expensive, electrified high speed rail will become the viable alternative.


The demand for short haul air travel is there because it is the only choice people have!!


----------



## hoosier

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> The U.S. is a very low-density country so high speed rail would not be efficient. The northeast has densities approaching that of Europe and Asia, which is why a pseudo-high speed rail is viable, ie: Acela. Apart from the crowded northeast, there is absolutely no reason to invest in rail transport b/c its just too inefficient. Why aren't people asking why Australia and Canada lack significant high speed rail systems? Why is a country like China, with comparable size investing heavily in HSR?
> 
> Answer: rail is a density dependent investment and areas under a certain density make HSR unfeasible


America is a low population density nation because of places like Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana.

HSR would work wonderfully along the NE corridor from Richmond to Boston, across the entire Midwest, SE, Pacific coast, and Texas. The demand and density is there.

And our nation's clogged and inefficient airports would receive much needed relief by introducing HSR.


----------



## hoosier

hkskyline said:


> Just because the government decided to spend a few hundred billion for oil doesn't mean they'll shift the money to create HSR even if the war in Iraq never happened. Money doesn't rotate from one objective to another so easily. No government works like that.


The government most certainly could reallocate money if it wanted.

The point is that if there is political will for an initiative, large sums of money can be found. This happened with the interstate highway system and it sure as hell can happen for HSR.


----------



## theworldshallcry

HSR would interface nicely with the boom in downtown development in cities across America. Rail would be vastly preferable to air or car travel for medium-length trips. I should be able to get from Chicago to St Louis in an hour and a half.


----------



## LtBk

trainrover said:


> I don't understand how Montreal keeps getting tapped into HSR wishes...it's too expensive a destination for (N) America to be negotiating toward (sorry, Montreal)...


Why would it be too expensive?


----------



## hkskyline

hoosier said:


> The government most certainly could reallocate money if it wanted.
> 
> The point is that if there is political will for an initiative, large sums of money can be found. This happened with the interstate highway system and it sure as hell can happen for HSR.


The process would be far different. If the Iraq war disappeared overnight, the savings will not likely be a major reason why certain other projects can be funded. They still need to go through the political process, analyzed for its merits, then approved by Congress if it's something as big and expensive as a HSR network. I doubt Congress would want to approve something based on the fact that the government has saved a hundred billion dollars so let's start a crazy spending spree on anything that drops on their plate. I would strongly believe that questions will continue arise over the enormous cost of building HSR and whether the perceived benefits can justify the investment cost. Then the wavering politicans can be won over by the flushed coffers argument. But then, are politicians willing to take on such a huge gamble for their own political survival when a multi-year project such as a new HSR network can span a few presidencies? Who knows if the next change in government will put the brakes on this?


----------



## miamicanes

To a certain extent, almost everyone here is partly right. There ARE regions where fast trains would be competitive with planes, and probably have enough latent demand to sustain passenger rail.

Just not High Speed Rail(tm)... as in, "spare no expense, costs be damned, 180mph or nothing at all".

Like it or not, the Federal Railroad Administration has imposed regulations on passenger trains that share tracks with freight trains. And they define "share" in the loosest, broadest, most all-encompassing sense of the word. You can have a train that runs for 400 miles on its own elevated tracks, but if it runs through a mile-long tunnel or over a causeway that EVER might be used by even a single freight train at 2am on random Thursdays in May, it's officially required to be a rolling bank vault capable of surviving a full-speed head-on collision with a mile-long freight train hauling cement. It sucks, but it's not going to change anytime soon.

The biggest consequence of those regulations is that the difference in cost between launching 110mph passenger rail and launching 111mph passenger rail is in the billions of dollars for a hypothetical passenger rail line connecting 3 obvious metro areas -- Miami, Tampa, and Orlando. FDOT has studied the matter to death, and every single time they've come to the same conclusion: 110mph passenger rail wouldn't just be _viable_ -- it would be *profitable*. But no-compromise HSR would hemorrhage money forever, and never come close to covering its daily _operating_ costs, let alone generate enough revenue to ever pay down its construction debt. 

Why? 110mph trains can have grade crossings. They have to be "sealed", with quadrant-barrier gates and other safeguards, and in the long term most crossings WOULD eventually be made grade-separated... but it's not a non-negotiable prerequisite for launching service on Day One, when you might only have enough business to justify 4-8 trains per day between each city pair. With 110mph service, those trains have to cover the construction debt of roughly $3-5 million per mile -- the cost of throwing down another track in an existing rail corridor and improving the crossings, but otherwise leaving everything "as is". It's not free... but it's not cost-prohibitive or terribly outrageous, either. Put bluntly, it's politically "do-able" and can actually happen.

With 150-180mph service, those trains would have to cover construction debt of $25-100 million per mile starting from Day One of revenue service. Guess what... they wouldn't even raise enough revenue to pay the _interest_ at that point, and the principal amount would just keep compounding and compounding faster than revenue from the service itself could ever possibly grow. That's the real reason why HSR isn't viable right now anywhere in the US. Today, there's almost zero market and consumer demand for passenger rail. That would change if HSR were available, but it would take time to change... time that you just don't have when you're paying interest on $20 billion in construction debt.

Anyway, the moral of the story is that HSR might be "perfect", but it's NOT going to happen anywhere in the US anytime soon. But 110mph service that's convenient, reliably on-time, and comfortable IS coming to most of the corridors identified on the "HSR map" within the next 10-15 years... as long as passenger rail advocates can manage to NOT shoot their cause in the foot by holding out for "true" HSR. The fact is, if push comes to shove, and rail supporters decide to hold out for "HSR or nothing"... they're going to get their wish, and get "nothing". 

As for fuel costs, most of the scenarios mentioned ($5,000 plane tickets?!?) are wildly exaggerated. The fact is, if you draw a pie chart of expenses faced by airlines, their single largest expense isn't fuel or salaries... it's the capital cost of leasing or owning their jets. The airlines were bleeding money back when oil was $28 a barrel. They'd be bleeding money even if jet fuel were _free_. Here's a little secret: the airlines are losing money, but the holding companies that own them, AND own the planes that they lease to themselves, aren't nearly as destitute as they want everyone to think they are. It's all a big shell game. Airlines like American & United, that are literally tangled webs of interrelated ownership agreements will be on the brink of bankruptcy _forever_, because that's their most profitable state of being for their REAL owners. It lets them cry to Congress for handouts, cry to the unions for concessions, then close the door and laugh all the way to the bank... with a bankruptcy every few years to wash away more old debt, liquidate old contractual obligations, and shuffle their assets around to other airlines -- all of which are ultimately owned by the same investors _anyway_.

Finally, the uniquely American obsession with turning passenger trains into rolling bank vaults has one positive benefit -- the same mass and strength that theoretically enables them to survive a head-on collision with a mile-long freight train makes them into much, MUCH "harder" targets to bomb. For all the good blowing up a suitcase-sized bomb inside a passenger coach would do, the terrorists might as well just toss around a couple of grenades. Or just forget about the train, and throw the same grenades into a crowd at a stadium, mall, or church instead. The point isn't that the train is invulnerable... it's that there are much "softer" targets available. If a plane catches fire after a bomb explodes, there's a good chance everyone on board is going to die, regardless of how many passengers were killed by the explosion itself. If a train catches fire, people can run into an adjacent car, or even smash out windows and take their chances jumping. Passengers on a train have a lot more "self help" options available in the event of an attack or emergency.


----------



## dösanhoro

10ROT said:


> Why are people even bothering to bring up a nationwide HSR network? This was never an aim by anyone.


I think this was a rhetorical question. But I will answer

Lets build a subway/metro/tunnelbana . It´s like a train inside a tunnel. 
::::

but you´d have to erase entire neighborhoods 
It´s just too expensive 
Has anyone ever built one that is profitable
i feel unsafe riding with bums
building one comes with social housing and the bums will come to us 
it´s a death trap in case of a fire 
but trains are outdated , my grandmother told me she used one once
I used one in Paris 1995 and it smelled awful 
no one would use it
if it gets too crowded people are not able to get out when they want to
it is just too claustrophic for people what if the lights go out
the smoke from the locomotive will make me get lung cancer 

hno: just a straw man argument people use. Apparently contra views make people not understand pro arguments. Even if something was really a bad idea , people will always respond to their prejudiced views they think someone else is representing making it obvious people have not understood the other viewpoints. Listen to nimbys vs developers arguments . Those people are very often only talking at eachother without both sides not really got their opponents arguments hno:


----------



## elfabyanos

Excellent post Miamicanes.


----------



## Chafford1

miamicanes said:


> Anyway, the moral of the story is that HSR might be "perfect", but it's NOT going to happen anywhere in the US anytime soon. But 110mph service that's convenient, reliably on-time, and comfortable IS coming to most of the corridors identified on the "HSR map" within the next 10-15 years... as long as passenger rail advocates can manage to NOT shoot their cause in the foot by holding out for "true" HSR. The fact is, if push comes to shove, and rail supporters decide to hold out for "HSR or nothing"... they're going to get their wish, and get "nothing".


Very interesting post.

However I wonder whether the 220mph California HSR scheme will see the light of day before the 110mph Mid-West, Ohio Hub and South East HSR schemes.


----------



## The other Dude

nomarandlee said:


> It is not an argument for the sake of an argument, its complete common sense. Why would you think that trains would be less vulnerable to an attack and once that attack happens why would authorities be more nonchalant about allaying public fears with the steps to ensuring "the public safety" then they do currently with airports?
> 
> Your point about nuclear power plants has much to do about nothing. Such an attack could very well be a bigger potential danger and need better protection yet the public doesn't chose to go buy a ticket to a nuclear plant routinely and more importantly there yet been a successful detrimental attack on a plant yet. If there is at all what is perceived to be a successful attack on a nuclear power plant then you better beleive there will be calls for more robust defenses.
> 
> I guess you think that we have "let the terrorist win" because we do security checks at airports that we shouldn't be doing just becuase they can attack malls or buses but I find that just to be rhetoric. The reality is that much of the public or politicans will expect security to be beefed up at choke points like train terminals where experiance has shown there is intention to attack. Rails are no differant then planes in this regard. Most indivuals don't prefer getting didmembered a dozen ways over a pair of tracks anymore then they care for falling rapidly 30k feet into the sky.


if someone talks about airplanes flying into skyscraper users like you moan about it beeing offtopic/nonsense, and here? dude, someone could put a bomb in your toilet, car, office, everywhere. if someone wants to do bad, he can, whatever you do. 
but its not my country, if you want to have your a--hole checked for a bomb everytime you go to public places, go on. :banana:


----------



## miamicanes

Well, California _is_ kind of a special case... LA and SF _are_ sufficiently far apart that 40-60mph _could_ make a difference in its viability. In Florida's case, Orlando and Tampa are both farther from Miami than anyone _really_ wants to drive, but are close enough that the difference between 110mph and 180mph is something like 2:08 vs 2:30 if the trains both ran nonstop at full speed, and even less of a difference when you factor in a half-dozen 5-minute stops in between. Plus, with the exception of about 10-20 miles between Auburndale and Tampa, the existing track (owned by CSX) is practically abandoned (2 Amtrak trains/day, plus maybe a dozen freight trains a week). So the cost difference between 110mph by throwing down a second track in the existing corridor and 180mph in a brand new corridor is astronomical. The situation in the midwest is similar... lots of disused rail corridors that are useless for freight, but great for passenger trains. 

As some others have pointed out, California has no such disused corridor, so _its_ passenger rail is going to have to be 100% built from scratch in a brand new corridor _anyway_. Plus, California is a big, wealthy state that also happens to have ~90% of its population living within 20 miles of the proposed corridor. _California's_ big problem is going to be generating enough new consumer demand for HSR before the construction debt explodes. It just might be able to pull it off. 

As for who'll be first... almost certainly Florida or the Midwest. Why? The planned passenger rail service lies entirely within existing rail corridors, which (under Florida law, at least) entitle their owners (ie, CSX, or FDOT if FDOT buys the corridors) to acquire land from adjacent property owners by eminent domain with no limits that have ever been tested in court. So the new tracks can be built as a matter of right, and all the NIMBYs in Florida won't be able to do a damn thing to stop it. Compare that to California, where the NIMBYs and environmental whackos openly compete to see who can stall and stonewall the most new transportation projects. Plus, once FDOT gets the green light and funding, it won't take more than 2 or 3 years to get the new track built, because we're talking about terrain that's flat as a board (and in many cases, even has the original roadbed of a long-since torn up second track). California has to deal with lots of hills, mountains, and probably a tunnel or ten.

Florida and/or the Midwest being first isn't necessarily a bad thing for California. If California comes "next", they'll get to enjoy a few years of free PR and "buzz" from the new lines elsewhere to generate rider interest for their own trains. They might even manage to learn from the mistakes Florida and the Midwest will certainly make along the way. So CALIFORNIA HSR can hit the ground running, and be generating sufficient revenue right from the start.


----------



## OettingerCroat

its pathetic because of Chevron, Exxon, Texaco, Shell, etc.

the thought of slightly lesser profits is unacceptable to them, and therefore cross-country rapid transit by means of electric trains is outrageous, which makes it communistic, which makes it anti-American, which makes it "what Osama would ride," etc.


----------



## Chafford1

miamicanes said:


> As for who'll be first... almost certainly Florida or the Midwest. .


I thought the Miami scheme was cancelled in 2004 - didn't voters rescind a previous decision to go ahead with the scheme?

In contrast, planning for the South East HSR Corridor looks well advanced - but where is the money to build it going to come from? Pity also that this is not going to be an electrified railway.

http:www.sehsr.org/


----------



## miamicanes

Florida will have 110mph first.

The "spare-no-expense 150mph HSR" proposal is safely dead & buried, and everyone in Florida (rail supporters _included_) breathed a sigh of relief when it happened. Had the first Tampa-Orlando segment been constructed, it would have become the poster child for HSR white elephants and set back the cause of passenger rail in the US for at least 25-50 years. Even moreso, if St. Petersburg prevailed in its lawsuit and forced the immediate construction of a 15 mile causeway across Tampa Bay for the HSR train -- at ungodly cost -- as part of the Tampa-Orlando segment.

Why? 

Because it was the wrong segment to build first. Tampa and Orlando just aren't sufficiently far apart for anyone who lives in either city to justify the hassle and expense of doing anything besides driving straight there on I-4. Even if gas were $10/gallon, most Americans would say 'screw it,' and drive anyway. It's not worth turning a 60-90 minute trip into a 2-3 hour trip (door to door, driveway to driveway) just to save $5-10 each way.

Tampa-Orlando only makes sense as a free bonus mainly for tourists after building the tracks for Miami-Orlando and Miami-Tampa. It can't be justified on its own merit. FDOT's studies have concluded that Miami-Orlando (sans Tampa) could _almost_ be justified, but to really generate adequate business, all three cities need to be in place as destinations... and Tampa-Orlando _specifically_ as an isolated HSR segment could _never_ economically sustain itself.


----------



## Chafford1

miamicanes said:


> Florida will have 110mph first.


Do they plan to use Bombardier's Jet Train?

Are there any references or links to the latest Florida HSR i.e. the 110mph project? I can't seem to find anything on the web.


----------



## miamicanes

No. It's technically "ISR" (intermediate-speed rail), not "HSR". As a practical matter, even Amtrak's creaky old SLOW trains can do 110mph on good track, where legally permitted, without breaking a sweat. That's another part of the reason why 110mph is so cheap compared to 150-180mph... there's absolutely nothing exotic about the rolling stock. In contrast, anyone who wants to buy FRA-approved rolling stock capable of 125-150mph is going to pay dearly for it, because just about EVERYTHING they buy is going to be a proprietary, "one-off" design built for them, and them ONLY (ie, they're going to ALSO end up paying for 100% of the R&D costs).

IMHO, this would be a GREAT opportunity for California to collude with OTHER states interested in passenger rail (Florida, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, Washington state) and try to get their representatives to twist the FRA's arm a bit and get it to make some sensible exceptions to the rules that currently make "true" HSR an "all or nothing" proposition. 

One example is the FRA's insistence that a passenger train that travels at 150mph at ANY POINT during its journey be capable of withstanding a 150mph head-on collision with a mile-long freight train -- EVEN IF the passenger train would NEVER exceed 40mph at any point where it could conceivably come into contact with that freight train. A simple amendment requiring crash-worthiness ONLY to the speeds at which a passenger and freight train could conceivably ENCOUNTER each other would eliminate most of the absurd situations passenger-rail planners find themselves in today, and make it possible to do "incremental HSR" -- building NEW track to HSR standards where it's cheap and easy to do so (ie, ultra-rural areas, like Florida between West Palm Beach and Winter Haven), but leveraging existing track where the alternative (all-elevated or tunneled, like it would have to be through almost the entire area south of West Palm Beach that's basically one linear megalopolis a hundred miles long and 10-20 miles wide) would be cost-prohibitive in the beginning.


----------



## Chafford1

miamicanes said:


> No. It's technically "ISR" (intermediate-speed rail), not "HSR". As a practical matter, even Amtrak's creaky old SLOW trains can do 110mph on good track, where legally permitted, without breaking a sweat. That's another part of the reason why 110mph is so cheap compared to 150-180mph... there's absolutely nothing exotic about the rolling stock. In contrast, anyone who wants to buy FRA-approved rolling stock capable of 125-150mph is going to pay dearly for it, because just about EVERYTHING they buy is going to be a proprietary, "one-off" design built for them, and them ONLY (ie, they're going to ALSO end up paying for 100% of the R&D costs).
> 
> IMHO, this would be a GREAT opportunity for California to collude with OTHER states interested in passenger rail (Florida, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, Washington state) and try to get their representatives to twist the FRA's arm a bit and get it to make some sensible exceptions to the rules that currently make "true" HSR an "all or nothing" proposition.
> 
> One example is the FRA's insistence that a passenger train that travels at 150mph at ANY POINT during its journey be capable of withstanding a 150mph head-on collision with a mile-long freight train -- EVEN IF the passenger train would NEVER exceed 40mph at any point where it could conceivably come into contact with that freight train. A simple amendment requiring crash-worthiness ONLY to the speeds at which a passenger and freight train could conceivably ENCOUNTER each other would eliminate most of the absurd situations passenger-rail planners find themselves in today, and make it possible to do "incremental HSR" -- building NEW track to HSR standards where it's cheap and easy to do so (ie, ultra-rural areas, like Florida between West Palm Beach and Winter Haven), but leveraging existing track where the alternative (all-elevated or tunneled, like it would have to be through almost the entire area south of West Palm Beach that's basically one linear megalopolis a hundred miles long and 10-20 miles wide) would be cost-prohibitive in the beginning.


So what you're saying essentially is that the Federal Railroad Adminitration is standing in the way of a viable passenger rail system in the USA.

Presumably, the only way you'd gain an exemption from the crash tests would be if the _entire _system - lines _and_ stations - was separated from the freight network. Then you could use off the shelf European rolling stock: Velaro, AGV, Pendolino etc. 

The obsession with crash testing in the US is strange, when you see pictures of trains running at high speeds with inadequate barriers at crossings and no fences at the side of the track!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QWg8rr3r39Y

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gb9Z075DWis&feature=related


----------



## elfabyanos

^^ Thats basically it. I think the California HSR proposal follows this concept - I can't see how it could possibly be viable unless everything is entirely separated. It doesn't mean that the HSR couldn't share stations and some existing corridors, but that it would have to have segregated tracks. However thats not really that hard. London to Paris HSR is effectively on segregated tracks - even the approaches to Paris which are shared with local traffic has been remodelled for the TGV and it can be seen from google earth that the TGV tracks remain pretty much separate. There are a few links here and there, but these aren't fundemental to the operation of the railway, and the route could quite easily have been concieved as entirely segregated. Obviously without the necessity it wasn't done but its an interesting example nonetheless.

The FRA are definately the problem. What is ironic is that the FRA's extreme safety rules do not in reality make the USA's railway system significantly safer either, if at all. The most dangerous aspect of rail in the USA is the ridiculous time it takes a freight train to stop. In the UK every freight wagon has its own brakes and so the train will do an emergency stop in a comparable time to a passenger train. Correct me if I'm wrong, but seeing all the crashes / level crossing strikes on you tube freight trains in the USA tend not to be able to stop that well?

Being able to use off the shelf trains is the only way to make HSR financially viable these days. The USA could afford bespoke products, but I doubt it would be paid for by anyone, with the option of line segregation and European/Japanese trains available being too attractive an alternative.


----------



## Chafford1

I just can't understand a system that runs trains at 90mph past crossing with *no* barriers at all. The train driver sounds his horn and hopes for the best! 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4vJbpsvC_w0&feature=related


----------



## Galls

elfabyanos said:


> The FRA are definately the problem. What is ironic is that the FRA's extreme safety rules do not in reality make the USA's railway system significantly safer either, if at all. The most dangerous aspect of rail in the USA is the ridiculous time it takes a freight train to stop. In the UK every freight wagon has its own brakes and so the train will do an emergency stop in a comparable time to a passenger train. Correct me if I'm wrong, but seeing all the crashes / level crossing strikes on you tube freight trains in the USA tend not to be able to stop that well?


Well there is a massive difference between a European freight train and an American one, namely about a mile. Every freight car in the USA does have brakes, just the rolling mass of a freight train is so incomprehensible and the kinetic energy so strong that braking quickly is impossible.


----------



## elfabyanos

^^ That doesn't make any sense. If you multiply the number of wagons you multiply the weight but also the braking force as you have more brakes. 1x60 ton wagon should stop in the same distance as 1000 wagons hauling 60,000 tons.


----------



## Galls

elfabyanos said:


> ^^ That doesn't make any sense. If you multiply the number of wagons you multiply the weight but also the braking force as you have more brakes. 1x60 ton wagon should stop in the same distance as 1000 wagons hauling 60,000 tons.


Well I forgot the explanation, I have had it explained to me, but while all North American rail cars do have air brakes, the distributed braking system which runs off of compressed air is not enough to exponentially grow with the increase in rolling mass.


----------



## Poryaa

Rail construction is useless to US military force. The US gave up improving the rail system to protect the western bloc.


----------



## elfabyanos

Galls said:


> Well I forgot the explanation, I have had it explained to me, but while all North American rail cars do have air brakes, the distributed braking system which runs off of compressed air is not enough to exponentially grow with the increase in rolling mass.


That makes sense actually - the air brakes are powered by the locos which only have a finite amount of air brake power. So short of hauling another 4 or 5 locos to power the air brakes, this would leave a monstrously poor braking performance.


----------



## JoKo65

I wonder why the russians don't have the same problem, they have long freight trains too.


----------



## elfabyanos

A lot of the Russian network is electrified - maybe because that isn't as finite a power source more braking power can be provided as required?


----------



## hoosier

The U.S. government is already paying several hundred billion $ a year to pay off the interest generated by its national debt, mainly due to the tax cuts for the rich proposed and implemented by Reagan and Bush II. 

No discussion of that cost but when it comes to spending money on something that actually helps people, the possibility of deficit financing is a HUGE issue all of a sudden.hno:


----------



## hoosier

200 mph HSR is a white elephant but an aircraft carrier or submarine isn't?

So let me get this straight, unlimited funds for WMDs is great but $500 billion for some HSR that would improve the environment and reduce congestion is a bad thing?hno:

When it comes to the military, cost is never an issue. But when it comes to investments that HELP people, every fucking cent is scrutinized for possible waste.


----------



## hoosier

Dale said:


> Today's Wall Street Journal projects that Obama's infrastructure plan will allow 8.5% for rail transit and 27.5% for roads.
> 
> If this was Bush most of you would be screaming.


Bush wouldn't even provide funds for such projects.

Yes the split is less than ideal, but it is better than nothing, which is what Bush would have given us.


----------



## Imperfect Ending

It's a shame.... it takes about 12 hours to go form Los Angeles to San Francisco using the Amtrak when it only takes about 6 - 8 hours using a car...


----------



## elfabyanos

New lines dont turn out to be that much more expensive than upgrading and mucking about with the existing track, not to mention annoying every passenger trying to use it in the meanwhile. Build a new line.


----------



## G5man

I've been thinking about the NEC and I totally agree, there needs to be HSR on the Northeast, it should only take 3 hours to get from Boston to DC, not 6 1/2 hours. 200 mph would be a great feat, but where is the room? Is it time to go Chinese and make room for HSR?


----------



## Facial

Excellent thread, I agree with almost every opinion here (except for the few glorifying gas guzzling). 

This country has a long way to grow up. But so far, half of the country has its head stuck deep in the sand.

If the Democratic majority has enough guts and courage, then it should slam-dunk a similar 100b+ railroad funding bill that should develop, wait, *HSR in the Bible belt states*! That should convert people from evangelism to HSRism. 

Also, the Utah Mormons crusading for freedom-of-reli-oops,roads&SUVdom won't interfere if we try to build HSR here in California. LOL.


----------



## sotavento

ARailSystemsEngineer said:


> I'm lucky to be British, and to have been a child in the '70s, when we were blessed with the HSTs, which are still thrashing up and down the country 30+ years later at 125 mph. And, I suppose, Jimmy Saville, to compensate. Can anyone name a diesel train to compare, in terms of comfort, and style? and the smell off the brakes?
> 
> Rse


Only the british can claim the diesel-HST crown ... 125 classed HST 's , Virgin Voiagers (and others similar in the UK) and the failing ICE-VT of DB are basically the only ones running daily at speeds of 125mph around the globe under diesel power. :cheers: 

USA just has too long distances between places for HST outside major aglomerates to be viable ... air traffic has a great advantage there.

And considering this little fact it should be as an extension of the american air traffic that HSR efforts should concentrate.

for example in california linking LA and S.francisco (and it's airports), or the connection to/from L.Vegas(And its airport) could be a massive gain to air companies operating to those air hubs as well as linking the regional metropolis to eachother.
LA itself could gain from a comuter/regional HSR netwok if it's own ... Chicago(all the midwest) , Florida-atlanta , texas and some other places also would see enormous beneficts from a rail reforms mega-plan. :cheers:


----------



## sotavento

superkambing said:


> Do you think that interest groups from detroit auto industry and also from the aviation industry hamper the development of train system in US?Because they want people to drive cars or fly, its one of the reasons that many public transportation systems like tram has disappeared from US cities, fine example would be LA with its huge freeway network but bad public transport.


^^ This is a missconception ... 


Tram«s were replaced by buses because these had advantages that culd not be used by trams (namely one had to build tram tracks everywhere) .. .and long distance trains lost big time to the plain when this entered the jet era ... same fate happened to steamers/trans-oceanic travell.

It just evolved ... trains didn't ... at least in the USA they didn't evolve.

for example in europe BUDD and Pullman coaches were a sign of "fast" rail travell so railways continuously made progress on rail infraestructure ... but in the end most of european railway companies ended up as a small group of nationalized railway companies.

in the USA they remained as fully private companies and adapted to ever changing conditions ... the passenger traffic in USA moved from rail to air/road in the same way that freight traffic moved from rail to road in europe. 
Nowadays is much more dififcurt to recover the lost freight in europe that it would be to recover the passenger freight in the USA.


----------



## spongeg

too many people against it and people look at it reginally/locally rather than the national outcome

if tax money from say florida is being used to build it in california than people will complain and be against "THEIR" tax money be used out in "that" place


----------



## nitsua0491

GENIUS LOCI said:


> That makes sense
> 
> The main difference of United States respect Europe (excluding Russia) is having long distances between cities (often a distance of 1000 km between two main cities could be considered 'avarage'), so airplane fits better
> Anyway I think that HSR service could be built to link quickly East Coast cities as in California as well... on distances of less of 800 kms HS is competitive with plane: that's why in Europe or in Japan it works
> 
> Maybe there is even a penalization due to internal flights low fares in US
> But today 'internal' flights in EU are also cheap thanks to low cost companies: infact in these years internal (and not only) flights passengers increasead a lot; that, anyway, didn't have any efects on HSR passengers or web which keep increasing
> I think then the challenge in US is all to find out someone who wants to put his money
> 
> Maybe the Govt. with Obama's new 'new deal'?
> 
> Anyway I hope they're going to build electrified lines with a maximum speed at least of 150 mph (110 mph is not considered HS in Western Europe and Japan) to have 'appeal' enough 'against' the plane


I don't think that is fair. Texas has some of the largest cities and metroplexes in the nation, and they are close.

DFW --> Austin: 320km (200miles)
DFW --> San Antonio: 432km (270miles)
DFW --> Houston: 382km (240miles)
San Antonio --> Houston: 320km (200miles)
Austin --> Houston: 265km (166miles)

A train linking those cities in a triangle would serve a population of greater than 15 million (or roughly 64% of the state's population!).


----------



## Facial

There are many large cities positioned close to each other in the US.

But too many people have backward mindsets.


----------



## Facial

Dale said:


> Today's Wall Street Journal projects that Obama's infrastructure plan will allow 8.5% for rail transit and 27.5% for roads.
> 
> If this was Bush most of you would be screaming.


How much did Bush spend in comparison?


----------



## aquablue

Difficult...sprawl has made it nearly impossible. Maybe maglev, with its ability to be elevated and fly around curves is the only option.

One could route trains through rural areas along highways instead of through city-centers and have suburban stations like they do in Southern France... that would allow new segments of line along the NJ turpike or elevated in its medium. This would not cover Maryland/Delaware though.

There is room in inland CT through Hartford to Boston....there is a major highway that has more free space than the coastal routes. This would be a better route than the Metro North New Haven line which is too congested.

There would be major NIMBY action though in these rural areas.

Only other option is to upgrade the existing line to a higher speed with multiple tunnels to straighten out curves while avoiding built up areas. It would be nowhere near 200mph. 

I think the goal is to get NY-WAS to 2 hours, which would basically kill the shuttles and allow NY airports some breathing room.


----------



## urbanfan89

A completely new line can be built through the countryside, skirting the suburbs as much as possible. Then they can take a page from how the TGV works, and make ample connections with regular railway lines to allow a broader choice of destinations.


----------



## city_thing

Imperfect Ending said:


> It's a shame.... it takes about 12 hours to go form Los Angeles to San Francisco using the Amtrak when it only takes about 6 - 8 hours using a car...


That's a very long time...

Didn't the Cali HSR video say it would take something like 3 or 4 hours once the new line opens?


----------



## sotavento

nitsua0491 said:


> I don't think that is fair. Texas has some of the largest cities and metroplexes in the nation, and they are close.
> 
> DFW --> Austin: 320km (200miles)
> DFW --> San Antonio: 432km (270miles)
> DFW --> Houston: 382km (240miles)
> San Antonio --> Houston: 320km (200miles)
> Austin --> Houston: 265km (166miles)
> 
> A train linking those cities in a triangle would serve a population of greater than 15 million (or roughly 64% of the state's population!).


Or roughly the same amount of population as Paris all by itself.



Nonetheless that east coast is a huge "dot-here-to-create-HSR" straight line from boston to Miami ... but since you don't have the state-funded-mindset for railways it's dificult to stretch the NEC all the way down to the Key's. :cheers:


----------



## sotavento

spongeg said:


> too many people against it and people look at it reginally/locally rather than the national outcome
> 
> if tax money from say florida is being used to build it in california than people will complain and be against "THEIR" tax money be used out in "that" place


Simple solution ... just use "their oun" taxpayers money in each state ... namely create a state-sized amtrack ... and "interstate" Amtracks for buiding across the border. :cheers:


----------



## sotavento

Imperfect Ending said:


> It's a shame.... it takes about 12 hours to go form Los Angeles to San Francisco using the Amtrak when it only takes about 6 - 8 hours using a car...


6/8 hours to go just 500km/330miles ??? hno:


Night trains usualy depart in time for people to have dinner on-board and arrive at breakfast timenext day no matter how long the distance (considering a 1 night journey). :cheers: 

It could be a "les-than-tree-hours-" HSR journey ...


----------



## G5man

Or you could do what california is doing, visualizations do help after all. If there have been previous studies, revive them. Changing a mindset will take time, however, if the younger generations actually tell there representatives more rail, then we can help change the mindset.


----------



## sotavento

elfabyanos said:


> New lines dont turn out to be that much more expensive than upgrading and mucking about with the existing track, not to mention annoying every passenger trying to use it in the meanwhile. Build a new line.


Urban sprawl to big ... no room to build new lines in most of the NEC



G5man said:


> I've been thinking about the NEC and I totally agree, there needs to be HSR on the Northeast, it should only take 3 hours to get from Boston to DC, not 6 1/2 hours. 200 mph would be a great feat, but where is the room? Is it time to go Chinese and make room for HSR?


Either remove Philadelpia or NewYork ... of even both. :lol:



urbanfan89 said:


> A completely new line can be built through the countryside, skirting the suburbs as much as possible. Then they can take a page from how the TGV works, and make ample connections with regular railway lines to allow a broader choice of destinations.


How do you serve the NEC properly going by the suburbia ???

and how do you get around the FRE speed rules ??? 
the only feasible solution to the NEC's problems seems to go the japanese way ... either pay the price for massive viaducts or extra large tunnels


----------



## sotavento

Just found thia article... interesting read:

http://www.trainweb.com/travel/rambling/r961019.htm



> (About half of the NEC's total traffic rides just in the 90 miles between New York and Philadelphia.)


----------



## hoosier

sotavento said:


> One thing that people in the USA will learn in the near future ... massive HSR lines came at an proibitive cost... :cheers:


So do highways and airports and any type of infrastructure project. America can invade two countries at the cost of trillions of dollars but can't build a single fucking HSR line. PRIORITIES PEOPLE!!:bash:


----------



## G5man

Rails cost a lot this and that, well so do roads, sewers, highways, runways, you name it! At least railways can use the countryside for high speed instead of noise from a couple thousand feet above!


----------



## urbanfan89

Congress Seeks Funding for High-Speed Rail Service From D.C. to N.Y.C.:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/16/AR2008121600392.html


----------



## nomarandlee

urbanfan89 said:


> Congress Seeks Funding for High-Speed Rail Service From D.C. to N.Y.C.:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/16/AR2008121600392.html





> _Rep. John L. Mica (*R*-Fla.), the House's chief proponent of high-speed rail, made the announcement yesterday at Washington's Union Station........The legislation called for high-speed service in 10 other rail corridors around the country, including Florida. The department's Federal Railroad Administration is asking private companies and state entities to help the federal government design, construct, finance, operate and maintain high-speed rail service. Mica estimated the cost at $18 billion and $40 billion........... _


 Is that 18-40 for just the NEC or does that include the ten other corridors? What ten corridors are included in that I wonder.


----------



## Tri-ring

It would be interesting if a Japanese consortium lead by one of the Big trading companies, with the JR group and one of the big Japanese train manufacturers were allowed to develop and operate a highspeed rail in the NEC with the backing of the US Federal and various state governments.
Subsidiaries only needed for acquisition of land in form of land leases and tax breaks.
Feds and state governments also needs to manage NIMBs.
If you look at it on a 20 years time span after completion, Japan will be raking in a fortune.

Who knows you might end up getting one of these.:banana:


----------



## urbanfan89

Any true high speed rail system in North America will 1) require the FRA to abolish its stupid locomotive requirements 2) entail the large scale nationalization and modernization of track. It will be expensive, but if they can find 700 billion dollars in an instant then this is peanuts.


----------



## Facial

Obama and Biden will travel to their DC inauguration by train.

Clearly, I hope this signals that they are willing to spend more on Amtrak and build it into a first-world railroad.


----------



## Brice

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/16/amtrak-awaits-rail-line-to-speed-dc-ny-t-5771094/
Amtrak awaits rail line to speed D.C.-N.Y. trip
Tom Ramstack THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Federal transportation leaders announced Monday that the government is seeking contractors to build a $30 billion to $40 billion high-speed rail line between Washington and New York that would be used exclusively by passenger trains.

The line is the first of a series of nationwide high-speed passenger rail lines that the government is considering funding. Other rail lines would run the length of California and Florida, spread throughout the Midwest with a hub in Chicago, connect Portland, Ore., with Seattle, and run between major cities in Texas.

"This is the most exciting development in U.S. passenger rail in years," Rep. John L. Mica, Florida Republican, said during a press conference at Washington's Union Station.

The new rail line would carry passengers between Washington and New York in no more than two hours, compared with nearly three hours now on Amtrak's high-speed Acela trains. Trips on slower Amtrak trains can take as long as four hours.

Amtrak shares its current Northeast Corridor rail line with freight and commuter trains, which can significantly increase the time it takes for passengers to arrive at their destinations.

Amtrak officials described the Transportation Department's request for proposals today as a significant step in getting the high-speed rail lines built exclusively for passenger service.

"It is a milestone to the extent that there is specific legislation requesting statements of interest from the private sector," said Cliff Black, an Amtrak spokesman.

However, he said, engineers face significant obstacles, such as figuring out where to put the rail line when urban development and natural barriers lie in its path. He mentioned downtown tunnels in Baltimore that are more than a century old and the Hudson River around New York City's Manhattan Island.

"Those need to be dealt with," Mr. Black said. "They are major capital projects, both of them costing presumably in the billions of dollars."

Plans for the rail line are part of a request for proposals to the U.S. Transportation Department that seeks contractors to build the system. It was authorized under the Rail Improvement Safety Act Congress approved in October that also funds subsidies for Amtrak and other railroads for the next five years.

The legislation would provide $13.06 billion to help bring the Northeast Corridor rail infrastructure to a state-of-good repair. It also provides $1.5 billion for the planning and development of high-speed rail corridors in other parts of the nation. The legislation requires operational reforms for Amtrak, such as measures to improve on-time performance and the appointment of a new board of directors.

A new rail line appears to be the kind of project that President-elect Barack Obama supports as part of his economic stimulus plan. The plan calls for heavy government investment in infrastructure projects, particularly if they are environmentally friendly.

Amtrak officials say passenger rail reduces automobile traffic congestion by providing an incentive for motorists to use mass transit and lessens fuel consumption.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama said the president-elect would withhold comment on the Amtrak project until after he assumes office Jan. 20.

"We're strongly sticking to the one-president-at-a-time rule," said Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for Mr. Obama.

The rail project already has support in Congress among both Republicans and Democrats, said Mary Kerr, a spokeswoman for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

However, even passenger rail advocates cautioned against assumptions a new Northeast Corridor line is certain to be built.

Considering the multibillion-dollar price tag and engineering obstacles, "I'm not sure that makes it a doable thing," said Ross Capon, president of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, a passenger rail advocacy group. "I think we're still a few years away before you would get to moving beyond proposals."

Before the press conference in Washington with top local and federal transportation officials, another press conference was held in New York that included New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

"If the U.S. is to remain economically competitive with our economic competitors, we must develop high-speed transportation service for our great cities, just as they have for theirs," Mr. Bloomberg said.

*Tom LoBianco contributed to this report.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

*Snow still canceling, delaying Amtrak in Northwest*

*Snow still canceling, delaying Amtrak in Northwest*

Amtrak says winter weather is canceling or delaying service in the Northwest.



Heavy snow is still curtailing passenger train service in the Pacific Northwest.

Amtrak's Cascades service remained shut down today between Eugene, Ore., and Vancouver, British Columbia. Gus Melonas, a spokesman for Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, which operates the tracks, says partial service may be restored Tuesday.

Amtrak operates four Cascades trains daily between Eugene and Seattle and three daily between Seattle and Bellingham, including one in each direction extending northward to Vancouver. Officials had hoped to restore that service Monday.

Amtrak's Empire Builder and Coast Starlight trains are still running, but Melonas says there may be long delays.

He adds that a three-car freight train derailment in Portland, Ore., on Saturday was cleared the next day and is not affecting service.

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008548613_webamtrak.html


----------



## Micrav

When today a french TGV almost reaches 400 mph in peak speed, I believe that new laid tracks for Amtrak should allow speeds of at least 200 mph. This would be normal and provide a true solution to transportation in America (besides huge parking lots near railway stations)...  

By the way, if Amtrak or any railway company hires industrial designers to improve their products, material, stations, forward me, I would be grateful to help  Serious! We will need a lot of energy and people to (re)develop everything...


----------



## hkskyline

*MoDot picks 5 finalists in Amtrak naming contest *
25 December 2008

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - Online voting has started in the Name the Train Contest for Amtrak's passenger rail service from Kansas City to St. Louis.

The Missouri Department of Transportation on Wednesday opened voting on five finalists chosen from more than 8,300 name submissions. Voting runs through Jan. 23 and the winner will be announced Jan. 30.

The finalists chosen were: Missouri Rail Blazer, Missouri River Runner, River Cities Corridor, ShowMeMO and Truman Service.

Those who submitted the finalists will receive two round-trip coach tickets to any Amtrak destination in Missouri and a gift basket from one of five participating cities located on the rail line.


----------



## Spam King

Micrav said:


> When today a french TGV almost reaches 400 mph in peak speed, I believe that new laid tracks for Amtrak should allow speeds of at least 200 mph. This would be normal and provide a true solution to transportation in America (besides huge parking lots near railway stations)...


TGV doesn't reach even close to 400mph, what are you talking about?


----------



## Koen Acacia

Dale said:


> Today's Wall Street Journal projects that Obama's infrastructure plan will allow 8.5% for rail transit and 27.5% for roads.
> 
> If this was Bush most of you would be screaming.


I'd say that Bush made some spending decisions that are quite a bit worse than not dedicating enough funding to rail transit, the two are simply not in the same league.

Having said that, yes, spending more than three times as much on roads as on rail sounds retarded to me.


----------



## Micrav

Spam King said:


> TGV doesn't reach even close to 400mph, what are you talking about?


574,8 km/h (357,16 MPH): new world rail speed record set at 13h13 on 3 April 2007 (and I believe there is a more recent record). But of course, it is not in commercial use. The new AGV hits 360 km/h (223,69 mph) on commercial speed. To earn 20 mph of commercial speed is getting quite complicated above 200 mph, only a few experienced companies manage to do this, it is the case of Alstom for example. So we can dream reasonably of high speeds of more than 200 mph for the US if we have to lay new tracks  That is the worst I wish you, a super brand new high speed and effective network!


----------



## Micrav

hkskyline said:


> *MoDot picks 5 finalists in Amtrak naming contest *
> 25 December 2008
> 
> The finalists chosen were: Missouri Rail Blazer, Missouri River Runner, River Cities Corridor, ShowMeMO and Truman Service.


I want to cry, I lived in an love Missouri, but such poorly attractive names for a new train line are to cry for... 

Wished something better (Ok, I will wet my shirt here) knowing history of Missouri, could have been even *Napoleon *(knowing Missouri used to be a bit french and train is conquerant, but I agree it can be controversial, could have been *Mizzoom or Missss *(give idea of speed) *"Tom Sawyer" *(to give imagination to passengers. *MissouExpress* (to remind history of PonyExpress). *Western Gateway Train *(WGT)... 

I hardly could vote with true heart for one of those 5 names... Truman is a controversial president, ShowMe state is enough on licence plates, Rail Blazer is coming from Superman era, River Cities Corridor is functional and Missouri River Runner is maybe the only one I could see on that train, it describes more or less this new line... We can also play with MRR as Missouri RailRoad... Maybe *Missouri Runner *would have been enough...

Anyway, good ... (I don't say the word to give chance) to this new train line! :banana:


----------



## Micrav

Koen Acacia said:


> I'd say that Bush made some spending decisions that are quite a bit worse than not dedicating enough funding to rail transit, the two are simply not in the same league.
> 
> Having said that, yes, spending more than three times as much on roads as on rail sounds retarded to me.


Knowing the infrastructure of roads in USA, it is needed, even if I am fan of railway.  This money will mainly bethere for repairs and small improvements... But the network is so huge that it is significant amounts for the railway industry too...


----------



## Spam King

Micrav said:


> 574,8 km/h (357,16 MPH): new world rail speed record set at 13h13 on 3 April 2007 (and I believe there is a more recent record).


That was in a test run with a specially modified, shortened train set, you can't quote those numbers in an argument as they are completely unfeasible under normal operating conditions.


----------



## Micrav

Spam King said:


> That was in a test run with a specially modified, shortened train set, you can't quote those numbers in an argument as they are completely unfeasible under normal operating conditions.


Read the rest of my previous quote, i speak about conditions. But anyway, it shows where we are going with trains. If we are able to hit almost 400 mph with modified material now, we will maybe hit it one day on regular base. Remember, last century, in 100 years, we went from 50 to more than 300 km/h in commercial speed and people are always eager for more speed as long as it is safe. Trains will still compete with planes and trains will still compete with other trains like the Maglev too in Germany or China (but too expensive still).


----------



## Tri-ring

Micrav said:


> Read the rest of my previous quote, i speak about conditions. But anyway, it shows where we are going with trains. If we are able to hit almost 400 mph with modified material now, we will maybe hit it one day on regular base. Remember, last century, in 100 years, we went from 50 to more than 300 km/h in commercial speed and people are always eager for more speed as long as it is safe. Trains will still compete with planes and trains will still compete with other trains like the Maglev too in Germany or China (but too expensive still).


I remember arguing with another member within the forum about the speed limit of conventional train and my belief is that we are at the limit in terms of going faster *economically*.
Speed of conventional trains relies on lighter/stronger construction material, stronger magnets, and material with little loss in electrical rely.
Japanese maglev technology utilizes all three technology using carbon fiber material as hull and super conductors for magnets and electrical power lines.
One of the reasons why maglev is pursued is becuase it is more effiecient than conventional rail due to loss of energy through friction of rail and wheel.
(Basically it is more energy efficient to move mass that are afloat then that has contact with another surface creating friction)
Wear and tear of rails also accumilates exponentially with speed so it is meaningless to pursue conventional rail knowing it is going to cost more doing maintenance of rail and trainset when maglev has less impact to the guide way with no physical connection.
You also need to take in consideration of minimum curve radius for conventional rail again due to wear and tear (through horizontal force) while maglev has higher tolerance.


----------



## davsot

show us a high-speed train Amtrack and maybe we'll give you some money. And you'll get ridership!


----------



## davsot

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html



> • $850 million for Amtrak.


----------



## Kramerica

Micrav said:


> Can anybody provide the % of electrified lines compared to non electrified lines in the US? Also the % of passenger lines compare to freight lines? Or at least an approximation?


As for electrification, I think the only intercity lines are the NEC from Boston to DC, and a line from Philly to Harrisburg. So it is an exceedingly small percentage of US track, less than 1%. 

Basically, other than the NEC, there are no passenger-only intercity rail lines. (disregarding short tourist trains that are scattered about) The rest of our intercity Amtrak trains share track with freight. The vast majority of that track is owned by the freight RRs and that is the root cause of Amtrak's bad time-keeping.


----------



## urbanfan89

Facial said:


> Minor improvements done to the track will only serve for maintaining a state of good repair. It is time to go beyond that, and think outside of the box.


Given that <1% of North America's rail system even has electricity, I'd say that stringing wires on them will be much more than a "minor improvement". We don't need to waste money on gadgets when there are more efficient use of the resources.

That list sounds a lot like the nuclear reactor-powered automobiles that Ford proposed in the 50s. Don't laugh, it really existed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon


----------



## davsot

electrification is viable and would be a great first step towards change


----------



## Facial

urbanfan89 said:


> Given that <1% of North America's rail system even has electricity, I'd say that stringing wires on them will be much more than a "minor improvement". We don't need to waste money on gadgets when there are more efficient use of the resources.
> 
> That list sounds a lot like the nuclear reactor-powered automobiles that Ford proposed in the 50s. Don't laugh, it really existed!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon


#326


----------



## Facial

davsot said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html


The GOP is generally very unsupportive of Amtrak funding. However you do see a few sensible people like LaHood or the co-sponsor of the recent Senate bills.


----------



## Brice

Kramerica said:


> As for electrification, I think the only intercity lines are the NEC from Boston to DC, and a line from Philly to Harrisburg. So it is an exceedingly small percentage of US track, less than 1%.
> 
> Basically, other than the NEC, there are no passenger-only intercity rail lines. (disregarding short tourist trains that are scattered about) The rest of our intercity Amtrak trains share track with freight. The vast majority of that track is owned by the freight RRs and that is the root cause of Amtrak's bad time-keeping.


I think it's more. Most of long Island Rail Road is electrified, all metroNorth, all NJtransit, upstate NY is also electrified.


----------



## Kramerica

Kramerica said:


> As for electrification, I think the only *intercity* lines are the NEC from Boston to DC, and a line from Philly to Harrisburg. So it is an exceedingly small percentage of US track, less than 1%.





Brice said:


> I think it's more. Most of long Island Rail Road is electrified, all metroNorth, all NJtransit, upstate NY is also electrified.


LIRR, MetroNorth, NJT, and Chicago's Metra Electric are not intercity lines, but commuter RRs. That's why I did not count them. There are also many light rail lines around the country that are electrified, too. 

I'm not sure if the line from NYC to Albany is electrified or not.


----------



## Micrav

Anyway, 99% of lines not electrified, lets see it as an opportunity to develop green fully clean technologies. 

Today, there are possibilities to run trains on long distance completely clean, without investing in overhead electrical lines and forgetting complety fossiles energies. It is a huge market. And we could develop this new technology in USA. Europe is too electrified for this technology and Russia wants to use its fossil fuel. It is not nuclear, nor hydrogen... Would run between 100-120 mph, Fits more for passenger trains now, but later, I guess it would be applicable for goods too and for higher speeds (but less autonomy) 
Requires only around 10-20 millions $ to develop the technology and the prototype of the train. A bargain when you know how much costs one train. 

Do you know any serious contact for this?


----------



## Facial

Micrav said:


> Anyway, 99% of lines not electrified, lets see it as an opportunity to develop green fully clean technologies.
> 
> Today, there are possibilities to run trains on long distance completely clean, without investing in overhead electrical lines and forgetting complety fossiles energies. It is a huge market. And we could develop this new technology in USA. Europe is too electrified for this technology and Russia wants to use its fossil fuel. It is not nuclear, nor hydrogen... Would run between 100-120 mph, Fits more for passenger trains now, but later, I guess it would be applicable for goods too and for higher speeds (but less autonomy)
> Requires only around 10-20 millions $ to develop the technology and the prototype of the train. A bargain when you know how much costs one train.
> 
> Do you know any serious contact for this?


Finally, someone who realizes the call for R&D. Here we can have something completely new.

I'm still all in for battery-electric, with some sort of energy recapture that I proposed earlier.

Also try running the diesels on SVO. Installing a filter and heater isn't very expensive at all. There's an overwhelming surplus of waste vegetable oil in the US, so that option should be even cheaper than diesel if given the right circumstance.


----------



## Facial

For those who are less passionate, let me elaborate on the latter:

Dynamic rheostatic braking systems are found on most locomotives. They are used when a train needs to stop for just about most non-emergency situations. But that's a huge amount of energy that's being put out as essentially thermal waste, entropy, whatever you want to call it.

The coils can be used to heat vegetable oil instead!

Then how do you start it in the morning? How about a tank 30% full of diesel (btw, the fuel tanks are compartmentalized) and start it on that for several tens of miles, while all the stops in between heat the vegetable oil?

It should be pretty close to its flash point by the time the diesel runs out, so when vegetable oil starts to flow its viscosity is comparable or even lower than that of diesel.

So there.


----------



## urbanfan89

The notion that electrified railways won't work in North America due to long distances is absolutely false. If Russia, China, and India can lay wires over their main lines which stretch for thousands of kilometres, there is no reason why it cannot be done on the North American continent.

We could aim for 30% of the network to have electrification, while the rest can be powered by cleaner forms of diesel. All locomotives should be able to run both on and off electricity. And no ethanol, please. It's a proven scam.


----------



## Facial

Ray LaHood's remarks on the stimulus bill

Notice through the middle of the text, that he mentions Amtrak _before_ airplanes and cars. This is a most unusual order of protocol, as most people mention cars and highways first, then airplanes, and then "mass transit" as a sideplate that usually comes last.

I hope this ordering has some indication on what priorities he may have.


----------



## hoosier

The $850 million for Amtrak is a good start but it is analogous to repaving and improving the traffic signals and signage on a two lane road when a new freeway is needed.


----------



## davsot

^^^^^^^^ loooooool


----------



## davsot

Apparently, I should change my tune on Amtrak. 



> New Amtrak President Declares War on Dead End Bureaucrats in His Midst
> 
> On CNBC yesterday Jim Cramer was addressing–that is ranting about–the question of bank nationalization. Executive summary: “The government can’t run anything!” Example A: “Look at Amtrak!”
> 
> Ah, poor Amtrak. So many haters. If new president Joseph Boardman is to be believed though, the much-abused national rail company isn’t going to take this “hapless bureaucracy” rap sitting down (nodding off, in fact) anymore.
> 
> But before he changes any minds, Boardman wants you know that all that stuff is true. In revealing new story from Trains Newswire, he describes Amtrak as being “in worse shape than he thought” and full of hopeless clock-watchers. But he’s promising that change is on the way. Some key points from the piece:
> 
> >> There are a lot of dead enders at Amtrak. Boardman refers to them as “people who don’t believe.”
> 
> >> Their heads will roll: “he says [any] Amtrak managers… who cannot make the transition from a survival mode to a growth mode will have to find another job.”
> 
> >> The previous management, despite the fact that traffic was up 12 percent last year, apparently didn’t order any regular passenger cars as part of their five year plan. For some reason they just asked for odds and ends like “baggage dormitory cars.”
> 
> >> That five-year plan was “Secret.”
> 
> >> Despite being a secret this five year plan also was “a joke” at Amtrak headquarters. (Only among the cynical burned out types or did “growth mode” people laugh too?)
> 
> >> This lack of passenger cars leaves Amtrak in “horrible” shape for America’s new golden era of passenger rail.
> 
> >> Everybody loves Boardman — congressman and railroad conductors alike. The former group digs him so much they (might possibly) want to give him more money since Amtrak got kind of stiffed in the stimulus; the latter group threw union support behind him after a jocular hang out session at Union Station on Thanksgiving day.
> 
> >> He has put in a request for $1 billion in government loans to buy electric locomotives. Apparently, “electric motive power is in such poor shape that Washington-New York-Boston trains are sometimes canceled for lack of power.”
> 
> >> He likes to use the word “train” metaphorically: “People are going to have to get on the train. We will make some judgments very soon.”
> 
> It’s a PR effort, of course — adjusting expectations with respect to his own performance and attempting to reposition Amtrak in the minds of people like Jim Cramer. It’s also a part of the real-world, non-PR challenge of defining the agency’s place in a new world where the expansion of high speed rail is a signature issue for a very popular president.


http://www.infrastructurist.com/200...res-war-on-dead-end-bureaucrats-in-his-midst/

I will forget any negative thoughts I've had about Amtrak in the past and judge them by what they do from now on...


----------



## Micrav

Maybe there is need to let Amtrak bankrupt or take care only of tracks and let new companies take care of running the cars. Like in the good old days of the gold rush! This would give a good dynamic to the country and focus the budget on infrastructure and let the dynamic fuys run the transport. I know I will have criticism, but if Amtrak is in so desesperate shape... Sometimes, it is better to restart on fresh bases!


----------



## davsot

^^^^^^^^ I read that many of the tracks are owned by freight companies. Is this correct? can anyone confirm this?


----------



## Kramerica

davsot said:


> ^^^^^^^^ I read that many of the tracks are owned by freight companies. Is this correct? can anyone confirm this?


Amtrak basically only owns [most] of the NEC (Northeast Corridor). They also own a small section of track in SW Michigan, I believe. There may be other short sections of track, especially near stations, that they own. 

But basically, Amtrak owns and maintains the NEC, while the rest of their train network is run on tracks owned, maintained, and DISPATCHED* by the freight railroads. (UP, BNSF, CSX, etc.) I don't know what the mileage of the NEC is, but Amtrak owns maybe 5% of their routes. 

*That is the bottom line as to why Amtrak trains have awful on-time performance. The freight RRs want their own trains to be on time, not Amtrak's.


----------



## dachacon

^^ yup Amtrak owns about 20% of the tracks it uses, mostly in the northeast.
the rest Amtrak has to "rent" from the freight companies. as a result cargo trains get priority over passenger trains, leading to delays.


----------



## davsot

This is exactly why we need some sort of transportation infrastructure renaissance NOW


----------



## Micrav

Now I understand a bit better.
Then I believe Amtrak should go HSL and build their own new lines. And show those freight lines that Amtrak can be independent and if they don't comply to their requirements to use those freight lines, may they stay alone (Amtrak must be able to negociate business like). I believe also that freight companies have all interest to invest in new tracks, even investing as shareholders in HSL and receive %. They know the business of railway...
In France, the National Post Office runs TGVs to deliver goods!!!
As you can see on this picture, now windows, only cargo. 








In Belgium, new HSL terminals are built to carry goods by TGV too. 
Imagine containers travelling High Speed by railway?


----------



## perthgazer

Obama plots huge railroad expansion

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18924.html

The $787.2 billion economic recovery bill — to be signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday — dedicates $8 billion to high-speed rail, most of which was added in the final closed-door bargaining at the instigation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

It’s a sum that far surpasses anything before attempted in the United States — and more is coming. Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ That is great start! I am afraid that 8 billion dollars will not be enough to build high speed rail. We would need around 500 billion dollars to build entire high speed rail system in USA.


----------



## davsot

^^^^^^^^ That was signed this Tuesday. Days ago... lol

I was talking about this very thing on another forum... Thanks a lot for bringing up the photo of La Poste . 



davsot said:


> ^^^^^^^^ I brought it up because on Wikipedia I was reading about MagLev logistics and was thinking why it had never been brought up with conventional HSR.
> 
> And I'm not talking about coal either. No, I'm talking about USPS and UPS and FedEx, you know, people sending each other letters and buying stuff from Amazon.com and having the package arrive through a less oil-consuming process.
> 
> Could you imagine a train with a FedEx label on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The logo in the back is of Trade Winds Cargo...


----------



## Brice

Micrav said:


> Maybe there is need to let Amtrak bankrupt or take care only of tracks and let new companies take care of running the cars. Like in the good old days of the gold rush! This would give a good dynamic to the country and focus the budget on infrastructure and let the dynamic fuys run the transport. I know I will have criticism, but if Amtrak is in so desesperate shape... Sometimes, it is better to restart on fresh bases!


Stupid idea. Read that :

HSR: Public or Private?

22 December 2008

We talk a lot about high-speed rail on this site. We’re convinced it would dramatically improve transportation in the United States, providing a useful alternative for travelling distances up to around 600 miles. Not only are high-speed trains far more ecologically sensitive than automobiles or airplanes, but if well designed and implemented, they are faster than both of the other modes in downtown-to-downtown travel. An intensive effort to bring high-speed rail to the United States would therefore act as a stimulus for inner-city development, something for which we should be pushing if we are to act now in the fight against climate change.

So the question of whether or not we should have high-speed rail is answered - in more than a dozen corridors around the U.S., such services would be both useful and well-used. If we know that we want such services, then, how should we implement them? How are high-speed trains managed in other countries, and what would make the most sense in America?

The heart of the debate is whether or not to privatize ownership of the rail infrastructure, and whether to privatize service in a competitive environment. In his recent high-speed rail bill, Congressman John Mica introduced a resolution that called for the Department of Transportation to solicit private parties for the renovation of the Northeast Corridor or the construction of a new parallel line, with the intent of providing a privately-run train that can travel between New York City and Washington in two hours or less. Mr. Mica’s argument - typical among economic conservatives - was that the private industry, working in a competitive environment, would be more effective in developing such a service than would the government such as under Amtrak management.

Rest of the article:

http://thetransportpolitic.com/2008/12/22/hsr-public-or-private/?referer=sphere_search


----------



## Kramerica

*Railroad ownership structure*

I think we should move the US railroad system toward the model of highways and airplanes. That is, the government owns and operates the infrastructure (i.e. track, just like they own highways and airports), while private industry owns and operates the vehicles and provides the service (i.e. freight trains and passenger trains, just like cars and trucks and airplanes are private). I don't think this will happen, but I think it would be the best for our country. It would also level the playing field for the three modes of transportation.

The government (not sure if it should be the states or the feds) would own the track. They'd probably pay someone to keep the track up to certain standards. Companies would bid on multi-year contracts for this work, keeping prices competitive. Those companies would probably be spin-offs of the current RRs, since they don't need to maintain track anymore. 

Under this system, the government could build new lines where needed using eminent domain. 

Dispatching of trains would be done by a private contractor, most likely spin-offs of current RRs, since they don't need dispatching either. The nation would be split up into many zones and bidding would take place on multi-year contracts to dispatch those zones. 

The beauty of central dispatching is that no one company would have control of a certain rail line. Let's say you own a lumber company on a RR line. Under this system, all the freight RRs would be able to bid on your freight business, since the line isn't owned by a freight RR anymore. That's just like the highway freight business. 

For passengers, that means there could be many operators on a single line, competing on travel time, time of day, number of stops, amenities, and of course price. That's good for the public. 

This is all assuming the RR network we have now, at conventional speeds. But this system expands easily over true high speed rail lines. Companies will bid for the right to use these lines. And freight RRs will be able to use them too, given they can make acceptable speed. 

I just think that going to this model will be the only way to put rails on an even playing field with highways and airplanes.


----------



## G5man

Kramerica said:


> The government (not sure if it should be the states or the feds) would own the track. They'd probably pay someone to keep the track up to certain standards. Companies would bid on multi-year contracts for this work, keeping prices competitive. Those companies would probably be spin-offs of the current RRs, since they don't need to maintain track anymore.


Interstate commerce would have to go through the feds. That has been the duty of Congress, to regulate interstate commerce since the Interstate Commerce Act from the 1800s


----------



## hoosier

If you have private companies running the trains on the track, they would shut down unprofitable routes leaving many communities high and dry with no rail access. That is why the government should run the trains and own the track so that the profit motive does not come into play and more communities have access to rail transit.

If private companies owned the interstate highway system, you would see MANY routes closed down because they weren't "profitable" and the mobility and welfare of the country would suffer greatly.


----------



## davsot

Kramerica said:


> I think we should move the US railroad system toward the model of highways and airplanes. That is, the government owns and operates the infrastructure (i.e. track, just like they own highways and airports), while private industry owns and operates the vehicles and provides the service (i.e. freight trains and passenger trains, just like cars and trucks and airplanes are private). I don't think this will happen, but I think it would be the best for our country. It would also level the playing field for the three modes of transportation.
> 
> The government (not sure if it should be the states or the feds) would own the track. They'd probably pay someone to keep the track up to certain standards. Companies would bid on multi-year contracts for this work, keeping prices competitive. Those companies would probably be spin-offs of the current RRs, since they don't need to maintain track anymore.
> 
> Under this system, the government could build new lines where needed using eminent domain.
> 
> Dispatching of trains would be done by a private contractor, most likely spin-offs of current RRs, since they don't need dispatching either. The nation would be split up into many zones and bidding would take place on multi-year contracts to dispatch those zones.
> 
> The beauty of central dispatching is that no one company would have control of a certain rail line. Let's say you own a lumber company on a RR line. Under this system, all the freight RRs would be able to bid on your freight business, since the line isn't owned by a freight RR anymore. That's just like the highway freight business.
> 
> For passengers, that means there could be many operators on a single line, competing on travel time, time of day, number of stops, amenities, and of course price. That's good for the public.
> 
> This is all assuming the RR network we have now, at conventional speeds. But this system expands easily over true high speed rail lines. Companies will bid for the right to use these lines. And freight RRs will be able to use them too, given they can make acceptable speed.
> 
> I just think that going to this model will be the only way to put rails on an even playing field with highways and airplanes.


Honestly, I thought we should have done this a long time ago. Surprised it hasn't crossed the government's mind yet. Them and their cars :hahaha:


----------



## davsot

It's the end of the world!!!!!

Miles of Idled Boxcars Leave Towns Singing the Freight-Train Blues

NEW CASTLE, Ind. -- Folks here figured the mile-long stretch of a hundred-plus yellow rail cars, which divides this small town like a graffiti-covered wall, would leave soon after it arrived.

That was a year ago.

"They stayed and they stayed and they stayed," says Bruce Atkinson, a local resident. "Then more moved in."

Tens of thousands of boxcars are sitting idle all over the country, parked indefinitely by railroads whose freight volumes have plummeted along with the economy. And residents of the communities stuck with these newly immobile objects, like the people of New Castle, are hopping mad about it.

Rail cars, idled by the slump in shipping caused by the recession, have sat for months on tracks in New Castle, Ind. Residents complain the cars cast shadows over homes that sit as close as 10 feet from the tracks.
Before February 2008, boxcars were a fleeting sight in this hamlet of 17,500 people 50 miles east of Indianapolis. For decades, no more than one or two trains a day traveled down the sleepy short-haul line that cuts through town.

Then rail cars -- 20-foot-tall yellow behemoths covered with the sort of spray-painted artwork once associated with New York City subway cars -- started rolling in by the dozens and grinding to a halt.

Now an elementary-school playground sits only feet from a line of rail cars covered with curse words. Someone with a paintball gun opened fire on one of the cars but missed, pelting a house instead. The looming cars have been blamed for casting shadows over homes that sit as close as 10 feet from the tracks. One woman says the lack of sunlight has turned her backyard into a mud pit.

One of the more visible manifestations of the global recession is the idling of vehicles used to move everything from scrap metal produced in the U.S. to sneakers made in China. Ocean-shipping companies have taken scores of ships out of service, anchoring them in or near ports around the world. The parking lots of trucking companies are clogged with trailers that in better times were rolling on highways.


Idle Rail Cars Frustrate Residents
2:22
People in New Castle, Ind., see a string of rail cars sitting unused in their town as a nuisance and an eyesore.
Railroads, which have seen shipping volumes drop by double-digit percentages in recent months, face a particularly vexing problem. The nation's five largest railroads have put more than 30% of their boxcars -- 206,000 in all -- into storage, according to the Association of American Railroads. Placed end-to-end, the cars would stretch from New York to Salt Lake City.

No Space
The railroads simply don't have enough space in their yards to store all the idled cars. So they look for convenient, out-of-the-way places to park them -- usually dormant tracks and rail sidings that are rarely used.

In December, residents in southern New Jersey were confused by the sight of a two-mile-long line of rail cars resting on a largely unused rail line in Cape May County. Some of the cars were parked only a few feet from houses. Rumors began spreading that the cars were tankers filled with hazardous materials. The mayors of two local townships assured the public that the cars were empty and posed no danger.

In December, Union Pacific Corp. parked a three-mile-long string of cars in the small town of Thornton, Colo. After staring at the idled cars for a month or so, local residents revolted. The railroad eventually agreed to move the cars to a less-populated area.

Dennis Duffy, Union Pacific's executive vice president of operations, says that in a healthy economy, the railroad might have 5,000 to 8,000 cars in storage. At the moment, it has 48,000 idle cars, he says, forcing it to come up with "unconventional solutions." It has parked them on 60 sidings around the country.

Few places, if any, have been forced to endure this spectacle for as long as New Castle, a town of 10 square miles surrounded by sprawling farmland. Scenes from the basketball movie "Hoosiers" were filmed at a high-school gym a few miles down the road.

DAVSOT: and much much more in the full article....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535033769344811.html?mod=rss_Page_One
^^^^^^ The link may not work forever so take advantage


----------



## Kramerica

G5man said:


> Interstate commerce would have to go through the feds. That has been the duty of Congress, to regulate interstate commerce since the Interstate Commerce Act from the 1800s


You're wrong. The States currently own all the highways, including the Interstates and US Highways. The same principle would apply to the tracks: The States would own the tracks and independent operators (just like trucking lines or bus lines) would run the vehicles. The only difference is that on the RR there would have to be dispatching. 



hoosier said:


> If you have private companies running the trains on the track, they would shut down unprofitable routes leaving many communities high and dry with no rail access. That is why the government should run the trains and own the track so that the profit motive does not come into play and more communities have access to rail transit.


Um, private companies currently own the tracks. And those same private companies currently run the freight trains. So I'm sure they've pretty much shut down all the unprofitable routes already. 

Under my plan, the tracks would be owned by the government and all freight RR carriers would be given an equal chance at access to customers along those routes. That would be good for competition and since the unprofitable freight lines have been shut down already, there should be bidders for these customers. 

The beauty of the government owning the track is that then the government could build more lines; lines that might be unprofitable to build but be profitable to operate. That should INCREASE rail access. 



hoosier said:


> If private companies owned the interstate highway system, you would see MANY routes closed down because they weren't "profitable" and the mobility and welfare of the country would suffer greatly.


If you're worried about passenger trains and private operators not wanting to run on some of the lesser-populated routes, here's my thought: Those routes aren't being run right now anyway. Have you seen the bare-bones skeleton of our passenger rail system? 

But, based on what some other countries do, there would probably have to be a government-run passenger train company to do the routes that don't have as many passengers, but are warranted to keep more people connected and to increase the overall efficiency of the national network by including as many potential passengers as possible. But leave the profitable routes to the private companies, so they can compete and drive up service and efficiency.


----------



## UD2

Entire system in NA is messed up.

Passangers should always have pirority to freight. That seems to be the case in most countries that is advenced in railroad travel.


----------



## dachacon

^^

most countries have 2 separate corridors one for passengers and one for freight

the u.s. had a great passenger service train system, but with the debut of airplanes, flying became the new sexy way of traveling so other modes of transportation, such as trains, and cruise ships lost significant business. that started the slow death of the private sector. with the government realizing that there needed to be some sort of passenger railway, so it created amtrak. you will not see any form of private rail company carrying passengers until you see amtrak make a profit. that is why freight gets priority over passengers. freight makes money. passengers don't, not to mention when you own the tracks, you have priority over anyone else using them.


----------



## Facial

I like the idea of nationalizing the railroads' property, because that way a lot of more sensible things can be done, like grade separations, adding more tracks, etc. without the delay and arbitrary decisions between public and private sectors.

Once a status of "bidirectional freight, bidirectional passenger" 4-tracks are complete, some of the property can be eventually returned to the freight railroads and the passenger lines kept as Amtrak's.


----------



## zaphod

I disagree, freight is a profitable business that has a large economic and positive environmental impact, compared to whatever tiny role today's Amtrak plays, so it shouldn't be potentially penalized

Amtrak to come back really just needs it's own lines in the corridors shown on that map. I say buy redundant freight mainlines now used as secondary routes, which there are definitely plenty of in the Midwest.


----------



## sequoias

I think Amtrak would be a huge improvement if they had their own dedicated lines, better signaling systems, higher speeds, newer rolling stock and all that..but we don't have the money for it.


----------



## He Named Thor

sequoias said:


> I think Amtrak would be a huge improvement if they had their own dedicated lines, better signaling systems, higher speeds, newer rolling stock and all that..but we don't have the money for it.


We have had the money for that before, we just refuse to use it for that for some reason.


----------



## sequoias

He Named Thor said:


> We have had the money for that before, we just refuse to use it for that for some reason.


Yeah, that was the time of auto dependence in revolution. The planes spew the most pollution in terms of traveling, so I think high speed train is the way to go. It may cost a lot, but cleaner in the long run.


----------



## UD2

China has been running passanger freight mixed lines for the known history of that country and it have done and is doing a great job at it.

It is not impossible, you just have to be willing. 

Now combining passanger and freight with the passangers taking pirority will definately hurt freight. With the tracks being owned by freight companies it isn't a wonder why they don't want to do it. But it is very possible. 

Also passanger service can be very profitable, but it involves huge investment to improve what is the poor excuse of an extensive railroad system in North America. I'm sure investors wouldn't want to inject their money into something that is so "unfashionable". 

So back to buying cars and collecting air miles.


----------



## TheMann2000

I just love this garbage:



> Amtrak is "poorly run and poorly managed," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, told CNN's Brianna Keilar on Tuesday.
> 
> "That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a train service, but we [shouldn't] give additional money and reward incompetency and inefficiency. If that's what the stimulus is about, we're in a whole lot worse trouble."


Amtrak doesn't even serve Oklahoma (I think) and these good 'ol GOP morons haven't learned yet that every form of transport gets subsidies. If it were me, I'd go a lot further than Biden did - I'd budget all the money to rebuild the Northeast Corridor to have a Shinkansen-style line just for the Acela, allowing it to go its full 200 mile an hour top speed, and in doing so bury the commuter airlines in the Northeast forever.

I would then focus on the triangle between Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. A plan was drawn up here to build a train based on the TGV, which of course got killed by heavy lobbying by Southwest. Payback time, Southwest - Again, this would almost certainly bury the commuter airlines. :devil:

These two lines alone would make life better for Amtrak financially - much more travel on their lines, much bigger profits on the (already profitable) Acela.

And memo to the GOP - don't ya think that electric-powered trains are good for US oil consumption instead of fuel-guzzling buses, cars and aircraft? Or do you just envision invading Venezuela next time instead of Iraq? hno:


----------



## Facial

What is with Republicans? Why do they regularly ignore the fact that Amtrak was created solely because the passenger services of virtually every private railroad in the U.S. became unprofitable?

And they wanted to privatize during Bush's height of ignorance? Give me a break! The privatized carve-ups wouldn't operate one percent more efficiently than Amtrak does now. They would begging to go back to the feds just like GM and Ford are doing now.

Nationalize the mainlines and nationalize Amtrak. Don't make it "for-profit" since that's just laughstock and a faux label to cover up pre-1971 failures of private railroads. Of course everyone would see that it is in the best interest of the corporation to operate with the least capital loss possible. Central planning keeps transfers and schedules coherent between different services, and regional partnerships, such as Amtrak California, already are quite sufficient in serving as positive role models for the rest of the system. There is no need for a "privatized" passenger railroad.


----------



## ADCS

TheMann2000 said:


> Amtrak doesn't even serve Oklahoma (I think)


Heartland Flyer takes a daily trip from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth, TX. While it takes about twice as long as driving, it certainly is a pleasant excursion, especially the part through the Arbuckle range in the south part of Oklahoma. It's also very popular; expansion up to Kansas City via Newton, KS is planned, linking the spur to the national network even further.

Coburn is a radical in the sense that if spending isn't for what he thinks are essential functions of government (usually military), then he is opposed to it. He rarely does what's in the state's best interest, and that has gotten even a bunch of Republicans mad at him. He most likely will not be re-elected in 2010.

And finally, coming from the Houston suburbs, both solidly GOP and oil company territory: no, they don't think reducing oil consumption is a good thing. The oil companies only care about profiting as much as possible, and the only way they can do that is selling as much oil product as possible. 

Meanwhile, the Republicans both have a inherent distaste for public spending (for reasons way too convoluted and complicated to describe here, though my previous post is a good place to start), and are heavily supported in their campaigns by the oil industry. They don't want Amtrak because they think everyone should just use fuel as inefficiently as possible on the heavily-subsidized public roads (which they want to toll now, usually contracted out to foreign firms) since it makes said oil companies ridiculously profitable. And it isn't unlikely that there would be a push for invading Venezuela; remember who is the only winner in war: not the victorious army, but rather, the businesses who are flush with cash from wartime spending and now have a clear field for setting up shop in new territories.


----------



## hkskyline

*France's SNCF hopes to run high speed rail in US *
19 March 2009
Agence France Presse

The United States is ready for a truly high-speed rail system and France's national railway SNCF would be "very interested" in operating a network, a senior executive said Thursday.

"We strongly believe that in this country, in some of the corridors, the system should logically be profitable," SNCF International chairman Jean-Pierre Loubinoux said in an interview on the sidelines of a rail conference in Indiana.

While detailed market analysis still needs to be undertaken, Loubinoux said the French experience has shown that high-speed rail operates most effectively between large cities that are around 1,000 to 1,500 kilometers (600 to 930 miles) apart.

These conditions exist in the east coast, California, the midwest, Texas and Florida.

"You could have more than just a corridor. You could have a system," he told AFP.

"If the possibility (of operating a network) is open we certainly would consider it with great interest."

The US government has allocated eight billion dollars for high-speed rail as part of a massive economic stimulus package and a number of states are competing for the money.

The bulk of the states are expected to propose incremental improvements to their rail systems by improving existing tracks in order to increase speeds from a maximum of 79 miles per hour to 110 or 150 miles per hour (127 kilometers per hour to 177 or 241 kilometers per hour.)

Loubinoux said the nation would be better off investing in a new, dedicated system with speeds of up to 217 miles (350 kilometers) per hour.

There is "a lot of business potential to be considered," Loubinoux said, adding that the structure of the bidding process remains to be determined.

"Will it be just a build and transfer of technology, will it be maintenance and operation... commercial contracts, operating possibilities," he said.

"Definitely in some cases, especially in high-speed corridors... we could envisage participating in some operation systems."

The SNCF, which developed France's famed TGV series of high-speed trains in the 1970s, plans to submit proposals to the US railway authority, which expressed interest last fall in improving service in 11 rail corridors.

"What we can bring is our experience. It's been more than 25 years since we developed high-speed rail services."

Loubinoux is hopeful that the United States, which has long lagged in developing its passenger rail system, now has the political will to launch the massive investment needed.

"The economic and financial crisis worldwide seems to be a sort of catalyst to big, nationwide infrastructure programs," he added.


----------



## He Named Thor

aquablue said:


> I find it so incredibly frustrating (as a USA resident) that they can't get their finances and everything together to build a few lines of what they call "High speed rail" (110mph max).
> 
> China has dedicated 789billion dollars to rail -- 789b bloody dollars -- they have built a 1000mile Beijing-Shanghai link done in a paltry ammount of time. In the USA, the rail associations are so weak and they aim so low (i.e, calling a 110mph link HSR) that it is almost a joke... I am incredibly embarrased that they would even use that term - High Speed.
> 
> For example, the South East HSR and Mid West HSR from Richomd - Charlotte and Chicago to St. Louis. The web sites has been around for years with nothing happening. The timeline says it would take 10 years to start construction. All this for a slow-ass 110mph train link? This is just upgrading old freight tracks, how difficult could that be?
> 
> I thought Sen. Kerry knew what it takes to build a proper rail line in terms of costs, etc.. Then he proposes a tiny figure of 8billion for the entire country. How dissapointing, what a laugh.
> 
> WHY are they aiming so low, why are they so afraid to be bold and ask for the realistic sums of money required from the new gov?
> 
> WAKE UP USA. WAKE UP RAIL PEOPLE. HAVE SOME BACKBONE, STOP CALLING 110mph RAIL HIGH SPEED, ITS EMBARASSING.
> 
> Argentina is about to build a HSR link now, and we are waiting until 2012 to even start construction on the CA HSR....
> 
> WHY IS IT SO SLOW HERE? I seriously think that there is a conspiracy against rail in this country from business (taxis, airlines, right wing conservative rural people) and it makes me so incredibly angry and sad to see this country standing still while the rest of the developed and developing world race ahead with ambition.
> 
> China is building thousands of kms of HSR --- and here we give into rural or conservative people who have a love affair with the car and the airplane...well, i'm fed up with these idiots.


Short answer: We let NIMBY's run our country. Unlike China, where NIMBY's get nothing more than a note on their door that says GTFO, we hold meetings for these idiots and actually listen to what they say. Then we have to do studies and what not and report our findings back to them, only for them to ignore it and kill any and all projects. 



hoosier said:


> AMericans seem to be so completely stupid that they are oblivious to the problems with transportation in their own country.
> 
> On top of that you have mentally retarded conservatives that see the railroad as a symbol for socialism and planning, which to them represents unwanted government intervention in the marketplace, as if the market built the freeways and roads they love in the first place.
> 
> Republicans hate anything that doesn't burn coal or oil.
> 
> It is a sick and sad state of affairs in which we live.


+1. 



sotavento said:


> ^^ This is a missconception ...
> 
> 
> Tram«s were replaced by buses because these had advantages that culd not be used by trams (namely one had to build tram tracks everywhere) .. .and long distance trains lost big time to the plain when this entered the jet era ... same fate happened to steamers/trans-oceanic travell.
> 
> It just evolved ... trains didn't ... at least in the USA they didn't evolve.
> 
> for example in europe BUDD and Pullman coaches were a sign of "fast" rail travell so railways continuously made progress on rail infraestructure ... but in the end most of european railway companies ended up as a small group of nationalized railway companies.
> 
> in the USA they remained as fully private companies and adapted to ever changing conditions ... the passenger traffic in USA moved from rail to air/road in the same way that freight traffic moved from rail to road in europe.
> Nowadays is much more dififcurt to recover the lost freight in europe that it would be to recover the passenger freight in the USA.


Actually General Motors and Michelin *DID* go buying up public transit networks only to shut them down and replace them with (GM built) buses. This is actual fact.


----------



## sarflonlad

Maybe I'm getting confused... but if states are upgrading a lot of track to run at 110mph or even 150mph, then that's pretty damn good.

Many HSR countries seem to neglect their other services. In the UK we don't really have credible HSR like France or Germany (except 3 lines at 125mph and the 186mph Eurostar). However we do operate more lines at 100mph+ in route length than any other EU state with very high frequencies. It does do the job well and passenger numbers continue to grow... even in recession one private rail company announced an increase in revenue. Traveling on conventional rail in HSR countries can be a tedious and painful experience. The USA it seems is going to have a first class conventional rail experience if all the upgrades are made.

There does also now seem to be momentum in connecting US populations with true HSR e.g. California.


----------



## Chafford1

110mph services are a sensible first step, given that the kind of funds the Chinese are pouring into their railways won't be available in the USA. Following Obama's recent $8 billion initiative, US railroads should start seeing some progress once the funding has been allocated in April. 

Another point worth mentioning about the Chinese is that they don't take into account the wishes of the people when developing their infrastructure. If your house is in the path of a new line, tough.


----------



## nomarandlee

sarflonlad said:


> Maybe I'm getting confused... but if states are upgrading a lot of track to run at 110mph or even 150mph, then that's pretty damn good.
> 
> Many HSR countries seem to neglect their other services. In the UK we don't really have credible HSR like France or Germany (except 3 lines at 125mph and the 186mph Eurostar). However we do operate more lines at 100mph+ in route length than any other EU state with very high frequencies. It does do the job well and passenger numbers continue to grow... even in recession one private rail company announced an increase in revenue. Traveling on conventional rail in HSR countries can be a tedious and painful experience. The USA it seems is going to have a first class conventional rail experience if all the upgrades are made.
> 
> There does also now seem to be momentum in connecting US populations with true HSR e.g. California.


 That has been more my line of thinking over the last few months which in contract to before I was thinking there should be more fosuc on short dedicated HSR lines. If the U.S. could just get much of the sytem at a 100-115mph consistant pace over much if its sytem that would really be a great improvement and cost a fraction in contrast to dedicated ROW HSR.

On certain segements dedicated HSR could still make sense on some routes but just as much attention should be made to upgrading to a 100-115mph standard. Right now with 55-75mph mph avg. with frequant delays that is the standard right now is not sustainable for longtime viability of the system.


----------



## JoKo65

sotavento said:


> Only the british can claim the diesel-HST crown ... 125 classed HST 's , Virgin Voiagers (and others similar in the UK) and the failing ICE-VT of DB are basically the only ones running daily at speeds of 125mph around the globe under diesel power. :cheers:
> […]


You mean ICE TD.


----------



## mgk920

(ignoring the partisan political cheap shots - there is plenty of blame to go around)

I applaud the proposal from SNCF. Deride the French all you want (and I do on a lot of fronts), but they do know how to handle electric power systems and they do know how to run a railroad - their TGV ('Train à Grande Vitesse' - literally 'Very Fast Train') services have devastated the French domestic airlines.

IMHO, the biggest roadblocks for them here in the USA will be the FRA collision rules (I would go with the European rules and IMHO, highway grade crossings are a much bigger passenger safety threat than are freight trains); tax treatment of railroad rights-of-way; interfacing with the private freight railroads; NIMBY! :bleep: and, likely the biggest impediment of all, ROW acquisition cost.

Imagine trying to build a new-ROW TGV-style line between NYC and Boston.



When Amtrak was developing their Acela service, they did consider 'unkinking' the NEC through Connecticut, but opted instead to run the train slower and add 'tilting' technology to the trainsets because of the out-of-sight prohibitive cost (mostly involving ROW acquisition) of straightening the track, which hugs the coastline through much of the state (how many total 'full circles' of curvature are there on the NEC between NYC and Boston?).

Similar costs and roadblocks, though not to that extreme level, will face them elsewhere in the USA.

That said, in addition to what was written in the above article and assuming that it can be built, I believe that a TGV-style service can also work between Chicago and the northeastern USA - especially with the several major cities along the way.

The airlines are best for long-distance (1000-1500km+ one-way) common-carrier travel. Rails are best for the shorter hops.

Mike


----------



## DWNTWN

I applaud the French for taking the initiative. Clearly, the SNCF works and as time has shown, we need a foreign country to show the naysayers about HSR in the U.S. -NIMBYs included- how it has worked in their countries and how it can link cities here, shortening travel times and improving efficiency in travel. These guys need to start pitching HSR in terms of passenger comfort as well considering that on a flight connecting Miami to Orlando (i.e.) one would be treated to uncomfortable seats with what the airlines call "leg-room", no food, and a 2.5 ft.-wide aisle to walk the length of the plane to stretch (not to mention the incredible hassles associated with security checkpoints at airports). Instead, with an HSR line, one could do point-to-point travel (in Miami the trains would arrive at a Central station just outside the airport, but have direct connections to Miami-Dade Transit, and the airport itself via an APM), have much more comfort on the trains with a bistro car, REAL leg-room, and a chance to walk around. Don't get me wrong, I love aviation -and always have-, I just think its time that we become more efficient in this country in terms of transportation and in that aspect HSR soars above air travel for distances such as the aforementioned.


----------



## UD2

Too much bailout money to the car makers. Not enough left for trains.


----------



## G5man

I hear the FRA has to come up with a proposal to build it, perhaps Mr. Biden could help us by adopting the European rail standards to show support for high speed rail. Since we have Mr. Amtrak as the VP, we might be able to get some regional high speed trains completed. 

Another reason we find it too hard to complete. Credit default swaps are worth more than transportation. It's the whole reason the financial system has gone haywire.


----------



## LtBk

> Short answer: We let NIMBY's run our country. Unlike China, where NIMBY's get nothing more than a note on their door that says GTFO, we hold meetings for these idiots and actually listen to what they say. Then we have to do studies and what not and report our findings back to them, only for them to ignore it and kill any and all projects.


The US is not the only country that has problems with NIMBY's ruining things.


----------



## hoosier

hans280 said:


> Yeah, but... please don't forget that DFW (That's Dallas-Fort Worth, ainnit?) is in itself a huge sprawl and there's not to my knowledge a very good local infrastructure (metros, commuter lines...). Which being so, you'd still need a car to get to/from a central HS station. The European experience is, you only get a really good load factor on highspeed trains when the end-stations of those trains are the hubs of strong local transport networks. Otherwise, what are passengers supposed to do? Drive to DFW highspeed station and leave their car there; then take the fast train to Houston; then rent a car in Huston? That's not realistic. In that case they'll drive.


DT Dallas is served by THREE light rail lines, so there are transit options.

Taking the train between Dallas and Houston would be FAR faster than driving. That is the advantage. HSR is targeted to replace short haul flights, not driving.

And Houston does have plans to build a new intercity rail terminal serviced by light rail in addition to building an E-W light rail line, so most of the city will be accessible via rail in the next ten years.


----------



## mramelet

I hope the US will follow the french for their HST, but forget about what we did with their "common" train (regional and intercities outside TGV)
The issue in France is that the TGV has been seen as the "king" of the rails, and no investment has been done on the rest of the network 
The result is that the secondary network is devastated.
Probably this would have happened without the TGV as well, as we had here - like everywhere else- a period where cars seemed to be the only thing that did matter.
Unfortunately we didn't save the freight which is performing very poor in France, compared to Germany for example.
I propose a deal : HST against freight expertise


----------



## hans280

hoosier said:


> DT Dallas is served by THREE light rail lines, so there are transit options.
> 
> Taking the train between Dallas and Houston would be FAR faster than driving. That is the advantage. HSR is targeted to replace short haul flights, not driving.


Yeah, sure Hoosier, but I think you miss a couple of my points. Taking last things first, I agree a high-speed train is much faster than driving, but you'll never get a high-speed train between - say - Orange County and Modesto. (You may get a TRAIN, but it will have to stop 5-8 times to pick up enough passengers to make it viable.) It'll be between central LA and central SF. Which being so, it all hangs on how fast you get from central LA (or central Houston) to the suburbs - without a car. 

You're of course right that HSR is tageted to replace short haul flights - but, unlike cars, flights are much faster than trains. Again, the whole argument hangs on railway stations being much more conveniently located than airports. In Europe this is generally the case: our cities are so concentrated, and only the smallest hillbilly cities have not at least 5-6 metro lines. Therefore, people like the train: City centre to city centre is the best possible kind of transport. Only....

...I'm not sure it will work in Texas. People can take a cap from the airport every bit as well as they can take a cap from the (highspeed) railway station.


----------



## Alle

I guess all the resources went to bail out the bank institutions...

:runaway:


----------



## philvia

i dont think the US needs a nation wide network of HSR - its too big and too expensive. Before anyone says anything, i'm a HSR ADDICT, i love fast trains... going to school to hopefully one day be in charge of constructing them but I think that they should only serve regional cities that have good mass transit... with airplanes connecting the longer distances.


----------



## Yrmom247

The US has a hard time building HSR because we reformed this country to be built around the car and the airplane. But I see another reform in the future because of our plan for renewable energies. Sun powering trains is way less expensive and more efficient than driving or flying. And I believe Obama realizes that or definitely won't be a stranger to the idea.


----------



## dachacon

so i got invited to a wedding in Atlanta. and im planning to get there by train. and i mapped out the route. i leave Los Angeles Union Station Sunday take the Sunset Limited to New Orleans, stop for an overnight layover in New Orleans, leave the next morning on The Crescent, and arrive Wednesday night in Atlanta. any comments??


----------



## hoosier

philvia said:


> i dont think the US needs a nation wide network of HSR - its too big and too expensive. Before anyone says anything, i'm a HSR ADDICT, i love fast trains... going to school to hopefully one day be in charge of constructing them but I think that they should only serve regional cities that have good mass transit... with airplanes connecting the longer distances.


No one is advocating HSR lines connecting New York with LA or LA with Seattle.

But there are many regions within the country that would be well served by HSR.


----------



## hoosier

hans280 said:


> You're of course right that HSR is tageted to replace short haul flights - but, unlike cars, flights are much faster than trains. Again, the whole argument hangs on railway stations being much more conveniently located than airports. In Europe this is generally the case: our cities are so concentrated, and only the smallest hillbilly cities have not at least 5-6 metro lines. Therefore, people like the train: City centre to city centre is the best possible kind of transport. Only....
> 
> ...I'm not sure it will work in Texas. People can take a cap from the airport every bit as well as they can take a cap from the (highspeed) railway station.


HSR is just as fast as air travel over relatively short distances because the train takes you from city center to city center, and not the airport 20 miles from DT. Also, the security clearance process is much shorter and less onerous than it is at airports. And trains don't get delayed by bad weather the way airplanes do.


----------



## Basincreek

People who think interest groups from Detroit and some supposed American love for cars is behind the lack of high speed trains are clueless.

There are very good reasons that high speed rail is hard to obtain in the USA. Here they are:

1) Federal rules for safety require enormous cushions of space between passenger trains and freight trains. This means there will be significant disruptions to freight rail if you try to run passenger trains on rail lines also used for freight. High speed passenger service also requires upgrades to the rail lines such as grade separations and curve corrections. This is bad because of the next point.

2) Existing rail ROW is owned by private companies who want nothing to do with passenger rail because freight rail is more profitable. They will not allow the use of their existing tracks for such purposes or even consider the use of space next to their tracks since construction there would interfere with their freight operations.

3) Property values are generally high and this means that buying up the ROW for a HST rail line is prohibitively expensive. This also often leads to court challenges since no one wants to live near a railroad and most of the legal precedents set by environmentalists in opposing road construction can be applied to opposing rail construction as well.

4) Anti-tax lobbies try to kill any government spending on infrastructure and often use the people in point #3 to accomplish this.

5) Large airports are numerous and are generally seen as adequately handling the passenger travel over medium to long distances.


Now I support HSR, and am upset that Palo Alto is trying to kill the one in California because of their blatant NIMBYizing, but blaming the problems the USA has in getting HSR on a love of cars is just missing the point.


----------



## hoosier

^^Correct.

However, HSR consumes FAR less right of way than a highway and produces negligible pollution, especially when using electric engines. The freight companies have no passenger service, as they are FREIGHT RAIL companies. The government has bought track from the freight companies before in order to create passenger rail service and that can happen again in the future.

And considering that there is sufficient rail infrastructure already in existence in major cities, HSR can be routed onto those corridors (perhaps adding an extra track or two to relieve congestion) with minimal interruption.


----------



## hoosier

dachacon said:


> so i got invited to a wedding in Atlanta. and im planning to get there by train. and i mapped out the route. i leave Los Angeles Union Station Sunday take the Sunset Limited to New Orleans, stop for an overnight layover in New Orleans, leave the next morning on The Crescent, and arrive Wednesday night in Atlanta. any comments??


Have fun, you will see a lot of the country and pass through many cities. Also, the Amtrak station in Atlanta is a few miles north of the DT area and is not accessible via MARTA rail.


----------



## urbanfan89

> Property values are generally high and this means that buying up the ROW for a HST rail line is prohibitively expensive.


They're a lot higher in most of Europe or even Canada, and much, much so in Japan. This is a non-argument.


----------



## Basincreek

hoosier said:


> ^^Correct.
> 
> However, HSR consumes *FAR less right of way than a highway* and produces negligible pollution, especially when using electric engines. The freight companies have no passenger service, as they are FREIGHT RAIL companies. The government has bought track from the freight companies before in order to create passenger rail service and that can happen again in the future.


Don't see a whole lot of new highways being built in the USA either. There's just a whole lot of nothing being built.



urbanfan89 said:


> They're a lot higher in most of Europe or even Canada, and much, much so in Japan. This is a non-argument.


Uh, in Europe and Japan there were other factors at play. 

1) Large nationalized rail systems that were already largely oriented to passenger use.

2) Population concentrations in urban areas.

3) Increased eminent domain powers by the state.


----------



## nomarandlee

hoosier said:


> . Also, the security clearance process is much shorter and less onerous than it is at airports. And trains don't get delayed by bad weather the way airplanes do.


 After the first few train bombings that will change and train security will become nearly as cumbersome as airport security.


----------



## urbanfan89

> 1) Large nationalized rail systems that were already largely oriented to passenger use.


This is something that needs to be built. You can't have HSR without a good passenger rail system.



> 2) Population concentrations in urban areas.


In case you don't know, this is the same in the US.



> 3) Increased eminent domain powers by the state.


This is a non-argument. If the state can seize land to build roads and airports, it can seize land to build railways, so long as it is for public use.


----------



## LtBk

If HSR becomes popular in California, I think there will be more HSL lines covering the country. Time to shut those rural anti-tax conservative nutjobs up.


----------



## jCav

I think rail may gain importance after the the recent fuel volatilty in the future. I think it matters upon the population density of connecting cities and the city's public transit to connect to the HSR hubs.


----------



## Basincreek

urbanfan89 said:


> In case you don't know, this is the same in the US.


Big cities in the US are ringed with huge low density suburbs through which it is enormously expensive to build and are filled with residents who will use courts to stop anything from being built.



urbanfan89 said:


> This is a non-argument. If the state can seize land to build roads and airports, it can seize land to build railways, so long as it is for public use.


Different countries, and different states within the US, have different degrees of ease in using it. It is enormously hard in California, for example, to prove, in courts, that a public benefit would be derived from the construction of new infrastructure. The precedent set by anti-freeway activists is that you have to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the people being affected by the land seizure will absolutely benefit from the new infrastructure and that the degree of benefit will outweigh any costs attributed to the land seizure. Not easy to do.


----------



## Koen Acacia

nomarandlee said:


> After the first few train bombings that will change and train security will become nearly as cumbersome as airport security.


You're saying that as if there have never been train bombings.


----------



## nomarandlee

Koen Acacia said:


> You're saying that as if there have never been train bombings.


 Have there been bombings on HSR going +150mph? I think it is only a matter of time and so will be the reaction.


----------



## Tri-ring

I believe a carry on bomb into a cart went off in Spain awhile back killing most of the people in the same cart but it will be difficult to derail the train itself since explosion of a bomb generally travels upwards.
To obtain maximum damage, the boogies will be the primary target to derail the train but that will be very difficult using a suicide bomber. 
Other methods will be to blow up the tracks but again unless it is set like a mine ATC will activate before it reaches the damaged tracks. 
A cyber attack will probably be more efficient than a bomb if you ask me.


----------



## hkskyline

*Billions for high-speed rail; anyone aboard? *
26 March 2009

NEW YORK (AP) - To Americans, high-speed trains evoke the gee-whiz factor of a trip to Tomorrowland: Ride futuristic cars that zoom you to a destination in a fraction of the drive time -- without having to fight your way through an airport. Read a book, do paperwork, take a nap while you whoosh ahead in high-speed comfort.

To governments, they evoke benefits to the common good -- reduced freeway traffic, lower carbon pollution and more jobs.

But this country has never built a high-speed "bullet" train rivaling the successful systems of Europe and Asia, where passenger railcars have blurred by at top speeds nearing 200 mph for decades.

Since the 1980s, every state effort to reproduce such service has failed. The reasons often boil down to poor planning and simple mathematics.

Yet President Barack Obama, intent on harnessing new technology to rebuild the devastated economy, made a last-minute allocation of $8 billion for high-speed rail in his mammoth stimulus plan.

It sounds good, but that amount isn't enough to build a single system, or to dramatically increase existing train speeds, transportation experts say.

California is the only state with an active project, and its proposed cost is more than five times the stimulus amount. The $42 billion plan is far from shovel ready -- it's still seeking local approvals -- but it's farther down the track than any other state with an outstretched hand for a slice of Obama's high-speed pie.

There are rail advocates who say anything is better than nothing when it comes to modernizing U.S. train transportation, which needs all the help it can get. Others say the stimulus injection is like adding a teaspoon of water to the ocean and calling it high tide.

------

Roughly six proposed routes with federal approval for high-speed rail stand a good chance of getting some of the $8 billion award, according to U.S. Transportation Department officials. The spurs include parts of Texas, Florida, the Chicago region, and southeast routes through North Carolina and Louisiana.

Officials in those areas have said they'd be happy to take part of the president's offer, even though they don't have high-speed systems to pump money into. Talking with reporters recently, Obama said he'd love to see such trains in his former state of Illinois linking Chicago to Wisconsin, Missouri and Michigan.

The economic benefit is enormous, the president said. "Railroads were always the pride of America, and stitched us together. Now Japan, China, all of Europe have high-speed rail systems that put ours to shame."

New Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman also from Illinois, said developing high-speed rail is the country's No. 1 transportation priority.

"Anybody who has ever traveled in Europe or Japan knows that high-speed rail works and that it's very effective," LaHood said in an interview with The Associated Press.

What exactly is "high-speed"? It depends on the location. The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration says the term applies to trains traveling more than 90 mph (144 kph). The European Union standard is above 125 mph (200 kph).

And many overseas bullet trains -- most powered by overhead electricity lines -- run faster than that. In France, for example, the TGV ("Train a Grande Vitesse") covers the 250 miles (400 kilometers) between Paris and Lyon in one hour, 55 minutes at an average speed of about 133 mph (213 kph). A 25,000-horsepower French train reached 357.2 mph (571.5 kph) in 2007, setting a world record for conventional train systems.

In Japan, which opened the first high-speed rail in the 1960s and carries more passengers than any other country, Shinkansen trains hurtle the countryside at an average of about 180 mph (288 kph). Japan's magnetically levitated train -- different from conventional wheels-on-rails technology -- holds the overall world speed record at 361 mph (577.6 kph).

Super-fast trains also run in Germany, Spain and China, at speeds up to 140 mph (224 kph), according to a 2007 survey in the trade publication Railway Gazette.

The only rail service that qualifies under America's lower high-speed standard is Amtrak's 9-year-old Acela Express route connecting Boston to Washington, D.C.

The trains are built to reach speeds up to 150 mph (240 kph), but only average about 80 mph (128 kph) because of curving tracks and slower-moving freight and passenger trains that share the route. On the densely traveled line from New York City to the nation's capital, the Acela arrives just about 20 minutes earlier than standard service, at more than twice the cost during peak travel times.

For instance, a one-way Acela fare leaving New York at 11 a.m. is $155. The same departure on a regular train costs $72.

"In virtually no way does the Acela Express perform near overseas standards," says author Joseph Vranich, a former Amtrak public affairs spokesman and president of the High Speed Rail Association. In 2004 he wrote a highly critical book titled, "End of the Line: The Failure of Amtrak Reform and the Future of America's Passenger Trains."

He's equally unimpressed with the federal stimulus money.

"Here's what's going to happen: The (Obama) administration will issue these funds in dribs and drabs -- to this project and that project -- and the result will be an Amtrak train from Chicago to St. Louis that takes maybe 15 minutes off the travel time."

Current Amtrak travel time between the two cities is about five hours, 30 minutes.

Trying to make American trains run faster will always go off the rails, Vranich says, as long as planners keep trying to recreate overseas systems. "We're not Europe. We're not Japan. We're looking at shorter travel times, through population densities that are much higher."

In other words, plans to put a screaming bullet train through American towns with concentrated populations will always face hard challenges.

Which is part of the reason previous efforts failed in Florida, Texas and Southern California -- all of which have approved plans for high-speed train service, then later cancelled them. California has one of the country's most tortured relationships with bullet trains.

In 1982, a hastily written $2 billion bullet train bill sailed through the closing days of the legislative session and was signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a longtime cheerleader for fast rail. The measure specifically exempted the project from the state's strict environmental review process and allowed California to underwrite tax-exempt revenue bonds to help fund the 125-mile (200-kilometer) route between San Diego and Los Angeles that bragged of nonstop, 59-minute train service.

The system was never built. The project was ultimately abandoned for several reasons, including a barrage of protests from residents near proposed stations and public outcry over exempting it from environmental review.

Fourteen years later, the state legislature formed the California High Speed Rail Authority, charged with planning and developing fast trains between metropolitan areas in the most populous, and arguably most car-conscious state.

After two failed attempts to make the ballot, a $9.95 billion bond measure was approved by voters in November to help fund the first leg of what would ultimately be an 800-mile (1,280-kilometer) system -- service between San Francisco and Anaheim, home to Disneyland -- at a promised travel time of 2 1/2 hours.

The newest plan also faces criticism. Opponents doubt the wisdom of building a gargantuan project that won't move a train for at least 10 years, while California proposes cutting services and raising taxes during a national economic meltdown.

No bonds have been sold yet, and the authority is running out of money. Quentin Kopp, a former state senator who chairs the authority, said he was very encouraged by meeting he held in Washington to try to get at least $2 billion of the federal stimulus money.

But other rail activists think the stimulus money will not go into creating any super high-speed train lines.

"It's very likely that all of the money will go to significant improvements of existing tracks. It's not going to build bullet trains," said Ross Capon, head of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, an advocacy group for rail travel.

------

Associated Press writer Joan Lowy in Washington contributed to this story.


----------



## Tri-ring

> "In virtually no way does the Acela Express perform near overseas standards," says author *Joseph Vranich*, a former Amtrak public affairs spokesman and president of the High Speed Rail Association. In 2004 he wrote a highly critical book titled, "End of the Line: The Failure of Amtrak Reform and the Future of America's Passenger Trains."
> 
> He's equally unimpressed with the federal stimulus money.
> 
> "Here's what's going to happen: The (Obama) administration will issue these funds in dribs and drabs -- to this project and that project -- and the result will be an Amtrak train from Chicago to St. Louis that takes maybe 15 minutes off the travel time."
> 
> Current Amtrak travel time between the two cities is about five hours, 30 minutes.
> 
> Trying to make American trains run faster will always go off the rails, Vranich says, as long as planners keep trying to recreate overseas systems.* "We're not Europe. We're not Japan. We're looking at shorter travel times, through population densities that are much higher."*
> 
> In other words, plans to put a screaming bullet train through American towns with concentrated populations will always face hard challenges.


This guy certainly does not know what he is talking about.
Japan is as dense if not denser in population and yet was able to develop present Shinkansen system. In fact population density is one of the factor for successful high speed rail system.


----------



## hkskyline

Source : http://www.pbase.com/ki4nak/amtrak


----------



## nomarandlee

^^ I think your reading it wrong (or maybe I am). I think he is saying that Europe/Asia do have closer distances and higher density city's so as to make HSR more feasible.

Having larger more dispersed metros as we do in NA does lessen slightly the attractiveness of downtown HSR. In many European/Asian city's you are likely to be a 15-20 minute train/subway ride away from catching a HSR train. In many a NA city it will be a half-hour to hour car ride to downtown to catch a HSR train for more people.

As far as expense due to the nature of the built enviroment the expense may equalize out in the end of building through such different metros. In U.S. metros you have to try to attain land and route plan through miles of endless suburbia but there is also less of the uber-expensive acquisition and planning through super dense city's such as Tokyo, Paris, or even smaller European/Asian cities.


----------



## quashlo

^^Actually, I think the article is misquoting him (!). Clearly, no one in their right mind would try to argue that the US on average is more dense than Europe or Asia.


----------



## hoosier

Well, St. Louis and CHicago both have local rail transit systems that connect DT to the airport and other areas, so HSR would work well there. And having HSR in the U.S. will spur cities to invest more in mass transit, just as the interstate highway system encouraged more local road building.

The fact that there is lower population density between America's big cities means that bullet trains can travel at top speeds for greater distances.

And America's major cities are comparable in distance to many of Europe, Japan, and China's.


----------



## davsot

Amtrak should have Wi-Fi. It's the least they could do after forcing passengers on overnight rides. 

It seems like everyone here is a Democrat. :lol: me too!


----------



## davsot

Errr... I like this thread discussion. But..

Did anyone see the new Acela commercial? :tongue2:

The one jabbing at the airlines (Oh wait they always do that).
Couldn't find it on Youtube, but still...


----------



## philvia

davsot said:


> It seems like everyone here is a Democrat. :lol: me too!


this forum lacks religious and gun forums so we tend to not attract many republicans


----------



## He Named Thor

philvia said:


> this forum lacks religious and gun forums so we tend to not attract many republicans


Zing! :lol:

I'll be taking Amtrak from Chicago to Washington, DC next month.:banana: 

Much cheaper than flying, and I get to see the scenery along the way.


----------



## FlyFish

Very interesting thread and I love the political and business conspiracies. Great stuff...lunacy mostly but entertaining to read. IMO, some of you are over-complicating this.


We don't want HSR service here in the US. If it was something that enough people wanted it would be built. That's the market speaking. Amtrak is "profitable" in one corridor nationally (Boston to Washington DC), and as a former weekly rider of that corridor I can say that the acela was a great thing but even the old Metroliner service was faster than driving or flying. Everywhere else it loses money, so why would those who steal and then spend my income decide to pour it down a hole where there is no evidence that enough people would use it to justify construction?

The current system needs to be subsidized heavily to stay afloat, why would that be different just because the trains run faster?

This is very simple really, in the US we do not have the desire for this service. It makes sense in Europe I suppose although I am certain the subsidies there are large but here, other than from Boston to DC and eventually down the Pacific coast from SFC to San Diego there just aren't enough riders to justify the expenditure.


----------



## Ganis

The airlines in America do not like the idea of high speed rail connecting regions.

In my opinion it would save the large airlines like AA, United and US a Delta a bundle because they could drop their small plains and stop wasting fuel and maintenance hours flying someone from DC to NY and all these other 1 to 2 hour puddle jumps.

Let the companies like Amtrak take on the short distances and let the airlines focus on Long haul, or any flight over 3 to 4 hours away and International.

Let America travel on the rails between Austin and Dallas, LA and San Francisco, Miami to Atlanta and so on. Let Americans see their country from the ground and not 5000 feet.

I support the push for high speed rail in the USA.


----------



## FlyFish

philvia said:


> this forum lacks religious and gun forums so we tend to not attract many republicans



We're here, we just have to work during the day.......


By the way, all of the political stuff here is very entertaining ( I especially like the invade Venezuela post, LOL) but you are missing the central point of Amtrak's trouble...no one rides it. They should shut it down everywhere but where it can be self sustaining: the Pacific Coast, Texas triangle and Boston - DC corridor. Regionalize it in those lacations and shut it down everywhere else. It's a money pit.


Well Dems, I gotta go back to work now, someone's got to pay for your stimulus, LOL.

Cheers


----------



## FlyFish

Ganis said:


> The airlines in America do not like the idea of high speed rail connecting regions.
> 
> In my opinion it would save the large airlines like AA, United and US a Delta a bundle because they could drop their small plains and stop wasting fuel and maintenance hours flying someone from DC to NY and all these other 1 to 2 hour puddle jumps.
> 
> Let the companies like Amtrak take on the short distances and let the airlines focus on Long haul, or any flight over 3 to 4 hours away and International.
> 
> Let America travel on the rails between Austin and Dallas, LA and San Francisco, Miami to Atlanta and so on. Let Americans see their country from the ground and not 5000 feet.
> 
> I support the push for high speed rail in the USA.



It doens't matter if they liked them or not, if Delta or AA thought rail was financially viable and an alternative they'd own rail.


----------



## jdbarber

FlyFish said:


> We're here, we just have to work during the day.......
> 
> 
> By the way, all of the political stuff here is very entertaining ( I especially like the invade Venezuela post, LOL) but you are missing the central point of Amtrak's trouble...no one rides it. They should shut it down everywhere but where it can be self sustaining: the Pacific Coast, Texas triangle and Boston - DC corridor. Regionalize it in those lacations and shut it down everywhere else. It's a money pit.
> 
> 
> Well Dems, I gotta go back to work now, someone's got to pay for your stimulus, LOL.
> 
> Cheers


Last time I checked roads and airports were subsidized by the government. I bus company can make a profit because the most expensive part of it's infrastructure is paid for the government, the billions a year in the gov't paying for road costs. If the consumer had to pay the direct cost of the journey (road construction and maintenace) it would be more expensive to take the Bus same with Airports and the Airlines. Assuming that RRs should operated without subsidies and turn a profit while all other parts of our transportation infrastructure is subsidized is unrealisitic. The reason people do not use rail is not because of free markets, it is because the gov't has pumped its funding into roads and airports for the past 40 yrs and ignored the rail infrastructure.


----------



## FlyFish

The difference is that we all use the roads, very very few of us use the train. I'm all for the train where people will use it but pumping tax money into a system very few ever use just to have it seems silly to me. An infrastructure investment on the NE corridor or on the Pacific coast makes sense. An infrastructure investment on a corridor between Chicago and New Orleans just to pick two places makes very little financial sense.

I disagree with your last sentence. Don't give government so much credit. Americans don't ride the train in measurable numbers because of convenience and speed, Government has nothing to do with it. We generally don't use the train because it is either more convenient to drive, or faster to fly. On the other hand I once did a three year consulting gig in Washington Dc and I lived outside of Philadelphia. I always used the train. Why? Because it was faster than the car and more convenient than the airplane. That is the market, Government has nothing to do with it.


----------



## sarflonlad

FlyFish said:


> Very interesting thread and I love the political and business conspiracies. Great stuff...lunacy mostly but entertaining to read. IMO, some of you are over-complicating this.
> 
> 
> We don't want HSR service here in the US. If it was something that enough people wanted it would be built. That's the market speaking. Amtrak is "profitable" in one corridor nationally (Boston to Washington DC), and as a former weekly rider of that corridor I can say that the acela was a great thing but even the old Metroliner service was faster than driving or flying. Everywhere else it loses money, so why would those who steal and then spend my income decide to pour it down a hole where there is no evidence that enough people would use it to justify construction?
> 
> The current system needs to be subsidized heavily to stay afloat, why would that be different just because the trains run faster?
> 
> This is very simple really, in the US we do not have the desire for this service. It makes sense in Europe I suppose although I am certain the subsidies there are large but here, other than from Boston to DC and eventually down the Pacific coast from SFC to San Diego there just aren't enough riders to justify the expenditure.


The French TGV and German DB all make tidy profits.... AND the EU still has cheaper airfares than the US. 

Look at the link between Paris and London - airlines are falling over themselves to buy in to rail on that route. Even the upgrade of speeds on the London to Manchester route to the laughable "high speed" of 125mph slashed the demand for air travel on that corridor. 

Visionaries built the US. If you stand still, you stagnate. And that's what has happened to the long distance travel market in the US. HSR won't ever be the answer coast to coast - but intra and some inter state travel would be very competitive and positive for the consumer.


----------



## Alle

urbanfan89 said:


> They're a lot higher in most of Europe or even Canada, and much, much so in Japan. This is a non-argument.


As others noted, there is more private property in the US over larger areas. That needs to be dealt with differently there for anyone aspiring to develop such infrastructure. Personally I think that locally communities maybe should be able to override such, I think some would if considered important for the community. In my opinion personal rights, democracy (direct) > private interests. However, it probably would still be hard to solve the larger stretches between urban areas this way.


----------



## FM 2258

nitsua0491 said:


> I don't think that is fair. Texas has some of the largest cities and metroplexes in the nation, and they are close.
> 
> DFW --> Austin: 320km (200miles)
> DFW --> San Antonio: 432km (270miles)
> DFW --> Houston: 382km (240miles)
> San Antonio --> Houston: 320km (200miles)
> Austin --> Houston: 265km (166miles)
> 
> A train linking those cities in a triangle would serve a population of greater than 15 million (or roughly 64% of the state's population!).


Not sure if I posted this before but American Airlines, Continental and Southwest Airlines would hate this idea.

I'm still in favor of the local high speed rail with links to the airport and streamlined security for airport check in.


----------



## sarflonlad

FlyFish said:


> It doens't matter if they liked them or not, if Delta or AA thought rail was financially viable and an alternative they'd own rail.


Out of interest, how much money does the FAA receive? You're missing the point that the US Government has and does subsidise the infrastructure around air travel.

No sole privately run company has successfully pulled off mass transportation without government backing - or later government bailout. So this USA free market argument really doesn't pan out. 

Who pays for your roads? GM? Honda? think about it...


----------



## jdbarber

I think transportation is an example where the free market is a poor example because ALL of its infrastructure is built by the government. It is a Government decsion to build a super highway into a downtown area or a commuter rail system. If the money and infrastructure built by the gov't is designed for auto use it will be used because it is faster. If the money and planning is put into rapit transit or rail service instead of super highways, rail will be quickier. Gov't built our transportation systems to say they have no impact is ridiculous. 

I do agree with you on some long Amtrak routes, there is now reason Amtrak should be running through Montana. Important infrastructure improvements are needed where people actual live.


----------



## urbanfan89

FlyFish said:


> It doens't matter if they liked them or not, if Delta or AA thought rail was financially viable and an alternative they'd own rail.


What?

Last time I checked, Delta and AA are airlines. Flying is their business. Besides, they're permanently bankrupt and kept afloat by backdoor bailouts anyway.

This is like saying, "If GM thought renewable energy was financially viable they'd own all the solar panels and wind turbines."


----------



## Facial

Actually a recent thought of mine was:

I understood why people didn't want GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. to collapse because the auto industry is linked with many other industries, for example, rubber, petrochemicals, steel, etc. Many of those same industries can be restructured to build railroad cars, locomotives, infrastructure, etc.

Why not just let GM and Chrysler collapse, and as the "safety net" that people fear would be absent from the workers and related industries, funnel all the people into the railroad industry?

It would be way the hell better from an efficiency perspective. This is my interpretation of "doing the work that needs to be done."

Close the dealerships, build train stations.
Diminish rubber tire production, increase damper and rubber-based suspensions.
Diminish steel for cars, increase steel for rails, bogies, etc.
Diminish glass for cars, increase FRA glass.
Diminish washer fluids, increase washer fluid for rail washing stations.
Decrease refinement of gasoline, increase diesel slightly.
Decrease batteries for cars, increase batteries for locomotives.
and many more.


----------



## jdbarber

Facial said:


> Actually a recent thought of mine was:
> 
> I understood why people didn't want GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. to collapse because the auto industry is linked with many other industries, for example, rubber, petrochemicals, steel, etc. Many of those same industries can be restructured to build railroad cars, locomotives, infrastructure, etc.
> 
> Why not just let GM and Chrysler collapse, and as the "safety net" that people fear would be absent from the workers and related industries, funnel all the people into the railroad industry?
> 
> It would be way the hell better from an efficiency perspective. This is my interpretation of "doing the work that needs to be done."
> 
> Close the dealerships, build train stations.
> Diminish rubber tire production, increase damper and rubber-based suspensions.
> Diminish steel for cars, increase steel for rails, bogies, etc.
> Diminish glass for cars, increase FRA glass.
> Diminish washer fluids, increase washer fluid for rail washing stations.
> Decrease refinement of gasoline, increase diesel slightly.
> Decrease batteries for cars, increase batteries for locomotives.
> and many more.


Good Ideas, I wonder how big a transitional expense that would be $100B?

The auto industry has to realize its going to have to be smaller going forward. Maybe GM can put some money into developing some new rapid transit technologies instead of finding out ways to make the same car into a cadillac, a chevy, a buick, a pontiac, etc. The redundancies at that comapany are ridiculous.


----------



## Dan

240 km/h seems kinda slow for HSR....


----------



## UD2

sarflonlad said:


> The article states 137mph for Germany, China and Japan (all use at least 186mph) and makes no mention of France.
> 
> So... not sure how much you want to believe the 150mph claim!


186 is a very high speed. that's 300km/h.


That's about the highest speed that Japan and Germany operates at. China is the only one that operate their trains at a faster 350km/h, and that's on certain dedicated lines only.

High-speed trains that runs on conventional lines in China tops out at 250, which is the speed that was mentioned in the article.


But one thing with trains in North America is that they need to be cheaper to compete with planes and busses. I don't know about the States, but in Canada, long distance railroad travel is ridiculously expensive.


However, this articule is misleading in that the average 120km/h of the US train services is an average, which include accelerating, deceleration and possibily station stops. To achieve and average of 120km/h, the train would most likely have to have a top speed of at least 200km/h.


----------



## Glodenox

I'm sorry, but I fail to see why travelling by train should be cheaper than by plane or bus. Taking the bus should take a lot longer than by train and would, just like with planes, have less comfort than a train. For those reasons, train tickets can be more expensive (there's some sort of limit though of course).

Decided to do some calculations about the potential "competition" between planes and trains from the East coast to the West coast:
Total distance: roughly 4150km
Speed of a decent high speed train: 300km/h
Speed of a plane: 900km/h (depends a lot on the wind)
Total travel time train: 13.8 hours
Total travel time plane: 4.6 hours

Both planes and trains need to accelerate and decelerate, so I excluded that information... Considering the difference in hours, I'm pretty sure not that many people will take the train if they don't want to travel for a long time.

About the averages: 186mph as average isn't possible due to acceleration and deceleration indeed. That number is just the maximum operable speed that's used.

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## Facial

The reason why they are competitive are because of their medium distance advantage; here, their convenience is unsurpassed.

For example, San Francisco to LA would be faster on a train than an airplane, when one factors in the time spent at the airport versus a train station.


----------



## Facial

Obama has outlined recent plans to upgrade some regular tracks from "70 miles per hour to over 100 miles per hour."

I guess he's referring to the Wolverine line in Michigan. They were planning 110 mph service since 2005, but they're pretty much stalled at 95 mph right now.

I'm pretty sure other lines run on typical 79-mph track are included in this. I'm thinking the Capitol Corridor and Cascades services should increase their speed too.


----------



## antovador

if someone need to see Obama's plan here

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRD...ategicplan.pdf

cheers


----------



## New York Morning

*Trains of the USA. Delaware.*

All pics in this thread were taken from railpictures.net, name of the authors look at the photos.


----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## Svartmetall

^^ It's not a good thing to run a train *early*! Think of all the passengers along the route who might have missed their train if it arrived 30 minutes ahead of schedule! Being overly early is just as bad as being overly late in my opinion - especially on an infrequent service.

That said, the main concourse at Chicago Union Station looks very nice indeed, however, the waiting area reminds me of a not-so-great airport.


----------



## New York Morning




----------



## He Named Thor

Svartmetall said:


> ^^ It's not a good thing to run a train *early*! Think of all the passengers along the route who might have missed their train if it arrived 30 minutes ahead of schedule! Being overly early is just as bad as being overly late in my opinion - especially on an infrequent service.
> 
> That said, the main concourse at Chicago Union Station looks very nice indeed, however, the waiting area reminds me of a not-so-great airport.


The train can't depart early. It leaves each station at the scheduled time. It just happened to be able to get to the station faster than expected. So it is a good thing. 

And much better than most flights I've been on. 

Chicago's Union Station is meh. The Grand Hall has no real reason to exist, other than to provide seating for the homeless. The rest of the station is small and lacks seating. 

Washington's Union Station is amazing.


----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## Svartmetall

He Named Thor said:


> The train can't depart early. It leaves each station at the scheduled time. It just happened to be able to get to the station faster than expected. So it is a good thing.


Oh right, I understand what you mean now, that makes more sense! In that case then it is a good thing that it was early indeed! 



He Named Thor said:


> Chicago's Union Station is meh. The Grand Hall has no real reason to exist, other than to provide seating for the homeless. The rest of the station is small and lacks seating.
> 
> Washington's Union Station is amazing.


I agree that Washington looked pretty cool too, but I really did like the look of the Grand Hall in Chicago too - pity about the homeless situation though.


----------



## ArtManDoo

> 186 is a very high speed. that's 300km/h.
> 
> That's about the highest speed that Japan and Germany operates at. China is the only one that operate their trains at a faster 350km/h, and that's on certain dedicated lines only.


A little out of this topic but I have heared that in Germany there is allowed track speed + 10% for recovery. It means if track speed is 300 then train is allowed 330 in case it's out of schedule.


----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## Facial

Damn, they really need to lower the price. Once these sort of sleeper cars are mass produced and engineered to be light and inexpensive, then trains can consist of more of these sleepers and also with more gov't subsidies the cost can go down.

Dachacon, did you get a roomette?


----------



## dachacon

yup 
i went to union station the other day to check it out before the sunset limited departed here to get an idea of what ill be living in for 2 days and i was quite impressed. talking to the conductor and looking at other parts of the train such as the dinning car, snack bar, and shower area its very impressive. if your not in a hurry or you want to travel with out any stress then i highly recommend traveling by train. if speed is your thing then stick with the crowded airports, long security lines and over sold planes.  me and some friends are planning a trip next summer going from la to chicago then to new york, sharing one of the family suites. does anyone know if you can bring alcohol on board trains??:cheers:


----------



## hoosier

It is sad that the Amtrak tickets are so expensive, that is why Amtrak needs more $$$ from the government so that it doesn't have to jack up prices.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ Amtrak tickets here in Seattle is pretty cheap. Its cost 40 dollars to go to Portland, Oregon from Seattle. It is cheaper than gas price if you compare it.


----------



## He Named Thor

Amtrak's pricing is a bit funky. 

Short version: Seats in Coach start at what's called a "bucket price", which is to say very low. As they start to fill up the seats get more expensive. 

Roomettes and sleepers each have set prices in addition to whatever the current price is for a coach seat. I think a roomette is ~$150 extra. Now if there are openings on board the day of departure, they are automatically back at "bucket price", meaning you will pay the least. 

The big problem is that Amtrak doesn't have enough cars to meet demand. More and more people have been riding the train, but Amtrak hasn't been given the funds to purchase more equipment. So the prices rise fast because the seats fill fast. 

That said, our tickets were ~$80 each way, plus the charge to upgrade to a roomette on the return trip.


Edit: That pricing system isn't on all lines. Hiawatha (Chicago-Milwaukee) is $21 each way. That price never changes. That train runs several times a day though (and is so busy they will be using some federal money to add more daily trips to that route).


----------



## New York Morning

*Trains of the USA. South Dakota.*

All pics in this thread were taken from railpictures.net, name of the authors look at the photos.


----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## LukeIRL

Awesome! Thanks for these photos, nice to see rail transport in America for once!


----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning

LukeIRL said:


> Awesome! Thanks for these photos, nice to see rail transport in America for once!


Tnx) Im glad if u like it) Im prepearing us rail review for all the states.


----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## FlyFish

hoosier said:


> It is sad that the Amtrak tickets are so expensive, that is why Amtrak needs more $$$ from the government so that it doesn't have to jack up prices.



Where do you want the Government to get all of this money so that they can make it cheaper for the miniscule percentage of the population who actually rides Amtrak? All taxpayers, regardless of whether they ride the train should pump more money to Amtrak to make it easier for the folks who do ride it? Sounds fair. hno: And I am called ignorant.....


What they should do is reveiw where the system is above water and focus efforts there. Amtrak is a viable alternative and does amazing business in some areas. Those should be focused on and everything else should be up for review. We are running unholy deficits in this Country and at some point we are going to have to start spending public funds more responsibly. Like it or not, we are auto-mobile centric as a nation. Changing that, while definetely a good thing and a great goal for the long run, will take a long time.


----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## He Named Thor

FlyFish said:


> Where do you want the Government to get all of this money so that they can make it cheaper for the miniscule percentage of the population who actually rides Amtrak? All taxpayers, regardless of whether they ride the train should pump more money to Amtrak to make it easier for the folks who do ride it? Sounds fair. hno: And I am called ignorant.....
> 
> 
> What they should do is reveiw where the system is above water and focus efforts there. Amtrak is a viable alternative and does amazing business in some areas. Those should be focused on and everything else should be up for review. We are running unholy deficits in this Country and at some point we are going to have to start spending public funds more responsibly. Like it or not, we are auto-mobile centric as a nation. Changing that, while definetely a good thing and a great goal for the long run, will take a long time.


If Amtrak can not provide for those seeking to ride the train due to lack of equipment, then it's time for some investment. Take the Hiawatha, for example. Despite 7, yes 7 round trips daily many end up being standing room only because Amtrak can't afford to purchase cars to add to the train. Its long distance trains are pretty much the same story (except the standing room part). Ridership has been increasing, but the number of cars has not, because Amtrak simply doesn't have the money to buy more (with the exception of Amtrak California, which gets funding from the state). 

Amtrak prices are high because demand is far higher than what they can supply. 

If they get enough money to buy equipment to run currently once-daily long distance trains more often, we'll probably see quite a jump in ridership simply because they'll have seats that weren't available before. Plus another jump because they'll be a more flexible option for passengers.

You can't starve Amtrak of funding, then claim that it doesn't work and shut it down. 


Our huge budget deficits are due to tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars, and businesses screwing people over and running themselves into the ground in the process. Don't stick the blame on Amtrak.


----------



## Kramerica

dachacon said:


> does anyone know if you can bring alcohol on board trains??:cheers:


Yes, sleeper passengers can bring their own alchohol, to be used in the private sleeper room. But be warned that the train conductors have the authority and will use it to kick a drunken/troublemaking passenger off at the next station. 



He Named Thor said:


> Amtrak's pricing is a bit funky.
> 
> Short version: Seats in Coach start at what's called a "bucket price", which is to say very low. As they start to fill up the seats get more expensive.
> 
> Roomettes and sleepers each have set prices in addition to whatever the current price is for a coach seat. I think a roomette is ~$150 extra. Now if there are openings on board the day of departure, they are automatically back at "bucket price", meaning you will pay the least.


Actually, there isn't just one "bucket price". They use a "bucket pricing system". When tickets for coach go on sale 11 months before departure, they are sold in the lowest price bucket. Once a certain number of seats are sold, then the tickets jump to the next higher price bucket. There are typically five price buckets. So the earlier you buy your ticket, the lower the price bucket you'll be in. 

The same system is in effect for the sleeping compartments. The first ones sold are the cheapest, and they get more expensive as more are sold. But since there are a limited number of sleeper compartments, they go up to higher buckets very quickly. 



He Named Thor said:


> That pricing system isn't on all lines. Hiawatha (Chicago-Milwaukee) is $21 each way. That price never changes. That train runs several times a day though (and is so busy they will be using some federal money to add more daily trips to that route).


The reason the Hiawatha is different is because it is an "unreserved" train. Most Amtrak trains (and all long-distance trains) have reserved seating, which means when you buy a ticket, it is for a particular train and you are guarunteed a seat on that train. But on the Hiawatha, you can use your ticket for any train departure within one year of the ticket purchase, so that's why tickets are a set price and do not use the bucket pricing system. 

*********

My wife and I rode the City of New Orleans last summer in a Roomette and it was fantastic. The train left Chicago at 8 PM and arrived in New Orleans at 3:30 PM the next day. A great relaxing start to our vacation. Luckily for us that train is one of the most underutilized, so we got low bucket pricing both ways and paid $700 round trip for the two of us, which wasn't that much more than plane tickets would have been. But the travel was just as much a part of the vacation as the destination, which isn't something you can say about airplanes and airports. And since we live in the Milwaukee area, we took an earlier Hiawatha to Chicago and had time to eat lunch and go to the Sears Tower. And since we were sleeper passengers, we were able to use the first-class Metropolitan Lounge at Chicago Union Station, which has comfy leather chairs, TVs, a free baggage room, and complimentary refreshments.

I can't wait to take my next long-distance train trip.


----------



## dachacon

so then if i had booked my trip a month earlier my fare would have been under a grand. ill keep that in mind for next summer when i go to new york. 
Kramerica you said tickets go on sale 11 months before the departure date? 
i better start planning the trip now with my friends to get the cheapest train fare then.


----------



## He Named Thor

Here's a photo of the cab in a GE Genesis locomotive for you. The Genesis is what Amtrak uses on almost all of it's long distance runs, and even some of its shorter ones.


----------



## AAPMBerlin

He Named Thor said:


> I just got back from Washington, D.C. today. Took Amtrak. Coach from Chicago-Washington, then Sleeper on the return trip.
> 
> I'm very happy. Our train arrived at Washington 5 minutes ahead of schedule (it was as much as 30 minutes ahead at some stations), and we got back into Chicago about *45* minutes ahead of schedule!
> 
> I don't think I can ever go back to Coach though. Sleeper cars are amazing. Aside from having an actual bed (which I, at 6'0" was able to stretch out across), the bathrooms are larger, there's a shower, meals are included, drinks are included, there's a newspaper under the door each morning, Priority boarding, Club Acela lounge access at station, and you can't hear all of your neighbors. W00t.
> 
> P.S. Has someone been redecorating the Superliners? They used to be hideous shades of brown and tan with the occasional garish blue. Now every car is decorated in blue, wood paneling, and fake granite. It actually looks very nice, though there are still a few hints at the what the cars used to look like.
> 
> Pics, of course.
> 
> Union Station, Chicago
> http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/kingriffleteh1st/DSCF2435.jpg[/IMG
> [IMG]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/kingriffleteh1st/DSCF2437.jpg[/IMG
> [IMG]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/kingriffleteh1st/DSCF2439.jpg[/IMG
> 
> Train
> [IMG]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/kingriffleteh1st/DSCF2449.jpg[/IMG
> [IMG]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/kingriffleteh1st/DSCF2447.jpg[/IMG
> [IMG]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/kingriffleteh1st/DSCF2450.jpg
> Only in America can you see a TGV and a Genesis in the same photo. :banana:
> 
> Union Station, Washington
> http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/kingriffleteh1st/DSCF2681.jpg[/IMG
> [IMG]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/kingriffleteh1st/DSCF2696.jpg[/IMG
> [IMG]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/kingriffleteh1st/DSCF2702.jpg[/IMG
> [IMG]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e71/kingriffleteh1st/DSCF2684.jpg[/IMG[/QUOTE]
> 
> ^^Sorry, but that´s not a TGV. It´s the Acela, and it´s more LRC-Train from Bombardier than TGV from Alsthom --> see:
> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express[/url]
> and
> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRC_(train[/url])
> :cheers:


----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## He Named Thor

It uses the TGV motor, looks similar, is built by the same companies, and is fast. Good enough for me. 

But yeah, it's sort of a mix. 

Anyway, here's the cab!


----------



## He Named Thor

*Amtrak Power!*

Here's the F40ph, one of the most popular passenger locomotives in North America. It was first built in 1976 and has been serving Amtrak and Via since. An insane portion of Amtrak photos feature a dirty F40 up front, as they were the main locomotive for the service. 

Many have been sold off to other railroads in the past few years, and some have had their engines removed. Those missing engines have a roll up door added to the side, and luggage is stored where the engine was. They may also act as control cars, with a working engine on the other side of the train pushing. Others have been scrapped altogether. Some do still run as powered units for Amtrak though, and have been treated to Amtrak's newest paint schemes. For the most part they are being replaced by GE Genesis locomotives.


----------



## He Named Thor

*Amtrak Power!*

Next up, the HHP-8. A double-ended electric locomotive designed/built by Bombardier and Alstom. They run around the Northeast, pulling Amtrak's Amfleet cars at up to 125mph. Visually they look like their larger Acela counterparts, but the HHP-8 has a shorter nose and exposed coupler.


----------



## dachacon

it seems most of Amtrak runs on electricity from overhead wires on the east coast opposed to diesel being used for long distance trips and west coast use. all of the trains leaving la run on diesel. maybe if we can convert it to overhead lines prices can go down since ticket prices here are contingent on diesel prices.


----------



## mgk920

The NEC (NorthEast Corridor) between Boston (South Station) and Washington, DC is electrified and, IIRC, all of the rest of Amtrak is diesel. There is a 'break' in the electrical standard on the NEC somewhere northeast of NYC Penn Station, I believe that it is somewhere in the Bronx.

There are a couple of electrified METRA commuter lines in Chicagoland, too.

Mike


----------



## He Named Thor

*Amtrak Power!*

*F59PHI*

This one's been built since 1993, and is used by Amtrak mostly in the Western states. North Carolina DOT/Amtrak does also use the F59phi. I can't find any in-cab shots of this one. 









In Amtrak California livery










In Pacific Surfliner livery. 











In Cascades livery.


----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## New York Morning




----------



## hkskyline

* Ride the rails to the Grand Canyon*
Tribune Media Services
April 13, 2009

It's that rare vacation moment when everyone is happy at the same time. And all it took was an old-fashioned train in a remote Arizona town and a singing cowboy leading the kids in a spirited rendition of "Old MacDonald Had a Farm."

"Our kids have never been on a train before," said Mary Macho, visiting from Eden Prairie, Minnesota, with her husband, 10-year-old twins and 8-year-old. "This is a new adventure for all of us."

"And this is a lot better than me having to drive!" adds her husband Dennis.

We're on our way to the Grand Canyon via the Grand Canyon Railway -- the way tourists came more than a century ago, before the natural wonder was designated a national park in 1919.

The Railway, in fact, is credited with revolutionizing this spectacular place, opening the region to widespread tourism. Before then, the remoteness of the area -- and the arduous trip by horseback or stagecoach to get here -- kept most people away.

That was difficult for the kids in our train car -- iPods and video games in hand -- to even imagine. Today, the Grand Canyon is one of the most visited national parks in the world, drawing nearly 5 million people a year, most coming by car.

My young cousins from Denver, 6-year-old Ethan Sitzman and his 4-year-old sister Hannah, who have joined me, along with their parents, couldn't be happier that they're on the train and not buckled in their safety and booster seats as we make our way the 65 oh-so-scenic miles to Grand Canyon National Park.

As parents compare vacation notes, cowboy singer Craig Summers perches on the side of their seats to strum his guitar, while the older kids make a big fuss. "I didn't even know this guy this morning and now he's my best friend," says Ethan. Now, that doesn't happen in the back of the minivan!

"The best part of the trip is the other kids you meet," says 9-year-old Joshua Jeffries, Ethan's new buddy. Jeffries, like Ethan, is from suburban Denver.

Little Rock, Arkansas, dad Joe Whisenhunt was more interested in sharing the history of train travel with his four kids, watching the scenery with them instead of driving unfamiliar roads with squabbling kids in the back seat.

Onboard the Grand Canyon train, the journey is actually as much fun as the destination. Parents play cards with the kids, trade quips with the cowboy entertainers, help themselves to snacks and drinks and keep their eyes peeled for wildlife. (We're supposed to sing, "Home on the Range" when we spy an antelope.) Our friendly steward, Lorraine Oresko, a five-year veteran, offers tips on what to see when we arrive.

Whisenhunt didn't mind a bit that the family could have driven for far less money -- round-trip tickets start at $40 for kids and $70 for adults. Ask about AAA discounts. And in honor of the 50th birthday of the diesel locomotive, if you are turning 50 or celebrating your 50th anniversary, you can ride the train for free.

The train, besides being a good history lesson, is also good for the environment. It carries more than 225,000 passengers a year, reducing auto traffic to the South Rim by 10 percent. Instead of steam locomotives, cleaner and more efficient diesel locomotives are used.

"This is money well spent," said Whisenhunt. No matter how bad the economic news, he added, "You have to keep going and make memories."

And this train ride -- not to mention a visit to the Grand Canyon -- certainly is one for the memory books. The experience can be even more memorable at Christmastime when the train becomes the Polar Express, complete with Santa.

"Our kids are getting older and won't want to travel with us too much longer," says Alice Schmookler, mother of three, ages 14, 12 and 9. She and her husband, Sandy, are also happy to have the opportunity to show their Florida-bred kids such a different landscape.

Some of our fellow passengers chose to return on the train that afternoon, but we spent the night at a Grand Canyon lodge so that we could have more time to explore. The train makes it so easy -- they transferred all of our bags so we could head right out. The bags were waiting in our rooms later -- and would be delivered back to the train the following day.

Thanks to Max and Thelma Biegert for making this possible. By the '50s, more and more tourists were driving to the Grand Canyon instead of taking the train and the train eventually shut down in 1968. Only after spirited (and expensive) efforts by the Biegerts did train service resume in 1989.

Nine years later, the Grand Canyon Railway was placed on the National Register of Historic Places and the quaint Williams Depot was renovated. A hotel soon opened and two years ago, Xanterra, which oversees the hotels and lodges in the Grand Canyon and other national parks, took over the train and depot hotel.

For us, the train fun started before we even got on board -- with a Wild West show at Williams Depot in Williams, Arizona. "Those aren't real guns are they?" asked a worried Hannah. As if on cue, the cowboys got up, dusted themselves off and told more jokes.

On the way back, the kids are too smart for the "train robbers." They recognize them from the Wild West show and just giggle as they make their way through the car, followed by the "sheriff."

Sure it's hokey. But it's fun -- for the grown-ups as well as the kids. And these days, that counts for a lot.


----------



## hkskyline

*All not aboard: Upstate NY's congressional caucus not big fans of Amtrak's Albany-Buffalo run*
1 May 2009

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - There is no "Amtrak Chuck" or "Amtrak Louise" among upstate New York's congressional delegation, at least not when it comes to riding passenger trains between Albany and Buffalo.

While lawmakers from western New York to the lower Hudson Valley are united in support of high-speed passenger rail service, when it comes to actually riding an Amtrak train between the state capital and upstate's largest city, few will be confused with Joe Biden, aka "Amtrak Joe."

The vice president earned the nickname for his frequent use of the passenger service while commuting between his Delaware home and Washington during decades in the U.S. Senate.

Most of the Congress members who formed the bipartisan Upstate New York Caucus earlier this year have Amtrak service in their home districts, and several said they occasionally take trains between Washington and New York City, or between Manhattan and Albany.

But even the lawmakers with districts between Albany and Buffalo say they never or rarely ride Amtrak trains between the two cities. Yet it's that stretch of economically struggling upstate New York that the lawmakers say will benefit the most from a high-speed rail system costing billions of dollars.

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of the Rochester area, who heads the upstate caucus, has purposely avoided Amtrak trips, flying instead between Washington and her home district.

"I have done it, under great duress, but not in 23 years, since I've been in Congress," she said. "If you are a passenger on an Amtrak train, you don't have any idea when you're going to arrive anywhere. We deserve better than that."

Unlike the more traveled north-south route with its scenic Hudson Valley landscape, passengers aboard Amtrak's east- and westbound trains get an eyeful of defunct small-town factories, urban blight and the occasional junk yard, interspersed with wide stretches of countryside dotted with forests, marshes and swamps.

Republican Chris Lee of suburban Buffalo couldn't recall the last time he rode the train, but at least one memory lingers: "My recollection is that it was a very slow process."

Dan Maffei, a Democrat from Syracuse, said he took Amtrak trains during his college days in New England, but hasn't been on one in about 10 years. "It's not a bad way to go," he said. "The disadvantage is that it's, on average, an hour late."

Even Sen. Charles Schumer, who makes it a point to visit all 62 New York counties every year -- by car and plane -- probably hasn't caught a westbound train to Buffalo during his 10 years in the Senate, a spokesman said.

Democrat Michael Arcuri of Utica traveled by train to and from New York City while in law school and later while serving as Oneida County district attorney. But, he said, "With each passing year, it gets less and less reliable. It makes it real difficult if you have a time-sensitive schedule."

Arcuri suggested his Amtrak-avoiding colleagues might benefit from a long train ride across a region they hope will rebound, in part, from billions of dollars spent on improving rail service.

"I would like to get on the train at either Albany or Buffalo, all of us together, and take it across the state, not just symbolically, but to get a firsthand tour," he said.


----------



## nouveau.ukiyo

mgk920 said:


> The NEC (NorthEast Corridor) between Boston (South Station) and Washington, DC is electrified and, IIRC, all of the rest of Amtrak is diesel. There is a 'break' in the electrical standard on the NEC somewhere northeast of NYC Penn Station, I believe that it is somewhere in the Bronx.
> 
> There are a couple of electrified METRA commuter lines in Chicagoland, too.
> 
> Mike


Philadelphia to Harrisburg, PA (Keystone Corridor) is electrified as well and quite fast (for the US that is).






SEPTA Regional Rail in Philadelphia is 100% electrified as well (13 lines), which is pretty unique in the US and hints at the great railroad heritage Philly had. It's amazing how things have changed...


----------



## dl3000

Yeah Id say all trackage in Philly's vicinity is electrified.


----------



## He Named Thor

*Ridealong vids!*

Northeastern route






Empire Builder


----------



## hkskyline

*NYS aims to get up to speed with rail improvements, makes pitch for US funding for projects*
1 May 2009

FONDA, N.Y. (AP) - Mayor Kimberly Flander is in mid-sentence when the train horn blares, followed by a rumble felt throughout her two-room office in this tiny Mohawk River village.

"Everything shakes," Flander says with a shrug, describing the effects of the freight cars and Amtrak passenger trains zipping past on tracks that bisect her community of about 800 located 40 miles northwest of Albany.

If lawmakers in Albany and Washington pushing for a high-speed rail system get their way, those trains will be traveling faster and, they hope, reviving Fonda and all the other struggling former manufacturing towns along the east-west railroad corridor stretching across upstate New York.

In March, Gov. David Paterson announced the state's plan to seek some of the $8 billion in federal stimulus money set aside for improving the nation's rail system. In April, President Barack Obama called high-speed rail travel a priority to relieve highway congestion, help clean the air and save energy.

New York officials say faster, more efficient movement of people and freight will be a major step toward economic revival. While the plan is designed for the state's entire rail system, Amtrak's Empire Corridor connecting Albany and Buffalo is getting special attention because of the region's anemic economy.

"If we really want to bring back the economy of upstate New York, this is an integral part of it," said U.S. Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, a Rochester-area Democrat and longtime supporter of improved Amtrak service. "Those mill towns have failed, and part of it is transportation. We let so many of them just strangle. They deserve better."

New York's comprehensive rail plan is the latest of the state's many attempts to upgrade the region's passenger train service. The plan, a prerequisite for the federal application for the rail funds, calls for boosting freight rail usage while increasing the speed and reliability of Amtrak trains across New York.

Federal Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told New York's congressional delegation earlier this year that the stimulus money will be parceled out to roughly six regions of the nation seeking to create high-speed rail corridors.

A decision is expected later this year.

As part of its plan to move goods and people faster across the upstate region, the state wants to build a third east-west track strictly for Amtrak trains, add a second track to the stretch between Albany and Schenectady, and make improvements to existing infrastructure.

"Reliable, quick access is how we do business these days," said state transportation department Commissioner Astrid Glynn. "Right now that corridor doesn't have it, unless you want to get in your car and drive and drive and drive."

Currently, Amtrak trains must share two sets of tracks along the corridor with dozens of CSX Corp. freight trains each day. CSX owns the right of way, and Amtrak trains often get delayed by freight traffic, resulting in irate passengers.

With a third Amtrak-only track, and with the speed of trains boosted from the current federal maximum of 79 mph to 110 mph or higher, officials envision a passenger train resurgence for upstate New York, and with it a revitalized economy.

"Transportation has always facilitated economic development," said Peter Hansen, editor of Railroad History, the academic journal the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society. "The places that get railroads tend to thrive, the ones that don't wither on the vine."

The addition of the Albany-Buffalo high-speed rail line alone would cost at least $3 billion and take several years. The project and other related upgrade work would create up to 12,000 construction jobs, officials say.

As for the more heavily traveled Albany-Manhattan Amtrak line, where passenger train speeds average 90 mph and can hit 110 mph only in a 15-mile stretch south of Albany, DOT officials want trains to achieve on-time performance of at least 95 percent. It's currently 87 percent, Amtrak officials say.

But figuring out just how faster trains will revitalize a moribund upstate economy that has shed nearly 145,000 manufacturing jobs over the past decade isn't readily apparent to some local officials such as Flander, a former state higher education employee-turned part-time preschool teacher.

"I don't see how it's going to provide any jobs for people here," she said recently from her office, a stone's throw from tracks used by CSX Transportation freight trains and Amtrak. "I might be wrong. I don't know the whole game plan of it."

Amtrak's Empire Corridor shadows the Erie Canal along much of the waterway's nearly 340 miles between Albany and Buffalo. Along the Mohawk Valley stretch, Fonda (founded by an ancestor of the acting clan) and other formerly thriving factory towns have seen their fortunes rise and fall with each advance in transportation technology. In the 19th century, mule-drawn canal boats gave way to trains that traveled on rails laid alongside the waterway, supplanting canal haulers but giving rise to the region's industrial base. The latter half of the 20th century brought the Thruway, which allowed traffic to bypass canalside communities just as their manufacturing jobs began to dwindle.

Now, New York officials hope faster trains will bring people, money and jobs back to the region in the form of entrepreneurs, tourists and business travelers.

"It's kind of the if-you-build-it-they-will come philosophy," said Kieran Donaghy, chairman of the City and Regional Planning Department at Cornell University. "A lot of firms look for service blocks, or a high-end concentration of services near a high-speed rail stop."

But, he cautions, cutting travel time between Point A and Point B can come with drawbacks.

"Are you just providing a means to get between Buffalo and Syracuse faster, and leaving in the backwash all the little communities along the way?" Donaghy said.

Others aren't convinced the rail plan is the economic antidote for what ails the upstate region. According to one critic, upgrading the current system will be "hideously expensive," even with billions of dollars in federal funds.

"The stimulus money is like dumping a lot of feed at a hog farm -- everybody is lining up for it," said John Stilgoe, a professor in Harvard University's Visual and Environmental Studies Department.

"The right of way isn't maintained for even fast passenger service west of Albany," said Stilgoe, author of "Train Time: Railroads and the Imminent Reshaping of the United States Landscape."

For now, the state's plan doesn't include adding Amtrak stops, something officials in places like Lyons, midway between Syracuse and Rochester, have been seeking for years. One of the current stops -- Rome -- could be eliminated as officials push for faster trains designed to cut the five-hour, 30-minute trip between Albany and Buffalo by two hours.

Rome Mayor James Brown said he supports the rail plan even if it means losing his city's Amtrak stop in favor of keeping one in Utica, 15 miles to the east. Bringing more jobs to the region is the priority, he said.

"We have to look the regionalization aspect of this," he said.

Amtrak said it's waiting, like everyone else with a stake in the rail industry, to see where the federal stimulus funds go and how much is doled out to each project.

"From our standpoint, any rail plan that we can work on that can decrease the travel time of our passengers by adding track capacity is something we would look favorably on," said Cliff Cole, an Amtrak spokesman in New York City.


----------



## hoosier

I don't see what is so hard about planning different services along Amtrak routes- a regular service which stops at all of the stations, and an express, which only stops at a few stations. That is how the Tokyo-Osaka Shinkansen route works.

I want HSR in this country, but our government is going to screw it up big time. We should hire the leading rail engineers/strategists from one of the countries that has a successful HSR system (like France, Japan, or Spain) and let them oversee the construction and implementation of an American system.


----------



## FlyFish

I want to see it too where it makes sense but how are you going to pay for it? It isn't hard to do at all but there just isn't a large enough public outcry for it to make it any kind of priority. Amtrak is a historical money pit and thus it will be very difficult to get a majority Congresspersons to approve large expenditures for it. That's the reality. Although, if it is ever going to get funded now is the time. This current bunch of clowns will print money they don't have for just about anything.


----------



## nouveau.ukiyo

HSR won't work in the US because urban planning has been non-existent for 50 years. Newer cities and the suburbs of older cities (where most people in a metropolitan area live) are built around the car. Cars are cheap, roads are free and therefore very convenient to have. That's part of the American dream and a key defining factor in American freedom. You can go anywhere you want, in your own car, with ample space and comfort. In many places in the US, mass transit is perceived as old fashioned and something only poor people use. To change this, I think there needs to be a lot more than just money (of which the proposed amount is very little), but policy changes and ideological changes among the American people. Anyway, I think the best way to spend any HSR money is not to put the money into HSR projects, but to invest in building a time machine. Better spent that way I think.


----------



## He Named Thor

nouveau.ukiyo said:


> HSR won't work in the US because urban planning has been non-existent for 50 years. Newer cities and the suburbs of older cities (where most people in a metropolitan area live) are built around the car. Cars are cheap, roads are free and therefore very convenient to have. That's part of the American dream and a key defining factor in American freedom. You can go anywhere you want, in your own car, with ample space and comfort. In many places in the US, mass transit is perceived as old fashioned and something only poor people use. To change this, I think there needs to be a lot more than just money (of which the proposed amount is very little), but policy changes and ideological changes among the American people. Anyway, I think the best way to spend any HSR money is not to put the money into HSR projects, but to invest in building a time machine. Better spent that way I think.


#1. The Northeast corridor has proven you wrong. Also most of the cities that the proposed systems are hitting do have mass transit systems. 

#2. That's a bullshit arguement anyway and I'm really sick of it. Taking a train to a station is no different than taking a flight to an airport (except that you aren't half an hour out of town). Either way, you don't have a car. You could take mass transit, *or you can rent a car. *

#3. Roads are most certainly not free.


----------



## dl3000

He Named Thor said:


> #1. The Northeast corridor has proven you wrong. Also most of the cities that the proposed systems are hitting do have mass transit systems.
> 
> #2. That's a bullshit arguement anyway and I'm really sick of it. Taking a train to a station is no different than taking a flight to an airport (except that you aren't half an hour out of town). Either way, you don't have a car. You could take mass transit, *or you can rent a car. *
> 
> #3. Roads are most certainly not free.


All completely true. Not to mention no need to be at the station hour or hours in advance.


----------



## FlyFish

nouveau.ukiyo said:


> HSR won't work in the US because urban planning has been non-existent for 50 years. Newer cities and the suburbs of older cities (where most people in a metropolitan area live) are built around the car. Cars are cheap, roads are free and therefore very convenient to have. That's part of the American dream and a key defining factor in American freedom. You can go anywhere you want, in your own car, with ample space and comfort. In many places in the US, mass transit is perceived as old fashioned and something only poor people use. To change this, I think there needs to be a lot more than just money (of which the proposed amount is very little), but policy changes and ideological changes among the American people. Anyway, I think the best way to spend any HSR money is not to put the money into HSR projects, but to invest in building a time machine. Better spent that way I think.


All true except the NE corridor and some other metro areas. HSR will work in those areas. It won’t get built any time soon but it would work. You are almost right about the perception issue also. Other than Chicago, Philadelphia, NYC and a few other very large cities mass transit is definitely seen by many as the mode for poor people. Here in Norfolk for example no one rides the bus except as a last resort. It isn't seen as safe. 

Oh, and roads are free for the end user. Don't split hairs. What he means is that when you get on the train you buy a ticket (a user fee), when you jump in your car you don't. We all know there is maintenance and stuff and we all know you pay gas tax (too much) but I don’t think that's what he was talking about.

Fun argument but generally moot. This is not a priority in the US no matter how much some people foam at the mouth and tell everyone else how much we all want and need something that we generally don't want or need. It won't happen any time soon. Within 20 or 25 years it will start to get built if we as a nation haven't filed for bankruptcy. His highness pledged what, 8 billion dollars so consultants could take 6 to 8 years to get rich and write reports telling us all what we already know? Then in ten or fifteen more years they'll ignore the reports and build whatever they want to build whether it makes sense or not. It's the American way, LOL.

I wish they'd take those 8 billion borrowed dollars and just make the Boston / DC route a true high speed corridor. Then the proponents of this could stop telling us to look at how wonderful the French and the Japanese and the Germans are. We could see it in action and make an informed decision if it is something that can work here or if it would be a giant waste of money.


----------



## dl3000

Fuel taxes are the user fees for driving. Sure there is rarely a "fare" except on toll roads, but you pay no matter what.


----------



## disturbman

Driving is not cheap. It's tricky because it seems cheap, allmost free, but it's far from being that cheap.

There is fuel to pay.
The car to pay.
The maintenance of the car to pay.
There is also the road to pay (building and maintenance). You may not see it but they are a big part of your tax dollar. Much more than the train.


----------



## G5man

disturbman said:


> Driving is not cheap. It's tricky because it seems cheap, allmost free, but it's far from being that cheap.
> 
> There is fuel to pay.
> The car to pay.
> The maintenance of the car to pay.
> There is also the road to pay (building and maintenance). You may not see it but they are a big part of your tax dollar. Much more than the train.


It's true, for our 1200 dollars in taxes here, 330 goes right to county roads. However, not all is true with rail. High-speed covers its cost, commuter rail, light rail, etc usually require subsidies, less than what we'd pay with roads? I'm not sure, but it would be something to look into.


----------



## hoosier

FlyFish said:


> I want to see it too where it makes sense but how are you going to pay for it? It isn't hard to do at all but there just isn't a large enough public outcry for it to make it any kind of priority. Amtrak is a historical money pit and thus it will be very difficult to get a majority Congresspersons to approve large expenditures for it. That's the reality. Although, if it is ever going to get funded now is the time. This current bunch of clowns will print money they don't have for just about anything.


You keep writing the same debunked bullshit over and over again.

How is America paying for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars? The military wants $130 billion to fund those conflicts for the next fiscal year.

The interstate highway system is a money pit. So are airports. Should we shut them down too?

Amtrak had its annual funding doubled by Congress last year by veto proof majorities. There is plenty of support for it in Congress.


----------



## hoosier

The gas tax pays for a FRACTION of highway maintenance. Congress had to appropriate $8 billion in 2008 from general revenues to shore up the Highway Trust Fund deficit. I don't remember the conservative wackos bitching and moaning about that.

Automobile and air travel have been immensely subsidized for over fifty years. It is time to restore balance to America's transportation systems. HIGH SPEED RAIL NOW!!


----------



## He Named Thor

*Amtrak X2000 and ICE*

In the early '90s Amtrak was testing (and showing off) some new trains it had borrowed, the Swedish X2000 and Germany's ICE. They ran themselves on the electrified parts, and were pushed by diesel locomotives on the non electrified tracks. 

*X2000*









*ICE*









Video:


----------



## dachacon

what every happened to them? the lease expired?


----------



## He Named Thor

dachacon said:


> what every happened to them? the lease expired?


They were on loan from their respective countries. Amtrak was using them to demonstrate the potential of rail travel. After they had toured, they were sent back.


----------



## Xusein

FlyFish said:


> I want to see it too where it makes sense but how are you going to pay for it? It isn't hard to do at all but there just isn't a large enough public outcry for it to make it any kind of priority. Amtrak is a historical money pit and thus it will be very difficult to get a majority Congresspersons to approve large expenditures for it. That's the reality. Although, if it is ever going to get funded now is the time. This current bunch of clowns will print money they don't have for just about anything.


Technically ALL forms of transportation (from highways, air travel, even public transportation) are "historic money pits" so your point is moot.


----------



## Facial

"Mass transit is for poor people"

What a load of bull.


----------



## dl3000

Whoever said that is quite ignorant.


----------



## salaverryo

Facial said:


> "Mass transit is for poor people"
> 
> What a load of bull.


So what if it is? Abraham Lincoln said: "God sure must have liked poor people, since He made so many of them." 

That's why we speak of _mass_ transit; public transport for the many.


----------



## dl3000

And yet a large portion of transit serves commuters. People with decent jobs who don't want traffic or would like a chance to read the paper and drink a coffee on the way to work. In my view, transit is for anyone who would prefer not to use a car for that trip, period. Now that can definitely be because someone has no choice as they can't afford a car, but that is not the purpose of mass transit. The purpose is to move anybody as efficiently as possible, because the car is not the only option and is definitely not the most efficient.

If you look outside America, in many parts of Europe people bike to work in suits, and biking in my view would be a bigger step away from cars.


----------



## Facial

salaverryo said:


> That's why we speak of _mass_ transit; public transport for the many.


We do not live in 1865 (actually, the wealthy took trains back then, while vagabonds and homeless people had nothing, maybe a mule). 

Mass transit is a modern term applied for the modern world. If applied to the US, 'mass transit' would refer to the middle class, and the middle class is not poor.


----------



## He Named Thor

*Amtrak Power!*

*Dash 8*

The Dash 8 (GE Dash 8-32BWH), is a freight locomotive made by GE Transportation Systems. It is a part of the Evolution series of locomotives. In 1991 Amtrak bought 20 of them, with a distinctive paint scheme. They have since been repainted and are now mostly relegated to yard duties, occasionally substituting for their Genesis replacements. Two of the Dash 8s are in regular service with Amtrak California.




































Original "Pepsi" livery.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

Those Amtrak GE's (the P32) were the first group of modern GE locomotives bought by Amtrak. As a young railfan, they were a welcome sight in California at a time when the ubiquitous F40 "blast boxes" had monopolised passenger train runs. Their 4 cycle engines with the distinctive GE FDL exhaust "chug" seemed both more purposeful and elegant than the vacuum cleaner din put out by the EMD units.


----------



## jayOOfoshO

Amtrak SUCKS!

One time I was in the middle of Iowa and took a train to Chicago.... the train arrived in Iowa with a 12 hour delay and took an extra 2-3 hours to get to Chicago!

It's worse than Italian railways!


----------



## FM 2258

^^

I found it interesting that all of my train rides in Italy when I visited in 2007 were pretty much close to being on time during the week I was there. 

I got a "sorry, we will be 12 minutes late to Roma" on my first train ride from Milano.


----------



## jayOOfoshO

FM 2258 said:


> ^^
> 
> I found it interesting that all of my train rides in Italy when I visited in 2007 were pretty much close to being on time during the week I was there.
> 
> I got a "sorry, we will be 12 minutes late to Roma" on my first train ride from Milano.


:lol: what can I say you're a really lucky guy!

Usually though I gotta say the network between the main cities (which is sort of like the backbone of their system) is pretty efficient, although they do adjust timelines in such way that official times are higher than really needed, so in case any delays occur they still don't get so late to destination (and they don't have to refund passengers as much as they should if they had more reasonable timelines :lol.

But once you take a train outside the Turin - Venice/Milan - Naples network, then you'll see it's sort of like going thirty years in the past.

I remember an epic ride in the Summer of 07 between Verona and Bologna which took me about three hours (for what is I believe something like 75% of the distance between San Diego and LA).

And those cities are quite large and important cities for a country such as Italy!


----------



## He Named Thor

jayOOfoshO said:


> Amtrak SUCKS!
> 
> One time I was in the middle of Iowa and took a train to Chicago.... the train arrived in Iowa with a 12 hour delay and took an extra 2-3 hours to get to Chicago!
> 
> It's worse than Italian railways!


Lol, that's still better than some airlines.


----------



## jayOOfoshO

He Named Thor said:


> Lol, that's still better than some airlines.


hah yeah right


----------



## He Named Thor

jayOOfoshO said:


> hah yeah right


Try flying somewhere when it's snowing. Even a little bit. 



Anywho, 

I was in Sturtevant the other day and decided to stop by the train station for some photos. The Hiawatha (Milwaukee-Chicago) stops there, and the Empire Builder (Chicago-Seattle) passes through without stopping. I only managed to sit long enough to get a few pics of one Hiawatha. 

Approaching Sturtevant from Chicago. 









Power was provided by one Genesis. 









An F40ph "cabbage" car. As I explained previously the engine was gutted, with the space being used for luggage. The cab still has working controls, and is used while going in the other direction so that the train doesn't need to be turned around. 









The train leaving again. It only stops long enough for everyone to get on/off. 









Kind of sad though. It's a hodgepodge of Amfleet and Horizon cars. Supposedly the F40 is a new addition to the Hiawatha. It was running a Genesis on each side. That suggests that they needed the other on another route. Though the F40 probably works just as well, and eliminates the need for a seperate baggage car. 


Sturtevant's station


----------



## MelbourneCity

Does all of Amtrak's money come from the Federal government, or do the states provide some funding?
Eg, Amtrak California - is that funded more by the state or the federal government?

Also, does Amtrak/US Government ask that the Canadian government fund services within their territory?


----------



## He Named Thor

MelbourneCity said:


> Does all of Amtrak's money come from the Federal government, or do the states provide some funding?
> Eg, Amtrak California - is that funded more by the state or the federal government?
> 
> Also, does Amtrak/US Government ask that the Canadian government fund services within their territory?


The states do provide some funding, but it varies wildly. Amtrak California is actually part of the California DOT. They provide tons of money to Amtrak, and their stuff is unique because of it. 

Check out their Superliner coach, for instance:








They also have two doors on each side of the car for exit/entry. 

This is a regular Amtrak Superliner for comparison:










I believe North Carolina puts more into Amtrak as well. I'm not sure if Canada does or not. I'd be willing to bet that Ontario and British Colombia do pay for their Amtrak service.


----------



## seawastate

Washington state also provides funds for Amtrak to operate Portland, OR - Seattle, WA and Seattle, WA - Vancouver, BC passenger trains. They have special "Cascades" colors in reference to the Cascade Mountains. Locomotives used are F59PHI and F40 Cabbages. The passenger cars are manufactured by Talgo.




























The interior of the Talgo passenger cars are also very nice.


----------



## MelbourneCity

Very nice!
Is there any evidence that says that Amtrak usage is higher in those states where more money is provided?


----------



## He Named Thor

seawastate said:


> Washington state also provides funds for Amtrak to operate Portland, OR - Seattle, WA and Seattle, WA - Vancouver, BC passenger trains. They have special "Cascades" colors in reference to the Cascade Mountains. Locomotives used are F59PHI and F40 Cabbages. The passenger cars are manufactured by Talgo.


Oh duh! How could I have forgotten that one?


----------



## He Named Thor

MelbourneCity said:


> Very nice!
> Is there any evidence that says that Amtrak usage is higher in those states where more money is provided?


From Amtrak's website:
Four other corridors had ridership in excess of a half-million passengers:


Empire Service (New York-Albany-Niagara Falls): 1,348,785 
San Joaquin Service (Oakland-Sacramento-Bakersfield): 949,611 
Amtrak Cascades Service (Eugene-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, B.C.): 760,323 
Hiawatha Service (Chicago-Milwaukee): 749,659 

Fourteen states contract with Amtrak for the operation of trains that supplement the national Amtrak network by extending the reach of passenger rail services or provide additional frequencies on Amtrak routes. State and regional agencies pay most of the cost of these services, reimbursing Amtrak for direct expenses. Continued operation of these state-supported routes is subject to annual contracts and state Legislative appropriations, along with Amtrak financial participation. In addition to operating funds, many of these states also provide funds for infrastructure or other capital improvements to Amtrak routes in their states.

California: Capitol Corridor Service (San Jose-Auburn), Pacific Surfliner Service (San Luis Obispo-San Diego); and *San Joaquin Service *(Bakersfield-Sacramento/Oakland, plus an extensive system of connecting Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach routes

Illinois: *Hiawatha Service *(Chicago-Milwaukee), Lincoln Service (Chicago-St. Louis), Illini & Saluki (Chicago-Carbondale) and Illinois Zephyr & Carl Sandburg (Chicago-Quincy)

Maine: Downeaster (Portland-Boston)
Michigan: Blue Water (Port Huron-East Lansing-Chicago) and Pere Marquette (Grand Rapids-Chicago)
Missouri: Missouri River Runner (Kansas City-St. Louis)
New York: Adirondack (New York City-Montreal, Q.C.)
North Carolina: Carolinian (Charlotte-New York City) and Piedmont (Raleigh-Charlotte)
Oklahoma: Heartland Flyer (Oklahoma City-Fort Worth)
Oregon: *Amtrak Cascades Service *(Eugene-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, B.C.)
Pennsylvania: Keystone Corridor Service (Harrisburg-Philadelphia-New York City)
Texas: Heartland Flyer (Fort Worth-Oklahoma City)
Vermont: Ethan Allen Express (Rutland-New York City) and Vermonter (St. Albans-Washington)
Washington: *Amtrak Cascades Service *(Vancouver, B.C.-Seattle-Portland-Eugene)
Wisconsin: *Hiawatha Service *(Milwaukee-Chicago)

Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia make payments to Amtrak through transit agencies or state transportation departments for use of the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor facilities by commuter trains. These agencies or states also provide other funding on the Northeast Corridor, including capital funds for infrastructure and/or stations. Amtrak has agreements for access and/or maintenance where Amtrak trains operate over locally-owned portions of the Northeast Corridor in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York.



http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Conte...2Copy/Title_Image_Copy_Page&cid=1081442674300


Also, out of their 25 busiest train stations list:

7 are from California
Seattle comes in at #16
Portland at #18

I can't find just a list with each route and ridership though.


----------



## Facial

hkskyline, where do you search for rail news?


----------



## mgk920

Facial said:


> Interesting article, hkskyline. The number 110 mph is so important everywhere because the diesels can run that fast. They almost never do.
> 
> And Wi-Fi must be installed on all Amtrak trains.


Speeds up to and exceeding 110 mph (about 175 km/h) are certainly possible with diesels, simply requiring the right motor drive gear ratio on the trains' powered axles. With proper aerodynamics, they should be able to go as fast as any straight electrics.

Most diesel locomotives in North America are geared for far slower speeds, though, favoring lugging power in freight service (79 mph/130 km/h maximum speed for high-priority mainline trains, slower for bulk commodities).

Straight electrics do have a substantial weight/efficiency advantage in high-speed passenger service, though, not requiring large, heavy engine blocks and main generators.

Mike


----------



## nomarandlee

> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/hc-bizdigbrf1013.art0oct13,0,395606.story
> 
> *Amtrak Ridership Down By 1 Million*
> 
> Associated Press
> 
> October 13, 2009
> 
> Amtrak said Monday that its ridership dropped by more than 1 million passengers during the past year, but it was still the second-highest year in the railroad's history.
> 
> Figures released by the nation's intercity rail operator show that Amtrak carried 27.2 million passengers during the 12 months ending Sept. 30. Amtrak's record was 28.7 million passengers during the previous year, a period coinciding with record-high gas prices.
> 
> Still, ridership was up over two years ago by 5.1 percent.
> 
> Amtrak President and CEO Joseph Boardman blamed the decline on the weakened economy, although travel was up on some short-distance routes and on the railroad's 15 long-distance trains.
> 
> "In a difficult year for the economy — particularly in the travel industry — Amtrak ridership has remained strong albeit with some regional variation," Boardman said. "In particular, reduced business travel along the Northeast corridor prevented us from reaching the ridership we achieved last year."
> 
> The number of passengers that Amtrak carries increased steadily from 2002 to 2007 before the sharp spike last year.
> 
> Amtrak said that ticket revenue for the past year was $1.6 billion, down 7.8 percent from last year, but up 5.3 percent from two years ago.
> Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant


..


----------



## poshbakerloo

Why don't they just give up on trains anyway. Its pretty impossible. The car as won...


----------



## metsfan

poshbakerloo said:


> Why don't they just give up on trains anyway. Its pretty impossible. The car as won...


Car has won? Won what? Award for worst possible invention to be mass produced?

In any case, the 8 billion for rail transportation should be 20 billion, and electrification will have to be done at some point as petro fuels run out.

Also, as Amtrak numbers may decline slightly after a fuel price spike, the traffic between NY and philly, and NY and new haven etc is covered by transit agencies, so it's not all fewer trips over all, they could have migrated to transit somewhat. I know when i started riding the NEC back in 2001 there were about 2/3 less people than there are now. There are so many more people, that NJT is replacing all of its old single level coaches with multilevel coaches, as well as having a want for more EMU than it has now when the arrow 3 are replaced.

I want to see electric freight return, and all amtk routes electrified.

- A


----------



## poshbakerloo

metsfan said:


> Car has won? Won what? Award for worst possible invention to be mass produced?
> 
> In any case, the 8 billion for rail transportation should be 20 billion, and electrification will have to be done at some point as petro fuels run out.
> 
> Also, as Amtrak numbers may decline slightly after a fuel price spike, the traffic between NY and philly, and NY and new haven etc is covered by transit agencies, so it's not all fewer trips over all, they could have migrated to transit somewhat. I know when i started riding the NEC back in 2001 there were about 2/3 less people than there are now. There are so many more people, that NJT is replacing all of its old single level coaches with multilevel coaches, as well as having a want for more EMU than it has now when the arrow 3 are replaced.
> 
> I want to see electric freight return, and all amtk routes electrified.
> 
> - A


Go to LA, Dallas, Phoenix. Perfectly nice places...but the car has won, ull see wot I mean...(yes I have been there)


----------



## He Named Thor

Well for one thing not everyone can afford to own a car. Also, it's pretty obvious that not everyone should be given a license. 

With our lacking public transit options, anyone who falls into one of those two categories is pretty much screwed.


----------



## poshbakerloo

He Named Thor said:


> Well for one thing not everyone can afford to own a car. Also, it's pretty obvious that not everyone should be given a license.
> 
> With our lacking public transit options, anyone who falls into one of those two categories is pretty much screwed.


Thats true. But the thing is that in general outside the north east there isnt and public transit. Maybe the odd bus route train small light rail system.

I think its is a lot to do. I think its one of them things where it would be better to give some places good public transit rather than all places a bit of it, which from what I've seen has been done up to now...
leaves a bit of a half done job


----------



## poshbakerloo

metsfan said:


> I want to see electric freight return, and all amtk routes electrified.
> 
> - A


Thats a job and a half. It will take 10years just to think about it, another 10 years to plan it...a lot of time wasting goes on...
Even tho it could really be done in a lot less time...


----------



## dachacon

poshbakerloo said:


> Go to LA, Dallas, Phoenix. Perfectly nice places...but the car has won, ull see wot I mean...(yes I have been there)


i cant speak for dallas or phoenix, but as a resident of los angeles, i live happily with out a car. the car is losing its grip on Los Angeles as the city densifies and more rail lines open. our newest line opens in November, another is under construction, with 3 more close to breaking ground. in 10 years los angeles will be a totally different place.


----------



## poshbakerloo

dachacon said:


> i cant speak for dallas or phoenix, but as a resident of los angeles, i live happily with out a car. the car is losing its grip on Los Angeles as the city densifies and more rail lines open. our newest line opens in November, another is under construction, with 3 more close to breaking ground. in 10 years los angeles will be a totally different place.


I would like to agree with you on that, you are probably right aswell in your area. But LA is such a huge place. Cities of that size that has a decent amount of mass transit tend to have things like subway networks with 12+ lines and 200+ stations etc

When I was last in Santa Monica the only way I could 'pop down to the shops' was by car. Too far/hot to walk, no buses in that area (alothough there are buses in other parts) etc...

Something that made me laugh when I was watching that morning show (forgot the name) on KTLA a woman had lived in LA her whole life and had never heard of the red line subway :S

But to be far on LA...Dallas and Pheonix from what I could see where even more car orientated...


----------



## Nexis

*New Jersey Transit has the Biggest Commuter Rail network in the US and will add another 200 miles by 2020, so maybe Amtrak can learn some ideas from us , we have Diesel n Electric Routes. 7 Electric Routes , Diesel, you can learn something form SEPTA as well.* 

~Corey


----------



## metsfan

poshbakerloo said:


> Go to LA, Dallas, Phoenix. Perfectly nice places...but the car has won, ull see wot I mean...(yes I have been there)


Well firstly, LA has a metro, and used to have a streetcar system. Sadly a corporation lead by standard oil, the rubber industry, and GM bought out Pacific Electric's Red Car streetcar system, which had a massive service area, and over 100 streetcars in the downtown area alone. They also have the MetroLink. A smaller tram system is in place there as well.

Phoenix just opened a light rail system, which will be expanded.

Dallas has http://www.dart.org/ which is opening a new rail line next year and all ready has 2 up and running.

Just because people choose to drive vs take rail transportation does not mean "the car has won". You need to do a lot more research. Have a nice day. 

- A


----------



## metsfan

Nexis said:


> *New Jersey Transit has the Biggest Commuter Rail network in the US and will add another 200 miles by 2020, so maybe Amtrak can learn some ideas from us , we have Diesel n Electric Routes. 7 Electric Routes , Diesel, you can learn something form SEPTA as well.*
> 
> ~Corey


Yea, i heard about this and have seen maps. They are expanding light rail south from camden, and north from tonnelly ave. They are also looking at MOM via monmouth jct DMU heavy rail, Lackawanna cutoff to east stroudsburg, former reading line to west trenton off the RVL near bound brook station, another line to scranton, and some other smaller projects. It will be a beautiful day once all these projects are in place and running.

http://www.geocities.com/transit383/njt2020.gif

- A


----------



## poshbakerloo

metsfan said:


> Well firstly, LA has a metro
> 
> Just because people choose to drive vs take rail transportation does not mean "the car has won". You need to do a lot more research. Have a nice day.
> 
> - A


"Well firstly, LA has a metro"...ish yeah I know it does but its not really the size it needs to be for a city that bit...

And the fact that people are mainly choosing to drive shows the car has won. Not that its even a bad thing, but its just pollution and the fact the in LA even 12 lane roads get jammed...
I was stuck on the Santa Monica freeway for ages last summer.

The main issue is the phsycology of people. It don't matter how many light rail lines or subways you put in, if they dnt wanna use them over their car.


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> the main issue is the phsycology of people. It don't matter how many light rail lines or subways you put in, if they dnt wanna use them over their car.


Once $12/gallon gas becomes reality, and that commute on the 10 (the aforementioned Santa Monica Frwy) becomes economically untenable, people will _really_ start liking that subway or light rail line...


----------



## He Named Thor

Just an interesting review I came across. A British journalist's review of his trip on Amtrak: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/h...US-by-rail-Let-the-train-take-the-strain.html


----------



## ranieri

*oh woe is me*

Back in the late 90's my mother and I rode Amtrak from Philadelphia to North Carolina to visit my brother. The cars were smelly and dirty, they were from the 70's. The train was outrun by the highway drivers next to us. And we had to wait for freight to go by before were allowed on the "main line". On top of that, we still had to drive another 90 minutes from the station to our destination. Nice.


----------



## Facial

poshbakerloo said:


> When I was last in Santa Monica the only way I could 'pop down to the shops' was by car.


Amazing. Parking costs quite a bit over there. I went there several times.

I'm betting the purple line subway should outdo the convenience of cars.


----------



## poshbakerloo

Facial said:


> Amazing. Parking costs quite a bit over there. I went there several times.
> 
> I'm betting the purple line subway should outdo the convenience of cars.


the parking lot was free as it was for the shop i was in
If it goes to the places I want it will do


----------



## He Named Thor

ranieri said:


> Back in the late 90's my mother and I rode Amtrak from Philadelphia to North Carolina to visit my brother. The cars were smelly and dirty, they were from the 70's. The train was outrun by the highway drivers next to us. And we had to wait for freight to go by before were allowed on the "main line". On top of that, we still had to drive another 90 minutes from the station to our destination. Nice.


Well, if it makes you feel any better, the cars went through major remodeling in the past few years. Amtrak certainly still needs its own right of way (though technically freight trains are supposed to stop and wait for the much shorter Amtrak trains to pass, but they rarely do), but with the slowdown in shipping due to the economy they don't have to stop often anymore. 


I'm not sure what you are getting at with the having to drive thing. 
1. You likely would have to drive from an airport to your destination too.
2. You knew before you left where the station was. 


The problem is that some people (of a certain political agenda) see this and go "see, Amtrak needs to die", while we say "we know what the problems are and how to fix them, so why kill Amtrak?"


----------



## Facial

ranieri and posh represent the majority of Angelinos and those living in the Southland who believe that driving is the best option under every circumstance.

If you are only travelling in the suburban places around LA, then sure, driving is vastly superior. After all, who wants to bike around streets where doctors would pull in front of you and brake hard, in a bout of rage for you to crash? (true story, btw) The environment is inhospitable for alternative modes of transport. Buses are slow, bikes are unsafe, Metro Rail doesn't go where I want it to go, etc, etc. 

This mentality is valid, if you are satisfied with the status quo. Some history follows.

Half a century ago a consortium of companies carved up what was arguably the most sophisticated electric transit system in the early 1900s and sold them to companies which frankly had no interest in preserving such things, and instead went on to sell these rail lines in order to purchase buses and fund road construction under the auspices of the burgeoning automobile industry. This is the story of Los Angeles.

It is now undeniable that automobile transportation is becoming unreliable and unsustainable. The freeway arteries that promised fast, efficient, family-oriented transport have become one-man, clogged, road-raging parking lots. And there is no exception that on an ordinary work day, you will see parking lots two times a day, minimum.

The MTA's light rail system is nowhere near as extensive as the Pacific Electric lines covered. However, the combined system of Metrolink (SCRRA) and the MTA covers a similar extent. However, there is the inconvenience of transferring. But this is a promising start, and one day people will be able to overcome the traffic nightmare that LA is in.

For commuting between San Diego and Los Angeles, I choose heavy rail half the time. Why do so, even when it takes twice as long as driving the I-5? Because it is stress-free travel. I can read, stretch, sleep, etc. The 90 mph speed limit is not so bad, but keep in mind that this represents old infrastructure. Many passes of rail line on the Surf Line are single-tracked, and not double-tracked. Don't ask me, but I wouldn't want a one-lane freeway. People have spent billions on building freeways, but they didn't give rail a chance. It is a much more efficient and promising form of transportation, with a 200-year history of engineering development and 26-fold lower fatality rate. It can carry more people at faster speeds than cars.

While I wait the 20+ years that it will take for HSR to be hammered out in reality, I prefer to see some funds go into upgrading the regular railroads for 110-mph operations, which is still pathetically slow compared to European/Japanese/Chinese standards.


----------



## Facial

poshbakerloo said:


> the parking lot was free as it was for the shop i was in
> If it goes to the places I want it will do


There are hardly any free parking lots in SaMo near the 3rd Ave. Promenade (if that's where you went). If so you really got to tell me where this magic spot is, because biking there seems more palatable. Closer to the ocean it is safe to bike due to the density of bicyclists around there.


----------



## metsfan

Amtrak needs a lot more funding. How about up the gas tax to 20% and see how people feel about taking a train.

- A


----------



## k.k.jetcar

He Named Thor said:


> Just an interesting review I came across. A British journalist's review of his trip on Amtrak:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/h...US-by-rail-Let-the-train-take-the-strain.html


It must be noted that the review is in the travel section (i.e. leisure travel). Telling is the reporter's comment "...I rediscovered the pleasures of _slow_ travel with a rail trip on Amtrak..." So Amtrak is good for those not in a hurry and looking for a "cruise train" experience. But if you're looking for a quick way to get from point A to point B, ON TIME, you had better look elsewhere, NEC service excepted.


----------



## poshbakerloo

Facial said:


> There are hardly any free parking lots in SaMo near the 3rd Ave. Promenade (if that's where you went). If so you really got to tell me where this magic spot is, because biking there seems more palatable. Closer to the ocean it is safe to bike due to the density of bicyclists around there.


S Sepulveda blvd @ w pico there a doughnut store that i go and if u get hungry then park at norms. all free


----------



## G5man

How about we go with the plan Representative Peter DeFazio suggested and tax the oil speculators while the price of oil continues to climb again. We're now at $80 a barrel and it shows once economic recovery is in full swing, we're heading back up to $150 in no time. An addition to the gas tax would help to. It'd get transit systems back where they belong and help restore service.


----------



## Facial

poshbakerloo said:


> S Sepulveda blvd @ w pico there a doughnut store that i go and if u get hungry then park at norms. all free


Oh, okay, that is quite inland. I was talking about the beach area and the Promenade.


----------



## Nexis

*I took the Keystone Service Last Thursday , It was Fast except for a Construction Zone and Comfortable , the Seats went back a bit , there were Outlets and it made me Happy , vs. a Car ride with my Mom to my Ant's Farm :lol:

Here are some pictures i shoot when i wasn't busy, doing something

Entering Philly 30 Street Station *














































Paoli Station










*I took 3 Videos *

http://www.youtube.com/user/Nexis4Jersey

*~Corey*


----------



## Nexis

*Here are my 3 Videos form my keystone Trip

Northeast Corridor Construction Site in New Jersey near New Brunswick, forced the Train to go slowly*






*Entering 30th Street Station in Philly*






*After Philly*






*~Corey*


----------



## Nexis

*Hoboken Terminal*

Today i went to Jersey City & Hoboken , i took a Pascack Valley Line form Westwood (where i live) to Hoboken Terminal, it was about 50 mins. Hoboken Terminal is the end of the line for 9 out 11 NJT lines. Also connections to NYC via NY Waterway & PATH Trains below the Station. It also has a Bus Terminal. The old Ferry slips are getting reconstructed to allow the ferries to use them in the near future. Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Terminates here also 2 lines. Here are my pictures , some are blurry.

*Form the Hoboken Side*




























*Bus Terminal*



















*Form the Light Rail Terminal*
































































*Some NJT Rail Cars*














































*Inside the Station*






















































































































*Main waiting area, for some reason this came out Blurry*



















*Hoboken Yard*



















*Hoboken Terminal Artwork*





































*Views form Hoboken Terminal
Midtown Manhattan*










*Lower Manhattan*










*Newport Section of Jersey City*










*Thats all i have form today, i will post some past photos i have taken later.
Hope you enjoyed
~Corey*


----------



## poshbakerloo

wow. I'm in my element!


----------



## Nexis

Amtrak Finally Laying Out Plans For Fleet Revitalization​
Amtrak’s equipment is aging; it is a major factor in delays. Some of Amtrak’s vehicles are more than 50 years old. The average life of a passenger rail car, depending on its usage, is 25 to 30 years. The lifespan of a locomotive is 20 to 25 years. 

Currently, Amtrak has 92 Heritage cars in service (which are 53 to 61 years old), 17 Metroliners (which are 42 years old), 412 Amfleet I cars (which are 32 to 35 years old), 122 Amfleet II cars (which are 28 to 29 years old), 249 Superliner I cars (which are 28 to 30 years old); 184 Superliner II cars (which are 13 to 15 years old), 97 Horizon cars (which are 19 to 20 years old), 50 Viewliners (which are 13 to 14 years old), 29 Talgo cars (which are 10 years old), 120 Acela cars (which are nine to 10 years old), and 41 Surfliners (which are seven to nine years old).

With respect to locomotives, Amtrak has 49 AEM-7 locomotives (which are 21 to 29 years old), 18 P32’s (which are 18 years old), 18 P32DM’s (which are 11 to 14 years old), 21 F59PHI’s (which are 11 years old), 15 HHP-8’s (which are eight to 10 years old), and 207 P42’s (which are eight to 13 years old).

Over the next five years and given adequate resources, Amtrak plans to purchase 396 new single-level vehicles for corridor service, which will replace about 95 percent of the Amfleet I vehicles; purchase 275 new single-level vehicles for long-haul service in an effort to remove all of the Heritage single-level cars and about 95 percent of the Amfleet II vehicles from service; purchase 160 new bi-level vehicles to replace 65 percent of the Superliner I cars; and purchase 100 new electric locomotives to replace the entire electric locomotive fleet.

Amtrak also plans to acquire 54 new diesel locomotives, replacing 20 percent of its diesel fleet; and purchase five additional Acela trainsets and 41 new switch engines to replace the entire switcher fleet. Amtrak estimates that the effort requires capital funding of approximately $4.57 billion.

http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Main%20Street/HR%202847%20Summary.pdf

~Corey


----------



## He Named Thor

Nexis said:


> Amtrak Finally Laying Out Plans For Fleet Revitalization​
> Amtrak’s equipment is aging; it is a major factor in delays. Some of Amtrak’s vehicles are more than 50 years old. The average life of a passenger rail car, depending on its usage, is 25 to 30 years. The lifespan of a locomotive is 20 to 25 years.
> 
> Currently, Amtrak has 92 Heritage cars in service (which are 53 to 61 years old), 17 Metroliners (which are 42 years old), 412 Amfleet I cars (which are 32 to 35 years old), 122 Amfleet II cars (which are 28 to 29 years old), 249 Superliner I cars (which are 28 to 30 years old); 184 Superliner II cars (which are 13 to 15 years old), 97 Horizon cars (which are 19 to 20 years old), 50 Viewliners (which are 13 to 14 years old), 29 Talgo cars (which are 10 years old), 120 Acela cars (which are nine to 10 years old), and 41 Surfliners (which are seven to nine years old).
> 
> With respect to locomotives, Amtrak has 49 AEM-7 locomotives (which are 21 to 29 years old), 18 P32’s (which are 18 years old), 18 P32DM’s (which are 11 to 14 years old), 21 F59PHI’s (which are 11 years old), 15 HHP-8’s (which are eight to 10 years old), and 207 P42’s (which are eight to 13 years old).
> 
> Over the next five years and given adequate resources, *Amtrak plans to purchase 396 new single-level vehicles for corridor service,* which will replace about 95 percent of the Amfleet I vehicles; purchase 275 new single-level vehicles for long-haul service in an effort to remove all of the Heritage single-level cars and about 95 percent of the Amfleet II vehicles from service; purchase 160 new bi-level vehicles to replace 65 percent of the Superliner I cars; and purchase 100 new electric locomotives to replace the entire electric locomotive fleet.
> 
> Amtrak also plans to acquire 54 new diesel locomotives, replacing 20 percent of its diesel fleet; and purchase five additional Acela trainsets and 41 new switch engines to replace the entire switcher fleet. Amtrak estimates that the effort requires capital funding of approximately $4.57 billion.
> 
> http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Main%20Street/HR%202847%20Summary.pdf
> 
> ~Corey



Hmm, I wonder how many of these will be Wisconsin built Talgo cars. This deal could work out quite well for us. :banana:

Any word on what the diesel locos will be? 

Also, how about a new paint scheme. The current Amtrak livery (excluding California, Acela, and Cascades) is pretty bleh. They need something new to go with the changes.


----------



## Suburbanist

> How about up the gas tax to 20% and see how people feel about taking a train.


What an appaling proposure: tax gas like it were tobbaco so people would "give trains a chance". This is an indeed leftist grow-the-government argument. Nonetheless, I'd support a $0.20-0.30 inrease in the federal gas tax because we need more money to repair bridges, repave highways etc. But no gas tax money should be diverted to rail whatsoever... create a track (!) tax if you want to.


----------



## Rebasepoiss

^^ I thought most trains in the US run on diesel....So it's fair if some of the fuel tax is used for the railways, unless trains get to use tax-free fuel.


----------



## Nexis

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ I thought most trains in the US run on diesel....So it's fair if some of the fuel tax is used for the railways, unless trains get to use tax-free fuel.


Actually that might change soon , when a few Freight lines go Electric & Amtrak plans to Electrify a few more Routes. The Northeast US has alot of Electric lines.


----------



## mgk920

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ I thought most trains in the US run on diesel....So it's fair if some of the fuel tax is used for the railways, unless trains get to use tax-free fuel.


Diesel fuel for off-road use in the USA (ie, for railroads, construction machinery, farm tractors, etc) is _not_ subject to a road user tax and is mixed with a strong color dye to denote its untaxed status. You do *NOT* want to be a truck/lorry driver and get caught with 'dyed' fuel in your rig's tanks.

Mike


----------



## Suburbanist

In Brazil, for instance, cars (gross weight < 2.500kg) are not allowed to run on diesel. Indeed, it is illegal to sell or import diesel-powered cars there.


----------



## Facial

This thread hasn't been updated in a while. But some exciting news came around. Let's start with the first, scrolling the clock back to last month:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 11, 2010

AMTRAK READY WITH BIG PLANS FOR 2010
New Year brings major projects and new initiatives

WASHINGTON— Amtrak is ready for an exciting 2010 with major projects and new
initiatives that will benefit passengers, increase service, rebuild infrastructure, and put America’s railroad at the center of intercity and high-speed passenger rail development and expansion.

“Amtrak enters 2010 with a strong sense of optimism, enthusiasm and purpose,” said
President and CEO Joseph Boardman. “We have an aggressive game plan to modernize, renew, and grow America’s passenger railroad,” he said, noting increasing ridership from 21.6 million in FY 2002 to 27.2 million in FY 2009, with an all-time record of 28.7 million in FY 2008.

He explained that numerous projects and initiatives being undertaken in 2010 support
goals established in Amtrak’s new Strategic Guidance including becoming safer, greener and healthier and improving financial performance, customer service, and meeting national needs.

In particular, Amtrak is playing a major role in the development and expansion of
intercity and high-speed passenger rail. As America’s provider of intercity passenger rail service and its only high-speed rail operator—operating trains at speeds up to 150 mph every day—

Amtrak has unmatched knowledge, experience and expertise in the U.S. rail environment.
Boardman added that Amtrak is partnering with 25 states in support of more than 100
projects submitted for funding from the $8 billion made available by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for intercity and high-speed rail capital improvement grants. An announcement from the U.S. Department of Transportation on which projects have been selected is expected this winter.

During 2010, Amtrak also will undertake track and bridge construction projects, safety
and security enhancements, and will release a plan to replace and expand its locomotive and passenger railcar fleet, among many other projects and initiatives.

Following are highlights of major activities Amtrak will begin, continue or complete
during the coming year.

High-Speed Rail
In 2010, Amtrak will celebrate the 10th anniversary of America’s fastest train, the Acela
Express, which began operating along the Northeast Corridor in 2000 and reaches speeds up to
150 mph. In addition, Amtrak will increase train speeds to 105 mph over a section of track it
owns between Porter, Ind., and Kalamazoo, Mich., which will benefit Blue Water and
Wolverines service. Amtrak currently operates nearly half of its more than 300 daily trains at
speeds of 100 mph or higher on their routes.

Deploy WiFi and Upgrade Interiors on Acela Express
In March, Amtrak will deploy WiFi technology on Acela Express and make it available
to every passenger initially free of charge. In late 2010, Amtrak will complete a program to
upgrade the interior of all Acela Express trainsets to increase passenger comfort and amenities,
including leather seating, improved tray tables, and better outlets to power laptop computers,
DVD players and other electronic devices.

Major Infrastructure Improvement Projects Funded by ARRA
Many major Amtrak infrastructure improvement projects funded in full, or in part, by
$1.3 billion in ARRA funds will be under construction in 2010. Some of these projects include:
replacement of the 102-year old movable bridge over the Niantic River in Connecticut;
modernization of transformers and other electrical equipment used to power trains between
Washington, D.C. and New York; improvements to tracks and switches at Chicago Union
Station; and construction of new maintenance buildings for passenger railcar equipment in Los
Angeles, Calif., and Hialeah, Fla.

In addition, ARRA funding is supporting: renovation of the station in Wilmington, Del.;
expansion of the Auto Train station in Sanford, Fla.; restoration of locomotives and passenger
railcars in Beech Grove, Ind., and Bear, Del.; improved emergency exits and fire detection and
suppression systems in New York tunnels; and enhanced accessibility at more than 200 rail
stations across the country.

Major Infrastructure Improvement Projects Funded by Annual Engineering Program
Beyond the ARRA funded projects, Amtrak will spend $442 million as part of its annual
FY 2010 engineering program. Among these projects include: installation of more than 112,000
concrete crossties and more than 49,000 wood crossties on the Northeast Corridor; construction
of a new air ventilation shaft for the New York tunnels; and repair to several bridges in
Michigan, Maryland, New York and New Jersey.

In addition, Amtrak will: complete the multi-year modernization of the catenary wires on
the Hell Gate Line in N.Y.; begin construction of upgrades to the Seattle maintenance facility;
and improve accessibility at stations in Philadelphia, Pa., Baltimore, Md., Providence, R.I. and
elsewhere.

New Plan to Replace and Expand Fleet of Locomotives and Passenger Railcars
Amtrak will announce a comprehensive and detailed plan to replace and expand its fleet
of locomotives and passenger railcars to enhance current service and accommodate expected
future growth. It will include the purchase of several hundred single-level and bi-level longdistance
passenger railcars and more than a hundred locomotives. This major equipment
purchase will support American rail manufacturing industries and create jobs in the U.S.
Long-Distance Routes, Corridor Services and Commuter Contract

Amtrak will undertake an in-depth evaluation of the poorest performing long-distance
routes to identify and implement changes where possible to improve key measures such as
customer service, ridership, and financial performance. The five routes being analyzed are the
Sunset Limited, Cardinal, Texas Eagle, Capitol Limited, and California Zephyr.

Also, Amtrak will expand corridor services in collaboration with state partners. In
Virginia, a fifth Northeast Regional train will operate between Richmond and Washington, D.C.
In North Carolina, a second Piedmont roundtrip between Raleigh and Charlotte will be added. In
Washington, a second Amtrak Cascades train is now operating from Seattle to Vancouver,
British Columbia through the duration of the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics Games.
In addition, Amtrak is finalizing a new operating contract with the Los Angeles-based
Metrolink commuter rail service to provide train and engine crews for all seven of its lines.

Installing Positive Train Control and Enhancing Safety
Amtrak is committed to an aggressive, self-imposed schedule to install Positive Train
Control (PTC) by the end of 2012—three years ahead of a Congressional deadline for the rail
industry— on sections of Amtrak-owned tracks not already equipped with the sophisticated
technology capable of controlling train movements to prevent collisions. A significant amount
of design, engineering, and some installation work will occur this year to advance the project.

Amtrak is also implementing two industry-leading risk-reduction safety initiatives to
complement traditional rules-based compliance programs. The Safe-2-Safer program
strengthens the emphasis on safety within the corporate culture by promoting a more
collaborative working environment and ensures a higher reliability of safe behaviors at all levels
of the railroad.

In addition, Amtrak intends to participate in a Federal Railroad Administration sponsored
Close Call Reporting project under which incidents that did not result in an accident or injury,
but could have, can be anonymously reported by employees so that safety improvements can be
made as appropriate.

Strengthening Security
Amtrak passengers will see a more interactive police and security presence in 2010 with
greater emphasis on random and unpredictable patrols, baggage screenings and other activities in
stations and on trains. Amtrak will continue to expand its K-9 explosive detection teams, harden
stations and strengthen cooperative inter-agency operations with local, state, and federal law
enforcement and counterterrorism partners.


----------



## K_

It's nice to see rail make a comeback, but it's a pity to see so many projects that really lack the ambition to be usefull. 
The schedule contains only a handful of trains per day. The trains used are heavy and slow. If you really want people to use it you need at least a train every half hour, and higher top speeds. 
A reform of the FRA is really needed if you want a proper rail renaissance in the US.


----------



## goldbough

Are those crowds from opening day or is that a typical Saturday?


----------



## minneapolis-uptown

goldbough said:


> Are those crowds from opening day or is that a typical Saturday?


I don't think it runs on weekends, just rush hour on weekdays. so yeah, it was just like that on opening day


----------



## goldbough

Their website is a little out of date because as of now they are still promoting the first day of service on Nov. 16, 2009. The schedule seems a little ridiculous on the weekends. hno: The first train heading downtown on Saturday isn't until 12:30 in the afternoon! Sundays is 10:30 am though. On Saturdays I'd have a train no later than 9am.


----------



## minneapolis-uptown

^^ yeah, i also think they take the name 'commuter rail' a little too literally


----------



## Simfan34

He Named Thor said:


> *ICE*


I think I just died.


----------



## Nexis

Heres sum Amtrak ICE & X2000 videos
















Amtrak didn't go with these 2 trains due to the cost and they found it would fit onto the NEC.


----------



## tampasteve

Cool videos! I was not aware they ever ran ICE trainsets on the NEC, thanks!

Steve


----------



## Nexis

Some interesting pictures ive found.

Inside a Sold out Amtrak Regional Train, Amtrak Regional has been selling out at least 5 trains a day.









http://www.flickr.com/photos/madbuster75/3631449714/sizes/o/

Acela Bussiness Car 









http://www.flickr.com/photos/cluth/120019532/sizes/l/

New Northeast Corridor Catenary










http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4128858376/sizes/l/

Old PRR Catenary which be replaced with the new kind sometime this decade.









http://www.flickr.com/photos/cslingerlanddrummer93/4304011865/sizes/l/

More Acela clips









http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevharb/3477600074/sizes/l/

Acela Express First Class from New York Penn Station to Boston

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmNV5K86DuM

Acela Express Train 2173 A/D Rt.128 Station


----------



## Storm9

Suburbanist said:


> What an appaling proposure: tax gas like it were tobbaco so people would "give trains a chance". This is an indeed leftist grow-the-government argument. Nonetheless, I'd support a $0.20-0.30 inrease in the federal gas tax because we need more money to repair bridges, repave highways etc. But no gas tax money should be diverted to rail whatsoever... create a track (!) tax if you want to.


/rant on
It is disgusting to see how car centered suburbia is. Where I live its all strip malls and parking lots, very little trees. On a 100 acre plot 20 acres is the actual store an 80 is the parking lot. If we used less space then we can have more greener environment and cleaner air. I don't care if global warming is man made or not. More plants/trees = cleaner air for me to breathe in my city. Less cars = better environment. 
/rant off

A gas tax is appropriate in urban areas in order to support public transit. If we have better public transit we won't need to expand highways. I think cars are fine for weekends but to commute one should use public transit if you are commuting from Suburbs to City.


----------



## G5man

I agree with Storm9, I find the car centric suburbia a trend that needs to die. Most of the land that is utilized is for automobilies when we could use it for green space and actual buildings. All you need to do is make driving a bad habbit. A 10 cents a gallon federal gas tax increase is not perposterous in any way since it is only 9.5 cents right now. However, I think the Highway Trust fund should be used for roadway maintenance only, no expansions or new Interstates. Our road network is already overexpanded, now it is time to maintain it and promote new methods of travel.


----------



## Crownsteler

Yeah, I've already seen most (but not all) of those ICE and X2000 videos. I think they are quite cool, though completely out of place of course. But Nexis, I don't think Amtrak didn't buy them because they were to expensive (I'd bet the Acelas were more expensive), but instead because the FRA doesn't allow them to be run on US railways. The FRA considers them to be unsafe because the FRA considers (high) weight to be the only factor in train safety. 
I do think it is quite interesting that Amtrak added a small pink line below the red, it's because the red line on the ICEs is a trademark of Deutsche Bahn. 

But on to some Amtrak news; Amtrak is appearently looking to replace its AEM-7 and HHP-8 electric locomotives (the HHP-8s being only 10 (!) years old), the most likely contender (if you are to believe the internet) being Bombadiers ALP-46s (aka DB class 101), which were also ordered by New Jersey Transit.

eg these trains:








(photo credit: Wikipedia/Adolch)

Amtrak is also looking into replacing the Acelas with trains which are supposed to reach 180 mph (290km/h?). And, while not being Amtrak related, Caltrains applied for a waiver to run European style double-decker EMUs, probally to be supplied by Siemens or Alstom.

I thought this was al quite interesting.


----------



## mgk920

I still have the ceramic coffee mug that I got as a souvenir when I test rode that ICE train in the Hiawatha corridor back in 1993! Seeing as that line is not electrified, it was pulled by one of their conventional diesel locomotives. I thought that it was pretty interesting.

:cheers1:

Mike


----------



## FlyFish

Storm9 said:


> /rant on
> It is disgusting to see how car centered suburbia is. Where I live its all strip malls and parking lots, very little trees. On a 100 acre plot 20 acres is the actual store an 80 is the parking lot. If we used less space then we can have more greener environment and cleaner air. I don't care if global warming is man made or not. More plants/trees = cleaner air for me to breathe in my city. Less cars = better environment.
> /rant off
> 
> A gas tax is appropriate in urban areas in order to support public transit. If we have better public transit we won't need to expand highways. I think cars are fine for weekends but to commute one should use public transit if you are commuting from Suburbs to City.


Go plant a tree if it will make you feel better. Look, Chicago and NYC have been building the public transit infrastructure they now have for probably 100 years and outside of those two cities you still have a car centric society. You can't just snap your fingers and have everyone agree to drive out of the way to a parking lot so they can walk in the weather into a dirty station to pay more money to ride a dirty train to another dirty station and then enjoy a 5 block walk in the rain. Gosh, sign me up, that sounds so much better than driving my car straight from my driveway to my covered parking garage. If you live in the right place and work in the right place public transit makes a ton of sense, but it can't and won't work for everyone.

The big cities are working on these things. Chicago and NYC are in the front and continue to improve things. Other places like LA, Philadelphia and the DC-Baltimore are on the heels of the other two and depending on where you live and work they offer good options. Amtrak already suppliments things in and between many of those ares, esp in the NEC where many afternoons you can't find a seat. But please spare me this elietist crap about raising EVERYONE's taxes to push people into your mindset. 

The left's answer to everything is taxes. "We are smarter and more enlightened than everyone else and we think everyone should love public transit and hate cars so lets tax gas so much that everyone will be forced to see things the way we do." "Hey, we'll have a super side effect, we'll raise more money and we can spend $1.30 for every $1.00 of that we get too and we can grow the Gov't even bigger." "What, when people stop driving that revenue stream will run dry?" "No worries, there's always the rich." Gosh, that's a tiring arguement!


----------



## NorthaBmore

*NYC Commuter Rail Systems*

The New York City Commuter Rail Network Consists of 3 systems: Metro-North and Long Island Railroad (owned by the MTA), and New Jersey Transit.

Metro-North:
















Stations: 120
Daily Ridership: 281,100

Long Island Railroad: 
















Stations: 124
Daily Ridership: 330,200

New Jersey Transit:
















Stations: 154 
Daily Ridership: 277,000 as of 2007


----------



## tampasteve

Does it run in tunnels when in the city?

Steve


----------



## Nexis

We have a NJT Thread already and a MTA Thread aswell i believe? So why do we need this one?hno:


----------



## NorthaBmore

*PROJECTS*

Long Island Railroad East Side Access: East Side Access is a project by the MTA to build new tunnels under the East River, allowing Long Island Railroad Trains to terminate at Grand Central Terminal (currently the Metro-North terminal) as well as Penn Station, where the LIRR currently terminates. Grand Central is located in a more central location in relation to jobs in Midtown Manhattan than Penn Station. The project is scheduled to be completed in 2016. 
MTA Website: http://www.mta.info/capconstr/esas/

New Jersey Transit (ARC): ARC (Access to the Region's Core), now known as the Mass Transit Tunnel, is a project by New Jersey Transit to build a second set of tunnels under the Hudson River to ease overcrowding on the existing Hudson River Tunnels. This will increase the amount of trains that New Jersey Transit can run into Penn Station every hour from 23 trains per hour to 48 trains per hour. These new tunnels will also allow riders on the Bergen County & Main, Pascack Valley, and Raritan Valley Lines (colored yellow, violet, and orange respectively on the New Jersey Transit Map) to have a one-seat ride to Manhattan. Currently the Bergen County, Main, and Pascack Valley Lines currently terminate at Hoboken and the Raritan Valley Line terminates at Newark, both in New Jersey. Trains on these lines do not continue to Manhattan for two reasons: the existing tunnel is used to capacity, and these lines aren't electrified (only electric trains a re allowed in the existing tunnel). The project also includes an expansion of the overcrowded Penn Station under 34th street. This project will raise ridership on the NJT system greatly and is scheduled to be complete in 2017.
Website: http://www.arctunnel.com/
Map of the Plan:









Other NJT Commuter Rail projects in the works include
Northern Branch: http://www.northernbranchcorridor.com/
Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex Line: http://www.planning.co.ocean.nj.us/mom.htm
West Trenton Line: http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=Project016To

Metro-North Projects:
Tappan Zee Bridge Commuter Rail Line: http://www.nysthruway.gov/projectsandstudies/projects/tzbdeck/envreview.html
Danbury Branch Electrification: http://www.danburybranchstudy.com/
Penn Station Access (essentially the opposite of East Side Access, although still in the planning stages): http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/psas/overview.html


----------



## NorthaBmore

tampasteve said:


> Does it run in tunnels when in the city?


Yes, all of the systems run in tunnels in the city


----------



## lowes48

I know that I'm responding to a lot of old arguments here, but BESIDES the fact that many parts of the US are so sparsely populated, almost EVERY single passenger train in the US runs on tracks that are OWNED and OPERATED by Class 1 FREIGHT railroads. Which may I remind everyone, use Diesel and are therefore comparatively very slow, running at appx. 65 mph MAX, much slower in urban areas. Therefore, if the US wants to create a nationwide HSR system, there are 2 possible options I can think of, both possessing drawbacks, severity of which i'll let you fine people decide:

1.Refit existing rail for High Speed service- Going back to what I said above, almost all passenger rail routes run on rail owned by freight railroad companies. If they decide to run high speed on those very same routes, then companies will have to coordinate the operation of high speed rail on the exact same track as the slower freight trains. It's complicated enough on the Northeast corridor, but trying to keep track of an ENTIRE nation of freight AND high speed trains running on the same rail at the same time without crashing into each other would be a logistical nightmare. It might work in a smaller country size wise such as Germany and England, but in the US? Totally different animal.

2. Build completely new track solely for High Speed Rail- Once again, the US is much larger than many European nations, which means that they would have to pay much more for a rail system than a smaller nation. Plus since much of the routes being built would pretty much just parallel existing tracks, well it's kind of a waste.

All in all, given the size of the total US and the wide range of density in different spots, it seems more practical to build high speed rail only in densely populated areas and just leave the more sparely inhabited areas alone.


----------



## urbanfan89

K_ said:


> Quite a few governments actually made money on the bank bailouts. So it turns out that the taxpayer isn't footing that much of the bill after all.


The bank bailout money was not given by the government with profit in mind. It was given in a state of panic when all the banks in the world were on the verge of crashing at once. The private sector was simply unable to continue sustaining those banks; therefore, the government intervened; therefore, taxpayer money was involved. Simple as that.


----------



## FlyFish

MrNogatco said:


> Good point.^^
> 
> The private sector messes up at least as often as "the government".
> 
> It wasn't the evil government that brought the world economy to its knees...:nuts:...but it was the gov't (i.e. taxpayers) who bailed out the private sector after it messed up. Again.


Whom do you think it was who decided that every American should be able to own a home and thereby gave FANNIE and FRDDIE the go ahead to create toxic mortgage products in the first place? Hint, NOT the private sector. Yes, the private sector went too far and smart people found a way to make money the way sm,art people always will but don't absolve the Government of blame.


----------



## makita09

K_ said:


> That the privatization of rail in Brittain led to an decrease in safety and an increase in crashes *is simply not true*. The railways in Brittain have been getting safer and safer over the years (as everywhere else) and this process has not been interrupted during the privatisation.


It is irrefutable that safety was compromised after privatisation by privatising the track, the company Railtrack then failed to adhere to its own safety protocol, and the Hatfield Crash highlighted this lax attitude to safety.

But, since Railtrack was deleted, and Network Rail - a non-profit org took over - things have improved to better than they were before privatisation, and no other areas of railway operation seem to have been safety impaired since provatisation at all. I agree it is not fair to say privatisation causes safety concerns and there is no reason to think that it would in the USA, but unfortunately the process in the UK generated one large and particularly sore lapse in safety by one of the private companies that took over, that has since been resolved.


----------



## K_

makita09 said:


> It is irrefutable that safety was compromised after privatisation by privatising the track, the company Railtrack then failed to adhere to its own safety protocol, and the Hatfield Crash highlighted this lax attitude to safety.


Before privatisation accidents happened also. In other countries where the railways are still state owned accidents happen too. The simple fact that an accident happens doesn't prove that the system is unsafe. The panic reaction after Hatfield might even have killed more people than Hatfield itself.
The facts are very simple: Expressed in fatalities per million passenger miles the UK railway system is very safe, safer even than that of countries where trains are still largely run by the transportation ministry.
And privatization has not made it less safe.
That is actually an "irrefutable" fact.


----------



## Maarten Otto

-Corey- said:


> I preffer to travel on a plane than a train.


Probably becouse you havn't been able to taste the railway properly. 
It's magnificent to travel at 300 km'h (186 Mph) along a congested motorway....

I prefere to travel by train whenever possible, just for the comfort. And in Europe where we do have a good international rail system, often including HSR it's in most cases faster then any other mode of transport.

Amsterdam to Paris:
Car = 6 to 8 hours, train is little over 3 hours, Plane is over 4 hours due to check-in times and travel up and down to/from the airport.

Cologne to Frankfurt:
Car is aprox 2 hours, Train is 1.15 hours, Plane..... ALL AXED due to High speed rail taking over all demand.


----------



## makita09

K_ said:


> Before privatisation accidents happened also. In other countries where the railways are still state owned accidents happen too. The simple fact that an accident happens doesn't prove that the system is unsafe. The panic reaction after Hatfield might even have killed more people than Hatfield itself.
> The facts are very simple: Expressed in fatalities per million passenger miles the UK railway system is very safe, safer even than that of countries where trains are still largely run by the transportation ministry.
> And privatization has not made it less safe.
> That is actually an "irrefutable" fact.


I don't refute the safety record and I didn't mean privatisation has made it less safe, as I subsequently highlighted. Railtrack failed to maintain safety standards, not because it was private but because it didn't function properly as an organisation.

As I said there is no reason to suggest private operation of railways will affect safety in the US.


----------



## Suburbanist

I'm far more worried about rail systems that depend on public subsidies to operate the rolling stock. It would be ok for the government to maintain the tracks and stations, but no way government should foot be bill for specific train operations, particularly passenger trains.

Usually, where there is heavy road congestion the rail operator would be able to charge higher fares and still be competitive. However, in totalitarian rail services like in The Netherlands, France or Switzerland, it becomes political sensitive to charge passengers different for the same traveled distance, for instance - even if a given route could extract 3x the average km-passenger fare for the same class of service.

Italy is a model in that regard: in 2001 Trenitalia was mandated to drastically reduce its losses and to make a train-based profitability assessment except for regional services (whose level of service and financing would be decided by the regional governments). So massive service cuts on unprofitable (yet popular) routes brought Trenitalia already to the verge or breaking even, something many pundits said it were impossible.

As for the US, there is a growing attitude against money handouts, pork and subsidies everywhere. I don't think it would be politically feasible to establish a massive passenger rail system funded by taxpayers, not by the fare gates. It took 20 years for American railways restore a credible financial position, and I don't think they would be willing to risk it to transport a bunch of money-losing passenger trains whatsoever. Even daily or 3-days-a-week services create stiff between Amtrak and BSNF, for instance, because the Zephyr and other long-distance trains disrupt their cargo operations and require priority.


----------



## Xusein

There is no profitable passenger transportation system in the US, Amtrak is no odd man out.

Privatization, except for perhaps SOME parts of the NE corridor (with fare hikes to cover costs) would effectively kill passenger rail in the US.


----------



## urbanfan89

Suburbanist said:


> I'm far more worried about rail systems that depend on public subsidies to operate the rolling stock. It would be ok for the government to maintain the tracks and stations, but no way government should foot be bill for specific train operations, particularly passenger trains.


Just curious, what is your attitude towards governments subsidizing airlines to fly to remote airports, which would otherwise be unprofitable?

At least that process is fair and transparent. When Air Canada was privatized, it was still required to fly to unprofitable and remote communities on its own dime. As someone who frequently flies on the Toronto-Vancouver route on AC, I'm paying for that.


----------



## Suburbanist

urbanfan89 said:


> Just curious, what is your attitude towards governments subsidizing airlines to fly to remote airports, which would otherwise be unprofitable?
> 
> At least that process is fair and transparent. When Air Canada was privatized, it was still required to fly to unprofitable and remote communities on its own dime. As someone who frequently flies on the Toronto-Vancouver route on AC, I'm paying for that.


Some circumstances would yield such subsidizes to be in place, but then, I prefer explicit subsiding models that are known, route-specific and politically justifiable. US has a similar scheme too, and they made the cost visible to anyone, instead of embedded in higher uniform fares for everyone.

Then, it is possible to question the justification of each route/service that is subsidized in an otherwise self-sustainable system. However, if you had "hidden" the costs of services and dilute them in uniform fares for the whole system, you start losing control of it. 

In The Netherlands, for instance, the national fares are calculated as a function of class (1st/2nd) and distance, with a lot of discount cards for students, off-peak travel etc. So, NS (the national railway) is forbidden to charge (far) more in commute routes where there is already heavy road congestion during peak times, for instance, or to give discounts in routes operated by older stock in less traveled routes etc. It creates an attitude like "everyone wants a rail service" in their town. Even worse, this build an attitude for frequent all-day long rail service, when a lot of routes could do well with services only in the peak times (then 2-hours interval services the rest of the day instead of 30-min interval services as we have now).

However, the kind of strategic necessity that justifies flight for remote locations in passenger transport in North America doesn't exist in Europe. Apart from the islands (where a railway to the continent is just not feasible), and maybe for the northernmost parts of Norway, Sweden and Finland, we don't have any inhabited place that is far and remote enough to justify special rail transport in lieu of road transport.


----------



## czm3

Xusein said:


> There is no profitable passenger transportation system in the US, Amtrak is no odd man out.
> 
> Privatization, except for perhaps SOME parts of the NE corridor (with fare hikes to cover costs) would effectively kill passenger rail in the US.


Actually all services on the NE corridor (from regionals to Acela) are very profitable. It is the rest of the network that generates Amtrak's deficits every year.


----------



## Suburbanist

czm3 said:


> Actually all services on the NE corridor (from regionals to Acela) are very profitable. It is the rest of the network that generates Amtrak's deficits every year.


So why not just cut services linking Chicago with Seattle and San Francisco altogether for good, or at least the middle sectors like those in sparsely populated MT, WY, CO, NV? I read that the Sunset Limited, albeit "limited" to New Orleans since Katrina, is still a huge money loser. Why not cut this service in three, one between New Orleans and East Texas, one back in Florida panhandle to Jacksonville, and other regional service and California - and that's it?

I don't understand, financially, this Amtrak obsession with money bleeding multi-day routes. They don't own the tracks there, so there is no case for "maintaining a backbone track network". They are not competitive not even with private cars. They won't be ever attractive enough to BNSF - and spending billions to modernize a track to carry a daily passenger train would be silly anyway.

Why doesn't Amtrak focus on profitable routes, and leave the multi-day routes for private operators - if any - that would like to operate "vintage" service in this non-sense routes?


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> So why not just cut services linking Chicago with Seattle and San Francisco altogether for good, or at least the middle sectors like those in sparsely populated MT, WY, CO, NV? I read that the Sunset Limited, albeit "limited" to New Orleans since Katrina, is still a huge money loser. Why not cut this service in three, one between New Orleans and East Texas, one back in Florida panhandle to Jacksonville, and other regional service and California - and that's it?
> 
> I don't understand, financially, this Amtrak obsession with money bleeding multi-day routes. They don't own the tracks there, so there is no case for "maintaining a backbone track network". They are not competitive not even with private cars. They won't be ever attractive enough to BNSF - and spending billions to modernize a track to carry a daily passenger train would be silly anyway.
> 
> Why doesn't Amtrak focus on profitable routes, and leave the multi-day routes for private operators - if any - that would like to operate "vintage" service in this non-sense routes?


It doesn't receive fair enough funding to upgrade outside the NEC and there are a few profitable lines in the Midwest , West Coast....Private Operates will neglect it even more then the Feds do, we've seen that in Maine.


----------



## Koen Acacia

czm3 said:


> Actually all services on the NE corridor (from regionals to Acela) are very profitable. It is the rest of the network that generates Amtrak's deficits every year.


Last time I checked, "does it make a profit?" was completely irrelevant for a road, or a highway, so why is it suddenly the only thing that matters for railways?
Sure, it shouldn't be a drain on the treasury but as long as this isn't the case, isn't it more important that they do what they're supposed to do: provide mobility to the nation?


----------



## czm3

Suburbanist said:


> So why not just cut services linking Chicago with Seattle and San Francisco altogether for good, or at least the middle sectors like those in sparsely populated MT, WY, CO, NV? I read that the Sunset Limited, albeit "limited" to New Orleans since Katrina, is still a huge money loser. Why not cut this service in three, one between New Orleans and East Texas, one back in Florida panhandle to Jacksonville, and other regional service and California - and that's it?
> 
> I don't understand, financially, this Amtrak obsession with money bleeding multi-day routes. They don't own the tracks there, so there is no case for "maintaining a backbone track network". They are not competitive not even with private cars. They won't be ever attractive enough to BNSF - and spending billions to modernize a track to carry a daily passenger train would be silly anyway.
> 
> Why doesn't Amtrak focus on profitable routes, and leave the multi-day routes for private operators - if any - that would like to operate "vintage" service in this non-sense routes?


Because Amtrak works on a federal budget, and to gain enough support in the Senate (tiny WY gets the same voice as CA or NY), they need to offer services to these places to get funding. This is probably the biggest argument for privatization. I agree that most of the US doesnt need rail service. However, it could be a real asset in the targeted corridors. There is no doubt that true high speed rail on the coasts (and TX, IL) would help alliviate overcrowded skies. The FAA already subsidizes non profitable air routes so it cannot be argued that a train that goes from Chicago to Seattle is offering a unique transport service.



Koen Acacia said:


> Last time I checked, "does it make a profit?" was completely irrelevant for a road, or a highway, so why is it suddenly the only thing that matters for railways?
> Sure, it shouldn't be a drain on the treasury but as long as this isn't the case, isn't it more important that they do what they're supposed to do: provide mobility to the nation?


Because it becomes much more appealing if it does turn a profit. Although it is hard to uncover as states repeatly placed more bonds on them, but I'm sure that some of the older toll roads (NJ Turnpike, Masspike, etc) have had a positive ROI and are generating income now.


----------



## Xusein

czm3 said:


> Actually all services on the NE corridor (from regionals to Acela) are very profitable. It is the rest of the network that generates Amtrak's deficits every year.


Yeah, that's what I wrote actually. Only the NE corridor would survive privatization, and barely, as inevitable fare hikes due to improvement would probably turn off potential users. For the most part, most other routes on the Amtrak system would not survive. 



Suburbanist said:


> So why not just cut services linking Chicago with Seattle and San Francisco altogether for good, or at least the middle sectors like those in sparsely populated MT, WY, CO, NV? I read that the Sunset Limited, albeit "limited" to New Orleans since Katrina, is still a huge money loser. Why not cut this service in three, one between New Orleans and East Texas, one back in Florida panhandle to Jacksonville, and other regional service and California - and that's it?
> 
> I don't understand, financially, this Amtrak obsession with money bleeding multi-day routes. They don't own the tracks there, so there is no case for "maintaining a backbone track network". They are not competitive not even with private cars. They won't be ever attractive enough to BNSF - and spending billions to modernize a track to carry a daily passenger train would be silly anyway.
> 
> Why doesn't Amtrak focus on profitable routes, and leave the multi-day routes for private operators - if any - that would like to operate "vintage" service in this non-sense routes?


So should we cut funding for highways such as the ones in the Great Plains which barely see any traffic in the middle of nowhere and never turned anything close to a profit? How much non-toll highways in general have turned a profit anyway? How about all those services to small airports that barely see any traffic? And airlines are losing money in general as well. Why stop at trains, if using your argument? 

Profitability is very important, but it is not the only variable into question when helping to make a transportation system more efficient.


----------



## Nexis

Xusein said:


> Yeah, that's what I wrote actually. Only the NE corridor would survive privatization, and barely, as inevitable fare hikes due to improvement would probably turn off potential users. For the most part, most other routes on the Amtrak system would not survive.
> 
> 
> 
> So should we cut funding for highways such as the ones in the Great Plains which barely see any traffic in the middle of nowhere and never turned anything close to a profit? How much non-toll highways in general have turned a profit anyway? How about all those services to small airports that barely see any traffic? And airlines are losing money in general as well. Why stop at trains, if using your argument?
> 
> Profitability is very important, but it is not the only variable into question when helping to make a transportation system more efficient.


Theres alot of Interstates in really rural areas that only get 200-500 cars and trucks a day......we should cut funding to those. I think a big chunk of our Interstate system outside the densely populated areas is a waste......our US / State highway system was enough. The interstate system killed alot of small towns that depended on the cars passing through for business. I do think a larger rail system can bring some of that back , yes it will take a few decades , but the payback with be for centuries


----------



## FlyFish

Nexis said:


> Theres alot of Interstates in really rural areas that only get 200-500 cars and trucks a day......we should cut funding to those. I think a big chunk of our Interstate system outside the densely populated areas is a waste......our US / State highway system was enough. The interstate system killed alot of small towns that depended on the cars passing through for business. I do think a larger rail system can bring some of that back , yes it will take a few decades , but the payback with be for centuries


The funny thing is, the very reason everyone here is pushing the HSR is why the interstates were built. It was an upgrade on ground transportation. It was more convenient and faster in many cases than the rail at the time. Plus, it was an economic stimulus effort to get folks working. Same as now, a public works project. It's a big circle since now we have the interstate system and it's become the enemy in favor of rail. 

I agree that the interstate system wasn't necessary for many sections but remember who built it. That is a lesson to learn if the Feds are responsible for the funding to build the HSR someday. Where it most needed and would be best utilized will not be the most important factors in it's construction. Which Congressional districts are the strongest within the power structure of the day in Washington will likely outweigh actual need. Back in the day, the Rep. from Western North Dakota likely said, hold on a minute, I need that highway construction funding for my district too, and low and behold I-90 pushed farther west than was ever needed.


----------



## Suburbanist

FlyFish said:


> The funny thing is, the very reason everyone here is pushing the HSR is why the interstates were built. It was an upgrade on ground transportation. It was more convenient and faster in many cases than the rail at the time. Plus, it was an economic stimulus effort to get folks working. Same as now, a public works project. It's a big circle since now we have the interstate system and it's become the enemy in favor of rail.


But the Dwight Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was built in a completely different political and fiscal environment. It is estimated it cost US$ 0,9 trillion in 2007 dollars. And it was meant to build on an already existing pattern: increased car ownership and white flight, plus a complete rearrangement of supply chain that interconnect the whole country together with things from preprocessed foods to just-in-time deliveries between a California supplier and a Colorado factory.

The country, however, was not amidst a major crisis like now. So, maybe in 5-6 years construction of a national HSR network could speed up. But I DO think that government should stop short of operating trains itself. Build and maintain the track, and let private operators run the trains. The Interstate System was a road building project, not a bus, truck and/or rental car operation. Same for airport construction.

We don't need an Amtrak-style company running trains themselves. Private companies should do that.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> But the Dwight Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was built in a completely different political and fiscal environment. It is estimated it cost US$ 0,9 trillion in 2007 dollars. And it was meant to build on an already existing pattern: increased car ownership and white flight, plus a complete rearrangement of supply chain that interconnect the whole country together with things from preprocessed foods to just-in-time deliveries between a California supplier and a Colorado factory.
> 
> The country, however, was not amidst a major crisis like now. So, maybe in 5-6 years construction of a national HSR network could speed up. But I DO think that government should stop short of operating trains itself. Build and maintain the track, and let private operators run the trains. The Interstate System was a road building project, not a bus, truck and/or rental car operation. Same for airport construction.
> 
> We don't need an Amtrak-style company running trains themselves. Private companies should do that.


Amtrak does a good job with the amount they get. Private railways lead to neglectfulness and greed. Look at Maine for a recent example. For some reason you bring up the same arguments every time and every time people debunk them. The trend of Suburbia is slowly ending and Urban Renewal has become popular in most cities. The FRA is slowly dropping its ridiculous weight rules , other then that is there anything to improve? Most Freight companies are planning to overhaul there lines sometime this decade. Why are you so against Rail being run by the Govt? The Airports & Roads are run by the Govt.


----------



## Suburbanist

Nexis said:


> Why are you so against Rail being run by the Govt? The Airports & Roads are run by the Govt.


I'm against monopolistic rail operations that blends infrastructure (tracks + stations) with vehicles (train sets) operations. I accept government operating tracks and stations, but I fiercely oppose government operating trains itself. An infrastructure like a dedicate sector of HSR, once built, is somehow neutral to competition if private operators are given free access. However, once government starts running trains, all sorts of political interference begins. So you have Congressmen lobbying for a given route, local governments lobbying for late-night trains etc. etc.

Private, and private only, operation of trains is a MUST to preserve efficiency, profitability and cost-driven approach.

Imagine if the US Government operated air service directly in America. First of all, it wouldn't buy any Airbus or Embraer plane due to lobbying from Boeing. Then, cities where service is unprofitable to provide would lobby (heavily) to have "good" connections. The hub-and-spoke system would pretty much be dismantled in favor or more direct and "democratic" routing and schedule system that would not give "unfair" advantage to hub cities. Then, people would start demanding that tickets should be priced on distance, not on ability of costumers (er, taxpayers) to pay more or less. Then, yield management would be downplayed in favor of a system that didn't have so much different fares according to advance purchase.

It would kill competition, and competition (true one) is the heart of capitalism that made America a great country. "Greed" (a bad word these days) is the mother of efficiency.


----------



## Koen Acacia

> The hub-and-spoke system would pretty much be dismantled in favor or more direct and "democratic" routing


Isn't that how Southwest works? I heard they were doing pretty well, how are the other airlines doing?


----------



## Coccodrillo

It's exactly thanks to the state that swiss network is integrated and run with an hub&spoke structure. Trains are not airplanes.


----------



## foxmulder

Suburbanist said:


> I'm against monopolistic rail operations that blends infrastructure (tracks + stations) with vehicles (train sets) operations. I accept government operating tracks and stations, but I fiercely oppose government operating trains itself.


But this means *investment -all risk-*will be done by government (tax payers money), *profit *will go to private companies. It doesn't make sense. Whoever invests, deserves to get the profit.


----------



## K_

Coccodrillo said:


> It's exactly thanks to the state that swiss network is integrated and run with an hub&spoke structure. Trains are not airplanes.


The Swiss network is more a "mesh" than a "hub and spoke" system. It's actually a good example of a mesh done properly.


----------



## K_

foxmulder said:


> But this means *investment -all risk-*will be done by government (tax payers money), *profit *will go to private companies. It doesn't make sense. Whoever invests, deserves to get the profit.


A bit like the roads are at the moment right?

But the private companies invest too, so they also carry a risk, and the government profits too, as it gets usage charges.


----------



## Coccodrillo

K_ said:


> The Swiss network is more a "mesh" than a "hub and spoke" system. It's actually a good example of a mesh done properly.


Railways based on symmetric timetables have several hubs, but it is the same principle as of airplanes: all trains reach a certain station and stop there together, swap passengers, and start again. The only difference is that this is done every 30 or 60 minutes, and not 3 or 4 times a day.


----------



## Suburbanist

Coccodrillo said:


> Railways based on symmetric timetables have several hubs, but it is the same principle as of airplanes: all trains reach a certain station and stop there together, swap passengers, and start again. The only difference is that this is done every 30 or 60 minutes, and not 3 or 4 times a day.


You can't have true competition allocating companies to operate a given sector and requiring them to operate coordinated schedules. It would be like requiring Delta, American and Jet Blue to "coordinate" their JFK schedules, for instance :bash:

To have true competition, you need to have separate companies offering independent services. Yes, you can require them to allow multi-company ticketing, but you shouldn't force them in a state-defined timetable.


----------



## SamuraiBlue

If the train operators are smart you won't have to force them, they'll coordinate to ensure connectivity by themselves. Better connectivity will be a good thing for all parties since it optimizes through time creating better service compared with competing mode of travel like cars and/or airlines.
This can be easily handled by the states since the tracks are owned by the state so the state merely coordinate the time slots in which each operator can run on which line. This is necessary so the trains will not collide with one another on any given rail line.


----------



## Coccodrillo

Trains are not airplanes, and competition within the market brings more problems than is solves.


----------



## Suburbanist

SamuraiBlue said:


> If the train operators are smart you won't have to force them, they'll coordinate to ensure connectivity by themselves. Better connectivity will be a good thing for all parties since it optimizes through time creating better service compared with competing mode of travel like cars and/or airlines.


Anti-trust authorities have to be watchful against cartel formation on such services, like "you don't put a discount train in my prime market, I don't put on yours". There MUST be true competition, fare wars etc.



Coccodrillo said:


> Trains are not airplanes, and competition within the market brings more problems than is solves.


Airline pundits said the same until the 70's in Europe in regard of state-owned airlines and govt-coordinated European schedules... On long-distance and medium-distance routes, there is no reason to have not private train operation (even with state ownership of tracks). Some people seem to be dreaming of the crap days when bottom line was not the first, second, not even the third priority concern of railway companies...


----------



## sotavento

^^ O h ... Utopia !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!












:banana:

Railways survive only in two conditions:

1) ultra protectionist national government heavily subsidizes it's costs ... 


2) liberal free-for-all de-regulation of services (i.e. free but still a conession based system)

^^ the second usually produces the best results ... that's what they do in switzerland and other such places (like japan or germany) ... don't know why but most services are usually provided either by the central state or by the local authorities in those places. :bash:


----------



## Cherchoso

philadweller said:


> Asia and Europe get it, why can't we? A high speed bullet train could make it from NYC to Miami in 6 hours. NYC to Montreal in 2 hours.
> 
> Apart from the northeastern megapolis, our country seems to be very disconnected. Is it the people, the government..what is the reason?


Chile, Argentina and Brazil have good ones and other coutries in *America * too.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

something to remember, the US moves more freight by rail than any other country. Rail service has shown to be unprofitable which is why amtrack is heavily subsidized.


----------



## G5man

LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> Rail service has shown to be unprofitable which is why amtrack is heavily subsidized.


That is when it is slower than a car, unreliable like an airline, and old asethetics. If you check the facts, capital investment reduces subsidy like for the Keystone Corridor. Pennsylvania now subsidized about 25% or more less per passenger.


----------



## ADCS

Cherchoso said:


> Chile, Argentina and Brazil have good ones and other coutries in *America * too.


:bash: Not in the English language they do not.



LosAngelesMetroBoy said:


> something to remember, the US moves more freight by rail than any other country. Rail service has shown to be unprofitable which is why amtrack is heavily subsidized.


Profitability isn't the important part, it's return on investment. Rail investment tends to induce most of its benefits through externalities.


----------



## Nexis

*UNITED STATES | Passenger Railways*

The US needed a Rail thread for all the Current & Future projects. This is a Regular Passenger Rail thread , not freight. Regular Rail is anything form 30-120mph in my book anything higher is HSR. There are a ton of projects going on across the country , whether its upgrading or expanding systems or replacing fleets.

Lets start off with maps of Current & Future System expansions.

*Northeastern US*

Northeast Coastal Regional Systems










Septa Regional & Urban systems










Septa Possible Future lines










MARC - Maryland Regional Rail










Virgina Railways










Future Virgina Railways










Long Island Railroad










Metro - North Railroad










New Jersey Transit Rail










Under Construction ARC Tunnel & Station










2020 now 2030 NJT Map includes Rail , Light Rail and BRT , but the bulk of it is Rail










MBTA - Boston










Current & Future CT Rail lines










*Northwestern US*

Amtrak Cascades










Seattle



















That's all the maps if will post now , i will collect the *Midwestern & Cali* maps later. I didn't want to jam it all into one post.

~Corey


----------



## Nexis

*Midwestern US*

Metra - Metro Chicago










Northstar Commuter line - Minneapolis 










*Texas*

Dallas - Fort Worth 

Trinity River Railway










*New Mexico* 

Rail Runner









*Utah *- Front Runner










*California *

San Diego 

Coaster & Sprinter










Los Angeles










Northern California 

Altamont Commuter Express










Caltrains










*
Florida 
*










Commuter Rail systems
Daily Ridership

Seattle > 10,000
Portland > 2,000
San Fransisco > 40,000 (Cal Trains)
Los Angeles > 50,000+
San Jose > 40,000 (Cal Trains)
Salt Lake City > 4,900
Minneapolis > 3,000
Dallas > 10,000
Chicago > 312,000
Miami > 16,000+
Nashville > 900-1200
Northern Virgina > 16,000
Maryland > 32,000
Long Island > 347,600
Lower Hudson Valley > 278,700
New Jersey > 350,000+
Southeastern Pennsylvania > 147,000 +
Eastern Massachusetts > 150,000
Southern Connecticut > 60,000+
San Diego > 10,000+

*Future US Commuter Rail

Atlanta
Austin
More in Eastern Massachusetts
Western Massachusetts
Charlotte
70% of Connecticut
Fort Worth
Hampton Roads
Harrisburg
Kansas City
Los Angeles
Madison
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
90% of New Jersey
More in the Lower Hudson Valley of NY
More in Providence Metro
Raleigh
San Antonio
Rogue Valley,OR
San Bernardino
San Fransisco
Tulsa
Virgina*


----------



## czm3

Do you have any idea when they will improve the Amtrak rails from Penn station to the CT state line? I think it is utterly pathetic that a Metro North commuter train can go from NYC to Stamford CT faster than an Acela. The trains just crawl through the New Rochelle area (they do speed up to a blistering 70 mph in CT though :nuts: )


----------



## xerxesjc28

You could also go to this website it has all future rail projects in the US (most current to if you look hard enough) and for a large part of the rest of the world. Maps to, really good maps, just remember to click them to zoom in they are well made. 

http://thetransportpolitic.com/


----------



## Feryuc

Its so simple... We have the LARGEST HIGHWAY SYSTEM OF THE WORLD! I mean, c'mon, 46, 876 miles of road weren't built for nothing...


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> something to remember, the US moves more freight by rail than any other country.


Yes, the rail system in the U.S. is a freight system through and through. Though it must be said most of the traffic hauled is high tonnage/volume but low value where rail has comparative advantage over other forms of transport. (i.e. coal, grain, paper, etc.) The goverment in concert with private enterprise made a choice many years ago to emphasize road and interstate building, low density suburban housing tracts, building airports and the air traffic control system, and left the railroads to fend for themselves with regards to passenger trains. Inevitably, the rr's cast off their lossmaking passenger trains as fast as the government regulators would let them. The emaciated system that was left was turned into Amtrak, which was really intended to be temporary construct on the road to final elimination of all long distance passenger service.


----------



## sekelsenmat

sotavento said:


> 1) ultra protectionist national government heavily subsidizes it's costs ...
> 
> 2) liberal free-for-all de-regulation of services (i.e. free but still a conession based system)
> 
> ^^ the second usually produces the best results ... that's what they do in switzerland and other such places (like japan or germany) ... don't know why but most services are usually provided either by the central state or by the local authorities in those places. :bash:


You are right about Japan being a free-for-all deregulated rail system, but completely wrong about Germany being one.

I think that in order for passenger rail to work well you need at least 2 of the following:

* Dense country
* High Average Income
* State Owned Operation, or other large scale investment / subside by the state

So, if your country is dense and with a high average income, you can choose between privatizing the system and having a middle quality service (which the high income citizens will perceive as being low quality), like in England and Italy or have all 3 of the above and have a very high quality service, like the one provided by DBahn in Germany.

Japan is an exception because it has extremely high density, which allows for a high quality private service.

If your country is reasonably dense and has an average income, you can have either have state owned operations offer a middle quality service, like in Poland and Turkey, or privatize it and kill passenger rail, like in Brasil (SP, RJ and north-east are dense areas).

In USA obviously passenger rail wouldn't work because most of it isn't dense and until recently the governament wasn't interested in investing in passenger rail. I would usually think that private passenger rail should work in the Northeast USA, not sure why it didn't. Maybe the car culture?


----------



## Nexis

sekelsenmat said:


> You are right about Japan being a free-for-all deregulated rail system, but completely wrong about Germany being one.
> 
> I think that in order for passenger rail to work well you need at least 2 of the following:
> 
> * Dense country
> * High Average Income
> * State Owned Operation, or other large scale investment / subside by the state
> 
> So, if your country is dense and with a high average income, you can choose between privatizing the system and having a middle quality service (which the high income citizens will perceive as being low quality), like in England and Italy or have all 3 of the above and have a very high quality service, like the one provided by DBahn in Germany.
> 
> Japan is an exception because it has extremely high density, which allows for a high quality private service.
> 
> If your country is reasonably dense and has an average income, you can have either have state owned operations offer a middle quality service, like in Poland and Turkey, or privatize it and kill passenger rail, like in Brasil (SP, RJ and north-east are dense areas).
> 
> In USA obviously passenger rail wouldn't work because most of it isn't dense and until recently the governament wasn't interested in investing in passenger rail. I would usually think that private passenger rail should work in the Northeast USA, not sure why it didn't. Maybe the car culture?


Amtrak doesn't like competition on its Northeast Corridor. Hench why its hard to even extend the MARC & other passengers to close the gap on the NEC Passenger service system. Hopefully Amtrak will come to its senses and sell the NEC. 350,000-400,000 people daily use the NEC services. That's expected to climb to 600,000 by 2030. On top of that its over capacity by 50 trains? Amtrak has not upgraded other lines either and something will give. Meanwhile , New York , New Jersey , Eastern Pennsylvania , Massachusetts , Connecticut , Maryland , & Virgina are planning to build statewide Rail & Urban Transit systems some will be on par with Europe. But things here are improving at least , faster then other parts of the US and at higher longer lasting quality. With permission form the original map owner i edited his Northeast Rail map & added in the 2030 plans. Which i think as time goes on , will get more complex due to rapid population growth.

*Red = True High Speed Rail 120-220mph
Orange = Commuter or FRA Standards for HSR 80-110mph
Purple = Proposed / Planned Light rail , Rapid Rail transit , BRT*


----------



## Yardmaster

I'm seeking some details regarding American & Canadian "Commuter" rail systems. I'm trying to create a database of traffic density versus mileage, worldwide. Essentially, I'm trying to create tables of distance versus traffic density.

Timetables are readily available on the Internet; distances are not. I could attempt to measure these things on a map, but i'm sure someone out there has better figures: just as I have for the railways here.

What I'd like are (reliable) distances by rail for the following:

*Boston (North Station)* to:


Fitchburg
Lowell
Haverhill
Newburyport
Rockport

*Boston (South Station)* to:


Greenbush
Plymouth , Kingston & Halifax
Middelborough/Lakeville
Stoughton
Providence
Forge Park
Needham Heights
Worcester


*GO, Toronto, Ontario:*

Distance fron Toronto to: 


Hamilton
Milton
Georgetown
Bradford/Barrie South
Richmond Hill
Linconville
Oshawa


*New York:*

MTA Northern already publishes distances in their timetables.

*MTA LIRR:*

Penn (or wherever) to:


Port Washington
Oyster Bay
Port Jefferson
Rontonkoma
Greenport
Montauk
Babylon (via Wantaugh)
Hempstead
West Hempstead
Long Beach
Far Rockaway
(Valley Stream & Hicksville would also be appreciated)

*MTA Staten Island:*


St George to Tottenville

*NJ Transit/ MTA Northern (West):*

Penn Central or Hoboken or wherever to:


Spring Valley
Port Jervis (& Ridgewood)
Hackettstown via Montclair
Hackettstown via Morristown
Gladstone (& Summit)
High Bridge
Bay Head
Trenton

*SEPTA*: Distance by rail from Central Philadephia to:


Airport (R1) - Glenside (R1)
Newark (R2) - Warminster (R2)
Elwyn (R3) - West Trenton (R3)

Thorndale (R5) - Doylestown (R5)
Cynwyd (R6)- Norristown (R6)
Trenton (R7) - Chesnut Hill East (R7)
Fox Chase (R8) - Chesnut Hill West (R8)

*BART, San Francisco:*

Distance fron Oaklands to:


Richmond
Fremont
Pittsburg/ Bay Point
Dublin/ Pleasanton
Daly City
Millbrae

Much appreciative to whoever can help me here.


----------



## Nexis

Yardmaster said:


> I'm seeking some details regarding American & Canadian "Commuter" rail systems. I'm trying to create a database of traffic density versus mileage, worldwide. Essentially, I'm trying to create tables of distance versus traffic density.
> 
> Timetables are readily available on the Internet; distances are not. I could attempt to measure these things on a map, but i'm sure someone out there has better figures: just as I have for the railways here.
> 
> What I'd like are (reliable) distances by rail for the following:
> 
> *Boston (North Station)* to:
> 
> 
> Fitchburg
> Lowell
> Haverhill
> Newburyport
> Rockport
> 
> *Boston (South Station)* to:
> 
> 
> Greenbush
> Plymouth , Kingston & Halifax
> Middelborough/Lakeville
> Stoughton
> Providence
> Forge Park
> Needham Heights
> Worcester
> 
> 
> *GO, Toronto, Ontario:*
> 
> Distance fron Toronto to:
> 
> 
> Hamilton
> Milton
> Georgetown
> Bradford/Barrie South
> Richmond Hill
> Linconville
> Oshawa
> 
> 
> *New York:*
> 
> MTA Northern already publishes distances in their timetables.
> 
> *MTA LIRR:*
> 
> Penn (or wherever) to:
> 
> 
> Port Washington
> Oyster Bay
> Port Jefferson
> Rontonkoma
> Greenport
> Montauk
> Babylon (via Wantaugh)
> Hempstead
> West Hempstead
> Long Beach
> Far Rockaway
> (Valley Stream & Hicksville would also be appreciated)
> 
> *MTA Staten Island:*
> 
> 
> St George to Tottenville
> 
> *NJ Transit/ MTA Northern (West):*
> 
> Penn Central or Hoboken or wherever to:
> 
> 
> Spring Valley
> Port Jervis (& Ridgewood)
> Hackettstown via Montclair
> Hackettstown via Morristown
> Gladstone (& Summit)
> High Bridge
> Bay Head
> Trenton
> 
> *SEPTA*: Distance by rail from Central Philadephia to:
> 
> 
> Airport (R1) - Glenside (R1)
> Newark (R2) - Warminster (R2)
> Elwyn (R3) - West Trenton (R3)
> 
> Thorndale (R5) - Doylestown (R5)
> Cynwyd (R6)- Norristown (R6)
> Trenton (R7) - Chesnut Hill East (R7)
> Fox Chase (R8) - Chesnut Hill West (R8)
> 
> *BART, San Francisco:*
> 
> Distance fron Oaklands to:
> 
> 
> Richmond
> Fremont
> Pittsburg/ Bay Point
> Dublin/ Pleasanton
> Daly City
> Millbrae
> 
> Much appreciative to whoever can help me here.


*Hoboken Terminal to Spring Valley takes 60mins
Hoboken Terminal to Port Jervis takes 151 mins max
Hoboken Terminal to Hackettstown via Montclair takes 120mins 
Hoboken Terminal to Hackettstown via Dover takes 111-120mins
Hoboken Terminal to Bay Head takes 125 mins
Hoboken Terminal to Suffern takes 65 mins
Hoboken Terminal to Waldwick takes 45 mins
Hoboken Terminal to Gladstone takes 95 mins*
*Newark Penn to High Bridge takes 85 mins*
*New York Penn to Gladstone takes 110mins
New York Penn to Trenton takes 95 mins
New York Penn to Montclair State University takes 55 mins
New York Penn to Dover takes 100mins
New York Penn to Long Branch takes 100mins
Philly 30th Street to Atlantic City takes 95 mins*


----------



## Yardmaster

^^ thanks Nexis, I appreciate your efforts, but I've already looked at the timetables, and recorded it: I'll use your figures to check out mine.

But I don't want minutes, I want reliable mileage, or kilometreage. By "reliable" I mean something that has come from a railway source.


----------



## Nexis

Yardmaster said:


> ^^ thanks Nexis, I appreciate your efforts, but I've already looked at the timetables, and recorded it: I'll use your figures to check out mine.
> 
> But I don't want minutes, I want reliable mileage, or kilometreage. By "reliable" I mean something that has come from a railway source.


Port Jervis line > 95 miles
Bergen Line > 20.2 miles
Main Line > 30.5 miles
Pascack Valley line > 31 miles
Morristown line > 57.4 miles
Montclair-Boonton line > ?
Gladstone Branch > 42 miles
North Jersey Coast line > 58 miles
Northeast Corridor line > 57 miles
Raritan Valley line > ?
Princeton Branch > 3 miles
Atlantic City line > ?


----------



## K_

sekelsenmat said:


> You are right about Japan being a free-for-all deregulated rail system, but completely wrong about Germany being one.


The railways in Japan are quite regulated too. 



> I think that in order for passenger rail to work well you need at least 2 of the following:
> 
> * Dense country
> * High Average Income
> * State Owned Operation, or other large scale investment / subside by the state
> 
> So, if your country is dense and with a high average income, you can choose between privatizing the system and having a middle quality service (which the high income citizens will perceive as being low quality), like in England and Italy ...


Railways in the UK are of an order of magnitude better than in Italy. Italy is actually a good example of how having having heavy state involvement, an da dense country is no guarantee for decent service.



> or have all 3 of the above and have a very high quality service, like the one provided by DBahn in Germany.


One of the reasons for the high quality of service in Germany (and Switzerland) is that the government isn't that heavily involved in running trains. The railways are quite independent in those countries, and the government basically acts as a customer that buys services. 
In countries where the railways are still run as a department of the transportation ministry (Italy comes to mind again) the results are far from excellent.


----------



## Suburbanist

K., Italy has chosen to focus on few key (true) HSR and improved conventional rail in the late 1990's. Since then, Trenitalia's losses that Italian taxpayers like me had to fund were dramatically reduced (mainly but service cuts and fleet rationalization).

Italian railways have a lot of problems that I recognize, but Trenitalia is improving its operations, axing trains that don't recoup their own direct costs unless regional governments foot the bill, signing long-term regional rail services contracts and so.

Italian HS railway is a quite decent one - far better than German HS network, which is "limited" at the most. Now there are 4 major engineering projects that will improve services in 10-20 years: Milano-Venezia HS corridor, Torino-Lyon base tunnel, Brennero-Innsbruck base tunnel and the Messina Strait Bridge (Road/Tunnel). Until then, I hope they cut most unprofitable slow lines altogether and build decent highways and access roads instead.


----------



## Yardmaster

Nexis said:


> Port Jervis line > 95 miles
> Bergen Line > 20.2 miles
> Main Line > 30.5 miles
> Pascack Valley line > 31 miles
> Morristown line > 57.4 miles
> Montclair-Boonton line > ?
> Gladstone Branch > 42 miles
> North Jersey Coast line > 58 miles
> Northeast Corridor line > 57 miles
> Raritan Valley line > ?
> Princeton Branch > 3 miles
> Atlantic City line > ?


Thanks for your efforts ... are these distances from Hoboken? Obviously the Princeton distance is just the branch length.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Italian railways have a lot of problems that I recognize, but Trenitalia is improving its operations, axing trains that don't recoup their own direct costs unless regional governments foot the bill, signing long-term regional rail services contracts and so.


Trenitalia could just choose to become more efficient (so more trains would "recoup their costs") rather than cutting services of begging for more money. 



> Italian HS railway is a quite decent one - far better than German HS network, which is "limited" at the most.


I disagree. The network is usable as long as you can do your trip on a direct train. The moment you however have to get from "a place not on the HSL backbone" to "another place not on the HSL backbone" the system quickly becomes a joke.

The most important factor in the usability of a railway network is punctuality. It's completely pointless to invest in high speed railways, which in Italy have a tendency of being underutilised anyway, if you can't get this right.


----------



## Nexis

*Texas politicians meet to discuss high-speed rail potential*

http://www.kvue.com/news/High-speed-rail-under-scrutiny-in-Central-Texas-96515269.html

*Tampa wants to get high-speed rail stop at airport*

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jun/17/city-council-members-push-high-speed-rail-tia/news-breaking/

*Virginia plans a Norfolk-Richmond train in three years*

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/06/train-link-norfolk-richmond-three-years?cid=mr

*New York wants 1h NYC-Albany train times, down from 2h30*

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/eyeonalbany/20100617/204/3294/

*WSJ argues Amtrak's future under threat by HSR*

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704463504575301051535500696.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us

-Corey


----------



## G5man

czm3 said:


> Do you have any idea when they will improve the Amtrak rails from Penn station to the CT state line? I think it is utterly pathetic that a Metro North commuter train can go from NYC to Stamford CT faster than an Acela. The trains just crawl through the New Rochelle area (they do speed up to a blistering 70 mph in CT though :nuts: )


 The merge section from the Hells Gate section to the Metro North merge is limited to 30 mph. Metro North property is a pain to deal with due to how constrained it is. It is more than possible to get Metro North rails from 75 mph maximum to 90 mph with a bit of curve adjustments and superelevation. University of Pennsylvania students put together a NEC plan to route a HSR line in the Northeast via I 90 to I 84 to I 91 into New Haven, then tunnel under Long Island Sound to Long Islands, connect to LIRR and go to Penn Station that way. Whoever last posted to Wikipedia stated that there would be 150 mph sections added but I have yet to see concrete evidence of that goal ever being reached without a HSL to Long Island.

http://studio.design.upenn.edu/hsr/node/81


----------



## mgk920

G5man said:


> The merge section from the Hells Gate section to the Metro North merge is limited to 30 mph. Metro North property is a pain to deal with due to how constrained it is. It is more than possible to get Metro North rails from 75 mph maximum to 90 mph with a bit of curve adjustments and superelevation. University of Pennsylvania students put together a NEC plan to route a HSR line in the Northeast via I 90 to I 84 to I 91 into New Haven, then tunnel under Long Island Sound to Long Islands, connect to LIRR and go to Penn Station that way. Whoever last posted to Wikipedia stated that there would be 150 mph sections added but I have yet to see concrete evidence of that goal ever being reached without a HSL to Long Island.
> 
> http://studio.design.upenn.edu/hsr/node/81


That would be a much more feasible routing, at least from an ease of construction POV. As was just posted in another thread, to run true high-speed, you NEED very broad-radius curves (2500m for 250 km/h and 7000m(!) for 350 km/h), wider track separations and so forth. There is just no way to do that along the current NEC - without BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars in ROW acquisition, NIMBY abatement and on and on and on.

I will violate the OP's condition here. The NYC area and the northeastern USA is also is DESPERATE need of a cross-Hudson freight railroad tunnel (South Amboy/Sandy Hook, NJ area to Queens, NYC?) that can clear double-stacked containers and other high-clearance equipment. It will take a huge amount of truck traffic off of area highways, especially through trucks, greatly improving things throughout the region. Existing passenger tunnels also have absurdly small loading gauges, almost as tiny as Europe, and that also limits the equipment that can run in the east.

A major program is also under way to untangle the freight mess in Chicagoland, which, in addition to reducing freight transit times in the area, making rail freight services more competitive with trucks, will also greatly improve the fluidity of passenger services, both commuter and Amtrak, throughout the upper midwest. On Chicago radio traffic reports, it is not unusual at all to hear of commuter train delays that are caused by freight train interference.

It ALL interrelates.

Mike


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Agreed. You can't talk about medium distance rail without considering freight.


----------



## G5man

Untangling freight will be of help, but doesn't the country need a roro freight system to roll on and off trucks? I definitely agree that there needs to be a trans-Hudson freight tunnel. My only question, where does freight traffic go to and from? The NEC is already planned to be jammed to capacity by 2030 and at some point, huge amounts of resources will have to be spent in order to keep the Northeast megaregion viable for investment. I've been playing around in GE Pro to map with minimum curve radii taken into account. There would have to be eminent domain no matter what option is used, however, between New Haven and Kingston, RI there could be a 270 km/h bypass using the I-95 ROW with the occassional tunnel and property accquisition. 

The cost of doing nothing is not zero and something must be done.


----------



## zaphod

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/06/train-link-norfolk-richmond-three-years

A second Hampton Roads-Richmond,VA Amtrak route is a go:

BeyondDC's map
http://beyonddc.com/log/?paged=2










Wouldn't it be great if the rails from Richmond to DC were upgraded fully, perhaps electrified, and we had something like tilting Talgo sets operating straight through on these lines? If it was faster than driving I imagine many people would spring for it.


----------



## icracked

Honolulu, Hawaii, USA 
First MRT Line (45 miles long)


----------



## Suburbanist

zaphod said:


> Wouldn't it be great if the rails from Richmond to DC were upgraded fully, perhaps electrified, and we had something like tilting Talgo sets operating straight through on these lines? If it was faster than driving I imagine many people would spring for it.


Some people would, but majority would still drive. After all, you need to get from your house to the origin train station, then from your destination train station to the place you are heading to.

In (relatively) short distance, as experience shows, the advantage of a fast train connections is easily counteracted by the time it takes to drive/take a bus/take a tram on both ends of such journeys.

So people just drive straight from home to their destination anyway - it will be faster, even is spite of congestion.


----------



## Piltup Man

It only needs to be advantageous for a certain proportion of people - for those who still need or prefer to use the road, the advantage will be felt in lowered congestion.

Of course you need to make sure that the minimum proportion of people who would use such a system can be met, you can't just stick a line from A to B and assume that it will work.


----------



## Suburbanist

Piltup Man said:


> It only needs to be advantageous for a certain proportion of people - for those who still need or prefer to use the road, the advantage will be felt in lowered congestion.
> 
> Of course you need to make sure that the minimum proportion of people who would use such a system can be met, you can't just stick a line from A to B and assume that it will work.


That is precisely the point. A good regional rail project is one that attracts users in numbers enough to pay its operational costs (I'm not assuming the initial capital investment on tracks and ROW, but I think any rail system needs to pay at least for vehicles (train sets), fuel, trackage and station use fees and salaries of people involved in operation). Then, everyone else benefits for lower congestion (as long as the government keep investing in rods and freeways too).

However, to the extent of my knowledge most rail projects in US that are not urban tramways or HSR rely on existing ROW even if tracks are no longer there. So it seems like an opportunistic approach: "see, there is an abandoned track running there, let's invest millions, improve it, rectify some corners, rebuild stations and run regional trains". Nothing totally wrong with that, but sometimes ridership can be abysmal (and thus operating losses) because there is no demand along a route that might have been attractive in 1940.


----------



## Nexis

zaphod said:


> http://hamptonroads.com/2010/06/train-link-norfolk-richmond-three-years
> 
> A second Hampton Roads-Richmond,VA Amtrak route is a go:
> 
> BeyondDC's map
> http://beyonddc.com/log/?paged=2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be great if the rails from Richmond to DC were upgraded fully, perhaps electrified, and we had something like tilting Talgo sets operating straight through on these lines? If it was faster than driving I imagine many people would spring for it.


Electrifaction down to Richmond and beyond is planned by 2030 , The Acela and Regional sets tilt and the new Fleets will.


----------



## desertpunk

*New Mexico Rail Runner* heavy commuter rail system.
>>100 miles, Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Belen


















http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimfrazier/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskeytexas/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephens-photo/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## Jay

Woah that thing is a BEAST

I love American trains


----------



## DarkLoki

Awesome livery!


----------



## G5man

DarkLoki said:


> Awesome livery!


When the doors close, it makes the sound of the road runner. I rode it during a holiday run up to Santa Fe. The 5 car set was standing room only. They estimated 1300 passengers on the train. It works well for the holidays that is for sure.


----------



## Suburbanist

What are the specifications of this train set? It "looks" overpowered by the size of the main engine, even taking into consideration american train cars are mammoths designed to withstand collisions.

Standing-room only? Why?


----------



## OakRidge

Suburbanist said:


> What are the specifications of this train set? It "looks" overpowered by the size of the main engine, even taking into consideration american train cars are mammoths designed to withstand collisions.
> 
> Standing-room only? Why?


The locomotives used are Motive Power MP36PH-3Cs. Specs:









Passenger cars include nine Bombardier BiLevel Coaches and thirteen Bombardier BiLevel Cab cars.


----------



## [email protected]

*2° Annual North American Strategic Infrastructure Leadership Forum*

Join us for the 2° Annual North American Strategic Infrastructure Leadership Forum, where the focus is on the Top 100 strategic market place projects in North America.

The theme of this year’s Leadership Forum is: Vision, Innovation & Speed”; vision that identifies and pushes priority projects; innovation, that makes great projects happen and improves the speed of project development.

Projects are selected through a rigorous proprietary scoring system, coupled with broad discussions among CG/LA, business executives, government officials and users. The Top 100 projects offer business opportunities in the next 3-18 months, and outline the competitive infrastructure that we are going to build for the Next Generation.

The Leadership Forum series delivers immediate business opportunities while at the same time focusing on massively increased economic productivity, increased global competitiveness and laying a groundwork for significant and immediate increases in opportunity (job creation and business creation).
If you would like to attend or would like some more information visit our website http://www.cg-la.com or contact: [email protected] or (202)776-0990


----------



## Rail_Serbia

Are there in USA lines with one or more trains per hour all day and every day, exepted New York or Chicago suburban trains?


----------



## Benn

Suburbanist said:


> What are the specifications of this train set? It "looks" overpowered by the size of the main engine, even taking into consideration american train cars are mammoths designed to withstand collisions.
> 
> Standing-room only? Why?


With only a couple cars it is definitely orverkill. However they often operate with 5-12 coaches with other operators (here in Minneapolis 5 is standard, Toronto typically does 10 I believe), and in such a configuration 4,000 hp locomotive makes some sense.


----------



## Nexis

Rail_Serbia said:


> Are there in USA lines with one or more trains per hour all day and every day, exepted New York or Chicago suburban trains?


Every System in the Northeast , Cali and Northwest to a certain extent has that. Most have it every 30-60 mins bi directional...


----------



## G5man

Nexis said:


> Every System in the Northeast , Cali and Northwest to a certain extent has that. Most have it every 30-60 mins bi directional...


I can already tell you Amtrak Cacades only runs 4 trains between Seattle and Portland. Sounder is limited to commuter rail periods only.


----------



## Nexis

G5man said:


> I can already tell you Amtrak Cacades only runs 4 trains between Seattle and Portland. Sounder is limited to commuter rail periods only.


I'm sure that will change later this decade....

*Oregon won’t apply for latest high-speed rail grant
*

http://djcoregon.com/news/2010/06/30/oregon-wont-apply-for-latest-high-speed-rail-grant/

*150th anniversary of first Market St. rail line
*
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/03/BAT81E8RRH.DTL


----------



## mgk920

*A Pan-American railroad?*

Recently, I was checking on some other items and stumbled on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FERISTSA
An article on a group planning to develop a North American-standards standard-gauge railroad extending from Mexico (and thus the rest of the North American railroad network) to at least the Canal railroad in Panama (also recently rebuilt to North American standards), with the potential to further extend it to connect with other railroads in South America.

This article was mainly written about two years ago.

Is this just another 'pie-in-the-sky' musing or is there something of substance behind this proposal?

Mike


----------



## Suburbanist

I don't see any short-term feasibility for the Central America link, let alone South America. There is no rail connections between Colombia, Venezuela, Equator or Brazil; and no road connection between Colombia and Panama.

They should, first, close the damn "Damien Gap" in southern Panama :bash:


----------



## poshbakerloo

Unless it was some super speed rail line e.g. 400Mph+ then I don't see it happening. Even TGV is too slow for that distance...


----------



## Apoc89

poshbakerloo said:


> Unless it was some super speed rail line e.g. 400Mph+ then I don't see it happening. Even TGV is too slow for that distance...


From what I can tell it's primarily meant to be a freight route, like most railways in North America, hence the connection to Panama. So speed isn't as big an issue as in a passenger line.


----------



## mgk920

I can see this being a tremendously important international trade route - *IF* there was an economical way to continue it into the population, agricultural and industrial centers in the South American interior. Right now, most of South America's railroads are incompatible with those of North America, the main difference being track gauge.

One technological innovation that will make such a project much more feasible now compared with 100 years ago is the concrete crosstie - wood ties just don't last in tropical rain-forest climates (insects, rot and so forth). I believe that that is why the newly rebuilt Panama Canal Railroad uses 100% concrete ties.

Time will tell.

Mike


----------



## pregersthehobo

The city of Denver and outlaying areas are currently building FASTracks, the largest transportation project currently being built in the USA. It includes extensions of the current light rail system as well as commuter rail:









And a HUGE renovation of Denver's Union Station to make it the hub of the entire project. From this:









To this:

















A great informational site here

All told, it will cost about $6.5 billion, paid for by some unique public/private financing. Here is the wiki page.

The head architect for the planned airport station/hotel is Santiago Calatrava! Various parts of the project are either under construction/late planning stages with some delays due to budget shortfalls. It is expected to be complete in 2016. If built as planned, this project has the potential to become a model for other spread out cities all over the world!


----------



## dl3000

Always liked the look of Denver's station.


----------



## Huhu

Would there be any reason to start shipping freight to and from Panama? It's not a destination point in and of itself and the Panama Canal means you can easily bypass it to get to markets elsewhere.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Denver Metro, IMO, has a reasonable approach to building transportation infrastructure. The FAST plans don't assume people will "dump" their cars, rely heavily on Park-n-Ride, and don't divert money from highway expansion. Instead, they assume growth will follow highways and build rails more-or-less aligned with them.

I just wish they didn't build the ill-conceived Stapleton development in the former airport grounds, it is a mistake, an artificial push of European-like development that will flop. They should have build regular subdivisions and a major business park, but that is another story.

Good thing the rail connection with Denver Airport, though the road connection there is not bad at all.


----------



## Suburbanist

Huhu said:


> Would there be any reason to start shipping freight to and from Panama? It's not a destination point in and of itself and the Panama Canal means you can easily bypass it to get to markets elsewhere.


Distances are long enough to justify use of sea vessels from start point.


----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Denver Metro, IMO, has a reasonable approach to building transportation infrastructure. The FAST plans don't assume people will "dump" their cars, rely heavily on Park-n-Ride, and don't divert money from highway expansion. Instead, they assume growth will follow highways and build rails more-or-less aligned with them.


More money should be diverted from highway expansion. A 10-15 lane mega freeway is a massive physical and social barrier that brings noise, pollution, and carcinogenic sprawl.

People will never dump their cars if billions in taxpayer dollars ( a lot of it not coming from the gas tax) continues to be poured into building new freeways in the suburbs while existing roads crumble and the population suffers from obesity and dirty air.


----------



## Suburbanist

hoosier said:


> More money should be diverted from highway expansion. A 10-15 lane mega freeway is a massive physical and social barrier that brings noise, pollution, and carcinogenic sprawl.
> 
> People will never dump their cars if billions in taxpayer dollars ( a lot of it not coming from the gas tax) continues to be poured into building new freeways in the suburbs while existing roads crumble and the population suffers from obesity and dirty air.


Every rail topic from times to time get this kind of argument. I will not repeat what I wrote some pages ago in full, but just quickly summarize my counterargument to this discourse (which is common here on SSC):

- the emergence of suburbs and the car culture were result of inherent advantages of both models and their appeal for an ever-growing individualistic Western society (of which I'm a proud member), and - more mundanely - the inherent advantages of cars (self-manned, distributed, individualized, extremely adaptable to interferences on their flow, standardized, weather proof, easily maneuverable, unconstrained to schedules and timetables), none of which are actually related to 4-wheels and piston engines.

- most countries collect more monies from the "car complex" then they invest in highways and roads (construction and maintenance) and pay for car accidents. 

- anyone who has every lived near a rail yard or train station will tell about noise

- pollution at user point (=driving car) is a problem, but electric cars will sove that (and most of the noise) issue.

- almost every public transit project cannot sustain itself without heavy subsidization at levels that would broke every city/metro area if majority of population actually used it. Most of passenger non-high-speed traffic suffer the same problem. Want to make an European city broke? Have 50% of its populations no using cars from where money is taken to PT.

- sprawl is a good thing on the balance of most housing used (e.g., the households). Urban planners should just get over it: most people, having the option, choose suburban, not high-rise estates. Until planners stop fighting sprawl, they will keep pushing fancy-but-ineffective projects to cities worldwide. Stop whining about sprawl like a cancer: it is a blessing, indeed. It promotes individualism, personal space for one's family, reduce unintended personal interactions and give families more control over their private lives. And with technical enhancements, we don't need all that land for farming anyway.

- *It is just wrong to promote social engineer schemes in the name of some academic theory that folks on the street just don't embrace ("density is good and sprawl is bad), particularly when nobody else is being wronged (e.g., a murder, a theft, a restriction on free speech or on free enterprise) by a given behavior (insisting in preferring sprawl given the opportunity to do so).*

As a side note, I think that most highway-haters have such bad feelings just because they like skyscrapers but people usually don't build as many of them as a high-rise fan would like. It's their right.

===========================

This being said, I think the US is coming with some interesting projects like, as I said before, in Denver. Projects that use mass transportation integrated with the car-centered and car-centric culture as secondary axis of transportation around what more "densificated" (sic) development can take place. 

I'm no road-nut who preaches against rail. I think rail is quite effective for hauling bulk freight in medium and long distances, passengers at high-speed in medium distance and part (just part, not even the majority) of passenger traffic around big urban centers and metropolis.

However, while most highway projects are barely enough to cope with already existing congestions and road crowding, a huge chunk of rail projects are built on over-realistic assumptions of modal shifting and ridership.

Denver, Salt Lake City and some other American metro areas are example of decent schemes build over reality and I praise their management for that. As I said, the only thing I whine over Denver is Stapleton, a social experiment made with extensive use of public funds, albeit indirectly.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> Every rail topic from times to time get this kind of argument. I will not repeat what I wrote some pages ago in full, but just quickly summarize my counterargument to this discourse (which is common here on SSC):
> 
> - the emergence of suburbs and the car culture were result of inherent advantages of both models and their appeal for an ever-growing individualistic Western society (of which I'm a proud member), and - more mundanely - the inherent advantages of cars (self-manned, distributed, individualized, extremely adaptable to interferences on their flow, standardized, weather proof, easily maneuverable, unconstrained to schedules and timetables), none of which are actually related to 4-wheels and piston engines.
> 
> - most countries collect more monies from the "car complex" then they invest in highways and roads (construction and maintenance) and pay for car accidents.
> 
> - anyone who has every lived near a rail yard or train station will tell about noise
> 
> - pollution at user point (=driving car) is a problem, but electric cars will sove that (and most of the noise) issue.
> 
> - almost every public transit project cannot sustain itself without heavy subsidization at levels that would broke every city/metro area if majority of population actually used it. Most of passenger non-high-speed traffic suffer the same problem. Want to make an European city broke? Have 50% of its populations no using cars from where money is taken to PT.
> 
> - sprawl is a good thing on the balance of most housing used (e.g., the households). Urban planners should just get over it: most people, having the option, choose suburban, not high-rise estates. Until planners stop fighting sprawl, they will keep pushing fancy-but-ineffective projects to cities worldwide. Stop whining about sprawl like a cancer: it is a blessing, indeed. It promotes individualism, personal space for one's family, reduce unintended personal interactions and give families more control over their private lives. And with technical enhancements, we don't need all that land for farming anyway.
> 
> - *It is just wrong to promote social engineer schemes in the name of some academic theory that folks on the street just don't embrace ("density is good and sprawl is bad), particularly when nobody else is being wronged (e.g., a murder, a theft, a restriction on free speech or on free enterprise) by a given behavior (insisting in preferring sprawl given the opportunity to do so).*
> 
> As a side note, I think that most highway-haters have such bad feelings just because they like skyscrapers but people usually don't build as many of them as a high-rise fan would like. It's their right.
> 
> ===========================
> 
> This being said, I think the US is coming with some interesting projects like, as I said before, in Denver. Projects that use mass transportation integrated with the car-centered and car-centric culture as secondary axis of transportation around what more "densificated" (sic) development can take place.
> 
> I'm no road-nut who preaches against rail. I think rail is quite effective for hauling bulk freight in medium and long distances, passengers at high-speed in medium distance and part (just part, not even the majority) of passenger traffic around big urban centers and metropolis.
> 
> However, while most highway projects are barely enough to cope with already existing congestions and road crowding, a huge chunk of rail projects are built on over-realistic assumptions of modal shifting and ridership.
> 
> Denver, Salt Lake City and some other American metro areas are example of decent schemes build over reality and I praise their management for that. As I said, the only thing I whine over Denver is Stapleton, a social experiment made with extensive use of public funds, albeit indirectly.


The Car Culture is dying , slowly across the US. The Cities are cleaning up themselves & attracting ppl. You seem to want us to expand our Highways , you attack every US Rail topic. You logic is old and ppl all across the US are realizing it.


----------



## OakRidge

> The Car Culture is dying , slowly across the US.


Take a look at the parking lot of any high school these days and you may change your tune. More teens have autos now and they will want them later.


----------



## Nexis

OakRidge said:


> Take a look at the parking lot of any high school these days and you may change your tune. More teens have autos now and they will want them later.


Depends on what Region you live in here in the Northeast its dying.


----------



## dl3000

I would say that in California, the car culture isn't necessarily dying so much as the transit/rail culture is growing. Still a good thing.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> - almost every public transit project cannot sustain itself without heavy subsidization at levels that would broke every city/metro area if majority of population actually used it. Most of passenger non-high-speed traffic suffer the same problem. Want to make an European city broke? Have 50% of its populations no using cars from where money is taken to PT.


Last time I looked Zürich wasn't broke. Far from it even, Switzerland is one of the more fiscally healthy states at the moment. And a state with high transit useage, and less urban sprawl...


----------



## Rebasepoiss

Suburbanist said:


> - almost every public transit project cannot sustain itself without heavy subsidization at levels that would broke every city/metro area if majority of population actually used it.


You seem to have little knowledge about how the costs and benefits are calculated on different public projects.
Yes, if you only include direct benefits then PT doesn't pay off...But you have various indirect benefits. For example, giving people more freedom of movement, decreasing traffic density on roads(which increases safety and possibly delays the need to build new highways), decreases pollution and energy usage, frees up space by decreasing the need for parking lots etc. 

Let me give you a quick example: in Estonia a lot of pupils in the countryside depend on schoolbuses to go to school. School buses are free of charge but cost quite a bit for the local municipality. Let's say that over-rational and individualistic people like you force the municipality to stop the funding for the schoolbus. 90% of pupils find another way to go to highschool, for example, 10% quit. Seems OK but how much, do you think, will the municipality and state loose when that 10% quits school?

I've always wondered: is it really so in the US(like in the movies) that before children turn 16 and get their own car they are totally dependent on their parents for transportation? Like going to the cinema or shopping or the friends house or the gym?


----------



## Suburbanist

Rebasepoiss said:


> You seem to have little knowledge about how the costs and benefits are calculated on different public projects.
> Yes, if you only include direct benefits then PT doesn't pay off...But you have various indirect benefits. For example, giving people more freedom of movement, decreasing traffic density on roads(which increases safety and possibly delays the need to build new highways), decreases pollution and energy usage, frees up space by decreasing the need for parking lots etc.


The argument for more freedom of movement is relative, as almost all PT projects at the local/metro level are focused in one thing and one thing only: getting people from house to work and back. Work commute accounts for majority of traffic in any major city and most cities, save for those with unusual concentrated peak tourism industry.



> Let me give you a quick example: in Estonia a lot of pupils in the countryside depend on schoolbuses to go to school. School buses are free of charge but cost quite a bit for the local municipality. Let's say that over-rational and individualistic people like you force the municipality to stop the funding for the schoolbus. 90% of pupils find another way to go to highschool, for example, 10% quit. Seems OK but how much, do you think, will the municipality and state loose when that 10% quits school?


It doesn't have to be that way. This is an specific need (school bus), and could be funded as so. Same for disabled-adapted vans, for instance. They are aimed at people that absolutely can't drive (most disabled people can do fairly well in adapted cars anyway, or course vision impairment, paraplegia and other disabilities impedes someone to drive). It is a completely different issue of saying "well, let's not build that state-of-the-art 10 lanes highway but a light rail instead - wait, never mind we will have to FORCE people to live in smaller houses".



> I've always wondered: is it really so in the US(like in the movies) that before children turn 16 and get their own car they are totally dependent on their parents for transportation? Like going to the cinema or shopping or the friends house or the gym?


It depends on the region, state etc. I've lived in Wyoming, the least populated US state. You are allowed to drive at 16, but if you live far from your school in the countryside, you can apply for an exception that will allow you to drive at 15 with certain restrictions (50 miles radius from home/school, only with daylight, forbidden to carry other people below 21 in the car etc).

Not every teenager gets a car for him/herself, particularly because insurance is expensive, but most (depending on region) use one of their parents cars to go to high school in junior and senior years. The average number of cars per non-single person households is 1.8. So you get the figure...

Now, if a family is on high-middle-class income, chances are the children will get a (cheap) car once they can drive, some families will condition that to children work to pay for its costs, some will giveaway as gifts and pay until kids finish college. It depends.

Of course few teenagers living in New York have cars - but, IMO, New York is not an archetype of (almost) anything about practical issues of urban life in US (transportation, real estate market, housing arrangements, planning laws, spatial economic organization etc).


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> The argument for more freedom of movement is relative, as almost all PT projects at the local/metro level are focused in one thing and one thing only: getting people from house to work and back. Work commute accounts for majority of traffic in any major city and most cities, save for those with unusual concentrated peak tourism industry.


In Switzerland leisure and shopping account for 65% off all passenger km, commuting only counts for 24%. So only a quarter of all transportation is commuting. I wouldn't be surprised if the data were similar in other industrialised western nations.
That's for all modes. Looking at PT stats for Zürich only we see that there commuting has a larger share ( at 40%)), but leisure (39%) and shopping (8%) is still quite significant.
That PT is only to bring people from their homes to their jobs is not true for well developed systems. In fact, a system would need to capture a significant part of leisure traffic if it were to have a significant impact on solving the traffic problems of the modern city. 
(Sources are www.litra.ch and www.zvv.ch)


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> It depends on the region, state etc. I've lived in Wyoming, the least populated US state. You are allowed to drive at 16, but if you live far from your school in the countryside, you can apply for an exception that will allow you to drive at 15 with certain restrictions (50 miles radius from home/school, only with daylight, forbidden to carry other people below 21 in the car etc).


So basically until you're 16 you do depend on "taxi mama" for most of your transportation?


----------



## Rebasepoiss

Suburbanist said:


> It doesn't have to be that way. This is an specific need (school bus), and could be funded as so. Same for disabled-adapted vans, for instance. They are aimed at people that absolutely can't drive (most disabled people can do fairly well in adapted cars anyway, or course vision impairment, paraplegia and other disabilities impedes someone to drive). It is a completely different issue of saying "well, let's not build that state-of-the-art 10 lanes highway but a light rail instead - wait, never mind we will have to FORCE people to live in smaller houses".


You totally misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about special transport. I was saying that there are certain groups of people that don't drive: too young, too old, can't afford to drive, don't want to drive. These people combined make a group large enough to require funding from the government for PT. In Tallinn that percentage is around 50(who for some "weird" reason use PT instead of a car). Let's say that the government would take away the € 20 million funding for PT it pays every year. Do you think the government would therefore be € 20 million richer? I doubt that because there are several consequences.
First, ticket prices would go up which means people would have less money to feed the economy(think about stimulus packages).

Second, some people would start to drive a car to work/school every day. Let's say that 20% of previous PT users do that. That's a 20% traffic increase which is xxx% increase in traffic jams. That means a lot more time is lost sitting in traffic jams rather than working and earning money.

Third, increasing traffic jams increase pollution which worsens people's health(that accounts for larger spendings in healthcare). In Tallinn the lifespan of an average person is 10 months shorter than normal because of air pollution.

Fourth, increased traffic is very likely to cause more accidents resulting in human and economic loss(which to the government is the same).

Fifth, after sitting for sime time in traffic jams, the government decides to build large interchanges to resolve the traffic jams. That alone costs several hundred million Euros.

And this list could go on forever....

To conclude: it's cheaper for governments to fund public transport than to pay for the costs of not funding public transport.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Oh, now I get you. 

Look, I'm not against capital investments in PT, as long as they are kept as a fraction of road spending. I don't have expectations that every infrastructure will turn a profit itself.

What I FIERCELY oppose is the use of annual budgets to finance systems that have operational fare box recovery below 100%. Ticket collection should pay for the vehicles (not for the tracks) and all personnel involved. Exactly like the roads: govt's build roads, sometimes even charge tolls, but I've never heard of public-car programs in which the government subsidizes the direct operation of cars in industrialized countries (I know some countries do subsidize gas, but that is usually the case of extremely poor countries). Of course, drivers are driving by themselves, so there is no "staff cost" in operating car traffic, save for road police, traffic agents etc.

Same goes for air traffic: governments usually build airports (runway, terminals, customs etc), but there is a healthy trend in governments staying clear of operating airlines themselves.

This is what I think should happen to transit projects. Let government build high-speed tracks, with open access (maybe for a reasonable fee) to any operator who wants to run trains. I don't mind governments keeping those tracks in good condition, as long as it doesn't make train drivers public employees and never dare to try to organize and impose something like a "national schedule" or "regional schedule" or so. I know K. will come here to talk about Switzerland, but I keep disagreeing with how Swiss railways operate in basis of lack of true competition and competitive tools it presents (like the (lack of) ability to wage price wars or to systematically undercut the market leader in key routes).

What makes me feel spoiled is when a municipality, regional or national government look at drivers as cash cows to finance not only the construction of transit projects, but its continuous upkeep. If fares will not pay the buses, the trams, the trains, then shut them down!


----------



## Nexis

Rebasepoiss said:


> You seem to have little knowledge about how the costs and benefits are calculated on different public projects.
> Yes, if you only include direct benefits then PT doesn't pay off...But you have various indirect benefits. For example, giving people more freedom of movement, decreasing traffic density on roads(which increases safety and possibly delays the need to build new highways), decreases pollution and energy usage, frees up space by decreasing the need for parking lots etc.
> 
> Let me give you a quick example: in Estonia a lot of pupils in the countryside depend on schoolbuses to go to school. School buses are free of charge but cost quite a bit for the local municipality. Let's say that over-rational and individualistic people like you force the municipality to stop the funding for the schoolbus. 90% of pupils find another way to go to highschool, for example, 10% quit. Seems OK but how much, do you think, will the municipality and state loose when that 10% quits school?
> 
> I've always wondered: is it really so in the US(like in the movies) that before children turn 16 and get their own car they are totally dependent on their parents for transportation? Like going to the cinema or shopping or the friends house or the gym?


We walk , use bikes , or older friends , aside form our parents. In the cities we use the Subways and buses.


----------



## poshbakerloo

I think in any country Children are dependant on their parents for transportation. My mum used to drive me to my friends houses and after school clubs etc.

Now I'm 20, don't drive yet (oops) But I just use the train etc


----------



## BoulderGrad

HARTride 2012 said:


> ^^
> After our tea party governor in Florida repeals all our HSR funding, I would imagine CA will have a ball.


He softened his stance a bit pre-election.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...01026_1_high-speed-rail-rick-scott-opposition

But then again, so did Mayor Mcgiinn in Seattle on the Alaskan Way Viaduct. He's been a thorn in the city council's side on the matter ever since. (not that Im comparing McGinn to a tea-partier, but the point remains that election promises are like a hooker telling you she likes you)

Wisconsin is the one that really screws up some HSR projects. New gov flat out said he was GOING to cancel the Milwaukee to Madison project. Even made a website about it: http://notrain.com/
Illinois and Minnesota should respond by building the HSR in a big ring through Michigan around WI


----------



## hmmwv

Oh thank GOD those contractors have agreed to build the tunnel under the current budget, otherwise McGinn will do all he can to shoot down the project. Speaking of HSR, looks like the there is zero hope for the Eugen-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver line in the coming two decades. Sigh.


----------



## TheKorean

If the train is going to Vancouver BC, the Canadians would have to get involed (VIA rail_ so it wasnt gonna happen anyway, not to mention the King Street Station is too small.


----------



## Nexis

TheKorean said:


> If the train is going to Vancouver BC, the Canadians would have to get involed (VIA rail_ so it wasnt gonna happen anyway, not to mention the King Street Station is too small.


Yet theres a line already , called Amtrak Cascades. All they need is speed increased and Electrification.


----------



## TheKorean

^Thats what Im talking about, the canadians arent going to fund that.


----------



## foxmulder

BoulderGrad said:


> He softened his stance a bit pre-election.
> 
> http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...01026_1_high-speed-rail-rick-scott-opposition
> 
> But then again, so did Mayor Mcgiinn in Seattle on the Alaskan Way Viaduct. He's been a thorn in the city council's side on the matter ever since. (not that Im comparing McGinn to a tea-partier, but the point remains that election promises are like a hooker telling you she likes you)
> 
> Wisconsin is the one that really screws up some HSR projects. New gov flat out said he was GOING to cancel the Milwaukee to Madison project. Even made a website about it: http://notrain.com/
> Illinois and Minnesota should respond by building the HSR in a big ring through Michigan around WI


OMG.. "notrain.com"... That is just sad.


----------



## hmmwv

Nexis said:


> Yet theres a line already , called Amtrak Cascades. All they need is speed increased and Electrification.


I think the biggest problem is that HSR usually require grade separated tracks which would be insane considering how many railroad crossings there are near downtown Seattle. Also Amtrak Cascades or even the Sounder commute train constantly face landslide problems. Electrification probably won't happen anyway, they can just purchase Acela trainsets to start with.


----------



## Suburbanist

They should find a way, if there is any, to make at least the train sets in their narrower sense (vehicles + personnel) able to pay themselves through fares. I guess the American public would accept the idea of government building tracks like it builds highways, but I'm skeptical about the idea of public employees driving trains, collecting fares that would in turn be cheap...

If you have a good train scheme, it would be fair to say it should at least break even without considering capital expenditures on tracks and signaling - a low but fair bar of financial feasibility. The candidate did make a point about the long-term costs of covering operational losses of the trains themselves.


----------



## aliesperet

America first needs to improve it's stock, that looks horrible!hno:hno:

Dutch railways Rocks!


----------



## K_

aliesperet said:


> America first needs to improve it's stock, that looks horrible!hno:hno:
> 
> Dutch railways Rocks!


The Dutch railways prove that they can make nice looking trains, but don't mind doing so at the expense of passenger comfort. 
The best double-decker trains are the Swiss IC2000 cars , which just happen to be based on an American idea...


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> They should find a way, if there is any, to make at least the train sets in their narrower sense (vehicles + personnel) able to pay themselves through fares. I guess the American public would accept the idea of government building tracks like it builds highways, but I'm skeptical about the idea of public employees driving trains, collecting fares that would in turn be cheap...


One thing that would need to happen for that is for RFA standards to be modified so that off the shelf European equipment can be bought. 
Many Intercity Rail networks in Europe manage to recover all, or a significant part of their operating costs through fare intake. The running costs of American style equipment is however a lot higher.
So maybe the railways are entitled to subsidy, but it should be called "compensation" for not being able to employ best practices.


----------



## mgk920

hmmwv said:


> I think the biggest problem is that HSR usually require grade separated tracks which would be insane considering how many railroad crossings there are near downtown Seattle. Also Amtrak Cascades or even the Sounder commute train constantly face landslide problems. Electrification probably won't happen anyway, they can just purchase Acela trainsets to start with.


There was a lot of chatter within railfan circles during the great fuel price spike of 2008 about BNSF possibly studying wholesale electrification of its system.

Anyways, a true high-speed line (like those in China, Europe and so forth) in the Pacific Northwest/Cascades corridor would likely require that large percentages of the trackage be tunneled, especially north of I-90 in the Seattle area - and it would be likely that much of the Seattle station would also be inside a tunnel, or be built south of downtown in the area of the stadia/I-90.

In China, for example, the last 50-60 km of the planned true high-speed line into Hong Kong will be tunneled.

Mike


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> They should find a way, if there is any, to make at least the train sets in their narrower sense (vehicles + personnel) able to pay themselves through fares. I guess the American public would accept the idea of government building tracks like it builds highways, but I'm skeptical about the idea of public employees driving trains, collecting fares that would in turn be cheap...
> 
> If you have a good train scheme, it would be fair to say it should at least break even without considering capital expenditures on tracks and signaling - a low but fair bar of financial feasibility. The candidate did make a point about the long-term costs of covering operational losses of the trains themselves.


why , that makes no sense. Your a train hating moron......none of the systems except a few run on profit......even ur Euro system.


----------



## K_

Nexis said:


> why , that makes no sense. Your a train hating moron......none of the systems except a few run on profit......even ur Euro system.


Actually the better run "Euro systems" do run for profit. SBB does not get subsidies for its intercity services, and as far as I known, neither does DB, nor does NS.


----------



## Nexis

K_ said:


> Actually the better run "Euro systems" do run for profit. SBB does not get subsidies for its intercity services, and as far as I known, neither does DB, nor does NS.


Oh , they do? Interesting , but the Majority don't. If they upgraded all the tracks and switches and overall system here in NJ we probably run on profit.


----------



## K_

Nexis said:


> Oh , they do? Interesting , but the Majority don't. If they upgraded all the tracks and switches and overall system here in NJ we probably run on profit.


It depends what you call the majority. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of medium distance intercity services in Europe at least breaks even. Those systems that are not very efficient run far less trains...

What needs a lot of money are regional and commuter services. An hourly interval intercity service only needs an average occupancy of about 30% to break even.


----------



## Suburbanist

Nexis said:


> why , that makes no sense. Your a train hating moron......none of the systems except a few run on profit......even ur Euro system.


Did you actually read what I wrote? I'm referring to vehicle operations + capital costs, completely excluding trackage, stations and signaling.


----------



## Nexis

K_ said:


> It depends what you call the majority. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of medium distance intercity services in Europe at least breaks even. Those systems that are not very efficient run far less trains...
> 
> What needs a lot of money are regional and commuter services. An hourly interval intercity service only needs an average occupancy of about 30% to break even.


Well yea that wouldn't suprise me , the Northeastern Amtrak routes come close or are profitable. I thought you mean't commuter.


----------



## Nexis

aliesperet said:


> America first needs to improve it's stock, that looks horrible!hno:hno:
> 
> Dutch railways Rocks!


Aside for being blah theres nothing wrong with our rolling stock.....its mostly Asian hench why the blah. But Asian trains are more comfortable then Euro trains.


----------



## K_

Nexis said:


> Aside for being blah theres nothing wrong with our rolling stock.....its mostly Asian hench why the blah. But Asian trains are more comfortable then Euro trains.


Could you translate that to English for me?


----------



## Suburbanist

sekelsenmat said:


> non-sense. If you leave rail service only to private operators then it won't be reliable enough to be used as ones main transportation method, like it can be done in Europe. This basically equates to saying that having a car is completely mandatory and that trains are relegated to only a couple of routes used sporadically.


Air travel handle millions of passengers per day, worldwide, having to manage linguistic, political and technical issues. Most airlines are private, and those who are not, mostly act as private entities with State-backed funding.

You need to think outside the box. Freight in Europe has been privatized and segregated and it's been a huge success. USA, where freight transports 42% of tonXmiles, never had relevant public railway companies (don't call Amtrak relevant, please, their market share is laughable and keeping a weekly train on long-distance routes makes them, for most of their network, a touristic operator).


----------



## xerxesjc28

^^ Just wondering but aren't airports built by the government? Or are they built by the airline industry?

What about Railways throughout the world, how many have been built by the government vs private companies?

I think the governments rule is building infrustruction like highways, Railways and airports and then letting private companies build and run cars,trains, and planes. 

If that is what you are saying then I think I agree.


----------



## hammersklavier

Certain heavy posters on this thread (ha-hem) have no grasp of economic realities.

K_, what does Swiss schedule coordination look like? There is a coordination of a sense between SEPTA and NJ Transit at Trenton, in which passengers can use cross-platform transfers to save money on a train ride to New York. (Of course, it still takes just as long as using Greyhound from Center City to Midtown Manhattan.)

The electric economy is coming--and fast! Suburbanist is right about electric cars coming faster than we may think, but at the same time this brings up the issue of the U.S. electrical system, which is only maintained for current peak demand spikes, and not future ones. During peak times, you can get situations like squirrels gnawing through the wires and knocking out power to half the Northeast.

Railroad electric grids, OTOH, are separated from the consumer grid. Even when your lights go out and your Leaf fails to charge, the train keeps running. This is an implicit benefit electric trains enjoy over electric vehicles.

What is going to happen in the next decade? The dominant demographic trend among the 18-35 year-olds in the United States is of reurbanization. This cannot be ignored. Electric (either plug-in battery or hydrogen-fueled) vehicles are going to become an important sector of the automotive industry--however, their attempt at ubiquity is going to be constrained by an underinvested-in electrical infrastructure. *Until the electrical infrastructure of the United States is modernized, it will be impossible for electric vehicles to become the dominant demand share.* This modernization will have to be a modernization of both the power stations and the grid; power stations will need to be, by and large, sustainable and "sustainable" technologies such as wind, solar, waste-to-energy, clean coal, and nuclear fission. Incentives for at-home power generation (solar roofs, rooftop turbines sort of thing) will have to be greatly increased. To cope with the demands of out new electric economy, I think it might be likely that, before autos like the Volt and Leaf can claim mode-share, the electrical capacity of the United States has to at least *double* current capacity.

So, the technocratic claim (which is never explicit, but always implicit) that there can be a 1-to-1 correlation between the modern oil-based technology and economy and the electric-based one that will be increasingly in use a decade from now is, at the very best, deeply suspect. It will take time and a *lot* of energy and both public and private monies before the general electrical production-and-distribution system--the "grid"--is anywhere near able to handle modal dominance of electric personal vehicles. But oil prices, and concomitantly, gas prices, wait for no man; current technologies, dependent as they are on internal combustion, will be increasingly out of reach even before grid investment makes buying into the electric economy affordable, for most of us.

Perhaps Chance the Gardener put it best: "The winter is the time of preparing for spring". Between about 2015 and 2025, roughly, there will be the era of transition, when current technologies will no longer be inexpensive enough to allow internal-combustion based mobility, and the grid will be unable to take electric automobilization at a 1-to-1 technical replacement. What do you think will happen during this era of transition? Well, with automobility become unaffordable two (!) ways, mode share of public transit and bicycling will explode exponentially--it'll be like 2007 on steroids! If a public transit operator *fails* to recover operating expenses in that sort of climate (unlike the current climate where operators have to fight systemic auto bias) the operation must be very badly run indeed!

Between the cultural shifts this shift in what it means to be mobile necessitate, and the pro-urban-policy political shift that will be the natural consequence of an increasingly urban-conscious and urban-aware body politic entering formal politics, *a resurgence in progressivism*, borne by the climacteric of the Era of Transition and the demographic reurbanization of America, can be tentatively predicted to occur within the next 15-20 years.

What does this all have to do with the distribution of the transit pie? you may ask. Well, to put it bluntly, there is a systemic bias towards automobility in the American political institution. Ray LaHood is at the (hopeful) vanguard of an effort to unslant the playing field. This systemic bias, coupled with Baby Boomer political shortsightedness (most egregiously manifested in the quote-unquote "Tea Party"), has made it nigh-impossible for our country to invest in the infrastructure it'll take to ride the Era of Transition without encountering damaging economic bumps along the way. The realization that the limitations of the current system were the cause of these hiccups--especially when contrasted with Europe, which will ride out the transition much better--is going to be the driver of a new economic system: namely, one that devotes approximately 45% of Federal monies to roadway spending, 45% to passenger rail spending, and 10% to other projects, most notably bicycle-infrastructure spending (you can create adequate bike transportation for a lot less money than the two "heavier" modes, and the biggest bike-infrastructure projects will likely draw on both transit and parks sources) and continuing aviation maintenance (long-distance air travel *must* remain a viable transportation option all terms)--a vast turnaround from the current system where 90% of all monies goes to roads and the other three modes fight for the rest of the pie. Roads in the U.S. are quite literally paved with excess pork, like overengineered paved country lanes*, yet are undermaintained, so we don't have what we need to show for it.

Of course, I'm no expert on these things...all I can do is look at them intelligently, and make an effort at reading the tea leaves...
____________________
* Sonoma County, CA's DOT, in a move that drew surprise, is planning on reverting the majority of the mostly-rural county's roadway network to gravel. Greener--gravel is permeable--and more optimally-engineered--most rural roads see far less traffic a day than most urban roads--the move nonetheless drew opposition from some quarters.

It is my contention, however, that what Sonoma County did will set a precedent for American rural roadway maintenance. Drawn from 1920s mores, we think paving every road is a good thing; however, the reality more often than not is that paving roads that don't even meet a minimum daily traffic count (except for state highways, U.S. highways, and Interstates) presents far too high an investment in the roadway to make sense with current engineering standards.


----------



## K_

sekelsenmat said:


> non-sense. If you leave rail service only to private operators then it won't be reliable enough to be used as ones main transportation method, like it can be done in Europe.


In Japan rail service is largely given to private operators. And it's reliable and efficient. Also in Europe and the US private operators were once signficant. The US had a good, privately operated passenger rail system once, and so did the UK.

I do think that, given the right incentives, private operators will outperform public ones.


----------



## sekelsenmat

K_ said:


> In Japan rail service is largely given to private operators. And it's reliable and efficient.


Japan is a big exception and also consider that it is very dense, very rich and collectively oriented country (as opposed to individualism like in the USA). In the vast majority of countries which have private run rail it is an unmitigated disaster. Privitizing simply destroyed the rail services. See Brazil and Argentina for example. After privitizing they killed 99% of the train routes in Brazil. And even in the USA rail only survives because it is run by the government.



> I do think that, given the right incentives, private operators will outperform public ones.


Which incentives exactly? Anyway, this is pure speculation, because I am yet to see an example excluding Japan that this actually works.


----------



## sekelsenmat

Suburbanist said:


> You need to think outside the box.


So do you actually think that privitizing all train operations in Europe for example would really help the users? Do you think new reliable operators would appear and stick and maintain schedules stable for decades? Remember that many people use rail to get to work for example. Here is Poland nearly all major factories (new ones included) are built near train stations so that people can easily commute to work. If the rail schedule keeps changing all the time it is simple unreliable and cannot be used for commuting, then it looses passengers until it closes operations.

Any success cases for privitizing passenger train operations and allowing the free market to reign?

Air companies have sucess because:

1> There is no other competition for the distances they serve
2> Because they extract money from second-tier airports subdized by the government, which is an subdize to their operations

With no competition (from other modes of transport) and subdizes it is very easy for a mode of transport to be sucessful. When there is competition, for example from HSR, the air service usually just dies.

It's not a matter of thinking outside of the box, it's just what previous experience shows. See how free Market really helped the brazilian railway system. There is no rail service even between Sao Paulo and Campinas, Santos, Rio de Janeiro, etc.


----------



## sekelsenmat

Suburbanist said:


> Freight in Europe has been privatized and segregated and it's been a huge success.


Freight is completely different. Companies can make contracts if they needs stability of the service and hire people to look all day for the best trainsport possibilities.

If rail companies started using the same tactics as air companies for ticket pricing it would be a disaster. While it is feasable (but annoying) to loose 1 day looking for the cheapest flight and plan ahead even 3 months earlier plane trips, because I fly only about twice a year, it wouldn't be fun at all to loose 1 day looking for the best train ticket for every single weekend trip that I do and being forced to plan months ahead every weekend trip. It would simply be unusable.


----------



## K_

sekelsenmat said:


> Japan is a big exception and also consider that it is very dense, very rich and collectively oriented country (as opposed to individualism like in the USA). In the vast majority of countries which have private run rail it is an unmitigated disaster.


I wouldn't say it's an unmitigated disaster. Rather on the contrary. Almost all countries I know of the rail network got reduced quite significantly _after_ nationalisation.



> Privitizing simply destroyed the rail services. See Brazil and Argentina for example. After privitizing they killed 99% of the train routes in Brazil.


Do you think these routes would have survived if they had remained in government ownership? The state can't afford to pour unlimited amounts of money in to something either. The simple fact remains that you can't run an operation that spends more money than it receives for ever. Even if you are the government.



> And even in the USA rail only survives because it is run by the government.


The first thing Amtrak did when it took over from the private railways was close half the lines...



> Which incentives exactly? Anyway, this is pure speculation, because I am yet to see an example excluding Japan that this actually works.


One excample are all the small private operators in Germany, that have succesfully revitalized many regional railway lines. The incentive here came from government subsidies, however by contracting the services out to private companies the governments manage to get better service for a lower price tag. Similar things are happening in other countries, with similar results. 
The other example is the UK. Although the privatisation has not been the success it's proponents predicted, it hasn't been a failure either.
There is even a lot to learn from it. For example: give a company a long enough franchise and they suddenly start working on reopening lines and re¨introducing services.


----------



## Nexis

Amtrak removed alot of Trackage against the states wishes , affecting alot of restoration projects in the 90s here in the Northeast. To be honest state agencies do a way better job then Amtrak every has....


----------



## sekelsenmat

K_ said:


> I wouldn't say it's an unmitigated disaster. Rather on the contrary. Almost all countries I know of the rail network got reduced quite significantly _after_ nationalisation.


So do you think they would have fared better if they remained private?



> Do you think these routes would have survived if they had remained in government ownership? The state can't afford to pour unlimited amounts of money in to something either.


Yes, they would have survived and now that the economy and government finances are better the government would be able to invest and increase the service quality and with it ridership.



> The simple fact remains that you can't run an operation that spends more money than it receives for ever. Even if you are the government.


Public hospitals and schools cost nothing in Brasil, therefore they have no operational income and operate on high deficits. Should they be closed?



> One excample are all the small private operators in Germany, that have succesfully revitalized many regional railway lines. The incentive here came from government subsidies, however by contracting the services out to private companies the governments manage to get better service for a lower price tag.


That's not really free market like suburbanist proposes, is it?

I still don't think this is stable. And what if a free-marketer gets allected and closes all routes in this region?


----------



## K_

sekelsenmat said:


> So do you actually think that privitizing all train operations in Europe for example would really help the users? Do you think new reliable operators would appear and stick and maintain schedules stable for decades?


Actually "reliably maintaining stable schedules" is the only way you'd ever manage to turn a profit as a private operator. One of the problems with the railway privatisation in the UK is that the franchises were to short. You need to give the companies an incentive to provide a service that will attract new residents (ie. customers) to areas near their stations. 20 years would be the minimum for a workable private concession.



> It's not a matter of thinking outside of the box, it's just what previous experience shows. See how free Market really helped the brazilian railway system. There is no rail service even between Sao Paulo and Campinas, Santos, Rio de Janeiro, etc.


When there still was rail service between these towns it was hardly used and bus companies provided a more comfortable, faster and cheaper service than the railways did. Most of those trains ran at a horrible loss that the government couldn't afford to compensate for anymore.
And Brazil has been investing in roads mostly the last half century. That Brazil has become very good at bus rapid tranit is not a coïncidence.
Reliable and comfortable intercity rail travel comes at a price. Rail is actually public transit for the middle classes. You need a big enough middle class to be able to afford it as a country. Now that the population of Brazil is getting richer you can expect passenger rail to 
return.


----------



## sekelsenmat

K_ said:


> When there still was rail service between these towns it was hardly used and bus companies provided a more comfortable, faster and cheaper service than the railways did.


Wrong, the buses were always more expensive, although they were faster.

But now with the hugh trafic jams caused by abandoning rail the situation is very different. You take 2 to 3 hours between Sao Paulo and Campinas on a bus, for just 80km!!! Its really hard to get slower then that.



> Most of those trains ran at a horrible loss that the government couldn't afford to compensate for anymore.


I doubt it was a horrible loss with so few trains per day, it is matematically impossible.



> And Brazil has been investing in roads mostly the last half century.


Should have invested in railways too, not only roads forgetting the rest.



> That Brazil has become very good at bus rapid tranit is not a coïncidence.


I don't think it is good at all compared to european public transport. But in the few routes with bus lanes transport really is a lot better then in the routes without bus lanes (the vast majority).


----------



## K_

sekelsenmat said:


> Wrong, the buses were always more expensive, although they were faster.


Which make me suspect that the trains were priced low enough to still attract some passengers, despite the lower quality. This is not sustainable in the long term, regardles wether a private or government owned company runs the service.
The government doesn't have unlimited funds to spend on nice to have things, and what it spends on one thing it can't spend on another.



> But now with the hugh trafic jams caused by abandoning rail the situation is very different. You take 2 to 3 hours between Sao Paulo and Campinas on a bus, for just 80km!!! Its really hard to get slower then that.


How fast were the trains when they were still running? 



> I doubt it was a horrible loss with so few trains per day, it is matematically impossible.


With only a few trains per day it's not even mathematically possible to run a break even. (except maybe if you're running a low speed tourist railway...)
You cannot justify maintaining a railroad to passenger standards unless there is at least a train every hour. 
However if you don't maintain a railway to high enough standards you'll never be able to compete with other modes.



> Should have invested in railways too, not only roads forgetting the rest.


Fact is, they didn't. And you can't blame private companies for not being interested in competing with subsidised roads. 



> I don't think it is good at all compared to european public transport. But in the few routes with bus lanes transport really is a lot better then in the routes without bus lanes (the vast majority).


Curitiba is often quoted as a good example of public transport planning over here...


----------



## K_

sekelsenmat said:


> So do you think they would have fared better if they remained private?


Probably, yes.

What I see around Europe is that in countries where the railroads operate more independently from politics the service is a lot better than in those countries where the train are basically run by a government department.



> Yes, they would have survived and now that the economy and government finances are better the government would be able to invest and increase the service quality and with it ridership.


Keeping these in government ownership might also have meant that public finances would never have improved to the point where they are now. Many government run railways were horribly inefficient, and needed losts of money.



> Public hospitals and schools cost nothing in Brasil, therefore they have no operational income and operate on high deficits. Should they be closed?


They provide a value. Where a public transit system provides value it should not be closed. Subsidies can be justified in some cases. The suburban train network around Sao Paulo is a good example.
However where private companies manage to provide a service to the public that this public deems more useful (wich you can see by looking at what choices the public makes) than an equivalent service the government delivers there is no reason for the government to keep on delivering it.



> That's not really free market like suburbanist proposes, is it?


No, it isn't. But I am not in favor of organizing transport the way he sees it.



> I still don't think this is stable. And what if a free-marketer gets allected and closes all routes in this region?


I a government runs all the trains the risk of lines just being closed through a political decision is a lot higher. In Belgium the Interurbans around Brussels were run by a government department, and only one minister who liked buses more than trams was enough to have them all closed overnight...
There was until the 50ies one private company left. It got closed for passenger transport the moment it was nationalised. 
If you think it would have been better for passenger rail if it had remained under government control don't forget that in the 60ies and 70ies many governments where very much pro private car. 
In Switzerland most regional lines are run by local private companies with often a very strong involvement of the local authorities. As a result virtually no rail lines have ever been closed in Switzerland. 
In the years before Amtrak in the US there were still some railways that tried to make something of their passenger trains. Amtrak itself however basically closed all the lines the railways would have wanted to close (but weren't allowed to) and ran the remaining at such low standards that some private railways refused them to reuse the names (and associated image) of certain prime trains.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Amtrak closed 54% of routes, and roughly 2/3 of all scheduled trains, because the tab to keep running those money-losing trains would be too high. Indeed, the creation of Amtrak was the salvation of freight railway business in US. The cumbersome obligations in regard of passenger transport were draining out whatever money they could make on freight and, back then, they couldn't just drop services.

However, it is up to speculations and heated debates whether passenger transport in US would have been better if, instead of creating Amtrak, the US government just liberalizated passenger rail transport and, more importantly, created a framework for open-access track and passing rights, with Amtrak acting just as a supervisor of the service and, where applicable, owner of tracks and stations.


----------



## sekelsenmat

K_ said:


> What I see around Europe is that in countries where the railroads operate more independently from politics the service is a lot better than in those countries where the train are basically run by a government department.


Which concrete example?

I already lived in Germany, where despite separating parts and some liberalization, the train system is essentially run by the government and guess what? It is a perfect system (at least for my brazilian standards). You can get anywhere you want very quickly via train. Using schoneswochende and landes ticket it is also very cheap.

Poland rail companies are also state-run and they offer a very good service, only a little bit slow because the short-minded free-market government doesn't invest enough in improving the railways.



> Keeping these in government ownership might also have meant that public finances would never have improved to the point where they are now.


lol!!! Please read some real reports from the brazilian government. Train subsides would be at most 1% of the government budget. Debt service is about 33% of the government expending. Diminishing the interrest rate by 1% would already cover all money the passenger rail could ever need.

Another good example to compare to is Antrak. It uses about 0,1% of the USA federal budget.



> However where private companies manage to provide a service to the public that this public deems more useful (wich you can see by looking at what choices the public makes) than an equivalent service the government delivers there is no reason for the government to keep on delivering it.


In reality the public uses what the government wants them to use. If the government puts slow and unconfortable buses as public transport, kills off all passenger rail and at the same time builds huge highways, then people can only assume that the government really wants everyone to have a car.



> I a government runs all the trains the risk of lines just being closed through a political decision is a lot higher. In Belgium the Interurbans around Brussels were run by a government department, and only one minister who liked buses more than trams was enough to have them all closed overnight...
> 
> There was until the 50ies one private company left. It got closed for passenger transport the moment it was nationalised.
> If you think it would have been better for passenger rail if it had remained under government control don't forget that in the 60ies and 70ies many governments where very much pro private car.
> In Switzerland most regional lines are run by local private companies with often a very strong involvement of the local authorities. As a result virtually no rail lines have ever been closed in Switzerland.


Indeed, these are compeling arguments. Over time I am getting more simpatetic to the idea of letting local governments run train services as opposed to 1 big operator per country.



> In the years before Amtrak in the US there were still some railways that tried to make something of their passenger trains. Amtrak itself however basically closed all the lines the railways would have wanted to close (but weren't allowed to) and ran the remaining at such low standards that some private railways refused them to reuse the names (and associated image) of certain prime trains.


The quality of service provided by Amtrak would be a dream in Brazil compared to the service provided by private operators (actually no service at all).


----------



## sekelsenmat

K_ said:


> Curitiba is often quoted as a good example of public transport planning over here...


Just to start with:
* The network of bus lanes serves a small minority of the avenues. In Wroclaw-Poland *all* major avenues have either exclusive Tram routes or mixed-bus/tram exclusives lanes and always in both directions and electrified.
* There are no time tables in Curitiba. In Poland there are timetables in every single little rural bus stop. Plus. I can access www.jakdojade.pl via my phone and simply drop by 2 minutes before the tram or bus comes, in any place of the city, and even the most distant semi-rural suburbs it will show me the fastest route to another point.
* 3 million people and no fast metro/suburban train? Bus corridors are ok as a cheap solution to improve public transport, but Curitiba is far too large to have a couple of bus corridors as the central transit network. I know it is not a fair comparison, but Vienna with 3 million people has 5 metro lines with 90 stations + a huge tram network + commuter rail.

It's really a wonderful transport if you compare with Campinas on the other hand.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Amtrak closed 54% of routes, and roughly 2/3 of all scheduled trains, because the tab to keep running those money-losing trains would be too high. Indeed, the creation of Amtrak was the salvation of freight railway business in US. The cumbersome obligations in regard of passenger transport were draining out whatever money they could make on freight and, back then, they couldn't just drop services.
> 
> However, it is up to speculations and heated debates whether passenger transport in US would have been better if, instead of creating Amtrak, the US government just liberalizated passenger rail transport and, more importantly, created a framework for open-access track and passing rights, with Amtrak acting just as a supervisor of the service and, where applicable, owner of tracks and stations.


We tired to close the long Distance lines , but Republican and Democrat politicians keep blocking that. Thus only the Northeast , Midwest , California lines are profitable and its sad to be honest. Amtrak was formed form all the collapsed RR's , which would be still here if the Govt and GM would have left it alone.


----------



## K_

sekelsenmat said:


> Which concrete example?
> 
> I already lived in Germany, where despite separating parts and some liberalization, the train system is essentially run by the government and guess what? It is a perfect system (at least for my brazilian standards). You can get anywhere you want very quickly via train. Using schoneswochende and landes ticket it is also very cheap.


In Germany the days that the trains system was "essentially run by the government" are gone.
IC/ICE trains are run by "DB Reise and Touristik", which although state owned is run as a for profit company. Long distance trains are not subsidised and need to be financed from ticket revenues.
Regional trains are run on behalf of regional authorities by a plethora of companies, of which DB Regio is still the largest. However DB Regio keeps losing contracts to other players. The Länder contract out services to whoever is willing to commit to the desired service level for the lowest price.


----------



## K_

sekelsenmat said:


> * 3 million people and no fast metro/suburban train? Bus corridors are ok as a cheap solution to improve public transport, but Curitiba is far too large to have a couple of bus corridors as the central transit network. I know it is not a fair comparison, but Vienna with 3 million people has 5 metro lines with 90 stations + a huge tram network + commuter rail.


Vienna has a much higher per capita income than Curitiba.


----------



## MarcVD

hammersklavier said:


> Railroad electric grids, OTOH, are separated from the consumer grid. Even when your lights go out and your Leaf fails to charge, the train keeps running. This is an implicit benefit electric trains enjoy over electric vehicles.


Where did you get that from ? In most countries, all railways sub-stations
are simply fed from the national grid. Separate grids only exist in a minority
of countries, essentially where railways use a different frequency (16,7 or
25 Hz) than the national grid (50 or 60 Hz). In Europe,That's Germany, 
Switzerland, & Austria. Everywhere else, where DC or 50 Hz is used, the 
national grid directly feeds the sub-stations.

Not that it matters very much, in fact. The grid in Europe being far more
reliable than in the US, we don't see our trains stalled that often. I don't remember a single power failure here for the last two decades.

I tend to remember that in some parts of the east coast, 25 Hz is used for
feeding the catenaries... Is it where you got the idea of separate power grid ?
It must be the case over there because of the different frequency. But
don't generalize. There are no railways lines in Europe with a twin power line
atop of it, like on the good ol' Pennsy railroad.


----------



## MarcVD

hammersklavier said:


> What is going to happen in the next decade? The dominant demographic trend among the 18-35 year-olds in the United States is of reurbanization. This cannot be ignored. Electric (either plug-in battery or hydrogen-fueled) vehicles are going to become an important sector of the automotive industry--however, their attempt at ubiquity is going to be constrained by an underinvested-in electrical infrastructure. *Until the electrical infrastructure of the United States is modernized, it will be impossible for electric vehicles to become the dominant demand share.* This modernization will have to be a modernization of both the power stations and the grid; power stations will need to be, by and large, sustainable and "sustainable" technologies such as wind, solar, waste-to-energy, clean coal, and nuclear fission. Incentives for at-home power generation (solar roofs, rooftop turbines sort of thing) will have to be greatly increased. To cope with the demands of out new electric economy, I think it might be likely that, before autos like the Volt and Leaf can claim mode-share, the electrical capacity of the United States has to at least *double* current capacity.


You might however note that

1) what is hurting a power grid is essentially *the peak demand*.
2) an electric vehicle can only be recharged when it is not used. For
most people, that means during the night.

Therefore, recharging electric vehicles will only marginally increase the peak
demand on the electric grid, which means that only limited efforts will be
required to make it able to sustain it.

If there are still too many people who recharge their car during the day, or
during the peak hours, putting in place "incentives" to change this behaviour
(like time-differentiated tariffs) will be much less expensive than re-
engineering the power grid.

On the other hand, electric production always had a lot of difficulties to adapt
to a varying load : best efficiencies being obtained when the load remains
constant. To that effect, nightly battery recharges might contribute to
reduce the load difference between the day and the night, and therefore
contribute to a better overall efficiency of electricity production.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Exactly. Moreover, in the medium term, burning oil at a modern power plant, then using the electricity to charge charges, can easily reduce the amount of oil needed to power the same set of cars driving the same routes by 30-40% (easily), as an internal combustion engine is a damn inefficient machine compared to any electric one - and losses in transmissions are very, very low even if you have to produce electricity in Maine to offset increased demand in New Mexico


----------



## sekelsenmat

Going back to passenger rail:



> Extension of Northstar Rail line delayed
> 
> Minnesota's first commuter rail line, the Northstar line, which opened in November of 2009 has hit a little snag in the area of the line's extension. Currently, the line goes from the Minnesota Twins' new ballpark Target Field, to Big Lake, MN. Original plans were for the line to eventually go up to Saint Cloud.
> 
> Those plans are currently on hold. According to a report in the St. Cloud Times, the Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA) will not apply for federal funding for extension of the line. NCDA cites lower-than-projected ridership numbers as one reason for not applying for funding.
> 
> Sherburne County commissioner Felix Schmiesing told the Times that compared with other transit projects around the country, the Northstar line "wasn't faring well." Northstar's low ridership numbers have been credited to lower gas prices, unemployment and the recession in general.
> 
> There are other factors as well. BNSF Railway, the owner of the tracks that Northstar Trains operate on, and NCDA couldn't come to an agreement on the price of using the tracks between Big Lake and St. Cloud. By car, it's about 28 miles along US Highway 10, the highway Northstar follows, between Big Lake and St. Cloud. That extension would extend the full Northstar route to about 70 miles.
> 
> Tuesday's elections didn't bode well for the extension, either. Several of the new members of the Minnesota Legislature who were elected on Nov. 2 have said they are opposed to Northstar funding, at least in the 2011 session. Furthermore, Jim Oberstar, the 8th District Representative in the US Congress was defeated by Chip Cravaack in the election. Oberstar was chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and was a supporter of the Northstar line.
> 
> Schmiesing also told the Times that the decision to put the extension on hold had been discussed for a few weeks; and probably would have happened, regardless of Tuesday's election. He did say that when the time comes, they will be ready to proceed.


Source: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7250541-extension-of-northstar-rail-line-delayed

Does anyone know which rail projects are actually currently under construction in the USA, as opposed to only planned?

Also, in a different source I read that the expension to Saint Cloud would add only 600 passengers each day. wow, that's incredibly small. Commuter rail riderships in the USA always amaze me by how low they are for the population amounts. Similar lines in Brazil would have between 10 and 100 times more passengers for sure.

I am rather curious, does everyone in USA have a car? Even the cleaning staff, university students and unemployed people? And no-one thinks it would be better to save the money from the car to, for example, take a large trip to the exterior?

And what do people without a car do in a place with no or very precarious public transport? Just go by foot? Hitchhiking?


----------



## sekelsenmat

USA news about commuter rails sound more like Commuter Rail Dismantelation rather then Development.

I wonder what people would think if the government wanted to close unprofitable roads...



> Rail Commuter Council Opposes Eliminating Service on Branches
> 
> Governor’s proposal is “a turkey,” says council chairman Jim Cameron.
> November 25, 2010
> 
> Governor Rell's Thanksgiving-eve proposal for elimination of commuter rail service on the New Canaan, Danbury and Waterbury branch lines of Metro-North is being met with a consistent cry from commuters… "What, is she joking?"
> 
> After being hailed for her six years of unwavering support for mass transit, this end-of-term surprise call for slashing rail service may just be a political negotiating point, but the CT Rail Commuter Council is taking no chances.
> 
> "We are contacting the thousands of commuters on our e-mail alert list," says Council Chairman and commuter Jim Cameron of Darien. "We're asking them to contact their state lawmakers and urge them to oppose this nonsensical move by the Governor."
> 
> The Governor's proposal to save $5 million by cutting rail service to 4,300 daily riders harkens back to her predecessor John Rowland's 1994 budget suggestion to shutter service on the same lines. That plan was soundly defeated by the legislature after the Commuter Council rallied riders' support.
> 
> The Council pointed out that the loss of commuter rail in communities like New Canaan and Wilton would lower real estate values by making those towns inaccessible to folks working in New York City. Lowered property values equates to lower tax revenue, less spending on schools and a downward economic spiral.
> 
> "We've just spent $60 million putting signals on the Danbury branch," notes Cameron, "and now the Governor suggests closing it down to save $5 million? This makes no sense!"
> 
> "I'm hoping every commuter, on the mainline and the targeted branch lines, will take a moment this holiday weekend to e-mail or call their State Representative and Senator and urge them to oppose this budget disaster," says Cameron.
> 
> Created by an act of the Connecticut legislature, the CT Rail Commuter Council's members are all commuters who serve without compensation as advocates of their fellow riders' interests. The CT Rail Commuter Council meets monthly with Metro-North and CDOT and testifies before state and regional boards and commissions in favor of affordable, reliable rail service in the state.
> 
> More information is available at the Council's website: www.trainweb.org/ct


http://wilton.patch.com/articles/rail-commuter-council-opposes-eliminating-service-on-branches


----------



## K_

sekelsenmat said:


> Also, in a different source I read that the expension to Saint Cloud would add only 600 passengers each day. wow, that's incredibly small. Commuter rail riderships in the USA always amaze me by how low they are for the population amounts.


The problem is that anyone trying to provide passenger rail has to work against a system that tries very hard to make it impossible. Looking at commuter rail projects in the US I see that they often need a lot more money to provide less value than equivalent services elsewhere.

There is basically no point whatsoever to invest in a rail line unless you'r going to run at least a train per hour.


----------



## K_

sekelsenmat said:


> Wrong, the buses were always more expensive, although they were faster.


I would be interested to know what intercity rail around Sao Paulo was like in the years before it got discontinued. Do you have more info?
What I have been found so far is that the "Paulista" was once a very good railway, but that lack of investment is what did it in finally. At one moment the government decided to concentrate investment on the Sao Paulo suburban network, which looks quite good.


----------



## Nexis

sekelsenmat said:


> USA news about commuter rails sound more like Commuter Rail Dismantelation rather then Development.
> 
> I wonder what people would think if the government wanted to close unprofitable roads...
> 
> 
> 
> http://wilton.patch.com/articles/rail-commuter-council-opposes-eliminating-service-on-branches


Actually she has no power to do that , she is leaving office in a few weeks and is making wacky proposals. She barely did anything her past 4 years in office. So this a empty threat....and a weird one indeed. Because she had the lines upgraded a few years ago....

*Connecticut long Term plans
*

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=106428077390771295791.000491cc098e4e5fc7e31&z=8&iwloc=000491cc230b02b6f1e1b


----------



## Nexis

sekelsenmat said:


> Going back to passenger rail:
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7250541-extension-of-northstar-rail-line-delayed
> 
> Does anyone know which rail projects are actually currently under construction in the USA, as opposed to only planned?
> 
> Also, in a different source I read that the expension to Saint Cloud would add only 600 passengers each day. wow, that's incredibly small. Commuter rail riderships in the USA always amaze me by how low they are for the population amounts. Similar lines in Brazil would have between 10 and 100 times more passengers for sure.
> 
> I am rather curious, does everyone in USA have a car? Even the cleaning staff, university students and unemployed people? And no-one thinks it would be better to save the money from the car to, for example, take a large trip to the exterior?
> 
> And what do people without a car do in a place with no or very precarious public transport? Just go by foot? Hitchhiking?


Theres a ton in my state , and there all going to add between 20,000-50,000 more commuters. Some are Intercity Commuter lines and others are regular commuter lines. The Northeast is the only region restoring a ton of Rail , 5,000 miles to be exact. The Trend now is to live in the city and without a car , so car ownership is going down. Outside the Northeast its different , its less dense and more sprawl.....so you do the Math more ppl drive. Most states in the Northeast except 2 have stop building New Highways and started investing in Rail , Bike and Bus Transit.


----------



## Nexis

*2040 Amtrak Northeastern Rail Expansion and Restoration plan*

I took the Amtrak , NYSDOT , Penndot , VADOT plans and merged them onto one map along with the proposals for High Speed Rail. Some lines will be Electrified others won't , due to usage projections. All the Diesel lines will be built with future Electrification in mind. All lines involved have dual commuter service operating on part of the line. I did not include the New Northeast Corridor , because many of us n the Rail community never see that getting built.

*Lines by State
*
*New Jersey 
*
Lehigh Express
Lackawanna Intercity line

*New York
*
Elmira line
Syracuse connection
I-90 Corridor HSL
Empire HSL
Binghamton Extension of the Lackawanna line
NYC - Montreal HSL
Empire HSL

*Connecticut 
*
New Haven - Springfield line improvements

*Massachusetts
*
Cape Cod line
I-90 Corridor HSL
Concord line
CT river Valley line improvements
Boston - Montreal HSL

*New Hampshire
*
Boston - Montreal HSL
Concord line

*Vermont*

CT river Valley line improvements
Boston - Montreal HSL

*Maine *

Bangor line
Augusta line
Brunswick line

*Pennsylvania
*
Pennsylvanian HSL
Lehigh Express
Lackawanna Intercity line

*Delaware*

Downstate Ocean City Trunk line
Salisbury Option of the Downstate line

*Maryland*

Salisbury Option of the Downstate line

*Virgina *

Transdominion Express Western line
Transdominion Express - Richmond line
Norfolk line
Richmond HSL

*Line status
*
Lehigh Express 
Lackawanna Intercity line - Construction started in the Summer , phase 1 opens in 2012
Elmira line 
Syracuse connection
Binghamton Extension of the Lackawanna line 
New Haven - Springfield line improvements - Construction started a few weeks ago 
Cape Cod line
CT river Valley line improvements
Concord line
Bangor line
Augusta line
Brunswick line - UC 
Downstate Ocean City Trunk line
Salisbury Option of the Downstate line
Transdominion Express Western line
Transdominion Express - Richmond line
Norfolk line - UC 

Richmond HSL - Construction starts in 2011
I-90 Corridor HSL - late phases of planning
Empire HSL - late phases of planning 
Pennsylvanian HSL 
Boston - Montreal HSL 
NYC - Montreal HSL

*http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=106428077390771295791.000495faae61adef75603&ll=44.119142,-76.904297&spn=16.779288,39.506836&t=p&z=5&iwloc=000495ff1e2ee171a9580*

*Line Length
*
Lehigh Express - 178 mi
Lackawanna Intercity line - 136 mi
Elmira line - 59 mi
Syracuse connection - 80 mi
Binghamton Extension of the Lackawanna line - 59 mi 
New Haven - Springfield line improvements - 61 mi
Cape Cod line - 90 mi 
CT river Valley line improvements - 120 m9
Concord line - 74 mi
Bangor line - 123 mi
Augusta line - 51 mi
Brunswick line - 28 mi
Downstate Ocean City Trunk line - 120 mi
Salisbury Option of the Downstate line - 67 mi
Transdominion Express Western line - 356 mi 
Transdominion Express Richmond line - 109 mi
Norfolk line - 109 mi

Richmond HSL - 107 mi
I-90 Corridor HSL - 431 mi
Empire HSL - 140 mi 
Pennsylvanian HSL - 282 mi
Boston - Montreal HSL - 278 mi
NYC - Montreal HSL - 210 mi


*Line power sources
*
Lehigh Express - Electrified 

Lackawanna Intercity line - Electrified 

Elmira line - Electrified 

Syracuse connection - Electrified 

Binghamton Extension of the Lackawanna line - Electrified 

New Haven - Springfield line improvements - Electrified 

Cape Cod line - Diesel 

CT river Valley line improvements - Electrified 

Concord line - Diesel 

Bangor line - Diesel 

Augusta line - Diesel 

Brunswick line - Diesel 

Downstate Ocean City Trunk line - Diesel 

Salisbury Option of the Downstate line - Diesel 

Transdominion Express Western line - Diesel 

Transdominion Express Richmond line - Diesel 

Norfolk line - Diesel


----------



## Nexis

Here was Rell a few weeks ago..... I talked to my MNRR friend and he said CTDOT can't do that by law. Also all the Branch line towns are against this since they have projects that connected into the Rail lines. Rell only has a few weeks left in Office , so she can't really do anything. CT has a no New Highway policy , so it hasn't built anymore Highways. Most Northeastern states are doing that , were focusing on the Highways we have and enhancing Transit. CT has been injecting $$$ into the New Haven line and planning to upgrade the Branch lines , which is another reason why this makes no sense.


----------



## Suburbanist

Nexis said:


> Also all the Branch line towns are against this since they have projects that connected into the Rail lines. Rell only has a few weeks left in Office , so she can't really do anything. CT has a no New Highway policy , so it hasn't built anymore Highways. Most Northeastern states are doing that , were focusing on the Highways we have and enhancing Transit.


Your information about "no new highways" is just wrong. Many states over there are rather small and already have a basic road network, so most projects concern widening, which is completely different of saying they have a "no new highway policy". They would be stupid to forgo federal monies for highway construction out of a stupid policy.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> Your information about "no new highways" is just wrong. Many states over there are rather small and already have a basic road network, so most projects concern widening, which is completely different of saying they have a "no new highway policy". They would be stupid to forgo federal monies for highway construction out of a stupid policy.


I should have said a Transit over Highways policy which they do have and so do they other New England states. They are still enchancing there highways and replacing there bridges.


----------



## hammersklavier

MarcVD said:


> You might however note that
> 
> 1) what is hurting a power grid is essentially *the peak demand*.
> 2) an electric vehicle can only be recharged when it is not used. For
> most people, that means during the night.
> 
> Therefore, recharging electric vehicles will only marginally increase the peak
> demand on the electric grid, which means that only limited efforts will be
> required to make it able to sustain it.
> 
> If there are still too many people who recharge their car during the day, or
> during the peak hours, putting in place "incentives" to change this behaviour
> (like time-differentiated tariffs) will be much less expensive than re-
> engineering the power grid.
> 
> On the other hand, electric production always had a lot of difficulties to adapt
> to a varying load : best efficiencies being obtained when the load remains
> constant. To that effect, nightly battery recharges might contribute to
> reduce the load difference between the day and the night, and therefore
> contribute to a better overall efficiency of electricity production.


...which, in so many words, creates a new problem. I don't doubt your assertion is correct; however, how would you respond to my counter-assertion that each house charging 2-4 electrical vehicles at night is akin to that house running 2-3 a/c units (I'm not too sure how the numbers pan out), as well as heating (if it's electric) or a/c, depending on season--these are what create peak demand--all night long?

You'd lose the current predictable peak/trough cycle, which allows maintenance to be performed during trough periods, and generate a whole new cycle of continuous running, which, in turn, incurs its own problems.

Again, looking at electric vehicles as a 1-1 replacement to internal combustion is not the solution. Electric vehicles are part of the solution, but not the be-all-end-all solution.

Sorry for getting off topic--especially to you, Nexis, where you know my Skyscraper Page posting habits--but I just kinda had the brainstorm working on a post for this thread, and it snowballed from there.


----------



## MarcVD

hammersklavier said:


> ...which, in so many words, creates a new problem. I don't doubt your assertion is correct; however, how would you respond to my counter-assertion that each house charging 2-4 electrical vehicles at night is akin to that house running 2-3 a/c units (I'm not too sure how the numbers pan out), as well as heating (if it's electric) or a/c, depending on season--these are what create peak demand--all night long?


Let's try to verify that with some computation... What is the typical
capacity of an all-electric car battery today ?


----------



## sekelsenmat

K_ said:


> I would be interested to know what intercity rail around Sao Paulo was like in the years before it got discontinued. Do you have more info?
> What I have been found so far is that the "Paulista" was once a very good railway, but that lack of investment is what did it in finally. At one moment the government decided to concentrate investment on the Sao Paulo suburban network, which looks quite good.


The problem is not how the lines were. It is clear that they were very bad. I don't have more precise data because it is very hard to find, there is almost none in the internet, not even how many trains per day operated. It looks like the only solution is finding someone over 40 who used the trains and inverview him. From the ANTT website I remember that São Paulo-Araraquara carried around 2.000 people per day in it's last year, but the site seams down to day, so I can't check. In general, the investments on the rail infra-structure of São Paulo between 1960 and 1980 can only be described as tiny, and between 1980 and 2010 it was actually depredation rather then investiment. Better only then Ethiopia maybe.

The real problem of closing the line even if it was bad, is the same one faced in the USA: The government abandoned rail and favoured cars to such a huge extent that most people don't even image that public transport can be a viable alternative. The results are there: Pollution, 40.000 dead per years in accidents, hundreds thousends more invalid, etc.

But, the public doesn't think this is terrible and that the government should focus on public transport instead, because there is no notion at all that another kind of transport is possible. When I lived only in Piracicaba-SP I too wouldn't imagine that public transport is a serious option. With almost 400.000 inhabitants, the city of Piracicaba has a ridiculous public transport. Buses come whenever they want, there are no time tables in the bus stops. Similarly there are no sign of which buses stop. Intervals are huge except in a couple of main lines. The buses are so bad that if you are going to a distance of up to 4km going by foot is faster, or at least more reliable.

Knowing only this reality people don't think that public transport should be better. It simply seams natural that it is horrible and that it isn't possible for it to be better. Building light rail and intercity rail is not imagined as a solution because most people have never seen these things in their lives!!! If a politician proposes them, then most people will think it is a joke, it isn't serious and won't vote for him. It's like proposing teletransportation, people take it as something alien and impossible, even if you say that it works in even poorer countries.

Similarly I imagine that in the USA most people outside of the Northeast have never seen a good transport network and will never imagine it as a transport solution and an way to save a lot of money from transport which you can then spend somewhere else.

If you ask for people in Poland, on the other hand, the vast majority is in favor of public transport being the priority, because people can see that it can work really well. Poland is not richer then São Paulo, but still they have an excelent public transport.

Summing up: By dismantling the rail network the government pretty much ensured that there won't be support from the public for rebuilding it, because noone has even used in their lives a good public transport network of light rail and intercity trains and therefore won't consider this as a solution.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ This is just whining. I'll create a thread to bash the outdated Brazilian railway system and discuss its modernization USA-style, a.k.a, focusing on what matters for a country that, like US, has a good chunk of bulk freight, relatively few waterways and is sparsely populated.

I'll not do it here to avoid derailing the thread, but as a half-Brazilian I say, for now, that I'm glad that our government stopped pouring money in that black-hole that was its railway system before privatization in 1996.

Non-metropolitan railways receive ZERO subsidies there (like in US), government is constructing some lines, freight-only, but will not operate trains over them (they will be open access railways), and Brazilians taxpayers got away with a huge bill for overpaid, lazy, fat-cats and members of an oversized workforce of rail workers, the worse political and corruption-ridden union-dominated profession after the oil industry union.

Brazil, to the extent such comparisons can be drawn, is much more akin to US (population density, origin-destination freight profile) than to Europe. There is no way either country should, albeit for different reasons, try to think they will ever have a passenger system like Europe. US doesn't need it, Brazil doesn't need it - and I'll make my point into a new or revived thread in this very section.

US is also a very individualistic country, thank God, and that models attitudes toward public transportation to a certain, and only to a certain, extent. Brazilians should look more to Americans than to Poles, no offense or mistreat intended, as US offers a far more attractive paradigm of what a wealthy Brazil's life could be than Poland, which suffered from wars, communist ruling, centuries of being pawn between Prussia/Germany and Russia etc.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ This is just whining. I'll create a thread to bash the outdated Brazilian railway system and discuss its modernization USA-style, a.k.a, focusing on what matters for a country that, like US, has a good chunk of bulk freight, relatively few waterways and is sparsely populated.
> 
> I'll not do it here to avoid derailing the thread, but as a half-Brazilian I say, for now, that I'm glad that our government stopped pouring money in that black-hole that was its railway system before privatization in 1996.
> 
> Non-metropolitan railways receive ZERO subsidies there (like in US), government is constructing some lines, freight-only, but will not operate trains over them (they will be open access railways), and Brazilians taxpayers got away with a huge bill for overpaid, lazy, fat-cats and members of an oversized workforce of rail workers, the worse political and corruption-ridden union-dominated profession after the oil industry union.
> 
> Brazil, to the extent such comparisons can be drawn, is much more akin to US (population density, origin-destination freight profile) than to Europe. There is no way either country should, albeit for different reasons, try to think they will ever have a passenger system like Europe. US doesn't need it, Brazil doesn't need it - and I'll make my point into a new or revived thread in this very section.
> 
> *US is also a very individualistic country, thank God, and that models attitudes toward public transportation to a certain, and only to a certain, extent. Brazilians should look more to Americans than to Poles, no offense or mistreat intended, as US offers a far more attractive paradigm of what a wealthy Brazil's life could be than Poland, which suffered from wars, communist ruling, centuries of being pawn between Prussia/Germany and Russia etc.*


Your wrong , again the Attitudes towards Transit and Rail have changed in most Americans minds. Just like the Attitudes towards Gays and Immigrants have change , it may not appear that to be that way but it has. Maybe you should research some more before spouting your views on how you "think we Americans want". Over the last decade things have changed , mostly in the Northeast , Midwest and West Coast , the only opposition is coming form Rural Republicans and Southern Republicans which are corrupted by the Oil companies. Don't mention any projects that have been canceled by Republicans in the Northeast , because you don't know then full story.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ So, in your opinion, all that stands between America and the transit utopia where people leave McMansions and Ford Explorers behind for good and forever are a bunch of Southeastern Congressmen fueled (pun intended) by oil companies? :lol:


----------



## Geography

> I am rather curious, does everyone in USA have a car? Even the cleaning staff, university students and unemployed people? And no-one thinks it would be better to save the money from the car to, for example, take a large trip to the exterior?
> 
> And what do people without a car do in a place with no or very precarious public transport? Just go by foot? Hitchhiking?


Pretty much every family has a car, they are almost as ubiquitous as cell phones. College students much less so, but they live on or close to campus and can take the bus. Not having a car is tough but doable as I have witnessed many of my international student friends pull it off. They rely on friends with cars and take the bus around the inner city. Having a car greatly increases one's quality of life in the U.S.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ So, in your opinion, all that stands between America and the transit utopia where people leave McMansions and Ford Explorers behind for good and forever are a bunch of Southeastern Congressmen fueled (pun intended) by oil companies? :lol:


I'm talking about the Northeast more then the rest of the country , where far more advanced then any other part.... The South holds back alot of large transit funding $$$ , there against alot of other things , there also the most poor and uneducated region. Which explains why they keep voting for stupid lying congressmen. But if you look at once Auto-Centric Northern Virgina you'll notice a change to more Transit centric living. If the area is too spread out then Buses and bike lanes serve that area , if the area is more dense then Trams and Metro rail serve it. Regional Rail services the Satilite towns and cities. Ridership of all the Northeastern systems has been growing for the past 15 years , most systems surpassed there 1970s levels. All these areas will have Intercity or Regional Rail by 2040... and the population and densities support it. The Suburbs are being turned into Denser city - suburbs......your suburban utopia is dying.....











The 2040 Amtrak plan


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1266669

*The Northeastern Megalopolis
*










35 Million use Transit each day

Location: The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic seaboard - From Northern Virginia to Southern Maine, bounded by the Appalachian Mountains to the west by the Appalachian Mountains to the west.

Principal Cities: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C.

Population 2000: 49,563,296

Percent of U.S. Population: 18%

Population 2025: 58,124,740

Projected Growth: 18%

2005 GDP: $2,591,075,000,000

Percent of US GDP: 21%


----------



## sekelsenmat

Suburbanist said:


> Brazil, to the extent such comparisons can be drawn, is much more akin to US (population density, origin-destination freight profile) than to Europe. There is no way either country should, albeit for different reasons, try to think they will ever have a passenger system like Europe. US doesn't need it, Brazil doesn't need it - and I'll make my point into a new or revived thread in this very section.


Your oppinion as someone who doesn't use public transport anyway.

I use public transport and I can guarantee that Brazil needs fast intercity trains and wide-spread light rail. It would dramatically increase the quality of life of people who commute between cities in Brazil. Commuting between São Paulo and Campinas, between Piracicaba and Campinas, between Limeira and Piracicaba, etc, etc, like so many people do dayly, whould be much faster, safer, cleaner and confortable with intercity trains and light rail wide-spread like in Poland.

Plus, it's not really at all about Europe versus Brazil and USA. The brazilian north-east coast and the southeast are denser then many european countries with excelent rail networks (Poland for example). I doubt you think that Europe needs it's passenger rail network either. Or do you?



> Brazilians should look more to Americans than to Poles, no offense or mistreat intended, as US offers a far more attractive paradigm of what a wealthy Brazil's life could be than Poland, which suffered from wars, communist ruling, centuries of being pawn between Prussia/Germany and Russia etc.


I don't follow up what historical power has to do with it?


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Geez, another "this is 'better' America" argument. It's really hard to keep the discussion if you assume, beforehand, that part of America (the one where you live, of course) is better than the rest of the country, live the place where I lived (Laramie, Wyoming), and that other regions voters' stupidity is what is blocking the advancement of US... 

Tea Party almost won with their 2nd wackiest candidate in the Northeast. Only that even wackier lady from Nevada beat her...


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Geez, another "this is 'better' America" argument. It's really hard to keep the discussion if you assume, beforehand, that part of America (the one where you live, of course) is better than the rest of the country, live the place where I lived (Laramie, Wyoming), and that other regions voters' stupidity is what is blocking the advancement of US...
> 
> Tea Party almost won with their 2nd wackiest candidate in the Northeast. Only that even wackier lady from Nevada beat her...


Actually the Nevada lady lost , the tea party lost half its canadaites. I doubt you live in Wyoming , i also doubt you lived in Brazil. You seem to have lived everywhere on this planet which is impossible.... I think one day in the not so distance future the US will break up or the Northeast or South will succeed form the union.


----------



## Suburbanist

Nexis said:


> I doubt you live in Wyoming , i also doubt you lived in Brazil.


ROFL, do you want my University of Wyoming card copy? And now to have lived in 4 countries until my 20's is impossible? ROFL



> I think one day in the not so distance future the US will break up or the Northeast or South will succeed form the union.


Geez, Lincoln must be rolling on his rest place


----------



## sekelsenmat

> DeBary urges development near future train depot
> By MARK HARPER, Staff writer
> 
> Posted in: West Volusia
> Tagged: SunRail
> November 30, 2010 12:05 AM Posted in: West Volusia
> Tagged: SunRail
> 
> DeBary city officials are trying to encourage the transformation of a lonely rail crossing into a bustling area of four-story, mixed-use buildings that will attract train commuters and high-density dwellers.
> 
> One of their tools -- the land-development code -- is being honed for approvals at City Council meetings on Dec. 15 and 29. A public hearing at 5 p.m. Wednesday at City Hall will give residents a chance to comment.
> 
> The location of a future SunRail commuter train platform, just west of U.S. 17-92 on Fort Florida Road, sees little traffic. When the commuter rail starts in 2013, DeBary will be the northernmost stop on a line that will extend to Orlando and beyond. Transportation planners say the success of such commuter-rail lines depends upon people living and working in close proximity to stops.
> 
> "We have this opportunity. The council wants to follow through with it," City Manager Dan Parrott said.
> 
> In addition to encouraging higher-density uses and taller buildings closer to the rail platform, the code also requires wider sidewalks, bike paths and more landscaping and trees. For instance, the code allows four-story, mixed-use buildings within the core area of the development, and three-story buildings beyond it, Parrott said.
> 
> "The closer you are to the station, the denser and more intensity you can have," he said.
> 
> The intent of DeBary's code is not to require development to be certain things, but to encourage it, Councilman Norm Erickson said.
> 
> Landowners who already have their desired zoning in the area would only be asked to consider opting into following the code.
> 
> "In a sense, it puts the market into the scenario," he said. "It's our hope that business owners and landowners down there will be offered deals or "incentives."
> 
> Parrott said one incentive to opt into the code will be a streamlined process of approvals from the city.


===

source: http://www.news-journalonline.com/n...rges-development-near-future-train-depot.html


----------



## hammersklavier

That Suburbanist lived in Wyoming...no wonder he thinks the U.S.of.A. is a big wide-open prarie!

So some facts. Fact #1. The United States as a whole is much denser east of the Mississippi than west of it. About as dense as France, in fact. In the Northeast, it is denser still--as dense as the Benelux. The Californian urban entities are likewise denser than the rest of the West.

Fact #2. The urban patterns east of the Mississippi and west of it differ substantially. The eastern urban-settlement patterns are, in fact, not so different from their European counterparts. City bleeds into country bleeds into city again, and even the countryside is fairly heavily populated. West of it, though, the cities are disparate entities without much in between. As a consequence of this, HSR in the American west would be mostly point-to-point type services, since there are maybe two or three good places to stop between, say, Phoenix and Albuquerque, or Denver and Kansas City. In the East, by contrast, with the far denser settlement patterns, there are a good deal more places to stop at, which fuels higher ridership.

Fact #3. Despite serious disinvestment, U.S. transit ridership has been rising constantly for the past decade. I've seen the charts in person as part of my professional and technical expertise. This has happened _despite_ continuing disinvestment and funding procurement problems on e.g. SEPTA (Philadelphia's mass-transit network).

Fact #4. A Northeast HSR for _half_ Amtrak's current proposal's price tag is feasible. Drop those new ROWs and that ridiculous seven-mile long deep-bore tunnel through the heart of Philadelphia, and instead use current alignments with much shorter tunnels and flyovers to ease the sharpest curves. Utilize existing station infrastructure wherever possible, and be aware that it's OK to have tighter curves on station leads where there's no reason for the trains to be going anywhere near 150 mph anyway. Simple things like that.* Reduced capital costs means reduced debt services means faster profitability.
_____________________
* Remind me to write a letter to Rep. Mica (R-FL, Chairman-to-be, Senate Transportation Committee) telling him this, considering he's already on board with NE HSR anyway.


----------



## Nexis

hammersklavier said:


> That Suburbanist lived in Wyoming...no wonder he thinks the U.S.of.A. is a big wide-open prarie!
> 
> So some facts. Fact #1. The United States as a whole is much denser east of the Mississippi than west of it. About as dense as France, in fact. In the Northeast, it is denser still--as dense as the Benelux. The Californian urban entities are likewise denser than the rest of the West.
> 
> Fact #2. The urban patterns east of the Mississippi and west of it differ substantially. The eastern urban-settlement patterns are, in fact, not so different from their European counterparts. City bleeds into country bleeds into city again, and even the countryside is fairly heavily populated. West of it, though, the cities are disparate entities without much in between. As a consequence of this, HSR in the American west would be mostly point-to-point type services, since there are maybe two or three good places to stop between, say, Phoenix and Albuquerque, or Denver and Kansas City. In the East, by contrast, with the far denser settlement patterns, there are a good deal more places to stop at, which fuels higher ridership.
> 
> Fact #3. Despite serious disinvestment, U.S. transit ridership has been rising constantly for the past decade. I've seen the charts in person as part of my professional and technical expertise. This has happened _despite_ continuing disinvestment and funding procurement problems on e.g. SEPTA (Philadelphia's mass-transit network).
> 
> Fact #4. A Northeast HSR for _half_ Amtrak's current proposal's price tag is feasible. Drop those new ROWs and that ridiculous seven-mile long deep-bore tunnel through the heart of Philadelphia, and instead use current alignments with much shorter tunnels and flyovers to ease the sharpest curves. Utilize existing station infrastructure wherever possible, and be aware that it's OK to have tighter curves on station leads where there's no reason for the trains to be going anywhere near 150 mph anyway. Simple things like that.* Reduced capital costs means reduced debt services means faster profitability.
> _____________________
> * Remind me to write a letter to Rep. Mica (R-FL, Chairman-to-be, Senate Transportation Committee) telling him this, considering he's already on board with NE HSR anyway.


Well all the Intercity lines are in planning or UC....there mostly cheap lines that would at least 15,000-30,000 each to the Amtrak system. These are also easy to restore or expand type of lines , mostly needing New Tracks , signals , and slight bridge / tunnels. No New Bridges or any large scale construction is needed. As for the ROW it was purchased decades ago or is owned by another Transit / Dot agency. 

The HSR lines are all proposed , but like you said the New Mica guy supports NE HSR so getting funding sound be easier.


----------



## BE0GRAD

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Geez, another "this is 'better' America" argument. It's really hard to keep the discussion if you assume, beforehand, that part of America (the one where you live, of course) is better than the rest of the country, live the place where I lived (Laramie, Wyoming), and that other regions voters' stupidity is what is blocking the advancement of US...
> 
> Tea Party almost won with their 2nd wackiest candidate in the Northeast. Only that even wackier lady from Nevada beat her...


Proof that democracy is not necessarily a good thing.


----------



## Suburbanist

BE0GRAD said:


> Proof that democracy is not necessarily a good thing.


Though not perfect, democracy is less worse than any other regime, beggnning with dictatorship-sponsored infrastructure projects in China.


----------



## Mika Montwald

Suburbanist said:


> Though not perfect, democracy is less worse than any other regime, beggnning with dictatorship-sponsored infrastructure projects in China.


Yet, the US is thinking very hard -- on conning China (the BIGGEST american Banker) to finance their HST build up using ZERO Down payment method. :baeh3:

Someone need to jail the China government officials who are so foolish to even consider transferring the China HST tech to GE for a bunch of worthless USD Toilet Paper for treason.

US the #1 democracy in the world should be strong and smart enough to INVENT and build their OWN HST system from scratch, instead of buying other nation HST technology. US is not some Porky Republic run by a bunch of stupid ********.


----------



## hammersklavier

Mika Montwald said:


> Yet, the US is thinking very hard -- on conning China (the BIGGEST american Banker) to finance their HST build up using ZERO Down payment method. :baeh3:
> 
> Someone need to jail the China government officials who are so foolish to even consider transferring the China HST tech to GE for a bunch of worthless USD Toilet Paper for treason.
> 
> *US the #1 democracy in the world should be strong and smart enough to INVENT and build their OWN HST system from scratch, instead of buying other nation HST technology.* US is not some Porky Republic run by a bunch of stupid ********.


Trouble is, that statement was more true in 1980. If GE wants in on the market, they can ill afford to spend some 15 years in R&D to create a new HST technology (besides, their "innovations"--I'm looking at you, Aero Train--don't have a good track record). Korea's Rotem basically got Alstom's 1990 TGV tech as a starter kit and look what novel directions they've gone with it.

GE's 30 years behind the 8-ball here and I'm sure they know it.


----------



## sekelsenmat

Mika Montwald said:


> Yet, the US is thinking very hard -- on conning China (the BIGGEST american Banker) to finance their HST build up using ZERO Down payment method. :baeh3:
> 
> Someone need to jail the China government officials who are so foolish to even consider transferring the China HST tech to GE for a bunch of worthless USD Toilet Paper for treason.


If China was more clever, it would simply buy US companies instead of buying useless 0% US government titles to get rid of their dollars. It would succeed in getting rid of the dollars to keep the yuan undervaluated and would give them cash cows in the process.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ It has also to do with a shift to financial short-term performance in most Western industrial companies as industry became less and less important in the economic portfolio of developed rich nations. Under a financial managerial POV, it is absolutely non-sense to spend 15 years and billions to develop a product (HST systems + vehicles) whose demand was (15 years ago) dubious. Any decent M&A or financial buyout strategy would have paid off more than investing in R&D for a new train.

However, for what is best and worse, these days of excessive focus on financial non-operational activities as the core of industrial companies are winding out.


----------



## Mika Montwald

sekelsenmat said:


> If China was more clever, it would simply buy US companies instead of buying useless 0% US government titles to get rid of their dollars. ... ...


Sorry: Off Topic -- The next back & forth replies will be via PM

1) Plenty of Senior China government officials :bash: are so *stupid* and *idiotic* when they are evaluating about US general public opinion regarding China. These government officials are so brainwashed that they are NOT able to see that 85% of US general public are treating China as their public enemy #1 forever. 


2) 99% of U.S. lawmakers and 85% of US general public will ALWAYS BLOCK every investment (Jobs creation projects in America) coming from China for the reason of *national security*. 

This (Jobs creation projects in America) investments from China blocking has been going on for a long, long time. 
Please check the story below:




> ... ...
> A bipartisan group of 50 U.S. lawmakers called on Friday for an investigation into whether a Chinese investment in the U.S. steel sector should be blocked on national security grounds ... ...


Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6614HC20100702


----------



## dumbfword

look who is trolling the US rail thread now.. Mika. Are American or European companies allowed to buy PRC Steel companies?


----------



## dumbfword

Mika Montwald said:


> Yet, the US is thinking very hard -- on conning China (the BIGGEST american Banker) to finance their HST build up using ZERO Down payment method. :baeh3:
> 
> Someone need to jail the China government officials who are so foolish to even consider transferring the China HST tech to GE for a bunch of worthless USD Toilet Paper for treason.
> 
> *US the #1 democracy in the world should be strong and smart enough to INVENT and build their OWN HST system from scratch, instead of buying other nation HST technology. US is not some Porky Republic run by a bunch of stupid ********.*


:lol::lol::lol: Wasn't this how Chinese High speed rail got started? If your gonna try to troll. At least be consistent. Guess China should send back everything European or Japanese related and start over.


----------



## hmmwv

Suburbanist said:


> Though not perfect, democracy is less worse than any other regime, beggnning with dictatorship-sponsored infrastructure projects in China.


That's true in many area, however in terms of infrastructure, the recent investment did benefit the general population more than anybody. That's also why I think the US government should never treat infrastructure projects as nothing but political capital. Compare to tax cuts, the impact may not be as direct or as quickly, but in the long run they will keep this nation strong.


----------



## hmmwv

hammersklavier said:


> Trouble is, that statement was more true in 1980. If GE wants in on the market, they can ill afford to spend some 15 years in R&D to create a new HST technology (besides, their "innovations"--I'm looking at you, Aero Train--don't have a good track record). Korea's Rotem basically got Alstom's 1990 TGV tech as a starter kit and look what novel directions they've gone with it.
> 
> GE's 30 years behind the 8-ball here and I'm sure they know it.


I don't think GE is technically behind that much, they still have a world class engineering team that Chinese companies can only dream about. CNR or CSR is currently ahead simply because they are in the HSR market, and GE is not, if GE put its mind into it I doubt it'll be too difficult to catch up. Just look at who's pulling trains going to Tibet, it's a fleet of 78 GE NJ2 locomotives.


----------



## Suburbanist

hmmwv said:


> That's true in many area, however in terms of infrastructure, the recent investment did benefit the general population more than anybody. That's also why I think the US government should never treat infrastructure projects as nothing but political capital.


This is just a sum of, IMO, a 30-years overreaction by a poisoned coalition of environwackos and NIMBYs.

The single greatest public works projects, namely the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, was designed, financed and built by a democratic government.

However, it wouldn't stand a chance if it was being planned from scratch now because every single tree cutting requires a permit, an environmental useless assessment and so. But laws can be changed and infrastructure design and permit phases streamlined.


----------



## hmmwv

Our great interstate's full name is "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways." So it's partially a national defense installation from the beginning. I guess the only way HSR can become a reality is that Pentagon wants to build a HSR network to mobilize ICBMs.


----------



## BE0GRAD

Suburbanist said:


> Though not perfect, democracy is less worse than any other regime, beggnning with dictatorship-sponsored infrastructure projects in China.


Democracy means that the state is run by often ignorant and/or uneducated masses. But the masses running the state is not the problem. The problem is that the behavior of these same masses is overwhelmingly being shaped by large corporations ... mostly by various forms of propaganda in the medias. So we have the situation that large corporations are the real decision makers in western democracies. 

Undemocratic regimes, if well organized, can offer much more prosperity and progress for their inhabitants because their specter of actions is not confined by public opinion which is on its turn created by the large corporations. So we have the example of China which in couple of years did what the West had done in couple of decades. China is doing much more on developing renewable energy sources than US. Why? Because in the US they have powerful corporations who are turning the people against it via media and blocking the necessary legislation via the so called representatives of the people in the legislative bodies that actually work for them. I believe China's politics is much more influenced by science and experts who know what they are doing and not by the populists elected by the brainwashed people.


----------



## Mika Montwald

BE0GRAD said:


> Democracy means that the state is run by often *ignorant and/or uneducated masses*. But the masses running the state is not the problem. The problem is that the behavior of these same masses is overwhelmingly being shaped by large corporations ... mostly by various forms of propaganda in the medias. So we have the situation that large corporations are the real decision makers in western democracies.
> 
> Undemocratic regimes, if well organized, can offer much more prosperity and progress for their inhabitants because their specter of actions is not confined by public opinion which is on its turn created by the large corporations. So we have the example of China which in couple of years did what the West had done in couple of decades. China is doing much more on developing renewable energy sources than US. Why? Because in the US they have powerful corporations who are turning the people against it via media and blocking the necessary legislation via the so called representatives of the people in the legislative bodies that actually work for them. I believe China's politics is much more influenced by science and experts who know what they are doing and not by the populists elected by the brainwashed people.


:applause:
Thank you. Bravo, very well articulated!


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Yeah, in China they censor media, bully Nobel Prize commission, shut up and jail dissidents, crack upon minorities, don't care about individual rights when preempting and taking property but, well, they build nice infrastructure so that is all fine?

Hitler build some very nice infrastructure in Germany too. And his hateful policies were supposedly scientific by the time.

Your argument is very totalitarian, based on an assumption that people cannot think of themselves and need "rulers" to punish them for being "dumb" and knowing "what is best for them" and imposing such policies regardless of everything and, worse, without giving you the right to protest or oppose. Forced social cohesion, done with heavy censorship (Google-affair anyone?), state-controlled press and etc.

Sorry, if you are envy of the evil Chinese government, apply now for a visa to China, then don't complain when you get framed and railroaded by a corrupt local office and shot to death in a made-up allegation. Then the cost of the bullet will be charged to your family here in Europe (assuming you live in Serbia).

If people are brainwashed, it's their fault. In a time of Internet (not censored, in opposition to what happens in China), it's people's own fault if they get brainwashed. Then, if they elect the "wrong" representatives, it is the people's fault, and then they deserve dysfunctional government they might get. If people "couldn't care less" about politics and elections, then, again, they deserve the results - uncontrolled partisanship and gridlock. *Information has never been so easily accessible and if people don't want to think, it's their own choice. 30 years ago you'd have night-time newscast and so, today we have Internet*

This tolerance of dictatorship governments as a trade-off for a government who "actually put projects forward" is very worrisome for me here on SSC. Never mind the oppressed Chinese, those who had their houses seized without compensation, or other property stolen, or relatives imprisoned by the only crime of disagreeing with a petty government officer cannot speak most of the time... So it seems YOU are the one brainwashed with the evil-rooted success of the Chinese government, which I hope will fail, and fail big and in shame ASAP, like other communists governments did in the late 80's in Eastern Europe.


----------



## K_

BE0GRAD said:


> Undemocratic regimes, if well organized, can offer much more prosperity and progress for their inhabitants because their specter of actions is not confined by public opinion which is on its turn created by the large corporations. So we have the example of China which in couple of years did what the West had done in couple of decades.


What China is doing is not that much different from what the West did when it had just started industrializing. The bulk of the current European and American railway network was build in just a few decades. When you start from way back you can make a lot of progress initially, and China has the advantage of being part of a 21st century world. If technology to run trains at 300kph per hour had been available in 1830 Europe would have had 100000 km of high speed rail by 1860.



> China is doing much more on developing renewable energy sources than US.


I doubt that statement is actually true...



> Why? Because in the US they have powerful corporations who are turning the people against it via media and blocking the necessary legislation via the so called representatives of the people in the legislative bodies that actually work for them.


I find it always weird to see people with an anti corporation agenda argue in a way that implies they believe they are motivated by everything but making money...


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> This tolerance of dictatorship governments as a trade-off for a government who "actually put projects forward" is very worrisome for me here on SSC. Never mind the oppressed Chinese, those who had their houses seized without compensation, or other property stolen, or relatives imprisoned by the only crime of disagreeing with a petty government officer cannot speak most of the time... So it seems YOU are the one brainwashed with the evil-rooted success of the Chinese government, which I hope will fail, and fail big and in shame ASAP, like other communists governments did in the late 80's in Eastern Europe.


You know, you've actually managed to post something that I 100% agree with.


----------



## BE0GRAD

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Yeah, in China they censor media, bully Nobel Prize commission, shut up and jail dissidents, crack upon minorities, don't care about individual rights when preempting and taking property but, well, they build nice infrastructure so that is all fine?
> 
> Hitler build some very nice infrastructure in Germany too. And his hateful policies were supposedly scientific by the time.
> 
> Your argument is very totalitarian, based on an assumption that people cannot think of themselves and need "rulers" to punish them for being "dumb" and knowing "what is best for them" and imposing such policies regardless of everything and, worse, without giving you the right to protest or oppose. Forced social cohesion, done with heavy censorship (Google-affair anyone?), state-controlled press and etc.
> 
> Sorry, if you are envy of the evil Chinese government, apply now for a visa to China, then don't complain when you get framed and railroaded by a corrupt local office and shot to death in a made-up allegation. Then the cost of the bullet will be charged to your family here in Europe (assuming you live in Serbia).
> 
> If people are brainwashed, it's their fault. In a time of Internet (not censored, in opposition to what happens in China), it's people's own fault if they get brainwashed. Then, if they elect the "wrong" representatives, it is the people's fault, and then they deserve dysfunctional government they might get. If people "couldn't care less" about politics and elections, then, again, they deserve the results - uncontrolled partisanship and gridlock. *Information has never been so easily accessible and if people don't want to think, it's their own choice. 30 years ago you'd have night-time newscast and so, today we have Internet*
> 
> This tolerance of dictatorship governments as a trade-off for a government who "actually put projects forward" is very worrisome for me here on SSC. Never mind the oppressed Chinese, those who had their houses seized without compensation, or other property stolen, or relatives imprisoned by the only crime of disagreeing with a petty government officer cannot speak most of the time... So it seems YOU are the one brainwashed with the evil-rooted success of the Chinese government, which I hope will fail, and fail big and in shame ASAP, like other communists governments did in the late 80's in Eastern Europe.


I could hardly be brainwashed by the Chinese since I don't follow their media and don't speak the language. 

Anyway, although it seams like that , I don't prefer undemocratic regimes and I wouldn't like to see Serbia becoming undemocratic. On the other hand, I would like to see a more active and more responsible state which will make attention from where its inhabitants get information and if that information has a hidden agenda. 

As a Serb I know very well how western propaganda works. It doesn't necessarily lie but definitely doesn't say the entire truth. That's how today most people in the West believe that Serbia is a "Nazi Germany of the Balkans" , that only Serbs are war criminals and that Kosovo deserved independence. That's how Americans believed that Iraq had WMD , that they are fighting for "freedom and democracy" etc. 

It is interesting that the West always speaks of tolerating the differences ,but when someone thinks or functions differently than them they show all but tolerance. China has its own system and it works very well. It has serious faults but that can be considered a lesser evil. It will become more democratic over time, but only when it is ready and not when the West decides. 

As for Nobel Peace Prize ... that is just a show with political nature rewarding persons who lobbied the most for western interests. USA attacks a country every few years yet the presidents ordering these attacks get a "peace prize". Gorbachov got a prize for destroying USSR, Liu and Dalai Liama for sabotaging China etc. None of these persons did anything for world peace.


----------



## BE0GRAD

K_ said:


> I find it always weird to see people with an anti corporation agenda argue in a way that implies they believe they are motivated by everything but making money...


I actually do think that they are interested only in making money. That's why creating a consumer mentality suits them well.


----------



## Nexis

Can we please save the US vs. the World or China for another thread......

Over the next few days i will be showing off US systems in Detail....mostly the Northeastern US.....

Now back to US Railway projects.....

Metro North is upgrading the Majority of its stations , Bridges , signals and switches , along with Expanding and restoring a Railways. 

Current System size : 156 mi
added miles of Electrified Rail (3rd Rail) : 83 mi
added miles of Diesel Rail : 167 mi

The MNRR has upgraded a few stations on the Harlem , Hudson lines...

Upgraded Station - Dobbs Ferry










Upgraded Tracks









http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikhamin/4766676884/sizes/l/in/photostream/

New Train Fleets

Metro North M8









http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5179960906/sizes/l/in/photostream/


----------



## hammersklavier

hmmwv said:


> I don't think GE is technically behind that much, they still have a world class engineering team that Chinese companies can only dream about. CNR or CSR is currently ahead simply because they are in the HSR market, and GE is not, if GE put its mind into it I doubt it'll be too difficult to catch up. Just look at who's pulling trains going to Tibet, it's a fleet of 78 GE NJ2 locomotives.


Yeah, I was probably exaggerating a bit...AFAIK HST R&D from scratch takes about 15 years, whereas starting from a proven technology, as Rotem and CRH have done, takes only a decade. Furthermore, Rotem and CRH have had the benefit of being able to run the off-the-shelf equipment in their captive markets until the new product comes out. In any event, however, the longer it takes to deliver a (quality) product to market the worse off GE will be--remember, most of its major competitors (Alstom, Siemens, Talgo, AnsaldoBreda, Kawasaki, Hitachi, Rotem) all have HSR tech already.

_EDIT:_ To make things worse for GE, they're in the _locomotive_ business, not the _railcar_ business, and since the Siemens Velaro (ICE 3) came out the key innovation in HST has been the replacement of TGV Atlantique-style motorcar-driven coaches in place of EMUs. GE has built EMUs before--back in the '70s--but has not had an EMU offering in some 30 years.


----------



## desertpunk

*METRO Light Rail in Phoenix AZ*


----------



## Nexis

desertpunk said:


> *METRO Light Rail in Phoenix AZ*


No thats light rail , this thread as i stated is for Regional Rail , Intercity Rail and Trunk line railways....


----------



## sekelsenmat

Nexis said:


> Upgraded Tracks


Do you have a google maps link to the position of this tracks?


----------



## Nexis

sekelsenmat said:


> Do you have a google maps link to the position of this tracks?


Yes.....i made a Map of the Complete MNRR Current and Proposed / Planned System.

*Diesel Railways - Current and Proposed / Planned 
**Electrified Railways - Current and Proposed / Planned 
**Light Rail - Planned*

*Current System 
*
*MNRR Harlem line
MNRR Hudson line
MNRR Port Jervis line
MNRR New Canaan Branch
MNRR Waterbury line
MNRR Danbury Branch*

*Planned Expansions
*
*MNRR I-287 Rail Corridor 
MNRR West Shore line*

*Proposed Expansions
*
*MNRR Beacon line
MNRR Graham line*

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=106428077390771295791.000496b73cabd9916320d&ll=41.296381,-73.734741&spn=1.09779,2.469177&t=p&z=9

*Location of pictures*

Picture 1 , is located in Dobbs Ferry,NY on the Hudson line

Picture 2 , is located near Beacon,NY on the Hudson line

Picture 3 , is located on the New Haven line near Bridgeport,CT


----------



## desertpunk

Nexis said:


> No thats light rail , this thread as i stated is for Regional Rail , Intercity Rail and Trunk line railways....


You just said "no freight". But whatevs.



> Nexis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US needed a Rail thread for all the Current & Future projects. This is a Regular Passenger Rail thread , not freight. Regular Rail is anything form 30-120mph in my book anything higher is HSR. There are a ton of projects going on across the country , whether its upgrading or expanding systems or replacing fleets.
Click to expand...


----------



## Nexis

desertpunk said:


> You just said "no freight". But whatevs.


Sorry if that came off as rude , i just don't want this thread to go off course anymore then it has. There is no Phoenix Public Transit thread....


----------



## Simfan34

hammersklavier said:


> Yeah, I was probably exaggerating a bit...AFAIK HST R&D from scratch takes about 15 years, whereas starting from a proven technology, as Rotem and CRH have done, takes only a decade. Furthermore, Rotem and CRH have had the benefit of being able to run the off-the-shelf equipment in their captive markets until the new product comes out. In any event, however, the longer it takes to deliver a (quality) product to market the worse off GE will be--remember, most of its major competitors (Alstom, Siemens, Talgo, AnsaldoBreda, Kawasaki, Hitachi, Rotem) all have HSR tech already.
> 
> _EDIT:_ To make things worse for GE, they're in the _locomotive_ business, not the _railcar_ business, and since the Siemens Velaro (ICE 3) came out the key innovation in HST has been the replacement of TGV Atlantique-style motorcar-driven coaches in place of EMUs. GE has built EMUs before--back in the '70s--but has not had an EMU offering in some 30 years.


It's a shame, most of the smaller companies in the HSR business have already been merged with the larger ones (Fiat Ferrovaria, Adtranz) because GE had the money to buy one of them. Now GE is struggling to catch up, and I'm not even sure they really are. GE is going to have to get into the game quickly, perhaps by buying another company such as Talgo or AnsaldoBreda; that's more or less what Bombardier did. 



JohnFlint1985 said:


> I know it is ridiculous. this whole thing with this country lately is one big laugh. nothing gets done. lots of words and promises and nothing else. we can do shit these days it seems.


It truly is a shame. 

One thing that has held US train maufacturers behind is our non-electrification- without the need to produce electric locomotives, we're starting from an even lower base than other country's companies.


----------



## Simfan34

trainrover said:


> Hmm, I wonder just how much older the root design is, coz I saw a such a train (a trans-island service) at Jamaica Center Easter 2002, with a differnent loco, mind you.


The design of the BiLevel coaches is old, goes back to the 70's, if my memory serves me correctly. The manufacturer is Bombardier.


----------



## Kramerica

Simfan34 said:


> The design of the BiLevel coaches is old, goes back to the 70's, if my memory serves me correctly. The manufacturer is Bombardier.


The original order of Superliners was in the late 1970's and was built by Pullman. The Superliner II order was in the mid-90's and was built by Bombadier. 

The Superliner design though was heavily based off the 1956 Santa Fe Hi-Level cars. So that's when the design truly originated.


----------



## hmmwv

Simfan34 said:


> It's a shame, most of the smaller companies in the HSR business have already been merged with the larger ones (Fiat Ferrovaria, Adtranz) because GE had the money to buy one of them. Now GE is struggling to catch up, and I'm not even sure they really are. GE is going to have to get into the game quickly, perhaps by buying another company such as Talgo or AnsaldoBreda; that's more or less what Bombardier did.
> 
> 
> 
> It truly is a shame.
> 
> One thing that has held US train maufacturers behind is our non-electrification- without the need to produce electric locomotives, we're starting from an even lower base than other country's companies.


Again, GE can take a page from China's play book. "Okay, you wanna enter CAHSR bid, fine, share the tech." With the CSR-GE joint venture on the way, GE can get all the CRH380 tech and innovate on top of it. It'll take probably less than five years for GE to become a true competitor.


----------



## hammersklavier

hmmwv said:


> Again, GE can take a page from China's play book. "Okay, you wanna enter CAHSR bid, fine, share the tech." With the CSR-GE joint venture on the way, GE can get all the CRH380 tech and innovate on top of it. It'll take probably less than five years for GE to become a true competitor.


Hyundai Rotem took a decade--starting out with Alstom tech.

It's probably most likely that if GE's HSR offering is a flop, they'll actively look to acquire AnsaldoBreda or Talgo (the latter also has equipment running in the US).


----------



## Restless

Alstom's technology wasn't as good as Siemens or Kawasakis, plus the Koreans really did create a completely new train design.

So once GE gets their hands on an HSR design, I think it'd take 10years if they go with the Korean route, but only 5years if they reuse much of the existing component designs.




hammersklavier said:


> Hyundai Rotem took a decade--starting out with Alstom tech.
> 
> It's probably most likely that if GE's HSR offering is a flop, they'll actively look to acquire AnsaldoBreda or Talgo (the latter also has equipment running in the US).


----------



## mgk920

A couple of quick Amtrak clips that I found:






and






Enjoy!

opcorn:

Mike


----------



## Simfan34

hammersklavier said:


> Hyundai Rotem took a decade--starting out with Alstom tech.
> 
> It's probably most likely that if GE's HSR offering is a flop, they'll actively look to acquire AnsaldoBreda or Talgo (the latter also has equipment running in the US).


On second thought, probably not AnsaldoBreda as they have the whole Finnemecanica Group behind it, but I can really see GE buying Talgo.


----------



## Nexis

eh


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ We have a US Freight thread because of how large and important the network is.


----------



## Nexis

Svartmetall said:


> ^^ We have a US Freight thread because of how large and important the network is.


Where is it?


----------



## Svartmetall

^^ Right here.

Don't worry, I'll have the thread finder sorted soon once I have finished merging all the threads.


----------



## hammersklavier

How long did Talgo spend R&Ding their 350 (That's that duckbilled HST set they use on the AVE, btw)?


----------



## arriaca

^^

September 2003 

"... the AVE Business Unit of Renfe received the first Talgo 350 train in its AVE version (RENFE S102)."

http://www.talgo.com/index.php/en/nuestra.php


----------



## Alexriga

desertpunk said:


> *METRO Light Rail in Phoenix AZ*


tram ^^


----------



## Nexis

A few Videos form Friday


----------



## Nexis

2 MBTA videos i took on saturday.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Nexis




----------



## hkskyline

*Grand Central: Rail Fight Stop *
27 January 2011
The Wall Street Journal

The fight brewing between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans over Amtrak funding is heading to New York City, which lies at the heart of the rail service's busiest route.

House lawmakers will hold a hearing Thursday at Grand Central Terminal to debate the future of rail service in the country. The hearing comes two days after Mr. Obama used his State of the Union speech to make the case for significantly expanded high-speed rail.

House Republicans have already signaled their intent to block such spending. An influential group of Republican lawmakers have also declared their intent to end annual payments to Amtrak, which amounted to $1.6 billion last year to help keep the trains running.

Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.) the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee which will hold Thursday's hearing, has voiced doubts about whether Amtrak is capable of creating a truly high-speed rail service. Mr. Mica has suggested private companies, rather than a government-supported entity, may do a better job.

"He's very adamant that the private sector has to be significantly involved in any such project for it to be a success and for it not to become a burden to taxpayers,"" said Mr. Mica's spokesman Justin Harclerode.

The Northeast Corridor, stretching from Washington, D.C., through New York to Boston, represents about half of the company's national ridership, and revenue. The Acela Express service between those cities carries more than three million riders a year. Critics of Amtrak say it is a perpetually underperforming enterprise, and that even the Acela has failed to provide truly high-speed rail. Each weekday, Amtrak operates 214 trains through Penn Station, servicing about 30,000 passengers.

Republican critics of the rail service say their cuts would weed out other, money-losing routes around the country, not necessarily the packed trains along the East Coast.

"That never happens," countered Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), "because while a senator from some Western state will vote to cut Amtrak, that same senator will still fight to keep their line running. So the money has to come from someplace else, like the Northeast Corridor."

Manhattan congressman Jerrold Nadler, a senior Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that will hold Thursday's hearing, said if House Republicans are successful in cutting Amtrak funding, it would have unintended spillover effects.

"New York's airports are the most congested in the country, and if we weren't diverting a relatively large number of people to the rail system, those airports would just be completely swamped," said Mr. Nadler, pointing out that delays at LaGuardia routinely cause spillover backups at airports around the nation.

Thursday's hearing will feature testimony from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who have joined forced to advocate for expanded infrastructure spending.

Amtrak has laid out an ambitious long-term plan to upgrade the rails along the Northeast Corridor to make the Acela service faster and more reliable, but it has often found itself caught in a regional tug-of war in Congress between urban, East Coast Democrats and more western and rural Republicans.

"Eliminating the federal investment in America's passenger railroad would deprive our nation of a critical transportation choice," Amtrak's CEO Joe Boardman said in a statement.

---

Andrew Grossman contributed to this article.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## JohnFlint1985

more good news :lol: :|



> *N.J. senators, Amtrak official to announce new commuter train tunnel project across the Hudson*
> 
> he "Gateway" tunnel proposed by Amtrak would largely follow the same footprint as the canceled nine-mile Access to the Region’s Core tunnel from Secaucus to New York City, but connect to new tracks in an expanded New York Penn Station instead of dead-ending deep under West 34th Street
> 
> Amtrak had intended to build another tunnel to improve capacity in the nation’s most congested rail corridor, *but not until 2040.* The killing of the ARC tunnel expedited the Gateway tunnel plans.




http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/nj_senators_to_announce_new_co.html


----------



## IanCleverly

Top 10 Cities to live in America for using Public Transport


----------



## Nexis

IanCleverly said:


> Top 10 Cities to live in America for using Public Transport


That list is flawed and based on bad facts and this is also the wrong thread...


----------



## hoosier

K_ said:


> You are wrong .


That seems to be a common characteristic in all of that knucklehead's posts.


----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ It must be added that, in case of HS1, some of those stations were build with duplicate facilities as they were meant for once-planned extended services over HS1 to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds... services that never saw the daylight as Ryanair and Easyjet were coming to the market by time the Chunnel opened.
> 
> .


Those services will see the light of day. Ever hear of HS2? It has the support of all three major political parties in the UK but any major project takes a long time to be built there.


----------



## Nexis

Here's 3 videos i shot form the Harrison Parking Garage....


----------



## makita09

Suburbanist said:


> If I am not wrong, the trainsets were resold to Canada.


You are not wrong but you are referring to the sleeper cars (which were never used in Europe), not the normal passenger trains which are still in operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightstar_(train)


----------



## khoojyh

If USA high speed rail is fully build, by that time, how the current airline going to survive?


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Suburbanist

khoojyh said:


> If USA high speed rail is fully build, by that time, how the current airline going to survive?


US is a country of giant proportions, and I'm talking only about lower 48... High-speed rail, even if connecting East and West coasts, will never be a feasible competitor for transcontinental flights (as long as 3.700km in straight line), and not even to connections like Denver-New York. How would stay 11 hours in a train for a flight that takes 2h30?


----------



## Nexis

my last Railway video for at least a week unless i release some unseen vids..


----------



## Kramerica

Suburbanist said:


> US is a country of giant proportions, and I'm talking only about lower 48... High-speed rail, even if connecting East and West coasts, will never be a feasible competitor for transcontinental flights (as long as 3.700km in straight line), and not even to connections like Denver-New York. How would stay 11 hours in a train for a flight that takes 2h30?


If it is an overnight sleeper train, I think a lot of people would rather do that in 11 hours than do the 2.5 hour flight plus a hotel, especially if the sleeper is comparable in price to flight + hotel. Not enough to do away with the airlines of course, but enough to sustain a bit of train activity.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Suburbanist said:


> US is a country of giant proportions, and I'm talking only about lower 48... High-speed rail, even if connecting East and West coasts, will never be a feasible competitor for transcontinental flights (as long as 3.700km in straight line), and not even to connections like Denver-New York. How would stay 11 hours in a train for a flight that takes 2h30?


You conveniently forget that coast to coast network will also serve several cities and metropolitian regions in between unlike a plane which only serves the end points. 
A coast to coast network can form when several regional networks grow and ultimately join each other to form a continuous network. This means trains which would otherwise be limited to running on their home region can now serve destinations in the next region or if necessary in those in the region(s) beyond.
A hypothetical Denver-NYC route will also serve Kansas city, St Louis, Indianapolis, Columbus OH, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia metro regions. A train running the whole length will not only serve passenger travelling from NYC to denver but also those travelling between any of the above mentioned cities that lie on the route. In addition to these many trains may only run part of the distance on any section of this route as required by passenger demand.
Also as pointed out by kramerica there could be many passengers who may actually prefer a overnight distance so that they can relax while they reach their destinations refreshed. This is also very efficient for business trips since you are using your otherwise unproductive time for travel.


----------



## Nexis

*Things that are Under Construction...or about to start
*New Bedford line
Fall River line (future study will look at Newport restoration)
Wickford JCT
Wachusett / Fitchburg line (future study will look at Greenfield restoration)
Four Corners / Geneva station
South Station expansion
Statewide Detailed Transit / Rail Orientated policy

*Proposed MBTA / RIPTA expansions and restorations 
*Manchester / Nashua / Lowell line
Plaistow / Haverhill line
Portsmouth / Newburyport line
Milford / Forge park line
North - South Railway Tunnel
Cape Cod / Middleborough line
Worcester / Ayer / Lowell line
Manchester / Lawernece line
Woonsocket / Worcester line
New London / Worcester line

*MBTA Regional Rail
*Location : Eastern Massachusetts , Northern Rhode Island
Daily Ridership : 130,000 (Projected 2030 Daily Ridership : 642,000+)
System size : 368 mi
Stations : 132

*Massachusetts
*
Current system size : 368
added Miles of Intercity Rail : 270
added Miles of Electrified Rail : 102
added Miles of Diesel Rail : 452

*Rhode Island
*
Current system size : 30
added Miles of Electrified Rail : 76
added miles of Diesel Rail : 49

*New Hampshire
*
Current system size : 20
added Miles of Diesel Rail : 150
added miles of Intercity Rail : 74


----------



## makita09

khoojyh said:


> If USA high speed rail is fully build, by that time, how the current airline going to survive?


If there are no routes left where the airlines are competitive then they'll go out of business. But that won't happen because HSR cannot provide a viable alternative to airlines on all routes. 1000km is around the distance where airlines will keep competitiveness on routes served also by an HSR, but also remember that HSR cannot be built between everywhere, so shorter flights will still win out on the majority of routes. However HSR will be prioritised on the busiest corridors, so in terms of total passenger journeys HSR is likely to win a large percentage of sub-1000km journeys on the routes it does have.


----------



## Suburbanist

Smooth Indian said:


> You conveniently forget that coast to coast network will also serve several cities and metropolitian regions in between unlike a plane which only serves the end points.
> A coast to coast network can form when several regional networks grow and ultimately join each other to form a continuous network. This means trains which would otherwise be limited to running on their home region can now serve destinations in the next region or if necessary in those in the region(s) beyond.


I agree with your reasoning, in principle. However, if you plot major population centers in US, you will see a HUGE gap near and around the Rockies. There are no major centers at feasible distances there but Denver, Salt Lake City and - if you stretch a bit - Las Vegas, Albuquerque and Phoenix. All of that in half the area of Western Europe and with huge distances between them in what will likely be the most challenging terrain to build truly high-speed rail. Seriously, albeit land is cheaper there and most of it belongs to the federal government (BLM), thin of the costs involving construction of a 320km/h railroad from Las Vegas to Denver with a branch/via Salt Lake City! 

So I think it the model they are discussing there (different networks focused on Chicago, Northeast area, Texas) is more sensible. You don't need to spend a hell of money just to guarantee continuity of a network that is not a backbone of transportation like freight railways, airports or the Interstate System.



> This is also very efficient for business trips since you are using your otherwise unproductive time for travel.


Most businessmen in jobs paying high enough to afford US$ 2000+ fares a competitive, comfortable (private bathrooms and showers, a decent if small bed, TV, Internet etc) non subsidized overnight service would require are likely not be willing to cramp themselves into a train cabin, but rather spend a night in a real, decent bedroom. 



Kramerica said:


> If it is an overnight sleeper train, I think a lot of people would rather do that in 11 hours than do the 2.5 hour flight plus a hotel, especially if the sleeper is comparable in price to flight + hotel. Not enough to do away with the airlines of course, but enough to sustain a bit of train activity.


Overnight HSR trains would bring a lot of problems. One of the key characteristics of HSR-only systems is that all scheduled maintenance and repair are carried overnight, when the tracks are closed for all traffic. Moreover, a COMFORTABLE sleeper (not a 1970's crappy couchette with bunk beds 60cm wide) takes a lot of space to built. A regular TGV unit will have a weight of 0.9 ton/seat. Imagine how much energy would be required to transport passengers in sleepers that would, for sure, not accommodate more than 10 cabins (some with single, some with double beds) with individual toilets cruise-like. I consider that a cruise cabin (a small, standard one) would be the reference in terms of minimum standards of acceptable comfort. Otherwise, the whole conversation of "travelling overnight makes the train cheaper if you factor a hotel" doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Suburbanist said:


> I agree with your reasoning, in principle. However, if you plot major population centers in US, you will see a HUGE gap near and around the Rockies. There are no major centers at feasible distances there but Denver, Salt Lake City and - if you stretch a bit - Las Vegas, Albuquerque and Phoenix. All of that in half the area of Western Europe and with huge distances between them in what will likely be the most challenging terrain to build truly high-speed rail. Seriously, albeit land is cheaper there and most of it belongs to the federal government (BLM), thin of the costs involving construction of a 320km/h railroad from Las Vegas to Denver with a branch/via Salt Lake City!
> 
> So I think it the model they are discussing there (different networks focused on Chicago, Northeast area, Texas) is more sensible. You don't need to spend a hell of money just to guarantee continuity of a network that is not a backbone of transportation like freight railways, airports or the Interstate System.


I think east of Dallas there are a fair no. of metro areas or cities so that if you start building networks from the core hubs like atlanta, DC, NYC, Chicago or orlando some of these line can expand and eventually reach common destinations.
Now west of dallas until maybe albuquerque there is a big gap and then there is phoenix, AZ and Tucson AZ and finally LA region. If HSR networks grow till the edges of this gap (Which I guess coincides with the rockies) then there may be compelling reasons to bridge this gap.
The approach I suggest is that of gradual expansion of the network from selected hubs with a view that in the future it can form a bigger continuous network. Not to start building a coast to coast network from the outset.
And yes once a few successful lines are built and run, more investors will be ready to invest in the expansion of these lines. And yes the public will also be more than willing travel on these trains and will accept the expansion of the HSR lines as a necessary infrastructure investment.
Certainly it took decades of investment and construction to complete the Interstate system. Several interstates also run through the sparsely populated regions in the american west and pacific northwest. Do we know if the govt makes money or loses it by maintaining 4 lane freeways in these regions? What if in the 1950s someone would have obstructed the building of these highways using the same arguments that are being used for HSR?
I think the risks of failure building a coast to coast network of freeways was similar to that of building a continuous network of HSR lines today. Its just that there was greater optimism in the society in general. Today of course there is lesser optimism about anything in general, partly due to misinformation and demagoguery by vested interests who are concerned with furthering their own interests at the cost of the society or country.


----------



## K_

Suburbanist said:


> Overnight HSR trains would bring a lot of problems. One of the key characteristics of HSR-only systems is that all scheduled maintenance and repair are carried overnight, when the tracks are closed for all traffic.


Except of course where they aren't...
There is no reason why a HSL needs to be closed every night. There is no reason why maintenance can't be done one one track only, with a temporary speed restriction on a section of the parallel track.



> Moreover, a COMFORTABLE sleeper (not a 1970's crappy couchette with bunk beds 60cm wide) takes a lot of space to built. A regular TGV unit will have a weight of 0.9 ton/seat. Imagine how much energy would be required to transport passengers in sleepers that would, for sure, not accommodate more than 10 cabins (some with single, some with double beds) with individual toilets cruise-like.


Most conventional sleepers now have only around 10 cabins anyway. The Talgo sleepers even have only 5 cabins per car... Talgo is the place to go to if you want a comfortable sleeper that is light and fast...


----------



## Nexis

*MNRR / LIRR
*

Metro-North southbound at Bronxville, NY, 2010 by ovondrak, on Flickr


LIRR Atlantic Branch by Alan Cordova, on Flickr


LIRR by rocketdogphoto, on Flickr


Untitled by bitchcakesny, on Flickr


Untitled by bitchcakesny, on Flickr


METRO-NORTH--4254 appr Croton Falls IB by milantram, on Flickr

*Septa *


IMG_3281 by jacorbett70, on Flickr


IMG_3255 by jacorbett70, on Flickr


Outbound Signal R5 Lansdale by SignalPAD, on Flickr


IMG_1092 by jacorbett70, on Flickr


IMG_0646 by jacorbett70, on Flickr

*MARC*


P1020133 by skabat169, on Flickr


HHP-8 x2 by Ryan Stavely, on Flickr


MARC 69 on the 5 o'clock train by normandiecow, on Flickr


Brunswick 015 by v1rotate, on Flickr


----------



## k.k.jetcar

> There is no reason why a HSL needs to be closed every night. There is no reason why maintenance can't be done one one track only, with a temporary speed restriction on a section of the parallel track.


This is true, but _depending on the frequencies/headways _on said HSL, this would be detrimental in running a reliable service. Especially for a business traveler, convenience and on-time performance are paramount, as time, rather than money is what is at a premium.


----------



## Nexis

k.k.jetcar said:


> This is true, but _depending on the frequencies/headways _on said HSL, this would be detrimental in running a reliable service. Especially for a business traveler, convenience and on-time performance are paramount, as time, rather than money is what is at a premium.


Can we not have the HSR chat in the Railway forum? 

*NJ Transit...
*

Interstate 280 2 by Sean_Marshall, on Flickr


WOW whitch way george by Brian's Photo Gallery, on Flickr


Jersey_City_08 by Pro-Zak, on Flickr


Summit Train Station by rjseg1, on Flickr


Bridge from Snake Hill by KCEDERMARK, on Flickr


NJT 4000 heading south in Brielle, NJ by CNJ774, on Flickr


P1060944 by dreamyshade, on Flickr


NJT ALP-46 4622 by PeetThePhotographer, on Flickr


----------



## makita09

k.k.jetcar said:


> Especially for a business traveler, convenience and on-time performance are paramount, as time, rather than money is what is at a premium.


....and is precisely the reason why bi-directional running is standard on many HSLs to allow engineering work to take place without closing the route. One track is enough for 2 or 3 trains in each direction - fine for the middle of the night in most circumstances.


----------



## Suburbanist

makita09 said:


> ....and is precisely the reason why bi-directional running is standard on many HSLs to allow engineering work to take place without closing the route. One track is enough for 2 or 3 trains in each direction - fine for the middle of the night in most circumstances.


You don't want a crew to perform engineering works while trains pass them 1m away at 270km/h. Not even at 200km/h. The speed reduction needed means long acceleration spans and degraded average speed. It is better to shut down the whole system for 4-5 hours a day so all work can be performed in optimal conditions.


----------



## NietoDelJaguar

AMTRAK's P42DC #44 leads Train #29 "The Capitol Limited" 
Westbound as it arrives at Harpers Ferry Train Station in West Virgina ​


Amtrak's Train #29 as it crosses The Potomac River into Harpers Ferry, West Virginia by Nieto_Del_Jaguar, on Flickr



AMTRAK Train #29 "The Capitol Limited" as it crosses The Potomac River by Nieto_Del_Jaguar, on Flickr


AMTRAK's P42DC #44 leads "The Capitol Limited" Westbound as it arrives at Harpers Ferry Train Station in West Virgina by Nieto_Del_Jaguar, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Nexis




----------



## Simfan34

What the US needs is good overnight sleeper trains, which I think could find a market. 30% of Americans, supposedly, refuse to fly. So they drive. If these trains could get 50-70 mph they could do routes such as:
NYC-Washington-Atlanta
NYC-Chicago (21st Century Limited)
Chicago-Detroit-Toronto
NYC-Toronto
NYC-Quebec City
Boston-Halifax
San Francisco-Seattle-Vancouver
etc.

These trains, I imagine, would be double decker, maybe DMU (Talgo's two-passageway layout), and most imporantly, require few changes. Inside my imaginary 10 car train, with a push and pull set up with engine at either end (not DMU)

First Class: Standard Class:
















Couchettes: Wide reclining seats:
















Restaurant: Bar/Cafe:
















Lounge:










Images are to give idea of what it would be like, design would be sleek and modern. Standard and 1st would have ensuite bathrooms, 1st showers as well. On-demand entertainment systems. Checked luggage. Breakfast and dinner included.

Layout:

<CONTROL |1 CLASS|1 CLASS|RESTA.| STAND.| STAND.| STAND.| STAND.| CAFE| SEATS| SEATS| CONTROL>
<<ENGINE |1 CLASS|LOUNGE|GALLEY| STAND.| STAND.| STAND.| STAND.| COUCH.| COUCH.| COUCH.| ENGINE>>

1st class- 4 4-person cabins per car (12 overall, 48 people)
Standard class- 6 4 person cabins per car (48 overall, 192 people)
Couchettes-10 6-person cabins per car (30 overall, 180 people)
Seats 62 per car (124 people)

Total: 544 people max, I'd say on average 450.

Not bad. I'd go on it. I see this being a wild sucess if they could get competitive pricing, which European sleepers do. Amtrak has the right idea, but the journeys are too long. I'd market the idea of combining airfare, a hotel room, and two meals.

A few videos:











Comments?


----------



## Suburbanist

Simfan34 said:


> Comments?


Not going to happen. It is pretty much impossible to have the freight railroads, the owners of rail infrastructure needed to run such services, to collaborate with Amtrak to allow 60mph commercial speed service. The railroads wanted $ 410 million only to adjust and allow the operation of a daily train between Jacksonville and New Orleans. 

Moreover, as the big railroads streamline operations, they are increasingly focusing on using less tracks more intensively. It is quite a remarkable success for freight, where they haul 80 very large double-stack daily trains in some sections. However, they work in a non-schedule operations, and the infrastructure is optimized for speeds meant for container cargo, around 40mph-50mph.

Many sectors operate in one direction only for long hours.

Finally, the cost of driving in US is far lower than the cost of driving in Europe. Amtrak long-distance trains (EMpire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief) lose, on each passenger, 35-61% of the revenue they collect. Data is available on Amtrak reports.

If there were a lucrative market for night sleeper trains, the private railroads would have already jumped in to catch that market.


----------



## Simfan34

Suburbanist said:


> Not going to happen. It is pretty much impossible to have the freight railroads, the owners of rail infrastructure needed to run such services, to collaborate with Amtrak to allow 60mph commercial speed service. The railroads wanted $ 410 million only to adjust and allow the operation of a daily train between Jacksonville and New Orleans.
> 
> Moreover, as the big railroads streamline operations, they are increasingly focusing on using less tracks more intensively. It is quite a remarkable success for freight, where they haul 80 very large double-stack daily trains in some sections. However, they work in a non-schedule operations, and the infrastructure is optimized for speeds meant for container cargo, around 40mph-50mph.
> 
> Many sectors operate in one direction only for long hours.
> 
> Finally, the cost of driving in US is far lower than the cost of driving in Europe. Amtrak long-distance trains (EMpire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief) lose, on each passenger, 35-61% of the revenue they collect. Data is available on Amtrak reports.
> 
> If there were a lucrative market for night sleeper trains, the private railroads would have already jumped in to catch that market.


Private railroads? What private (passenger) railroads? Yet the cargo railroads are spending billions in improving their trackage, to increase speeds and add parallel tracks. Anyways, the cargo railroads are legally required to give precedence to passenger trains.

As for the intensive part, these would be trains going long distances at fast speeds, which shouldn't be a problem. 

Driving costs less (for now, at least), yes, but flying in Europe costs less as well, yet these trains survive. What sets them apart from their American counterparts is that they travel distances that can be covered in 10-12 hours rather than the transcontinental Amtrak services. They also happen to arrive on time. 

I know TONS of people who refuse to fly, and many more who complain of having to spend money on a plane or hotel on a one night trip, or those who can't justify spending money to fly and drive instead. There certainly is a market for these trains.


----------



## Suburbanist

Simfan34 said:


> Private railroads? What private (passenger) railroads? Yet the cargo railroads are spending billions in improving their trackage, to increase speeds and add parallel tracks. Anyways, the cargo railroads are legally required to give precedence to passenger trains.


You know, Amtrak owns little trackage. To run a train to Atlanta, unless you are talking about a multi-billion project of a new ROW, you need to get CXS and NS to let you run them.

As for the precedence, I'm not aware that such requirement exists. If it did, 80% of Amtrak's routing and dispatching problems would be solved.



> I know TONS of people who refuse to fly, and many more who complain of having to spend money on a plane or hotel on a one night trip, or those who can't justify spending money to fly and drive instead. There certainly is a market for these trains.


Sure, but you are assuming that everyone who doesn't like to spend money in hotels would be happy about riding a night train that shakes and balances all night long. There is a market, but it is a niche.


----------



## zaphod

I would love to ride a train hotel, but then I am not holding my breath.

Amtrak is getting new viewliners though. Anyone seen renderings, or are they just clones of the old retro ones? Welcome the US, where trains look the same in 2011 as they did in 1981. At the very least, they could toss the fluted steel and have smooth sides with a paint job like acela.



>


I wonder if businessmen with top hats and pipes ride in that car, discussing the exchange rate in Siam and those newfangled motion pictures.


----------



## Simfan34

zaphod said:


> Amtrak is getting new viewliners though. Anyone seen renderings, or are they just clones of the old retro ones? Welcome the US, where trains look the same in 2011 as they did in 1981. At the very least, they could toss the fluted steel and have smooth sides with a paint job like acela.
> 
> I wonder if businessmen with top hats and pipes ride in that car, discussing the exchange rate in Siam and those newfangled motion pictures.


Ironically, that's from a train that runs from Bangkok to Singapore.

I chose it because I liked the lie-flat, single level seats. The ones I conceive could have bunks come from above, but I like it like this.

Our trains look like garbage. 



> As for the precedence, I'm not aware that such requirement exists. If it did, 80% of Amtrak's routing and dispatching problems would be solved.


It's barely enforced, so I am told.



> Sure, but you are assuming that everyone who doesn't like to spend money in hotels would be happy about riding a night train that shakes and balances all night long. There is a market, but it is a niche.


This, I will admit, is a problem. The old 20th Century Limited from NYC to Chicago solved it by taking a "water-level route" along Lake Erie through Buffalo, which the Lake Shore Limited still follows. 

Better driving on a highway all day long regardless.


----------



## Suburbanist

Simfan34 said:


> Better driving on a highway all day long regardless.


Comparison is inadequate. You can talk about a day-time train that offers realistic competition for medium-distance drives. But the commercial speeds of Amtrak services are usually below 50mph, sometimes lower than 40mph. And you have no connections. And you have to deal with transportation to/from station.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> Comparison is inadequate. You can talk about a day-time train that offers realistic competition for medium-distance drives. But the commercial speeds of Amtrak services are usually below 50mph, sometimes lower than 40mph. And you have no connections. And you have to deal with transportation to/from station.


There an average of 70-80 on most lines , but some areas are 40-50mph...


----------



## 33Hz

NYC - Chicago would be practical as a day train with the latest generation of HSR or better still maglev. If it's good enough for the Japanese...


----------



## Suburbanist

*Amtrak train crashed in Nevada*

(CNN) -- A team of federal investigators has been dispatched to the scene of a truck-train collision east of Reno, Nevada, that killed at least two people, the National Transportation Safety Board said.

The investigators were expected to arrive in Nevada late Friday night, hours after a tractor-trailer slammed into an Amtrak train at a public railroad crossing in the town of Lovelock, the NTSB said.

The truck struck the train, which was on its way to Emeryville, California from Chicago, at 11:20 a.m., Amtrak said in a written statement. The train was carrying 204 passengers and 14 crew members, it said.

"Preliminary reports are that *there have been fatalities to passengers, an Amtrak train crew member and the operator of the truck,*" the Amtrak statement said. "There were numerous others transported to area hospitals for treatment of injuries."

Amtrak spokesman Mark Magliari declined to confirm the number of injuries.
Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper Danny Lopez said at least two people, one on the train and one in the truck, were killed in the accident.

Amateur video taken after the crash showed huge plumes of black smoke billowing from the train as a fire burned. Passengers and crew members stood outside.

Firefighters and law enforcement authorities were on the scene, and buses were being sent to pick up stranded passengers, Lopez said.


----------



## MarneGator

Nexis said:


> There an average of 70-80 on most lines , but some areas are 40-50mph...


 Not really. The country's best, the Acela, only has an average speed of 70 mph from Boston to Washington, D.C. The fastest and most traveled part of that route - New York to Washington, D.C. - still only manages an average of 81 mph. With very few exceptions, like the Keystone, no Amtrak route averages over 60 mph: routes range 40-55 mph. Trains outside the Northeast Corridor do reach 79 mph - the highest allowed by the FRA for tracks without PTC - and the odd route or two have short stretches up to 110 mph, but long station dwell times, poor acceleration, and (especially) delays ruin the running average.



33Hz said:


> NYC - Chicago would be practical as a day train with the latest generation of HSR or better still maglev. If it's good enough for the Japanese...


 Assuming the average speed of China's Wuhan-Guangzhou North route (194 mph), it should take no more than 5 hours, depending on alignment - 5 hours assumes 256 miles added to the alignment vs straight-line distance, double the percentage increase the NEC does for distance between Boston and Washington, D.C. Considering that non-stop flights are, at best, 2.5 hours, add in a generous (and generally unlikely) half-hour for both travel to and from the airport to city center plus arriving an hour early for check-in, and you're clocking in at 4.5 hours. Assuming reasonable fares, yeah, HSR would make for a compelling option. Heck, I would take it if for no other reason to skip the ridiculousness of the TSA.


----------



## Arnorian

If US gets a HSR, won't TSA start checks there too?


----------



## Nexis

MarneGator said:


> Not really. The country's best, the Acela, only has an average speed of 70 mph from Boston to Washington, D.C. The fastest and most traveled part of that route - New York to Washington, D.C. - still only manages an average of 81 mph. With very few exceptions, like the Keystone, no Amtrak route averages over 60 mph: routes range 40-55 mph. Trains outside the Northeast Corridor do reach 79 mph - the highest allowed by the FRA for tracks without PTC - and the odd route or two have short stretches up to 110 mph, but long station dwell times, poor acceleration, and (especially) delays ruin the running average.
> 
> Assuming the average speed of China's Wuhan-Guangzhou North route (194 mph), it should take no more than 5 hours, depending on alignment - 5 hours assumes 256 miles added to the alignment vs straight-line distance, double the percentage increase the NEC does for distance between Boston and Washington, D.C. Considering that non-stop flights are, at best, 2.5 hours, add in a generous (and generally unlikely) half-hour for both travel to and from the airport to city center plus arriving an hour early for check-in, and you're clocking in at 4.5 hours. Assuming reasonable fares, yeah, HSR would make for a compelling option. Heck, I would take it if for no other reason to skip the ridiculousness of the TSA.


The Acela Averages 120mph south of Newark,NJ with some exceptions of 60mph near Philly and Metchun. In New England it averages 150mph , except the snail of a pace of 60mph in most of CT due to construction. Improvements by 2020 will raise this to 110mph in CT.


----------



## Simfan34

I still like my idea.


----------



## MarneGator

Arnorian said:


> If US gets a HSR, won't TSA start checks there too?


 They would like to but they may or may not be allowed. Not long ago Amtrak kicked the TSA out of their stations so it's possible that it would take an Executive Order with a wide interpretation of existing law or a mandate from Congress to *make* the TSA a security provider for rail. Honestly though, I'd have to look into the laws because I just don't have definite knowledge of the subject.



Nexis said:


> The Acela Averages 120mph south of Newark,NJ with some exceptions of 60mph near Philly and Metchun. In New England it averages 150mph , except the snail of a pace of 60mph in most of CT due to construction...


 There's a slight disconnect in terminology here. Yes, the train does hit the speeds and suffers where you indicated (among others), but that's what constitutes _average_ speed: the highs and the lows over a given time plus stops, the speed the train would run between the ends if it ran non-stop. Certain trips will be faster or slower than others for a given distance - Route 128 to Providence, where the train mostly goes along at 150 mph, is quite zippy while Stamford to New Haven trundles along little faster than Metro-North - but we're talking average system speed. Also, even the amount of track available for high triple-digit speed is in the minority. I think there's only 32 miles worth of 150 mph trackage out of the NEC's 456 miles. There's a fair bit of 100+ mph trackage, but there's quite of lot below, like in Connecticut.
Speeds will go up in the future, like you mentioned, but the average speed can increase substantially without increasing the top speed. For example, train going from Boston to Washington, D.C. have a scheduled stop of 15 minutes in New York; if the train dwelled there no longer than it does at other stations (1-2 minutes), the average speed from end-to-end would go from 70 to 73 mph.


----------



## 33Hz

MarneGator said:


> Assuming the average speed of China's Wuhan-Guangzhou North route (194 mph), it should take no more than 5 hours, depending on alignment - 5 hours assumes 256 miles added to the alignment vs straight-line distance, double the percentage increase the NEC does for distance between Boston and Washington, D.C. Considering that non-stop flights are, at best, 2.5 hours, add in a generous (and generally unlikely) half-hour for both travel to and from the airport to city center plus arriving an hour early for check-in, and you're clocking in at 4.5 hours. Assuming reasonable fares, yeah, HSR would make for a compelling option. Heck, I would take it if for no other reason to skip the ridiculousness of the TSA.


The as the crow flies route is about 710 miles, so 800 seems reasonable for a pretty direct route via, say, Pittsburgh. Then 4 hours would be a possibility for HSR, sub 3 for maglev.


----------



## MarneGator

^ Yeah, I would think it could be done in a little less than 4.5 hours, but I assumed 5 hour running because it's close to what I estimated as overall flight time between the two cities and because it also offered a very generous margin to work with in terms of either mileage or stops. Really, it will be less than 256 miles to work with because there will never be a straight route west from New York. Building stuff is expensive and to profit (or minimize loss) for any given mile of infrastructure, one would want the maximum number of patrons using it. In this case, Philadelphia is too great a market to ignore and is close to New York, so all train heading to Chicago will make their way through Philadelphia, ferrying passengers between those cities and picking new ones up, before heading west. Assuming an implausibly straight alignment between New York, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, we're already short 26 miles, added an extra stop and added several minutes versus the ideal of a straight New York to Pittsburgh run. We still then have 230 miles to play with in order to keep the average speed up, but with each mile taken and every stop added, we get closer and closer to the 5 hour mark. I can't be sure, but I will say with good conscience that up to 5 hours is competitive with flight-related trip times and that's of significant importance when you're deciding to spend those billions of dollars.
This is all in terms of conventional HSR, of course. Money aside, maglev trains with average speeds above 250 mph would make New York to Chicago an uncompetitive market for flying.


----------



## hoosier

MarneGator said:


> ^ Yeah, I would think it could be done in a little less than 4.5 hours, but I assumed 5 hour running because it's close to what I estimated as overall flight time between the two cities and because it also offered a very generous margin to work with in terms of either mileage or stops. Really, it will be less than 256 miles to work with because there will never be a straight route west from New York. Building stuff is expensive and to profit (or minimize loss) for any given mile of infrastructure, one would want the maximum number of patrons using it. In this case, Philadelphia is too great a market to ignore and is close to New York, so all train heading to Chicago will make their way through Philadelphia, ferrying passengers between those cities and picking new ones up, before heading west. Assuming an implausibly straight alignment between New York, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, we're already short 26 miles, added an extra stop and added several minutes versus the ideal of a straight New York to Pittsburgh run. We still then have 230 miles to play with in order to keep the average speed up, but with each mile taken and every stop added, we get closer and closer to the 5 hour mark. I can't be sure, but I will say with good conscience that up to 5 hours is competitive with flight-related trip times and that's of significant importance when you're deciding to spend those billions of dollars.
> This is all in terms of conventional HSR, of course. Money aside, maglev trains with average speeds above 250 mph would make New York to Chicago an uncompetitive market for flying.


The terrain between Chicago and Cleveland is very flat, meaning a train could easily surpass 200 mph for most of this segment. East of Cleveland the terrain gets more hilly and almost all of Pennsylvania between Pittsburgh and Philly is mountainous. But if this country could blast a turnpike through this terrain over sixty years ago a HSL would be a piece of cake. The route from Harrisburgh to New York City is already fully grade separated and electrified.


----------



## 33Hz

Shanghai to Beijing was going to be 4 hours before the recent political shenanigans, and that's slightly longer.


----------



## MarneGator

^ Impressive, but not really comparable: that line is to be a non-stop run, essentially inconceivable for any country today that's not China. The expected slower speed would still have the 819 mile trip completed in 4 hours 48 minutes, a 172 mph average, but that's slower than the (very aggressive) Wuhan-Guangzhou North route's 194 mph average, an average speed I assumed for a worst-case alignment of 970 miles / 5 hour trip between New York and Chicago.


----------



## TheAnalyst

Arnorian said:


> If US gets a HSR, won't TSA start checks there too?


Well, you can't steer a train into a building.




MarneGator said:


> ^ Impressive, but not really comparable: that line is to be a* non-stop run*, essentially inconceivable for any country today that's not China. The expected slower speed would still have the 819 mile trip completed in 4 hours 48 minutes, a 172 mph average, but that's slower than the (very aggressive) Wuhan-Guangzhou North route's 194 mph average, an average speed I assumed for a worst-case alignment of 970 miles / 5 hour trip between New York and Chicago.


Is it really? There are 20-something stations between Beijing South and Shanghai Hongqiao.


----------



## 33Hz

MarneGator said:


> ^ Impressive, but not really comparable: that line is to be a non-stop run, essentially inconceivable for any country today that's not China. The expected slower speed would still have the 819 mile trip completed in 4 hours 48 minutes, a 172 mph average, but that's slower than the (very aggressive) Wuhan-Guangzhou North route's 194 mph average, an average speed I assumed for a worst-case alignment of 970 miles / 5 hour trip between New York and Chicago.


The new time includes an extra stop at Nanjing on all services. Previously they would have had a 210 mph average speed. It may creep back up (maybe when Bombardier deliver the trains designed for this speed soon).

I checked and there are 107 flights from New York to Chicago tomorrow, using aircraft in the 150-180 seat class. These are non-stop. Capture that market and there is no reason that 30 non-stop trains each way per day won't be required. That's a half hourly schedule.

I very much doubt they'd take the 970 mile water level route of the 20th Century Limited. Tunnelling technology and train horsepower have improved a bit since then


----------



## XAN_

TheAnalyst said:


> Well, you can't steer a train into a building.


Well, you just need to try harder - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg 

:lol:


----------



## Suburbanist

33Hz said:


> I checked and there are 107 flights from New York to Chicago tomorrow, using aircraft in the 150-180 seat class. These are non-stop. Capture that market and there is no reason that 30 non-stop trains each way per day won't be required. That's a half hourly schedule.


You are assuming all passengers on those flights are travelling only between two cities, when many are connecting, as both cities are major North American hubs. If you have further fast trains connections, the same principle can work for HSR (ex: capturing part of the New York - Milwaukee market). Other way to make it work is to extend HSR service straight into airports, like some European airports have. That allows a smooth integration of HSR and air offers that increases competitiveness for both rail companies and airlines.

But without both, a Chicago Union - Penn. Station service will not capture all of that air market, not even maybe half of that market. And nothing guarantees airlines will not play hard, slash prices below the cost for the route and make it up with higher prices for other air routes, giving HSR a run for the money.


----------



## Suburbanist

hoosier said:


> The terrain between Chicago and Cleveland is very flat, meaning a train could easily surpass 200 mph for most of this segment. East of Cleveland the terrain gets more hilly and almost all of Pennsylvania between Pittsburgh and Philly is mountainous. But if this country could blast a turnpike through this terrain over sixty years ago a HSL would be a piece of cake. The route from Harrisburgh to New York City is already fully grade separated and electrified.


The Pennsylvania Turnpike has curve radii as low as 600 yards and grades as high as 7,1%. You can't run a HSR under those parameters. Sure, you can blast a turnpike, but it will require lots of long tunnels and high viaducts if you want to retain high-speeds.


----------



## Suburbanist

*Updated from the Amtrak Crash=> Authorities: 6 die in truck-train crash in Nevada*

(CNN) -- Six people were killed when a tractor-trailer truck slammed into a Chicago-to-California Amtrak passenger train at a railroad crossing east of Reno, Nevada, authorities said late Saturday.

The death toll was released just as federal authorities said they were trying to account for passengers missing from the passenger train that was struck Friday at a railroad crossing near Lovelock, Nevada.

"No names are being released pending positive identification and notification of families," the Churchill County, Nevada, sheriff's department said in a written statement.

The National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating, is trying to account for passengers listed on the manifest but not located after the crash, Earl Weener of the NTSB told reporters during a news conference late Saturday night in Sparks, Nevada.

In some cases, it is believed people got off the train earlier or bought a ticket but did not take the train, he said.

"There are a number of reasons that the manifest and that number don't jibe," Weener said.

The 10-car train, which was on its way to Emeryville, California, was carrying 204 passengers and 14 crew members, Amtrak said in a statement released Friday.

It was not immediately clear how many people were injured. Amtrak said that numerous people aboard the train had been taken to area hospitals for treatment.

Amateur video taken after the crash showed huge plumes of black smoke billowing from the train as a fire burned. Passengers and crew members stood outside.

One voice on the video can be heard telling people to get away from the smoke. Another tells a woman, out of view, to "hang and jump." A third voice asks someone, "Are you OK?"

"Next thing I know, we get hit by something. A big ball of fire comes in. I jumped out the window," passenger Justin Rhine told CNN affiliate KOLO-TV in Reno. "I saw people flying on the other side of the train."

Skid marks show the driver of the truck slammed on his brakes, sliding more than 300 feet before hitting the train, sparking a fire, Weener said. The fire burned the truck and two train cars, he said.

The initial investigation found the signal light and crossing guard arms were working, and that there was good visibility of the train tracks from the road, he said.

The truck was the lead in a three-truck convoy as it approached the train tracks, Weener said.

The two following saw the train signal and slowed to stop, "waiting for him to come to stop," he said.

Though the driver of the truck has not been identified, Weener said the truck belonged to John Davies Trucking of Battle Mountain, Nevada.

The trucking company, which advertises itself as family-owned business that hauls concrete, did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ Strange accident. Signs were working, and the truck slammed itself into the train, not the other way.

Yet, the strong crashworthiness requirements from FRA proved once again valuable: the train card didn't roll over, and the train remained more or less impact if not by the fire, allowing more people to escape.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Suburbanist said:


> You are assuming all passengers on those flights are travelling only between two cities, when many are connecting, as both cities are major North American hubs. If you have further fast trains connections, the same principle can work for HSR (ex: capturing part of the New York - Milwaukee market). Other way to make it work is to extend HSR service straight into airports, like some European airports have. That allows a smooth integration of HSR and air offers that increases competitiveness for both rail companies and airlines.
> 
> But without both, a Chicago Union - Penn. Station service will not capture all of that air market, not even maybe half of that market. And nothing guarantees airlines will not play hard, slash prices below the cost for the route and make it up with higher prices for other air routes, giving HSR a run for the money.


On the Chicago-NY Penn route as you pointed out that passengers taking flights between these two cities are often travelling/connecting from other cities thereby making it uncompetitve vis-vis airlines. However all high speed train between these cities will not be non-stop trains. There are several cities like toledo, cleveland, pittsburgh, philadelphia which can be served by these trains this routes. Additionally many trains need not run the whole distance. The high speed trains can still be competitive on this sector even if they cannot capture all the airline passengers.
Coming to the airlines, they are probably being stretched now even without competition from other modes. Did we forget the extra baggage fee and a few days ago a "boarding pass fee". So even if the airlines fought back with lower fares on competitive routes and higher ones on non competitive ones, it is possible the math would not work in their favor. And if it did work there would be an public uproar in the non-competitive areas where they would be having monopolies/market domination. 
However I agree that there has to be smooth integration for both HSR and airlines. The major international/hub airports should be a part of the HSR network (assuming a network is being built in their vicinity) and the airlines should be made partners in running the train services (connecting or otherwise)


----------



## MarneGator

TheAnalyst said:


> Is it really? There are 20-something stations between Beijing South and Shanghai Hongqiao.


 Oops! I misread a bit regarding that line: I took one of the supposed scheduled nonstop trains as representative for all trains. All said and done, the average running speed for the Shanghai-Beijing route is only 8% faster than the Wuhan-Guangzhou North so the initial basic premise we've batting around wouldn't substantially change; another station allowed, a cheaper (longer) route or so, but if it couldn't be achieved at an average of 194 mph, it probably couldn't be achieved at 210 mph. 



33Hz said:


> I checked and there are 107 flights from New York to Chicago tomorrow, using aircraft in the 150-180 seat class. These are non-stop. Capture that market and there is no reason that 30 non-stop trains each way per day won't be required. That's a half hourly schedule.
> 
> I very much doubt they'd take the 970 mile water level route of the 20th Century Limited. Tunnelling technology and train horsepower have improved a bit since then


More or less what Suburbanist said, but also that if you were building this route, it's competing with existing airlines and that needs to be taken into account. New York to Chicago is on the long side of conventional HSR reach (again assuming ~200 mph average) so to just begin justifying that level of expenditure against an established mode of transport one needs to maximize patronage, hence utilizing a NY to Philly route before hitting a major spot like Pittsburgh on the way to the Windy City. Plenty of people with go nonstop, but the intermediary passengers will be of significant importance.
Are we _derailing_ this thread? Should we move the discussion to the US HSR thread?


----------



## G5man

MarneGator said:


> More or less what Suburbanist said, but also that if you were building this route, it's competing with existing airlines and that needs to be taken into account. New York to Chicago is on the long side of conventional HSR reach (again assuming ~200 mph average) so to just begin justifying that level of expenditure against an established mode of transport one needs to maximize patronage, hence utilizing a NY to Philly route before hitting a major spot like Pittsburgh on the way to the Windy City. Plenty of people with go nonstop, but the intermediary passengers will be of significant importance.
> Are we _derailing_ this thread? Should we move the discussion to the US HSR thread?


I am curious to know how many days has Chicago had average delays of more than an hour or two? Sure while the air trip would beat the train most days, when thunderstorms force planes to divert, having an HSR system could allow a reasonable diversion and get passengers to their destinations from other airports. I see it as a redundancy incase of severe storms since lightning does not effect HSR trains. (AFAIK) I do wonder about how much of the traffic is O&D and how much is connecting. I do know there are many shuttle flights with 100 seat aircraft from NYC-Chicago during the weekdays so it can attract buisness customers. I think it is a wait and see of how viable Chicago-NYC via HSR will be since you would need a high-speed connection and the most direct route to Pittsburg, a Pittsburg-Harrisburg high-speed line, the a new branch from Harrisburg-NYC. Is it really worth it? At this point, who knows? Realistically, we need more information.


----------



## Simfan34

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Strange accident. Signs were working, and the truck slammed itself into the train, not the other way.
> 
> Yet, the strong crashworthiness requirements from FRA proved once again valuable: the train card didn't roll over, and the train remained more or less impact if not by the fire, allowing more people to escape.


Rather, a reason for more grade separation.


----------



## Gag Halfrunt

^^ Research commissioned by Caltrain favours modern European trainsets with crumple zones over the more rigid FRA-compliant rolling stock. An FRA-compliant passenger car failed a computer simulation of a European crash test because of its inadequate crumple zone.


----------



## XAN_

Gag Halfrunt said:


> ^^ Research commissioned by Caltrain favours modern European trainsets with crumple zones over the more rigid FRA-compliant rolling stock. An FRA-compliant passenger car failed a computer simulation of a European crash test because of its inadequate crumple zone.


 Well, I believe rolling stock are not designed to resist powerful strikes from sides. 99% accidents come from the rear or front of car, so I suppose they are the zones actually protected by train design.

According to above, I assume European car wouldn't be better in a such situation.

Correct me, if I'm wrong.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## hoosier

Suburbanist said:


> The Pennsylvania Turnpike has curve radii as low as 600 yards and grades as high as 7,1%. You can't run a HSR under those parameters. Sure, you can blast a turnpike, but it will require lots of long tunnels and high viaducts if you want to retain high-speeds.


The turnpike requires lots of tunnels moron. I've driven it many times. Try learning about something before pontificating with your warped road ***** ideology.


----------



## Suburbanist

hoosier said:


> The turnpike requires lots of tunnels moron. I've driven it many times. Try learning about something before pontificating with your warped road ***** ideology.


First, there is no reason for personal insults.

Second, I'm discussing engineering, not ideology. Any road, by design, can cope with much tighter curves and higher grades because of the inherent technical characteristics of road vehicles (power, traction etc. etc).

Sure PA Turnpike and many roads have tunnels, but they are usually further apart and fewer than a similar design speed railroad.

That has nothing to do with ideology, or the convenience of lack thereof to build railways. It is just an explanation for hilly/mountainous terrain is usually more "road friendly" than "rail friendly" for construction in terms of costs. It says nothing about whether mountainous railways should be built or not.

Some places have high-performance railroad despite mountains, others don't. This is especially concerning regional systems in areas like the Appalachians, where old alignments were originally designed for no more than 30mph in many sectors. To improve such sector to be able to carry rail traffic at 50mph, for instance, it might take a lot of money, not usually feasible in a context of less populated areas.


----------



## aquaticko

Just a short little aside, and maybe to address MarneGator's concern, I'd agree with the general implication that a Chicago-NYC HSR route seems obvious, if a bit on the long side using conventional technology, but before we could really even consider such a service, we'd have to get people comfortable with using passenger rail service on less ambitious (and economically-crucial) routes. Therefore, it makes more sense to focus on regional improvements rather than new interregional trains at present.

...Was that a good segue to the general railways topic?


----------



## Woonsocket54

An individual admits to being wrong and is then reprimanded for being clueless. Sounds like someone just wants to be a jerk.


----------



## mgk920

Woonsocket54 said:


> An individual admits to being wrong and is then reprimanded for being clueless. Sounds like someone just wants to be a jerk.


Yea, I hearya....

I'm often at the receiving end of stuff like that, too, when things that I thought would not work out in fact do work out.

hno:

Mike


----------



## sidra2010143

Thanks for the info


----------



## hoosier

Woonsocket54 said:


> An individual admits to being wrong and is then reprimanded for being clueless. Sounds like someone just wants to be a jerk.


You don't know this knucklehead. Better to keep your mouth shut concerning matters you do not understand.


----------



## Woonsocket54

tea kettle black


----------



## Nexis

*The Day before Thanksgiving @ Newark Penn station - Amtrak - NJT - PATH - Newark LRT
*


----------



## Woonsocket54

Chicago Architecture Blog
http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.inf...-otherwise-a-modest-future-for-union-station/



> *Two New Skyscrapers, Otherwise a Modest Future for Union Station*
> 
> Dec 15, 2011
> 
> Last night Amtrak and the Chicago Department of Transportation detailed plans for the future of Chicago’s Union Station.
> 
> Union Station is the last of the historic train stations still active in Chicago. On an average weekday, it handles almost 120,000 local, regional, and long-distance Metra and Amtrak passengers. The station is at capacity, yet Metra wants to run 40% more trains into Union Station in the next 30 years, so expansion is imperative.
> 
> In recent years, plans have been floated for a massive intermodal transportation hub with new skyscrapers, subways, and high-speed rail at Union Station. But with the global economy currently pining for the fjords, the plan put together by a cavalcade of state, local, and federal agencies is necessarily yawn-inducing.
> 
> The biggest changes that people will likely see are on Canal Street, where traffic chaos is nothing new. If you haven’t been there lately, it’s a life-sized kinetic sculpture made up of honking cab drivers, fanny-packing tourists, lost suburban SUVs, angry CTA buses, clueless commuter coaches, and an increasing number of long-haul gypsy buses disgorging slack-jawed yokels who stop in the middle of the crosswalks to stare at Willis Tower like a sunflower at noon.
> 
> The proposed solution is to turn a block of West Jackson Boulevard south of Union Station into a transit center, with three canopied medians and as many as seven bus pick-up lanes.
> 
> Also on tap is a plan to eliminate some of the unused baggage platforms in the station concourse. This will allow Amtrak to widen the passenger loading and unloading areas, and also install stairwells to connect Union Station’s concourses directly to the street.
> 
> A little further out is a bit of future-proofing for the station. If you’ve ever taken a train across the country (and if you haven’t I fully recommend it), you know that *you can’t get from Seattle to New York without changing trains in Chicago. This is part of the city’s legacy as the historic transportation nexus of the nation. But these days, it’s mostly an inconvenience. So Amtrak wants to put in a pair of through-tracks on the east side of the station, along the Chicago River. This will let the train company, theoretically, run trains from Oakland, Seattle, and Los Angeles all the way to New York, Washington, and Boston. More likely, however, will be trains that can do a full Midwestern Minneapolis-Milwaukee-Chicago-Detroit-Cleveland run.*
> 
> How much of what Amtrak and CDOT want to happen depends on money, so their combined wish list has been broken into short, mid-, and long-term goals. The short term projects have been funded. Everything else is up in the air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed Amtrak Tower at 300 South Canal Street


----------



## lkstrknb

Amtrak able to travel to 110 mph in Indiana, Michigan

February 07, 2012|By Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune reporter

Amtrak passenger trains sped up to 110 mph for the first time Tuesday in western Michigan and northern Indiana on two routes serving Chicago, officials announced.

But the railroad crossings lack safety mechanisms that will be installed on Illinois’ high-speed corridor to prevent vehicle-train collisions.

The faster service, which is the first expansion of regional high-speed trains outside the northeastern U.S., is occurring on about 80 miles of a 97-mile stretch of Amtrak-owned track between Kalamazoo, Mich., and Porter, Ind.

Trains operating on the corridor are the Amtrak Wolverine Service between Pontiac, Mich., and Chicago via Detroit and Ann Arbor, and the Amtrak Blue Water between Port Huron, Mich., and Chicago via East Lansing.

The increase in speed from 95 mph to 110 mph followed the Federal Railroad Administration’s approval of a positive train control system. The technology provides safeguards to override human error and prevent train-to-train collisions, speed-related derailments and accidents caused by track-switching errors or malfunctions, according to the agency.

But the positive train control system installed by Amtrak for the Michigan Department of Transportation does not include vehicle-detection technology to alert train crews about a vehicle stopped on the tracks at a crossing or additional protections, including four-quadrant gates, to prevent vehicles from snaking around lowered crossing gates. It does, however, monitor whether the crossing gates, flashing lights and bells are working, officials said.

Crossings on the system being installed in Illinois on the Chicago-to-St. Louis 110 mph corridor will be outfitted with full four-quadrant gates and an obstacle-intrusion detection system to tell locomotive engineers about vehicles on the tracks with enough advance warning so that the train can stop before the crossing, according to the Illinois Department of Transportation. Amtrak service at up to 110 mph is scheduled to begin in 2014 on part of the route, IDOT said. The current top speed is 79 mph.

Using a less-robust crossing system not only increases the risk to vehicle drivers and their passengers, but also to the riders aboard high-speed trains involved in a collision at a crossing, experts said.

On Feb. 1 at a crossing near Jackson, Mich., on the eastern end of Michigan’s 110 mph rail corridor, an Amtrak train derailed when it struck a semitrailer truck that was stuck on the tracks. More than 10 people on board the Chicago-bound train were injured.

Federal railroad officials said the Michigan plan meets all regulations and that it is up to each state to decide on “an acceptable level of grade crossing risk.’’

The Federal Railroad Administration “has every confidence in the Michigan Department of Transportation’s and Amtrak’s ability to determine the appropriate safety mechanisms at their grade crossings,’’ said Mike England, a spokesman for the agency.

Michigan rail officials said the safety system they selected on the 110 mph corridor is the most cost-effective while also being safe.

“This was not a decision we made lightly,’’ said Tim Hoeffner, director of the Office of Rail at the Michigan Department of Transportation. “What you put at the crossing is only one component of grade-crossing safety. You also must have police enforcement and the education piece to go along with the engineering.’’

“One of the most important factors is that we are dealing with the railroad in a part of the state where people understand the issues better and have a better grasp that when the flashing lights, bells and gates go on, the train is going to be there quickly and leave quickly,’’ said Hoeffner, who rode aboard the 110 mph service on Tuesday.

Sustained operations at 110 mph on the 80-mile section in Michigan and Indiana will cut 10 minutes off the 95- mph schedules and about 20 minutes off the 79 mph speed that Amtrak trains operated at as recently as 2001, officials said.

Future steps include expanding 110 mph service from Kalamazoo to central and eastern Michigan, officials said.


----------



## lkstrknb

What do you think of the new 110mph (177km/h) Amtrak trains in Indiana and Michigan?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ago-bound-train-positive-train-control-system

Luke


----------



## mgk920

Well, IMHO, incremental upgrades of that sort are the way to go. They are much more cost-effective than diving in head-first on true high-speed while steadily easing the populous back into a rail mindset as a means of short and midrange intercity transport.

Also, Amtrak owns the track in question (one of the very few segments outside of the NEC), so the messing around with the freight carriers that one finds elsewhere will not be a problem here.

Mike


----------



## hmmwv

This is an move in the right direction, the most cost effective way to improve service quality.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ But Amtrak does not have so many opportunities to be implemented elsewhere. With the current economic situation (high gas prices and more and more freight coming from Asia), the freight railways are booming and they don't want to sell much trackage to Amtrak.

Amtrak had an opportunity to buy dirt-cheap track from railways in the late-1990s, but that window of opportunity closed.

There are some possibilites, though. I read UP is all but halting traffic between NM and KS via La Junta (CO). But that is a sparsely populated area, even if Amtrak acquired tracks, there is not much scope for service.


----------



## aquaticko

Well, considering just how obstinate the freight companies have been, and how little incentive they have to be less so, it still seems to me like the best chance for these sorts of speed-ups to continue would be to just build new trackage. Although of course, in that case, it's no longer an upgrade, and all the benefits of upgrading vs. new construction are lost...sigh.


----------



## FM 2258

IanCleverly said:


> I've never known a train where you can take your shoes off to walk around it :lol:


Great video. The train seems realllly slooowwwww. hno:


----------



## mgk920

The Southwest Chief departing Los Angeles Union Station via a different routing than the Sunset Limited above:






Enjoy!

:cheers:

Mike


----------



## trainrover

Valentine's Day 2012







:_CN blamed for fatal train derailment in Illinois

Accident in Cherry Valley in 2009 killed 1 person, injured 7_


^^ clickable...​CN is Canadian hno: It used to be a --uhm-- crown corporation.


----------



## krnboy1009

Booked Amtrak round trip NYC to Chicago.

will have videos and pics up first week of april.


----------



## trainrover

Might I be counting more than 3's worth here? :sly:​


----------



## trainrover

largest gathering ever of waterborne trainspotters







impressive speed for such a narrow ROW ​


----------



## trainrover

more like a sapling mangler







ambidexterity?​


----------



## Fan Railer

mgk920 said:


> The NFL looks upon itself as an entire package (the league) competing in the free market against all of the other forms of entertainment, not the individual teams competing against other forms of entertainment (except in their own respective local markets). Their model - keep all of the teams equally strong financially and the 'on the field' competition between then will be very close, with any team being very capable of defeating any other team on any given weekend - and developing intensive, and hugely profitable, fan interest in the process.
> 
> As for 'third-party', including government, ownership of railroad infrastructure here in the USA, the State of Wisconsin already owns a significant percentage of the ROW and mainline track in the state - most of which that the state owns being currently leased to the Wisconsin and Southern railroad ('WSOR') for operations.
> 
> Mike


http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/docs/railmap.pdf
If you consider about 1/3 a significant percentage, then yes. 
You also have to consider that Wisconsin is primarily a Democratic state, meaning that the voting population, or at least a majority of it does not mind the higher taxes and the increased government involvement in areas such as rail infrastructure.

Now looking at Illinois, where Chicago is situated, there is more of a balance between the Republicans (conservatives) and the Democrats (liberals), although it IS slightly liberal leaning. Your proposal would be possible if the State government decided that it was a proper thing to undertake, but government at the city level (which you proposed) would most likely never devote such resources necessary for this kind of project.


----------



## aquaticko

Woonsocket54 said:


> Our priorities are misguided...extending trains to rural Maine


That'd only be true assuming that this extension is coming in place of other railway extensions/improvements elsewhere, and it's not clear that this is. I've riden on this train only once before (there's a station right on my university campus), but even at 7am on a Saturday, this train was busy. A lot of people from Boston take the train up during the summer and fall, and a lot of people on the seacoast of Maine and NH take it down all year; this extension seems reasonable.


----------



## sekelsenmat

Fan Railer said:


> Tell that to people who will be paying more taxes for government funded railway improvement / construction. Most will have a cow if this was proposed in earnest. It's just the way our society is; people won't want to pay for something that doesn't directly benefit them, regardless of how important or beneficial it may actually be.hno:


I think that the evidence is quite different. See for example when the governor of Florida started port construction with tax payer money right after rejecting the High Speed Rail line. He rejected a people transportation project and put money into a cargo transportation project.

Similarly in the South Carolina debate Newt Gingrich said the government should invest in the port to improve job perspectives in the state as X% (don't remember how many, but it was a lot) jobs there are directly or indirectly related to the port. So there clearly is a will to invest in cargo transportation.

And anyway, the reason to build it would be to clear the city center for passenger rail, so it is a passenger investment after all...

One thing here is that our exact topic of discussion is kind of clouding the picture because it is a very strange proposition: a city investing a cargo rail ring. I have never heard of such a thing. The usual entities to build rail rings are the state and federal government. Examples:

*Araçatuba (Brazil) rail ring -> Built by the Federal government with money which it collects from the private cargo rail transport
*São Paulo (Brazil) rail ring -> Debated to be funded by the state and federal government, not by the city. Part of the reason to build it is to clear the city center for passenger rail.

So for Chicago I would assume the same thing could be done: The state and federal governments could built it and lease it away as a concession to a private entity.

But of course as for everything one would need to make an economic viability study for this project and compare it with other propositions and build first the most viable rail projects, the ones that bring the most passenger benefit for the amount of invested $


----------



## Fan Railer

sekelsenmat said:


> I think that the evidence is quite different. See for example when the governor of Florida started port construction with tax payer money right after rejecting the High Speed Rail line. He rejected a people transportation project and put money into a cargo transportation project.
> 
> Similarly in the South Carolina debate Newt Gingrich said the government should invest in the port to improve job perspectives in the state as X% (don't remember how many, but it was a lot) jobs there are directly or indirectly related to the port. So there clearly is a will to invest in cargo transportation.
> 
> And anyway, the reason to build it would be to clear the city center for passenger rail, so it is a passenger investment after all...
> 
> One thing here is that our exact topic of discussion is kind of clouding the picture because it is a very strange proposition: a city investing a cargo rail ring. I have never heard of such a thing. The usual entities to build rail rings are the state and federal government. Examples:
> 
> *Araçatuba (Brazil) rail ring -> Built by the Federal government with money which it collects from the private cargo rail transport
> *São Paulo (Brazil) rail ring -> Debated to be funded by the state and federal government, not by the city. Part of the reason to build it is to clear the city center for passenger rail.
> 
> So for Chicago I would assume the same thing could be done: The state and federal governments could built it and lease it away as a concession to a private entity.
> 
> But of course as for everything one would need to make an economic viability study for this project and compare it with other propositions and build first the most viable rail projects, the ones that bring the most passenger benefit for the amount of invested $


I think there is a point to be conceded, here, and I do agree that there is a will to invest in freight construction in certain respects, but you have to understand that this matter all revolves around profit motive. In Florida for example, what was the reason the Governor used in his rejection of the high speed rail line construction subsidized by Federal funds? He said that the project "far too costly to taxpayers" and that "the risk far outweigh[ed] the benefits". 

My guess is that the projected revenue returns would not have been high enough to justify such and investment of Federal and State funding, as opposed to construction of a port used for freight. Not only would such a project supply the area with short term construction jobs, but freight is almost a guarantee of safe/continuous revenue. Freight is more predictable than passenger railways. Thus profit and return would be ensured, enabling a lesser impact upon the individual taxpayer, if there was any impact at all. 

On to your proposal about freeing up track space around Chicago for Passenger rail. I completely agree with your idea, and it's definitely a good idea for the residents of Chicago, but once again, there are a number of factors to consider that would sway the voter (and by extension, the government) one way or the other:

1. Profit motive: Is there going to be a profit made in this scenario that would offset construction costs and therefore ease the burden on the taxpayer? Where is that profit coming from? The freight companies, passenger rail? What are the freight companies going to do with their supposed profit? Lower transportation fees? Invest in rail maintenance (thus affecting passenger rail)? What would passenger operators do with their profits? Invest in new equipment? Lower fares? <-- HAH!

2. Is the government truly giving away the final constructed product away to the private companies for operation and maintenance, or are there strings attached. Private rail freight companies in the US are notoriously protective of their track rights and whatnot.

3. How exactly would the funding be broken up? How much is to be funded by the state, and how much of it is being subsidized by the Federal Government? Is construction going to be contracted out to a private group/company? How many jobs will this create (both short term and long term)?

All of these questions have to be considered before it can be decided that any sort of government funded project can proceed forward. If the voters have any issue with this, the the politicians involved are going to have trouble during the election seasons.

And as a friendly side note, who's the Republican nominee now?


----------



## sekelsenmat

Fan Railer said:


> In Florida for example, what was the reason the Governor used in his rejection of the high speed rail line construction subsidized by Federal funds? He said that the project "far too costly to taxpayers" and that "the risk far outweigh[ed] the benefits". My guess is that the projected revenue returns would not have been high enough to justify such and investment of Federal and State funding, as opposed to construction of a port used for freight.


That's what he said. Maybe because I am brazilian I don't believe in what people say with a blank check. I think he didn't accept it because it came from a democrat president. Doing everything possible to block a ruler is a standard opposition practice to make him look incompetent and get votes in the next election, even if you are actually in favor of something. In Brazil the socialist party (PT) used this tactic very wildly. They voted again and again and again against even the best proposals just to screw the current rulers until they finally won and got power. PT voted against the balenced budget law, voted against our current currency, againt privatizing telecom companies ... well against all of the most successful and vital measures done at the time.

About the project itself: The project would not cost a dime for the state, it was 100% federal funded. The state only had to keep it running, which is the minimum expected and the viability report clearly stated that it would be a profitable line.

The cargo investment involves billions of dollars of investment by the state government, and is not sure either. There is an economic downturn and decrease in manufacturing in the USA which could easily make the port see much less traffic then expected.

And both of them would generate construction jobs.

Also the rail line was guaranteed to have loads of passengers between Orlando Airport and Disney.



> 1. Profit motive: Is there going to be a profit made in this scenario that would offset construction costs and therefore ease the burden on the taxpayer? Where is that profit coming from? The freight companies, passenger rail?


Actually I am not really convinced about the project anymore, so it is hard to talk about details about it. After posting I read in another post in this thread that Chicago already has some belt lines ... so freight should just use those.

Instead of building a belt line the federal government could just buy the inner city rail sections used by Amtrak, if not already from Amtrak and give passenger rail full priority. Freight should use the belt lines.

I think we are discussing with too few information here. A big Chicago map showing which lines are owned by Amtrak and which ones not would be a must have to further talk about the topic =)



> And as a friendly side note, who's the Republican nominee now?


It is Romney.


----------



## hammersklavier

XAN_ said:


> mgk920 why can't government of Chicago build a railroad from one intersection of different railroads to other major intersection, and than just sell timeslots to freight companies?


Technically speaking, a good idea; politically speaking, a nonstarter (just look at Fan Railer's incendiary post below).


----------



## Woonsocket54

Talgo trains for Amtrak Cascades









Oregon DOT flickr/Bob Gallegos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oregondot/7510821090/









Oregon DOT flickr/Bob Gallegos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oregondot/7510820744/


----------



## Nexis

Well , at least were slowly getting to a more European look , :lol:


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Nexis said:


> Well , at least were slowly getting to a more European look , :lol:


Whether or not they "look" European, they've been using Talgo equipment (Spanish) on the Cascades line since it started. I rode them in the 1990s.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

sekelsenmat said:


> That's what he said. Maybe because I am brazilian I don't believe in what people say with a blank check. I think he didn't accept it because it came from a democrat president.


I'm a huge supporter of HSR but even I had to admit the project in Florida seemed like a boondoggle. It didn't even go city center to city center (downtown Orlando) which is one of the features of rail that air transport can't match. The Florida project went to the Orlando AIRPORT for Pete's sake. It was like it was just a project to get flyers from Tampa to another airport.

When it was proposed, I took it as a demonstration project more than serious transportation. It was the most "shovel ready" true HSR project then available. But it wasn't a terribly smart use of funds. I actually wasn't very disappointed when it was cancelled (and most of my family lives in Florida so I might have ridden it).


----------



## hmmwv

Woonsocket54 said:


> Talgo trains for Amtrak Cascades


Nice, I never even heard about this, are they planning on replacing all the old trains, or is this just a new addition? When it's put into commercial service I'll definitely take a ride.


----------



## sekelsenmat

Cal_Escapee said:


> I'm a huge supporter of HSR but even I had to admit the project in Florida seemed like a boondoggle. It didn't even go city center to city center (downtown Orlando) which is one of the features of rail that air transport can't match. The Florida project went to the Orlando AIRPORT for Pete's sake. It was like it was just a project to get flyers from Tampa to another airport.


You are forgetting that the majority of riders would be doing Orland Airport->Disney World and that Orland Airport has a pretty good connection to the rest of the city. The city center (excluding NY) is much less dominant and relevant in USA cities then in the rest of the world. The huge suburbias and highly degradated centers with surface parking lots and huge highways in the USA much diminshes the importance of the city center.

Not to mention that a future expansion would cover going to the center, and into Miami.


----------



## K_

Woonsocket54 said:


> Talgo trains for Amtrak Cascades
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oregon DOT flickr/Bob Gallegos
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/oregondot/7510821090/


Have they finally gotten rid of the Cabbages?


----------



## zaphod

Yeah, is that the rear cab unit(like the new Rotems in LA and Miami) or a DMU?

Anyways, the only bummer of the various failed rail projects was Chicago-Madison. After visiting Madison I came to think that despite being a small city it would have been a good line. The Monona Terrace station would have been within perhaps extended walking distance from UW, the capital, etc

All we can hope for I guess is continued funding from states and the feds for decent regional Amtrak service at 110 mph speeds and slow but steady upgrades to the NEC so maybe Acela could go 150 mph in Jersey?


----------



## hmmwv

^^I think that's the loco.


----------



## K_

hmmwv said:


> ^^I think that's the loco.


No that's not the loco.

The Talgo sets used on the Cascade would normally run with an engine at one end, and a "cab baggage" car ("cabbage") on the other. The cab car was a converted locomotive, with it's prime mover removed.

This looks like they've modified one end of a Talgo set to have a proper driving cab so they don't need the cab car anymore.


----------



## Nexis

No thats the new lead car , FRA seems to have given them so wavier. There was no incentive for Amtrak to build a rear car if you think about it , this isn't the Acela...so they must have pushed the FRA.


----------



## K_

Nexis said:


> No thats the new lead car , FRA seems to have given them so wavier. There was no incentive for Amtrak to build a rear car if you think about it , this isn't the Acela...so they must have pushed the FRA.


It's a cab car. Wether it's on the lead or at the tail depends on which way the train is running I suppose.


----------



## Sopomon

It looks like a school bus


----------



## CityDreamer

California lawmakers ok billions for first US high speed line

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...ifornia-high-speed-rail/56071830/1?csp=34news


----------



## zaphod

Really who cares? You guys debating the fairness of FanRailer's use of adjectives is exactly why those kids in the video and the parent is getting away with being a nuisance. Nobody can say anything or deal with the situation because they'd get sued or attacked for trying to help.

Oh well, years of shitty part time retail jobs to make it through college have made me a little more extroverted and outspoken in dealing with shit in public places. Sorry to offend.

Trains seem to benefit from a big undeserved positive image bias compared to buses. But if Amtrak began to have real issues with passenger disturbances, that reputation could be questioned and that would be a very big problem.

Good for you uploading that video. Maybe someone from Amtrak will see it, and compare it to the viral videos from the TTC, SEPTA and MARTA showing despicable passenger behavior, worthless employees, and trashy conditions and wonder if it's worth the PR.


----------



## Fan Railer

This is the finalized CAD drawing for the new Siemens Amtrak Cities Sprinter 125 mph (135 mph design) locomotive that will be rolling down the NEC for the foreseeable future starting in 2 years or so:








I think it looks very atypical, but that's my opinion.


----------



## K_

Fan Railer said:


> This is the finalized CAD drawing for the new Siemens Amtrak Cities Sprinter 125 mph (135 mph design) locomotive that will be rolling down the NEC for the foreseeable future starting in 2 years or so:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it looks very atypical, but that's my opinion.


Looks liek a pretty standard electric loco to me.


----------



## bagus70

Fan Railer said:


> This is the finalized CAD drawing for the new Siemens Amtrak Cities Sprinter 125 mph (135 mph design) locomotive that will be rolling down the NEC for the foreseeable future starting in 2 years or so:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it looks very atypical, but that's my opinion.


It looks very European, unless the knuckle coupler gave the American looks.


----------



## Woonsocket54

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/u...llion-on-food-in-last-decade-audit-finds.html



> *Amtrak Losing Millions Each Year on Food Sales*
> By RON NIXON
> Published: August 2, 2012
> 
> WASHINGTON — Amtrak lost more than $800 million on its food and beverage services over the last 10 years, largely because of waste, employee theft and lack of proper oversight, government auditors have found.
> 
> The railroad’s food and beverage service has never broken even since it was required by Congress to do so in 1981. The losses were the focus of a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing on Thursday that reflected partisan views over how Amtrak should be run. Republican lawmakers suggested that food services should be privatized. Democrats questioned the need for the hearing, saying the railroad was dealing with the losses.
> 
> Joseph H. Boardman, president and chief executive of Amtrak, confirmed the losses but said the railroad was taking steps to address the problem. “We are still looking for ways to improve our cost recovery,” he said.
> 
> According to audits by the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, and the railroad’s own inspector general, Amtrak loses about $80 million a year selling food. Since 2002, Amtrak’s food service has lost $834 million.
> 
> Amtrak said it was increasing the use of credit cards for food sales to cut down on cash thefts by employees, reducing staff, creating a better system to track inventory and to collect revenue. It has also set up a three-person loss-prevention unit.
> 
> Ted Alves, the Amtrak inspector general, testified that the bulk of the losses were on Amtrak’s long-distance routes, which account for 87 percent of the deficit. Last year, Amtrak spent $206 million in providing food services but collected only about $121 million. Long-haul routes do not include the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington.
> 
> “It’s an outrageous cost to taxpayers,” said John L. Mica, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House committee. “There has to be a better way. We can’t keep on paying this subsidy.”
> 
> Mr. Mica has been a frequent Amtrak critic who sponsored a bill last year that would have allowed private companies to develop a high-speed rail project on the Northeast Corridor and would have allowed competitive bids for Amtrak’s long-distance routes. He later withdrew the proposal. Amtrak’s money-losing food service has long been the focus of government studies and management vows to do better. The G.A.O. report, in 2005, said that poor management, lack of planning and enforcement of its food and beverage contract were likely causes of losses. Amtrak officials at the time acknowledged the problems and said they were making steady improvements in addressing them.
> 
> Seven years later, Mr. Alves said, part of the problem with the food service is that supervision of the business is split between two different Amtrak departments and carried out in an uncoordinated manner. Neither has established goals to reduce costs.
> 
> Mr. Alves, who issued a report on the problem last year, estimated that theft by Amtrak food service employees could cost the agency $4 million to $7 million annually. According to charts shown by Republican committee staff members during the hearing, Amtrak charges about $2 for a soft drink, but the cost to taxpayers is about $3.40 when labor is included. A $9.50 hamburger on the train costs taxpayers $16, the charts showed. Labor adds nearly 60 percent to food and beverage costs.
> 
> Dwayne Bateman, an Amtrak food service employee who testified at the hearing, called the analysis misleading. Mr. Bateman said food service workers also helped in other areas onboard, including passenger safety. “You may just see us handing out hamburgers, but we do other things,” he said.
> 
> Representative Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat of West Virginia and the ranking member on the committee, said the hearing was a not-so-veiled attempt by Republicans to get rid of Amtrak food service workers, who number about 1,200.
> 
> “It’s a whopper of an idea, trading good-paying jobs for cheaper hamburgers,” Mr. Rahall said.


----------



## Nexis

Hmmm , funny thing is everytime Amtrak tried to Privatize the food , Republicans cried foul....there such big hypocrites. Same with dumping the small stations no one uses...


----------



## Fan Railer

Nexis said:


> Hmmm , funny thing is everytime Amtrak tried to Privatize the food , Republicans cried foul....there such big hypocrites. Same with dumping the small stations no one uses...


HAH... if those sniveling republicans had their way, all of Amtrak would be privatized. Heaven knows how long it would last after that.....


----------



## Don31

Fan Railer said:


> HAH... if those sniveling republicans had their way, all of Amtrak would be privatized. Heaven knows how long it would last after that.....


Ya got that right!


----------



## Suburbanist

*(Defunct) Ski Train*

Apparently (claims from the own company) this train was the "largest (sic - longest maybe?) passenger train in US" for 20 years until it was withdrawn in 2009 due to low ridership and massive delays caused by conflicts with UP (owner of the tracks). In the video below it has 3 locos and 17 passenger cars, but I'm not sure they all formed a single train.

Some people took shoots of the train while CN was moving it to Canada in 2009.


----------



## zaphod

The critics are freaking idiots.

Food service is obviously a loss leader. It you removed it or downgraded it further it would probably cause Amtrak to loose even more money. Without food nobody would use long distance trains.

To that end, I think they should go the other way. Upgrade most long distance routes to have amenities like wifi, flat screens, plugs, nice interiors, more plush seats and beds, and most importantly high end food service. Instead of fast food they ought to do things characteristic of each route and have a certain theme. Relative to other costs this would be chump change and it would make the expensive journey actually worth the money and attract more riders.

For example, anyone stayed in a Holiday Inn or La Quinta lately? Some of them have gotten all fancy with suite-style rooms, good breakfast food, and nice comfortable features and design. If a motel chain can be nice why can't Amtrak?



> HAH... if those sniveling republicans had their way, all of Amtrak would be privatized. Heaven knows how long it would last after that.....


Exactly, it wouldn't.

The NEC and it's branches, Amtrak California, Chicago/Midwest lines, and Cascades services would probably be rescued by the states they run through. Instead of Amtrak as the operator, Class I railroad train crews and plus some kind of private contractor for onboard services.

I imagine some tourist excursion trains would start running on scenic sections of the routes used by the Builder, Zephyr, Starlight, and Chief now. But it would probably be seasonal service and not regularly scheduled public transportation.


----------



## Suburbanist

zaphod said:


> To that end, I think they should go the other way. Upgrade most long distance routes to have amenities like wifi, flat screens, plugs, nice interiors, more plush seats and beds, and most importantly high end food service. Instead of fast food they ought to do things characteristic of each route and have a certain theme. Relative to other costs this would be chump change and it would make the expensive journey actually worth the money and attract more riders.


But, then, it brings a more fundamental question: is the government in the business of managing, directly, what are essentially tourist enterprises? A case might, or might not, exist for direct management of public transportation as in the NEC or other routes.

However, what you are proposing is essentially a leisure scenic train with high-end amenities. Which is totally fine, but I don't think it should be a priority for government funds to provide such vacations. 

Moreover, customer orientation and pretty much the whole philosophy of the business of hauling dozens of thousands from NYC to Washington successfully , on a daily basis, are different than those of catering for holiday makers taking 3 nights to travel between Chicago and the West Coast. 

Those long-distance trains are huge money-losers, and they have the lowest of Amtrak's farebox recover ratios. It's abysmal, doesn't reach 30% on trains like the Sunset Limited.

So maybe Amtrak should get out of the tourist business and focus on mass transportation, even if it leaves railfans screaming for not having trains going through the Rockies. 

The NEC and it's branches, Amtrak California, Chicago/Midwest lines, and Cascades services would probably be rescued by the states they run through. Instead of Amtrak as the operator, Class I railroad train crews and plus some kind of private contractor for onboard services.



> I imagine some tourist excursion trains would start running on scenic sections of the routes used by the Builder, Zephyr, Starlight, and Chief now. But it would probably be seasonal service and not regularly scheduled public transportation.


The transcontinental routes are operated in a very inefficient way. Too many stops in the middle of nowhere, too little comfort for passengers who are travelling for the scenery/thrills and not for speed/convenience. 

Australia did away with its long-distance trains and now they are operated as premium tourist leisure rides costing a lot, but providing a more tourist-oriented service. They could do the same in US.


----------



## zaphod

> But, then, it brings a more fundamental question: is the government in the business of managing, directly, what are essentially tourist enterprises?


I actually agree with your stance that Amtrak should re-focus on regional rail and private tourism companies would run the popular routes out west.

But I'm not asking fundamental questions here, just thinking of what Amtrak's management could do with respect to the status quo. They'd probably loose less money in meantime if they spent a little to upgrade the riding experience, to increase ridership and justify ticket price increases. Also, a more regional Amtrak would still need to do this to remain competitive with bus service and private automobiles. 

Of course that's not really the political goal. The goal is to make Amtrak so shitty that it becomes unpopular and easy to put out of it's misery.


----------



## Woonsocket54

new passenger platforms opened today in Sacramento










http://www.cityofsacramento.org/pathtoprogress/


----------



## Fan Railer

Woonsocket54 said:


> new passenger platforms opened today in Sacramento
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cityofsacramento.org/pathtoprogress/


That was fast.... they were still doing some major work about a month ago when I passed through on the Zephyr.


----------



## trainrover

Not really, its very elements appear barely the essentials ...


----------



## sekelsenmat

zaphod said:


> I actually agree with your stance that Amtrak should re-focus on regional rail and private tourism companies would run the popular routes out west.
> 
> But I'm not asking fundamental questions here, just thinking of what Amtrak's management could do with respect to the status quo. They'd probably loose less money in meantime if they spent a little to upgrade the riding experience, to increase ridership and justify ticket price increases. Also, a more regional Amtrak would still need to do this to remain competitive with bus service and private automobiles.


The West routes are not merely touristic. They are strategic. They keep transportation available even in events such as the 11/9 attacks and would also keep in a event such as the vulcano that disrupted flights all over Europe 2 years ago. And for the cost of 1 billion per year I think that the strategic value given by Amtrak way pays over it's cost.

It is surely 1000 times more productive then the 1 trillion invested in stupid wars in the Middle East such as Bush's 2 wars and Obama's recent war in Lybia.

Regional rail is also deficitary and I really don't see how it would be possible to refocus on it for Amtrak. Regional rail investment depends largely in the will and funds from state governments, not on Amtrak. In Europe rail is usually profitable only in intercity and HSR lines, and that is largely because the continuation of the trip is effective with great regional rail, trams, buses, etc. In the USA I suppose that Intercity rail would not be able to be profitable because of the lack of local transportation options and the hugh sprawl. I think that in the USA only High Speed Rail would be profitable.

So in short I would keep all the long routes exactly as they are now, and invest in HSR as a solution to make Amtrak have a higher profitability. Sad that profitable projects such as the Florida HSR are cancelled for no rational reason. With it's profits Amtrak could depend less in federal funds.


----------



## trainrover

Strategic? Speedier travel's got on American autoroutes compared to their railways ...


----------



## sekelsenmat

Isn't the oil from the cars and trucks running over those Autoroutes the ones that fuel trillions of dollars to rich Saudi billionairs that fund Al Qaeda!?!? Doesn't look like a very clever thing to do to me =D At least I would not want to fund my worse enemy.

Anyway, since the topic is the transcontinental routes, I just found a great story about someone who did many of them and shared the account in details. I think it is a great reading, and many others might find also:

http://www.amtrak.com/whistle-stop/cross-country-train-adventure-about-the-trip


----------



## Suburbanist

sekelsenmat said:


> The West routes are not merely touristic. They are strategic. They keep transportation available even in events such as the 11/9 attacks and would also keep in a event such as the vulcano that disrupted flights all over Europe 2 years ago. And for the cost of 1 billion per year I think that the strategic value given by Amtrak way pays over it's cost.


Completely non-sense.

They are leisure routes with a daily intercontinental capacity below 4000 passengers, totally irrelevant for the transportation market in the area. And they are all diesel routes.

130 buses would carry more people than all Amtrak trains...

Only fanboys whose main concern is that a network looks "nice" in a map and politicians wanting a gold-plated service in their counties support the "strategic" need of these routes.

I remember once reading some b.s. about how vital the Colorado River route would be for national transportation between Denver and Salt Lake City, except that the fastest route between two cities would not be the "scenic journey" along the river but using the main UP link via Cheyenne and then west through Wyoming - a route Amtrak abandoned in 1997.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## trainrover




----------



## sekelsenmat

Suburbanist said:


> Only fanboys whose main concern is that a network looks "nice" in a map and politicians wanting a gold-plated service in their counties support the "strategic" need of these routes.


What a disgusting argumentation: Attempting to ridicularise those that defend long-distance rail as "fanboys". You are the most irritating and persistent troll I have ever seen.


----------



## aquaticko

^^No, he's very much right on this one. Anyone with the slightest understanding of the passenger rail market in the U.S. knows that the long-distance routes are nothing more than a drain on Amtrak's limited resources. If they could be shut down, it would be a boon to the organization and the rail corridors that are actually useful.


----------



## sekelsenmat

^^ !?!? When did Skyscraper city got dominated by anti-rail biggots?

If you don't care about rail, why discuss here at all? Just keep to the road forum.

If you care about rail, then you know that long distance Amtrak is very important.


----------



## makita09

Anyone who uses ad hominem when discussing anything is unlikely to have a balanced outlook. The problem is with the USA is that the long term strategy for rail transport has been based on just such irrational ways of thinking. Add to that the average armchair critic is applying just as bad logic to the bad logic coming from the government and the result is one of the most nonsensical types of discussion that can possibly be had, where the huge complexities of running logistical networks is reduced to silly soundbite arguments that are frankly utterly meaningless.

The only truth that can be gleaned from them is that it is unlikely the transport discussion in the USA is going to become more logical any time soon, and so the future of rail in the USA is similar to the recent past - by the USA's own standards; pathetic.

For every soundbite excuse as to why rail won't work there is a country somewhere in the world with similar situation on the ground that does use rail. But then there'll be some other unrelated argument that brings some sort of philosophy and ideology into it. Truly the only reason why the USA doesn't really bother with rail is because it doesn't understand it like the rest of the world does, and frankly doesn't want to.


----------



## trainrover

^^ Your concluding sentence sums up the matter quite well. It's the same for Canada. However, the question is what exactly is North America? It's a place where economic policies trump socio-economic ones. This is why I try to avoid contributing to all this blathering about what makes sense about the continent's direction regarding rail and what doesn't. Free market? PFFT ... rail isn't the only sector where tell-tale signs abound revealing cornered markets. (Frankly, everything you've just written's spot on/right )


----------



## Sopomon

sekelsenmat said:


> ^^ !?!? When did Skyscraper city got dominated by anti-rail biggots?
> 
> If you don't care about rail, why discuss here at all? Just keep to the road forum.
> 
> If you care about rail, then you know that long distance Amtrak is very important.


It's not being bigoted. It's just the way things are.

Although, I do get the feeling that if the lines were upgraded to 200 km/h and had services every hour, there could be a significant rise in ridership.

That's never going to happen. 

Good ol' USA.


----------



## aquaticko

^^The increase would be significant only relative to the crazy low ridership numbers there are now. 

It's widely acknowledged that high speed rail, given the current level of technology, will work only up to distances of about 1000km. It will be a long, long time before trains can take over for long-haul flights. The point of increasing train use in the U.S. is primarily to reduce auto dependancy, a goal which will require a dedication of resources that seems, to many people, to preclude continued provision of long-distance train services.


----------



## trainrover




----------



## sekelsenmat

aquaticko said:


> It's widely acknowledged that high speed rail, given the current level of technology, will work only up to distances of about 1000km.


High Speed Rail is indeed not made for very long trips, that's where sleeper trains are most efficient.

Also HSR is not a one-solution fits all kind of thing. It is adequate for corridors with a lot of people moving between them. Conventional rail at 160km/h is very much adequate for all of the rest of the secondary corridors which do not have enough demand for HSR. Conventional passenger rail is still very important and should not be forgotten.



> The point of increasing train use in the U.S. is primarily to reduce auto dependancy, a goal which will require a dedication of resources that seems, to many people, to preclude continued provision of long-distance train services.


But it doesn't. If those resources are not put into long-distance rail they will not be put in any other kind of rail.

The arguments by suburbanist are a trap. He demonises long distance rail and throws a kind of carrot: "Maybe if it didnt exist, then Amtrak could take some loans and fill itself with debts" =D That's a joke, right? It must be a joke. His argument is decreasing the rail financing by 1 billion $ per year and instead of that put ZERO $ per year into Amtrak. And if Amtrak wants to build anything, let it make huge debts until it goes bankrupt because it cannot affort the huge interrests it will pay on them...

Let's go back to reality: 
1> We need more rail investment, not less. 
2> Without long-distance a huge amount of people would never see a passenger train in their entire lives. How will they support something which doesn't even come close to 1000km from their houses? They wont! And then rail investment is doomed for sure.
3> The money going to long-distance would not go anywhere else if it didn't exist
4> The money going to long-distance is peanuts in comparison to anything else. From the 1 billion deficit how much exactly is long distance rail? I think that only half of it, because Amtrak also serves medium distance routes like St. Louis-Chicago, Chicago-Detroit, a lot of short routes in the NE.
5> Would you also axe the newly renovated St. Louis-Chicago, Chicago-Detroit, etc if they have deficits??
6> The deficit for long distance rail is peanuts and would not cover anything else at all. Half a billion $ is something like a 3rd of what Poland for example invests each year into rail infra-structure improvements. It is less then 0.5% of what China invests in rail improvements each year! It is less then 0.1% of what the middle east wars costed.
7> If there is no passenger rail network how can people be seriously expected to live without cars? Long distance bus transportation sucks, not to mention that it is way, way more dangerous and accident prone then rail.

So please, let's advocate more investment, not less. The arguments from suburbanist are a trap. He hates passenger rail and is always making proposing the progressive destruction of passenger rail. Look at how he changes his arguments from country to county:

1> In Europe he proposes to kill regional rail and sleeper services and invest into HSR. He knows that directly proposing to kill rail would not work, so he goes for a progressive solution of first killing regional rail and sleeper services which will push people into cars and destroy the system which we currently have which has allowed me to live years in adult working life without a car =/ Those services are huge successes of ridership in Europe and no sane politian would propose destroying them. But it still annoys to hear this suburbanist troll advocate killing the exact same infra-structure that I use in my leasure and business trips. 

I would like to see how he would fell if people were advocating close all highways and force him into trains =D Yes, oh boy, I would like to see that as a revange. But that would not be me. I never advocated such I thing because I am not a sadist like him. I am for freedom of choice: People should be free to either use cars or use trains. He is for forcing people into cars. I am not for forcing people into trains, I just want people to have that transportation choice.

2> In USA where rail is precarious he goes for the final solution: Kill all government rail investment. If Amtrak wants to build anything, let it make debts. And if it made huge debs like he proposes, then he would start argumenting that Amtrak is filled in debts and needs to be killed: The progressive (in this case regressive) strategy.


----------



## aquaticko

^^I'm not honestly that concerned with Suburbanist's positions; I've argued with him before and know, broadly speaking what they are. I am also not advocating reducing investment in rail. But if improving various intercity routes with high levels of traffic means dropping long-distance routes with low levels of traffic, then so be it.

I do have to say I don't think you have a proper understanding of the state and situation of the vast majority of the rail network in the U.S.. Most of it isn't owned by Amtrak and so is not subject to improvements at the organization's whims, and even if it was owned by Amtrak, much of it is barely in the sort of condition that allows running much in excess of 100km/h, nevermind 160km/h. 

You admit that rail service in the U.S. is in a precarious position, then fail to understand that increasing rail investment from, oh, maybe a few billion dollars per year to a few hundred billion is politically quite difficult, if even possible. Why is that?


----------



## Suburbanist

sekelsenmat said:


> Conventional rail at 160km/h is very much adequate for all of the rest of the secondary corridors which do not have enough demand for HSR. Conventional passenger rail is still very important and should not be forgotten.


Most US routes are not fit for traffic above 79 mph, and even if they technically were, the host railways (e.g., the freight companies who own almost all full rail trackage in US) wouldn't let such services operate because a high speed differential would wreak havoc with slower but extremely profitable freight trains. And there isn't an economic case for running coal trains at 60, 80 mph either.



> 2> Without long-distance a huge amount of people would never see a passenger train in their entire lives. How will they support something which doesn't even come close to 1000km from their houses? They wont! And then rail investment is doomed for sure.


This is wrong in so many levels, you are essentially advocating misuse of public funds for symbolic politics (of which Western countries are already full of).

On the one's hand there are much better ways to increase brand recognition for Amtrak to blow $ 1,5 billion/year than running slow long-distance trains *whose availability and characteristics are already well known by the most likely group of users!*

On the other's hand, the precarious, multi-hour-delay-prone, leisure-oriented Amtrak transcontinental and very long distance services probably do more damage to the institutional image of Amtrak then help it. 



> 4> The money going to long-distance is peanuts in comparison to anything else. From the 1 billion deficit how much exactly is long distance rail? I think that only half of it, because Amtrak also serves medium distance routes like St. Louis-Chicago, Chicago-Detroit, a lot of short routes in the NE.


Many of these routes receive state support to close the financial gap and they all perform much better in terms of farebox recover ratio. Many regional routes around the NEC are effective feeders of the NEC mainline. The California Zephyr isn't a relevant feed of any train - for instance.



> 6> The deficit for long distance rail is peanuts and would not cover anything else at all. Half a billion $ is something like a 3rd of what Poland for example invests each year into rail infra-structure improvements. It is less then 0.5% of what China invests in rail improvements each year! It is less then 0.1% of what the middle east wars costed.


Non-sense. Individually considered, virtually any "non-defense discretionary spending" program is "peanuts" compared to the cost of wars. Problem: there are hundreds of "peanut-level programs" that make a nice Nutella jar at the end of the fiscal year!



> 7> If there is no passenger rail network how can people be seriously expected to live without cars? Long distance bus transportation sucks, not to mention that it is way, way more dangerous and accident prone then rail.


Except for retirees of people without any concern for time, multi-day train routes are irrelevant when it comes to "live without car". For a decision of living without car, urban/metropolitan commute service is the most single important thing a person would consider, because that is the service he/she will use every day. 

Sort of full-scale US$ 2-trillion national maglev program, the West Coast-elsewhere market will always be air-based, not rail-based. Deal with it. I bet many people wrote in the 1950s how bad was the demise of all regular ocean liners vanishing from transatlantic routes or how bad it were when Singapore lost it last scheduled ocean passenger link (transportation, not leisure cruises) to Australia...



> 2> In USA where rail is precarious he goes for the final solution: Kill all government rail investment. If Amtrak wants to build anything, let it make debts. And if it made huge debs like he proposes, then he would start argumenting that Amtrak is filled in debts and needs to be killed: The progressive (in this case regressive) strategy.


You completely miss the point. If Amtrak's cash flow stop being so negative (and dependent on yearly Congress appropriations) and starts being positive, it could issue bonds to foster more investments and then increase ridership on its key core competitive services, boasting more profits it could then invest in some new alignments etc. That is my reasoning.


----------



## Nexis

*Northeast Corridor Journey - Trenton - Philly
*
*Improvements to be made and Notes
*All Catenary to be Replaced by 2025
All Signals to be replaced by 2015
All Curves to be straighten by 2030
High Speed Crossovers to allow speeds up 85mph when switching by 2020
@ 1:42 , 2 Bridges will be replaced by 2020
@ 2:14 crossing the Delaware River into Pennsylvania
@ 2:34 Restored Morrisville SEPTA Trenton line Station
@ 2:40 , 2 Center Tracks Diverage for New Jersey Transit's Morrisville Yard
@ 2:59 , 2 Tracks cross over to head to NJT Morrisville Yard
@ 2:32 , the Land to the Left will be cleared and used for a Septa Yard
@ 5:55 , Entering Levittown Station which will be high level platformed by 2020
@ 9:11 , Pennsylvania Turnpike Extension - I-276 Crosses Above 
@ 10:19 , Entering Bristol Station which will be high level platformed by 2020
@ 14:00 , Entering Croydon Station ,one of the first stations high level platformed
@ 16:38 , Passing by Eddington Station which could be abandoned by 2020
@ 17:23 , Cornwall Heights Amtrak Sub Station to be replaced by 2020
@ 17:33 , Entering Cornwall Heights Station , this station will be high level platformed and expanded by 2020
@ 21:20 , Entering Torresdale Station , this station will be high level platformed and moved slightly North by 2020
@ 26:05 , Passing Holmesburg Junction , this station will be high level platformed by 2020
@ 26:48 , I-95 can be seen to the left
@ 28:01 , Passing Tacony Station , this station will be High Level Platformed by 2020
@ 29:14-30:01 , This area will be rebuilt , with New Flyovers and New Tunnel to Center City for Next Gen Service
@ 30:04 , SEPTA Market - Frankford Service Crosses above
@ 33:10 , Entering North Philadelphia Station , the 2 Right Tracks will be restored and 1 Left Track by 2020 along with an Expanded Station and high level platformed Chestnut Hill West Platforms
@ 36:06 , The Next 3 Older Bridges to Replaced by 2020
@ 40:07 , Bridge and S-Curve to Straightened out and replaced by 2020
@ 41:52 , Crossing the Schuylkill River & I-76 
@ 42:11 , Entering Zoo Interchange which will be upgraded by 2020
@ 42:14 , Crossing SEPTA TRAM Route 15
@ 42:51 , The New Zoo Substation can seen
@ 43:15 , Going under Amtrak's Keystone line
@ 43:51 , Amtrak's Keystone line Merges with SEPTA Center City Approach 
@ 44:07 , Center City Skyline comes into view
@ 44:39 , This area with be Developed on by 2030 with Skyscrapers and high rises as part of a University City expansion
@ 44:44 , SEPTA's Center City Yard comes into view on the left
@ 45:19 , This area will be Developed on by 2025 with Hotel and Univ Space
@ 45:38 , Amtrak's 30th Street Station comes into View along with Center City Skyline
@ 45:58 , SEPTA's 30th Street Station


----------



## Suburbanist

*New AMTRAK baggage policy and fees*

Amtrak updated its checked baggage policy and fees, as indicated on their own website:



> A new baggage policy will be in effect starting September 10, 2012. The key changes include:
> 
> Each passenger can check up to 4 bags - 2 free of charge and 2 for $20 each.
> Each bag in checked baggage is limited to a size of 75 linear inches (length + width + height). Oversize baggage (76 - 100 linear inches) is accepted for $20.00/bag.
> Luggage must be checked 45 minutes prior to scheduled train departure.
> Rates for storage, parcel check will increase to $4.00 ($5.50 at New York Penn Station) per bag for each 24 hour period.
> Special item rates will increase from $5.00 to $10.00. Tandem bicycles and kayaks are no longer accepted.
> Each bag checked must be packed within a suitable container; plastic/rubber storage containers are prohibited.


For carry-on baggage, the rules remain the same


> Each passenger may only bring a total of 2 carry-on items onboard the train; each item should not exceed 50 lbs. (23 kg) and 28 x 22 x 14 inches.


=========

It is important to remember checked baggage service is not offered everywhere. Actually, it is offered only in around half of Amtrak's stations. In other stations, passengers can only bring 2 carry-on items + notebook backpack or purse


----------



## China Hand

USA and Europe. Explains why CRH/TGV won't work in North America.

Too big, not enough concentrated population centres or density.


----------



## Nexis

But it will work these regions...such as the Midwest , Northeast , Cascadia , California , and Piedmont Atlantic.










--------------2000 - 2025 - 2050 Population 

Greats Lakes : 54.1 - 64.7 - 71.6 Million 
Northeastern Megapolis : 49.5 - 58.1 - 75.8 Million
Southern California : 24.9 - 34.8 - 39.3 Million 
Texas Triangle : 16.5 - 26.8 - 38.1 Million
Florida : 14.7 - 21.4 - 31.5 Million
Piedmont Atlantic : 14.9 - 20.5 - 31.9 Million 
Northern California : 12.7 - 17.3 - 21.1 Million
Gulf Coast : 11.7 - 15.8 - 23.6 Million 
Cascadia : 10.2 - 12.5 - 24.6 Million
Arizona Sun Corridor : 5.7 - 7.4 - 12.3 Million 
Front Range : 4.7 - 6.8 - 10.5 Million

*United States Population in 2000 : 281.4 Million *
Urbanized Suburban and Urban Population in 2000 : 219 Million
Public Transit Usage in 2000 : 15 Million

*United States Population in 2010 : 308.7 Million *
Urbanized Suburban and Urban Population in 2010 : 250 Million
Public Transit Usage in 2010 : 34 Million

*United States Population by 2025 : 340 Million*
Urbanized Suburban and Urban Population by 2025 : 286.5 Million 
Public Transit Usage by 2025 : 54 Million 

*United States Population by 2050 : 440 Million *
Urbanized Suburban and Urban Population by 2050 : 380 Million
Public Transit Usage by 2050 : 170 Million


----------



## China Hand

> But it will work these regions...such as the Midwest , Northeast , Cascadia , California , and Piedmont Atlantic.


No it won't because you are assuming that people in the USA travel to/from common destinations in those regions, along the interstates, and that is not the case. They travel so many unique paths, on Interstates [I-95], State Highways [CA 101], United States Numbered Highways [Route 66, 50], local medium distance trips, local and regional daily commutes, that it is not possible to lay enough economical HSR track to meet the need and reduce road trip miles.

You are assuming, example, that people travel from Jacksonville, Fla to Miami, Fla in large enough numbers and they don't. Interstates in the USA are used for local commutes and medium distance trips for the most part. Any trip lengthier than 5 or 6 hours becomes an in-country plane flight.

Many trips are across those mega-regions, negating laying HSR track from one end to another.

The only place in the USA that it makes sense is the NE Corridor from Richmond to Boston, that just happens to be the ONLY profitable stretch of PDL-like track in the USA, and the ONLY one with 'High Speed Rail'. so to speak at 200kph.

Even that route has turbofan shuttles between DC, NYC and Boston that business travelers take over the train because it is faster to fly. 45 minutes DC-NY, both airports served by subway and express trains that get one into the city in 25 minutes each leg.

Those mega-regions that still manufacture anything (few) ship it by long-haul and short-haul truck as that is mostly cheaper except for a few bulk loads. Commercial freight volumes in the USA are in long-term decline and the frequency of freight trains shows this to be the case.

I understand you FanBois desire for HSR toys in the USA and North America (look at Canada and Mexico - really? You think HSR works in NA? Look at all that space.} but the reality of population density and driving culture, desire for mobility, price of gasoline and where everyone lives, works and travels and where they actually drive not where you think they should, means that HSR in the USA will not take off until its population grows significantly more.

The HSR in California is poised to be a massive public works project and handout to California Unions courtesy of Sacramento, and a massive boondoggle and waste of over $100Bn USD.

Your example of Los Angeles is a great example. If you lived or visited Socal you would know that traffic flows all over, not from point A to B. There are over a dozen major routes crossing back and forth, N-S, E-W, where drivers take a variety of surface streets and modern highways to reach their destinations. You would have to duplicate them all to get people to take a HSR train, and then get them from station to destination.

The fact is cars are faster and cheaper and time is money, time is life.

It will [Cali HSR], literally, become a useless train to nowhere except various California State Prisons.

Public Transit in the USA, asides Manhattan, Boston, Chicago and Seattle, is mostly for the not-normal people. Losers, those on Gov't assistance, the poor, and the devoutly environmental.

Not having a car in almost all of the USA means you are a loser.
Go to a job interview and tell them you took the bus. You won't get the job. HR will have someone go into the parking lot to check if you have a car and how nice it is.

Really.

You want the USA to be something it is not.

China HSR is terrific.

China also has 1,000 million people in the eastern third of the nation, in an area the size of the USA east of the Mississippi River. Europe is also much denser than USA. Until USA approaches those pop densities (2100) HSR won't be used by people there no matter how much is spent or how much they are educated (indoctrinated/propagandised) to do so.


----------



## zaphod

> Those mega-regions that still manufacture anything (few) ship it by long-haul and short-haul truck as that is mostly cheaper except for a few bulk loads. Commercial freight volumes in the USA are in long-term decline and the frequency of freight trains shows this to be the case.


How does this pertain to the rest of your argument?

Bulk loads and long-distance intermodal is exactly what rail does best and there's been a lot of private investment in the greater North American freight network for those purposes.


----------



## China Hand

zaphod said:


> Quit posting rambling walls of text.


Thank you for your suggestion.

After consideration, it has been rejected.



zaphod said:


> How does this pertain to the rest of your argument?
> 
> Bulk loads and long-distance intermodal is exactly what rail does best and there's been a lot of private investment in the greater North American freight network for those purposes.


I mentioned it to reference traffic volume in the USA. On interstates traveling between those points in future Megacities, it's mostly truck traffic moving goods. Why? It's cheaper than the train. Thus freight, and by extension passenger, traffic is cheaper and more flexible on the roads.



zaphod said:


> long-distance intermodal is exactly what rail does best.


Yet drive NA and look at all of the long distance truck haulers. Why? It's still cheaper and more flexible to ship most non-bulk loads by truck in the USA. You all continue to claim theory, desire and 'what it does best', yet the USA uses other methods that obviously are better, cheaper, more flexible.

The USA built out a huge rail network for bulk and intermodal, and have pulled up much of that track that was laid in the 1800's because it is cheaper, faster, more flexible to ship by truck.

Guys what you want is counter to USA reality, and most people in the USA simply do not want what you want.

As far as 'educating' Americans to 'want it', people in the USA H-A-T-E being told what is best for them.


----------



## aquaticko

China Hand said:


> ....Public Transit in the USA, asides Manhattan, Boston, Chicago and Seattle, is mostly for the not-normal people. Losers, those on Gov't assistance, the poor, and the devoutly environmental.
> 
> Not having a car in almost all of the USA means you are a loser.
> Go to a job interview and tell them you took the bus. You won't get the job. HR will have someone go into the parking lot to check if you have a car and how nice it is....


Now _that_ was a useless block of text. I've only included the parts that most completely reflect your ideology. 

And for *you*, of all people, to talk about ignoring facts? _What_ a hypocrite.

I hate to be all ad hominem at you, but if you're not going to engage in a serious discussion about this, then don't.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Three new Amtrak stations are opening this fall for brand-new service. Here are the stations:

Brunswick, ME - Nov 1
Freeport, ME - Nov 1
Norfolk, VA - Dec 12


----------



## Suburbanist

*Retired firefighter goes missing from Amtrak train*

Strange story, yet another case that shows why full passenger manifests and boarding/de-boarding control are needed in one way or another.



> Amtrak police are searching for a retired San Francisco firefighter who went missing while traveling to visit family in Montreal.
> 
> Charlie Dowd, 69, left the Bay Area on Wednesday. He last spoke to his son by cell phone Thursday night, saying he was just outside of Denver, Colorado, his family said.
> 
> *When Dowd's train arrived in Chicago on Friday, he was not on it. His luggage, cell phone and medication were found in his sleeping car*, [...]
> 
> An Amtrak conductor may have spoken with Dowd early Friday near Omaha, Nebraska, one of the stops along the route, the family said.
> 
> Dowd was confused about his whereabouts and believed he was in an apartment, not on a train, and needed to find the front door, the family said.
> 
> Amtrak is investigating the possibility that Dowd got off the train during the night and may have gotten disoriented, and then didn't get back on, the family said.


If someone was in a clear state of mental instability, Amtrak should have called an ambulance and rushed him to hospital, which it didn't.

Full CNN article here.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

National Association of Railroad Passengers "White paper":

*Long Distance Trains: Multipurpose Mobility Machines*

Summary

_Long distance train routes form the foundation of the national passenger train network. 
Their unique capabilities allow them to connect congested urban areas and bring economically viable mobility to rural areas and small towns, many of which are becoming more 
isolated from major cities as regional airline and intercity bus service disappears. 
They represent a strategic platform for scaling up passenger train service that will improve 
American mobility. 
The time has come to transform the national passenger train network from a neglected, 
barebones operation to a robust and thriving mobility machine by:
1. Filling gaps in the current network to create a grid and gateway system
2. Increasing frequencies to allow daytime service to all stations.
3. Procuring high-performance trainsets suitable for overnight and longer distance trips.
4. Making track improvements that increase reliability and decrease trip times._


----------



## aquaticko

^^I think the disappearance of other modes of transportation from small, isolated towns/settlements just goes to show that they are not economically viable. I don't care to help provide services inefficiently to someone who is needlessly and wastefully consuming more resources than I am, via Amtrak or anything else. Rural poverty is a national blight, and a much more difficult one to address or even bring to public consciousness than urban poverty. Resettle the ******** in even moderately-sized towns and cities, say I, and bring civilization to the countryside by getting removing the people from it. 

Argh. Rant over.


----------



## Suburbanist

Ridiculous, if you ask me. 

Trains with average speed half of those of cars, requiring up to US$ 250 in direct subsidization per Chicago-West Coast trip. 

It is a typical fanboy mentality: it must look good on a map, regardless of economic sense.


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> Strange story, yet another case that shows why full passenger manifests and boarding/de-boarding control are needed in one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> If someone was in a clear state of mental instability, Amtrak should have called an ambulance and rushed him to hospital, which it didn't.
> 
> Full CNN article here.


If the Family would have told Amtrak he had mental issues they would have assisted....so stop bashing Amtrak. It not have been clear...


----------



## Nexis

Suburbanist said:


> Ridiculous, if you ask me.
> 
> Trains with average speed half of those of cars, requiring up to US$ 250 in direct subsidization per Chicago-West Coast trip.
> 
> It is a typical fanboy mentality: it must look good on a map, regardless of economic sense.


Its not a fanboy mentility , its those stupid republican small towns , Fanboys or Rail fanners would only stop in large towns or cities.... Research before you open your mouth which you never do...hno:


----------



## phoenixboi08

Suburbanist said:


> Ridiculous, if you ask me.
> 
> Trains with average speed half of those of cars, requiring up to US$ 250 in direct subsidization per Chicago-West Coast trip.
> 
> It is a typical fanboy mentality: it must look good on a map, regardless of economic sense.


I think you should read it first? No need to be vitriolic. 

They're specifically talking about the Gulf Coast (the southern part of the US from California to Florida). Anyways, they're simply saying Amtrack should begin operating that line again since they ceased after Katrina, given most of the population growth, and a lot of tourism, in the US is in this region.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ CSX wants several hundred million dollars (6, to be exact) to re-start operating that service. It has downgraded the line after Katrina and that other hurricane battered many sectors, and has no intention of restoring it to passenger-ready standards (@ 79mph maximum). The sector between Pensacola and Biloxi had one of the highest cancellation rates of long-distance trains as well before 2005...

So since CSX has no interest in investing that money (line doesn't see much traffic, which had been rerouted inland), Amtrak is out of luck, unless it tries to negotiate the purchase of tracks there with some provisions to guarantee CSX slots for the limited freight movements it has there... but that would certainly be very expensive, since CSX is in relatively good financial condition and doesn't need cash (= low incentive to sell permanent assets).


----------



## phoenixboi08

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ CSX wants several hundred million dollars (6, to be exact) to re-start operating that service. It has downgraded the line after Katrina and that other hurricane battered many sectors, and has no intention of restoring it to passenger-ready standards (@ 79mph maximum). The sector between Pensacola and Biloxi had one of the highest cancellation rates of long-distance trains as well before 2005...
> 
> So since CSX has no interest in investing that money (line doesn't see much traffic, which had been rerouted inland), Amtrak is out of luck, unless it tries to negotiate the purchase of tracks there with some provisions to guarantee CSX slots for the limited freight movements it has there... but that would certainly be very expensive, since CSX is in relatively good financial condition and doesn't need cash (= low incentive to sell permanent assets).



The cancellations were due to issues with CSX not investing (as per that report).
CSX has already restored these lines, but Amtrack didn't restore service. The service was making money and ridership was increasing prior to the performance issues (cancellations due to maintenance problems). 

Anyways, the point of that report is that Amtrack doesn't WANT to bring service back...but it'd be nice if they did. And there's definitely a strong business case for it.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ The Sunset Limited had a farebox recovery ratio of 29% before it was cancelled. It was the least performing long-distance route.


----------



## trainrover

I already informed you earlier this year(?), that service is suspended, not cancelled, seven years and counting  That southerly transcontinental route is too signature in stature to be outright cancelling :shifty:


----------



## aquaticko

I really can't say I understand the attitude many of you seem to have towards this service and others like it. Rail in the U.S. is in such a precarious state that we really can't afford to be spending money running a diesel locomotive that will average somewhere around 60mph through one of the least developed parts of the country along a line with such a small potential passenger base. Do we _really_ want to be giving opponents of rail in the U.S. _exactly_ the sort of image of it that they want to have? 

It's impossible to ignore that doing fast trains in crowded places is much, much more expensive, but if it can make some amount of money and make rail look good while doing it, that's what we ought to be pushing for. Don't waste your time trying to get things like the Sunset Limited.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ The Sunset Limited had a farebox recovery ratio of 29% before it was cancelled. It was the least performing long-distance route.


I don't know where that number is from really, I'd like to. All I can go on is what I read in the report: the ridership was increasing up until the last 3-5 years before Katrina due to issues with maintenance as well as the fact that they had performance (and budgetary issues) due to aging rolling stock. Honestly, I'm not antagonizing you or anything, just pointing out what was in the PDF. They gave very sound reasons. I'd LIKE to read the things that gave you your views so that I can have a better idea of the entire picture. But as of now, I'm going to have to agree with NAR on this one.



aquaticko said:


> I really can't say I understand the attitude many of you seem to have towards this service and others like it. Rail in the U.S. is in such a precarious state that we really can't afford to be spending money running a diesel locomotive that will average somewhere around 60mph through one of the least developed parts of the country along a line with such a small potential passenger base. Do we _really_ want to be giving opponents of rail in the U.S. _exactly_ the sort of image of it that they want to have?
> 
> It's impossible to ignore that doing fast trains in crowded places is much, much more expensive, but if it can make some amount of money and make rail look good while doing it, that's what we ought to be pushing for. Don't waste your time trying to get things like the Sunset Limited.


I agree to an extent; however, we still need a network...HSR in the long run is never going to make much sense unless mobility in areas between large population centers can make use of it. We're not talking about the middle of Montana or anything, we're talking about the region of the country that has 2 (3 if you're speaking in terms of "Cardinal South") most populated states. While it's true the vast majority of passengers won't be trekking from Jacksonville to L.A., the perception that long distance lines such as these can't be profitable is a bit unfounded.

Florida is a big destination and Florida is one of the biggest origins from which people travel to other places in the country. A complete Sunset Limited service just makes sense...at the moment it doesn't operate east of New Orleans. 

I just don't get this perception that people here are undeserving of the service and that it is a "boondoggle." There are large population clusters in the region and the corridor parallels the I-10...


----------



## Suburbanist

phoenixboi08 said:


> I don't know where that number is from really, I'd like to. All I can go on is what I read in the report: the ridership was increasing up until the last 3-5 years before Katrina due to issues with maintenance as well as the fact that they had performance (and budgetary issues) due to aging rolling stock. Honestly, I'm not antagonizing you or anything, just pointing out what was in the PDF. They gave very sound reasons. I'd LIKE to read the things that gave you your views so that I can have a better idea of the entire picture. But as of now, I'm going to have to agree with NAR on this one.


I got it from The Transport Politic website, they have loads of stuff from Amtrak and other rail agencies


----------



## Suburbanist

phoenixboi08 said:


> I agree to an extent; however, we still need a network...HSR in the long run is never going to make much sense unless mobility in areas between large population centers can make use of it. We're not talking about the middle of Montana or anything, we're talking about the region of the country that has 2 (3 if you're speaking in terms of "Cardinal South") most populated states. While it's true the vast majority of passengers won't be trekking from Jacksonville to L.A., the perception that long distance lines such as these can't be profitable is a bit unfounded.
> 
> Florida is a big destination and Florida is one of the biggest origins from which people travel to other places in the country. A complete Sunset Limited service just makes sense...at the moment it doesn't operate east of New Orleans.


The absurdity is to operate coast-to-coast multi-day routes that just propagate a delay in Yuma, CA to Moblile, AL - and includes several hours of schedule padding such as insane 3h-layovers for maintenance/cleaning on cars.

They could and should break these routes and operate them on daytime configuration only, with some overlaps where warranted, instead of putting a long single route from LA to Jacksonville. There could even be services all along a route, but without a mammoth sized route lasting 60h or more. Break them into several routes and if people want a single-seat ride from LA to Florida, send them to LAX :lol:


----------



## aquaticko

phoenixboi08 said:


> I just don't get this perception that people here are undeserving of the service and that it is a "boondoggle." There are large population clusters in the region and the corridor parallels the I-10...


The point is that Amtrak has an exceptionally small pool of financial resources to make use of, and so even assuming that all lines were at least minimally self-sufficient, the resources should go to those lines which are most profitable.

And I agree with you, as well, in a certain way; people in these areas ought to have decent passenger rail service. But priorities must be set, and the NEC is not only more financially productive for Amtrak, but the region as a whole just generally more productive for the national economy. It ought to be rewarded by having its rail service upgraded to true, global HSR standards, almost before anything else. 

There may be large population centers along the Sunset Limited's route, but none even approximating the size of the three or four metro areas that make up the Northeast megalopolis. That may change with time, and should the winds change and rail suddenly become a significantly more prominenty method of transportation in the U.S., decent rail service ought to be available to everyone. But right now, it can't.


----------



## Suburbanist

The best investment, short-term, for Amtrak would be buying longer trains to replace the 320-seat or smth Acelas and eliminate speed restrictions that originate from outdated switches.


----------



## Smooth Indian

Suburbanist said:


> The absurdity is to operate coast-to-coast multi-day routes that just propagate a delay in Yuma, CA to Moblile, AL - and includes several hours of schedule padding such as insane 3h-layovers for maintenance/cleaning on cars.
> 
> They could and should break these routes and operate them on daytime configuration only, with some overlaps where warranted, instead of putting a long single route from LA to Jacksonville. There could even be services all along a route, but without a mammoth sized route lasting 60h or more. Break them into several routes and if people want a single-seat ride from LA to Florida, send them to LAX :lol:


I actually agree with this one. As long as the entire route is serviced, Shorter but connecting train services are fine. However disagree on sending people to LAX if they want to ride the entire route. Either let them transfer trains at changeover points or some coaches could also be exchanged between trains for end-to-end passengers.


----------



## Suburbanist

^^ If you are to have daytime only operations, passengers would have to stay overnight in hotels along the route. The whole trip would take 5 days. Overnight trains are outdated and inefficient.

Running through cars make no sense because they propagate delays and take long time to be shuffled and re-shuffled.


----------



## phoenixboi08

Suburbanist said:


> I got it from The Transport Politic website, they have loads of stuff from Amtrak and other rail agencies


I see. I ended up reading this, *not * the "White Paper," because I have a plug-in that automatically loads the next page. I scrolled down too far and ended up reading a different report. That's why I was so confused by what you'd posted. You were speaking about the Chicago-LA service.

Anyways, which year are those figures for, if you can remember? I'd like to find a long list of revenues for Amtrack, if anyone knows where I can get 'em, I'd appreciate it. That NRA post used "Amtrak, FY01 City Pair Data by Route and Class" but their link in the works cited no longer works, and a Google search didn't yield much.

I definitely came to wrong conclusion. I guess the line itself wasn't completely solvent (my mistake); however if their figures are right and the NOLA-Orlando portion constituted such a large portion of their ridership, why not just return service? It was at least showing signs of growth -both in ridership and revenue (especially around 2004).




















To be fair, they may (and most certainly) are cherry picking the good years - in that they are focusing on 2004. However, they make a good case that having service east of New Orleans makes sense and is economically feasible - and not only that, but ridership and revenue had consistently increased from 1996-2005. I understand that there are budget constraints, but it just seems painfully apparent there's growth potential.

Besides, the New Orlenas - LA line is already in service, just not the New Orleans - Orlando. Considering Florida's recent plans, I think restored service to the full line just makes sense, right? Or are those plans still "in the air?" In any case, it would make much more sense to restore service on the eastern side of that corridor than the west side, right?

Also given the unlikelihood (the current attitude in Congress) that the vast majority of improvements to the NEC aren't going to happen in the immediate future, why not begin focusing on turning around the rest of the lines they're operating? 

Was the NEC ALWAYS on good terms or did they have to do a lot of work to get it on the current footing it's enjoying?




Suburbanist said:


> They could and should break these routes and operate them on daytime configuration only, with some overlaps where warranted, instead of putting a long single route from LA to Jacksonville. There could even be services all along a route, but without a mammoth sized route lasting 60h or more. Break them into several routes and if people want a single-seat ride from LA to Florida, send them to LAX :lol:


Ah, yeah. That does make sense. And answered some of my earlier questions.


----------



## Don31

Suburbanist said:


> eliminate speed restrictions that originate from outdated switches.


Switches aren't the only thing that restricts speed.


----------



## Suburbanist

Don31 said:


> Switches aren't the only thing that restricts speed.


Sure. But the restrictions in place only because of switches are among the cheapest ones to eliminate.


----------



## Don31

Suburbanist said:


> Sure. But the restrictions in place only because of switches are among the cheapest ones to eliminate.


True


----------



## trainrover

Toward the end, the state of affairs at operating railways around the continent is sort of telling:


----------



## XAN_

So, does Amtrack suspended it's servises via NY or just rerouted them?


----------



## trainrover

trainrover said:


> Today's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :
> _Towns, train fight over fences --and responsibility for safety
> _​


...


----------



## Woonsocket54

Brainy, a character from Norfolk Southern's safety campaign, was among those in attendance to welcome the first Amtrak train to Norfolk on Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012. (Vicki Cronis-Nohe | The Virginian-Pilot)

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/12/big-crowd-board-amtraks-first-train-norfolk


----------



## hmmwv

And they wonder why rail travel is not considered "in" here.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Seattle Transit Blog
http://seattletransitblog.com/2013/03/06/fra-approves-point-defiance-bypass/



> *FRA Approves Point Defiance Bypass*
> March 6, 2013 at 11:00 am
> by Brian Bundridge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on Monday approved the Point Defiance Bypass, allowing WSDOT to finish the design, begin construction in 2015, and potentially complete it in 2017.
> 
> The bypass, starting at Tacoma’s Freighthouse Square and rejoining the BNSF mainline at Nisqually, will* reduce the travel time between Seattle and Portland from 3 hours and 30 minutes for Amtrak Cascades trains to 3 hours and 15 minutes.* The time savings on the route comes from the decrease in overall mileage, increased speed, and improved reliability. The bypass also removes 5 minutes of padding that was needed due to the frequent interactions with freight traffic in the Nelson Bennett area. *All passenger trains, including the Amtrak Coast Starlight, will move to Freighthouse Square, closing the old station currently in use.*
> 
> This finding is open to appeal. Lakewood Mayor Don Anderson told The News Tribune on Monday that ”the City Council will consider its options, including taking the project to court.” Mayor Anderson and the Lakewood City Council have a long history of opposing the project.
> 
> The bypass will allow the State to start 2 additional round trips between Seattle and Portland, assuming it resolves the uncertainty of funding for Amtrak Cascades.


----------



## Sunfuns

Every improvement is welcome, but the line is still pretty slow even for regional train standards...


----------



## China Hand

That's great, but the scenery on the old line is some of the best in the world.


----------



## China Hand

trainrover said:


> Toward the end, the state of affairs at operating railways around the continent is sort of telling:


This is engineering, manufacturing tolerance, 6-Sigma and QC.

Older infrastructure from more developed nations has this issue.

The USA and Canada were developed more or less the same time, but unlike Europe the infrastructure was not bombed twice, so in the case of North America there is a huge legacy plant still there.

This shows up in a lot of ways - mobile phones are a good example.

Nations like Croatia or The R. of Philippines have better networks because they had no POTS installed to fight with the new systems. The USA has wire dating back to the 1920's in some places, still. Any home wired in an older city that had cutting edge phone service, still has those wires in older buildings in N.E. US cities, with the newer wires along side. I lived in an apartment built in the 20's and the light switch boxes were machines that could be take apart. The enclosure was a ceramic box and the switch was a massive, super heavy duty affair that could be lifted out of the box and taken apart with ease. No screws, just springs and levers.

Trains it's the same. Europe's were blown up so they re-built in the 1950's and 60's. Considerably more modern tech than the USA.

If you have ever taken the Amtrak from Richmond to Boston, you know that much of the infrastructure appears to be 100 years old, and likely is. The girders, catenaries, beams holding things up, all are a century old.

If you get to build from scratch, and you have the money, you get to do what China is doing. Same with their phone network. Few people had phones in 1990, and China simply lept directly to 2/3/4G systems. My house has a phone line Rj-45, but no one uses these anymore as most have a mobile phone.


----------



## 437.001

China Hand said:


> Trains it's the same. Europe's were blown up so they re-built in the 1950's and 60's. Considerably more modern tech than the USA.


I don´t agree with that.
Although there were damaged stations, lines and trains, most of the infrastructure and rolling stock in Europe did actually survive the wars.

I think it´s more to do with the way European and American cities and societies have developed. 
There are many likenesses, but also big differences, between Europe and the USA.


----------



## Sunfuns

Actually 50-ties and 60-ties were the low point for trains in Europe. What seems to have made the most difference long term is the track ownership structure in Europe. Unlike in USA, in Europe rail infrastructure is almost invariably publicly owned (I can't even think of any serious exceptions) and only some of the operators are private. Therefore freight railways are unable to block the development of passenger rail. 

As for the war theory, there is no significant difference in quality between rail networks of countries which were involved in both World wars, only one or neither.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Hope Star
http://www.hopestar.com/article/20130321/NEWS/130329920/-1/opinion



> *Amtrak sets start of Hope service*
> Amtrak announced this morning that passenger rail service on its Amtrak Texas Eagle will begin in Hope on April 4 with the arrival of the westbound Train 21.
> 
> By Ken McLemore, Hope Star Editor
> Mar. 21, 2013 10:46 am
> 
> Amtrak announced this morning that passenger rail service on its Amtrak Texas Eagle will begin in Hope on April 4 with the arrival of the westbound Train 21.
> 
> “The westbound Texas Eagle, Train 21, is scheduled to depart Hope at 5:09 every morning, with arrivals that morning in Dallas, that afternoon in Fort Worth and that evening in Austin and San Antonio,” Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said in a mid-morning announcement. “The eastbound Texas Eagle, Train 22, is scheduled to depart Hope at 9:18 every evening, with arrivals in Little Rock that night, St. Louis the following morning and Chicago that afternoon.”
> 
> Magliari said connections from that schedule can be made in Fort Worth, San Antonio, St. Louis and Chicago to Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and more than 500 other locations in the Amtrak network.
> 
> Ticket sales were expected to commence on Friday, he said.
> “Ticketing and reservations can be done using Amtrak eTicketing and boarding documents can be self-printed, as the Hope station is unstaffed,” Magliari. “Passengers using a smartphone or other mobile device can present the eTicket to the conductor by opening a document in their e-mail.”
> 
> Sample fares for adult passengers, each way, include:
> 
> Hope to Dallas - $39
> Hope to Fort Worth - $39
> Hope to Austin - $65
> Hope to San Antonio - $73
> Hope to Oklahoma City (with transfer in Fort Worth) - $67
> Hope to Little Rock - $18
> Hope to St. Louis - $66
> Hope to Springfield, Ill. - $77
> Hope to Chicago - $108
> Hope to Kansas City (with transfer in St. Louis) $95
> 
> The announcement this morning was met with satisfaction and relief by City officials.
> 
> “I think we are all very happy,” Hope City Manager Catherine Cook said.
> Cook announced Tuesday that a May 18 dedication has been set for the Amtrak passenger platform.
> 
> Hope Mayor Dennis Ramsey was relieved.
> 
> “They say good things come to those who wait; and, we waited 20 years,” Ramsey quipped. “It's been a long time coming, and a few people have really persevered to make this happen, including Catherine, Paul Henley, Dolly Henley and John Watkins.”
> 
> Neither Paul nor Dolly Henley were available for comment at press time.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

> Updated March 26, 2013, 10:16 p.m. ET
> *Boom Times on the Tracks: Rail Capacity, Spending Soar*
> 
> By BETSY MORRIS
> 
> EPPING, N.D.—On a recent subzero day at a rail station here on the plains, a giant tank train stretches like a black belt across the horizon—as far as the eye can see. Soon it will be filled to the brim with light, sweet crude oil and headed to a refinery on Puget Sound. Another mile-long train will pull in right behind it, and another after that.
> 
> Increasingly, scenes like this are being played throughout the country. "Hot Trains" dedicated to high-priority customers like United Parcel Service Inc. roar across the country to deliver everything from microwaves to tennis shoes and Amazon.com packages. FedEx Corp., known for its huge fleet of aircraft, is using more trains, too.
> 
> Welcome to the revival of the Railroad Age. *North America's major freight railroads are in the midst of a building boom unlike anything since the industry's Gilded Age heyday in the 19th century—this year pouring $14 billion into rail yards, refueling stations, additional track.* With enhanced speed and efficiency, rail is fast becoming a dominant player in the nation's commercial transport system and a vital cog in its economic recovery.
> 
> This time around, though, the expansion isn't so much geographic—it is about a race to make existing rail lines more efficient and able to haul more and different types of freight. Some of the railroads are building massive new terminals that resemble inland ports. They are turning their networks into double-lane steel freeways to capture as much as they can get of U.S. freight demand that is projected to grow by half, to $27.5 billion by 2040, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. In some cases, rail lines are increasing the heights of mountain tunnels and raising bridges to accommodate stacked containers. All told, 2013 stands to be the industry's third year in a row of record capital spending—more than double the yearly outlays of $5.9 billion a decade ago.
> 
> And in a turnabout few could have imagined decades ago, rail is stealing share from other types of commercial transport—most notably the trucking business, which is waylaid by high fuel prices, overloaded highways, driver shortages and regulations that are pushing up costs . . . .
> 
> BNSF, purchased by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in 2010, is investing $4.1 billion on a list that includes locomotives, freight cars, a giant terminal southwest of Kansas City and new track and equipment for its oil-related business in the Bakken shale region of North Dakota and Montana.
> 
> Union Pacific Corp. is spending $3.6 billion on a giant terminal near Santa Teresa, N.M. It is designing a new $400 million-$500 million bridge over the Mississippi at Clinton, Iowa, to replace an old drawbridge that routinely delays trains for hours at a time. It will double some track in Louisiana and Texas and expand rail yards there and in Arkansas to provide more capacity to chemical customers such as Dow Chemical Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp.
> 
> CSX Corp. will spend $2.3 billion partly to finish the first phase of a multiyear project, raising highway bridges, enlarging mountain tunnels and clearing some 40-odd obstacles to make enough space to accommodate double-decker containers all the way from the Midwest to the mid-Atlantic ports.
> 
> Kansas City Southern Railway Co. will spend $515 million. "We're a growth railroad," David Starling, its chief executive, told a securities analyst who questioned the expenditure in January. "The worst thing this team wants to be accused of is having some service deterioration because we didn't have the foresight to spend the money."
> 
> Passenger rail is undergoing something of a renaissance, too. It was the passenger business that nearly killed the freight business in the 1960s and 1970s. Part of the legislation designed to save the railroads in the 1970s allowed them to shed the passenger business. Lately, the Obama administration has invested nearly $12 billion in passenger rail, according to the Department of Transportation, that has been used to fund 152 projects in 32 states . . . .
> 
> On long distances, trains have been cheaper than trucks for decades. They can move one ton about 500 miles on one gallon of fuel, which makes them three to four times more fuel efficient. Yet they were notoriously unreliable. In logistics, trucks and planes typically arrived on time. Trains, conversely, were known as "the black hole of rail," says Prof. Sheffi. Eight years ago, he says he waited a full month for a train to deliver a new car from Ohio to Boston . . . .
> 
> In the past decade, though, under pressure from customers like UPS, trains have become more dependable. UPS "trained us in what it means to perform to their very high standards," says Mr. Rose at BNSF. "I'm sure there were many times they were very frustrated."
> 
> "I don't know if we're the largest customer [of the railroads] but I would tell you we're certainly the most demanding," says Ken Buenker, a vice president in UPS's Corporate Transportation Group. UPS's goal is an on-time arrival rate of 99.5%, he says. "So think about how much you risk with a train." One breakdown could delay many deliveries.
> 
> Railroads used technology and strategy to tackle such problems. They used sensors to detect mechanical issues before they caused delays. They developed their own version of the airline "hub and spoke system" and organized shipments in trains all bound for the same destination. The latter move eliminated the time- and labor-wasting stops to break trains apart and reset them. It also paved the way for longer and speedier itineraries. Railroads "are always talking about efficiency and speed," says Mr. Buenker. "The velocity of the network is really key for them" . . . .
> 
> In the U.S. oil boom, rail's new attitude has made it both a preferred mode of transport—and also an instrument of arbitrage. When oil began flowing in North Dakota, BNSF was perfectly situated. Its Burlington Northern Line from Minneapolis-St. Paul to Puget Sound cuts diagonally northwest through 16 of the 19 top oil-producing counties in North Dakota, then parallels the Canadian border through five of the six top-producing oil counties in Montana. Until several years ago, though, it was mostly a high-speed route for loads like lumber from the Northwest and grain from the Great Plains . . . .


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324034804578348214242291132.html?KEYWORDS=railroad


----------



## Nexis




----------



## jonasry

China Hand said:


> That's great, but the scenery on the old line is some of the best in the world.


The old line will remain in use for freight. There's not reason there can't b slower, more touristic services in the future.


----------



## Woonsocket54

*Hell's Gate Bridge | Amtrak, New York City*


98 seconds of Hell Gate by gothamruins, on Flickr


Hell's Gate by gothamruins, on Flickr


DON'T Follow the Light by gothamruins, on Flickr


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

The Amtrak staff is this:

- Engineer (one in Acela Express, two in other services)
- Conductor
- Lead Service Attendant
- Lounge Car Attendant
- Coach Attendant
- Sleeping Car Attendant (for long-distance service)
- Chef (for long distance service)


In suburban lines, most trains have only two engineers and a conductor (up to three, in longer trains).


----------



## trainrover

I don't know about the rest of you, but it was quite telling to me how out of touch with reality most boardroom'ers are, e.g., listening to merely a snippet of those buffooning utterances made by that Chicago-based Railworld CEO.

The matter isn't so much about unions' denial of technological advancements; it's about the methods at implementing the changes, enhancements, because --face it!-- hands-on experience conducted by top brass nowadays went out of vogue, became passé, quite some time ago . . . .


----------



## billfranklin

Cosmicbliss said:


> Why is there such an anti railway attitude in the USA? I am an Indian, and in India/China railways is the main mode of transport. Of course USA is a first world country but even granted that, there are first world countries with railways. So why is the USA reluctant to develop railways between cities? Is it some deeper cultural issues?


While the US has an extremely powerful central government, the US central government- like any government- has the Achilles Heel of bribery which in the US relates to election costs. Lobbying (our form of legal bribery) is a huge business here, and, the bulk of the money generated is from large corporate interests and from extremely rich individuals. These corporations work tirelessly to protect the territory where they make money as of today. Likewise, very rich individuals who believe that they know how the masses should live and think, lobby to reduce the role government plays. The oil and gas industry, the auto industry, the hospitality industry, the freight rail industry, the aviation industry, the state departments of transportation, the bus industry, and, others work tirelessly to prevent any new public interstate transportation and to kill the little we have now. 

This same process on a smaller scale dominates our State and City governments.

That is just how things are here in the States.


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

Anything about these Talgo Serie 8 for Chicago-Milwaukee line? Talgo website says these trainsets would operate from 2012...









http://www.talgo.com/index.php/es/serie8.php


----------



## Smooth Indian

billfranklin said:


> While the US has an extremely powerful central government, the US central government- like any government- has the Achilles Heel of bribery which in the US relates to election costs. Lobbying (our form of legal bribery) is a huge business here, and, the bulk of the money generated is from large corporate interests and from extremely rich individuals. These corporations work tirelessly to protect the territory where they make money as of today. Likewise, very rich individuals who believe that they know how the masses should live and think, lobby to reduce the role government plays. The oil and gas industry, the auto industry, the hospitality industry, the freight rail industry, the aviation industry, the state departments of transportation, the bus industry, and, others work tirelessly to prevent any new public interstate transportation and to kill the little we have now.
> 
> This same process on a smaller scale dominates our State and City governments.
> 
> That is just how things are here in the States.


Sadly what you say is true. The opposition to public transport has become harsher in the last few years. New transit projects are facing an ever increasing opposition from NIMBYs and others.


----------



## G5man

Rodalvesdepaula said:


> Anything about these Talgo Serie 8 for Chicago-Milwaukee line? Talgo website says these trainsets would operate from 2012...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.talgo.com/index.php/es/serie8.php


Mr. Scott Walker decided to say no to HSR. Therefore, they are no longer getting the sets.


----------



## M-NL

But these aren't high speed sets. It needs a locomotive at the other end to move itself.


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

M-NL said:


> But these aren't high speed sets. It needs a locomotive at the other end to move itself.


And one Talgo Series 8 trainset has been delivered for Oregon Dept. Of Transport to operate the Amtrak Cascades. Amtrak will operate these carriages in "push-pull" scheme with a EMD F59PHi.









http://lanetoday.com/2013/07/26/new-train-draws-enthusiastic-crowd-2/


----------



## G5man

M-NL said:


> But these aren't high speed sets. It needs a locomotive at the other end to move itself.


Depends on the definition of high-speed. They are capable of 125 mph. There was a special Seattle Train Day this last Saturday and the President and CEO of Talgo was present. The only restriction is track and the operator. Otherwise, Talgo 8s are capable of 125 mph. By definition that is high-speed. In my mind it is "higher" speed.


----------



## joezierer

M-NL said:


> But these aren't high speed sets. It needs a locomotive at the other end to move itself.


Over 100 mph is considered "high speed" by Amtrak.


----------



## hmmwv

G5man said:


> Depends on the definition of high-speed. They are capable of 125 mph. There was a special Seattle Train Day this last Saturday and the President and CEO of Talgo was present. The only restriction is track and the operator. Otherwise, Talgo 8s are capable of 125 mph. By definition that is high-speed. In my mind it is "higher" speed.


There was a special Seattle train day? Will the Talgo trainsets serve the full Cascade route, or only the Oregon section?


----------



## G5man

hmmwv said:


> There was a special Seattle train day? Will the Talgo trainsets serve the full Cascade route, or only the Oregon section?


Yes http://allaboardwashington.org/2013...il-day-saturday-july-27th-at-king-st-station/ 

Whether they stay in Oregon or not I have no idea. I am assuming they will do Seattle-Eugene runs for sure.


----------



## hmmwv

I always miss events like this! I used to ride Cascade every month but haven't done so since graduating, I'll definitely try out the Talgo when I get the chance.


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

^^What's to travel in a Talgo trainset? Better than a Amfleet (average carriage) one?


----------



## G5man

Rodalvesdepaula said:


> ^^What's to travel in a Talgo trainset? Better than a Amfleet (average carriage) one?


Talgo has supplied Amtrak Cascades with sets since 1997 I am wanting to say. That has permitted a reduction in travel time from 4 hours to 3 hours 30 minutes between Seattle-Portland due to the tilting technology. Oregon DOT just ordered two sets and one of them was on display in Seattle.

They are quite nice to be on rather than the Amfleets, that is for sure.


----------



## bagus70

This Talgo train might be the "descendant" of John Quincy Adams or Speed Merchant trains.


----------



## Fan Railer

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/530/930/Amtrak-Siemens-Locomotive-Testing-ATK-13-081.pdf


> PUEBLO, Colo. – The new Amtrak Cities Sprinter (ACS-64) electric locomotives are
> now in a comprehensive and rigorous testing program, and are being put through the paces
> before entering Northeast service this fall.
> Today, Amtrak President and CEO Joe Boardman, Federal Railroad Administrator
> Joseph Szabo and Siemens Rail Systems President Michael Cahill traveled to the U.S
> Department of Transportation (DOT) Transportation Technology Center (TTC) facility in
> Pueblo, Colo., to get an update on the testing program and to observe a testing demonstration.
> “These locomotives are the new workhorses of the Amtrak fleet in the Northeast and they
> must meet our performance-based specifications and reliability needs so we can keep the
> region’s people and economy moving,” said Boardman.
> Two locomotives are at the TTC facility to undergo a series of tests, including maximum
> speed runs, acceleration and braking, operating with Amtrak passenger coach cars attached and
> testing the overall performance capabilities of the locomotive. Engineers are also validating the
> on-board computer system and software, as well as evaluate ride quality by using instruments to
> measure things such as noise and wheel vibrations.
> A variety of additional tests and validation exercises are being conducted as part of the
> commissioning process to ensure the locomotive is operating and performing as designed and
> that it is ready to provide reliable service for Amtrak passengers.
> “Safety is our number one priority,” said Szabo. “Today’s testing regime demonstrates
> the extraordinary safety standards FRA requires manufacturers and railroads to meet when
> building passenger rail equipment. One in seven Americans lives along the Northeast Corridor
> and as demand for passenger rail service continues to grow across the country, we will continue
> to ensure that rail equipment is safe, reliable and efficient.”
> In addition to the robust testing regime at TTC, a third locomotive will run field tests on
> the Northeast and Keystone Corridors this summer and be used for training Amtrak locomotive
> engineers and mechanical crews. A fourth locomotive will be tested in a climate-controlled
> chamber to determine how well it performs in extreme heat and cold temperatures.


----------



## M-NL

From a distance this looks just like a ES64F4 which had slight cosmetic surgery (maybe also a Vectron, but I haven't seen one with a dark coloured livery yet).

I also noticed the catenary height. There is way more distance between the top of the train and the wire then I'm used to see here (wire at around 7.2m instead of between 5.7m and 6.5m)


----------



## gramercy

200 kph on wooden sleepers, you don't see that often


----------



## hmmwv

Rodalvesdepaula said:


> ^^What's to travel in a Talgo trainset? Better than a Amfleet (average carriage) one?


Yeah it's better than the old Cascade, the Talgo is nothing special for more advanced rail countries but it's a significant upgrade for Amtrak. I always thought the old Cascade smells like dirty bathroom. :bash:


----------



## Spacecityroller

Here are the major differences I see in this project versus other HSR projects in the us. 

1. Private financing- mainly Japanese banks and rail operators(they know how to make money on HSR)...I believe Warren Buffet is also a stake holder on this project.

2. This project plans on using mostly existing ROW used by freight (BNSF being owned by Buffet) maybe why he is a stake holder.

They plan on submitting the EIS to the feds by the end of this year with the first departure scheduled for some time in 2020.

I know that SWA will fight this but this train is more aimed at the business traveler where time is money and cost is not important.


----------



## aquaticko

Certainly was a good idea to get Buffett on board with the project, both for PR and in order to make sure there wasn't the usual interference by freight companies. Just have to see if it happens now. It'd sure be great to see HSR projects being constructed simultaneously in two separate locations in this country.


----------



## M-NL

G5man said:


> The end of the set is moreso to meet the FRA requirements for buff strength and not permitting passengers on the forward cars. There will be only one locomotive that will push/pull the train.


One loco, so you need a driving trailer. They could have put some more effort into it's design though. Even a slightly tilted windshield would have looked better. It still looks better then a V250 though.


----------



## G5man

Spacecityroller said:


> Here are the major differences I see in this project versus other HSR projects in the us.
> 
> 1. Private financing- mainly Japanese banks and rail operators(they know how to make money on HSR)...I believe Warren Buffet is also a stake holder on this project.
> 
> 2. This project plans on using mostly existing ROW used by freight (BNSF being owned by Buffet) maybe why he is a stake holder.
> 
> They plan on submitting the EIS to the feds by the end of this year with the first departure scheduled for some time in 2020.
> 
> I know that SWA will fight this but this train is more aimed at the business traveler where time is money and cost is not important.


SWA has no reason to fight this anymore because this is a short-haul route. This would free up quite a few trips from Dallas Love Field which has already been gate constrained so that they can fly to other long-haul destinations rather than short-haul to Houston because that is the only way they can fly a long non-stop.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

^^Nice video and horn.


----------



## riles28

I`m looking forward for the ACS, but Amtrak have also plan to replace diesel locomotive and amfleet for better service across the america.


----------



## bagus70

Can I ask, what was the reason behind the withdrawal of SD90MAC-H? And why the EMD four stroke engines didn't sell well?


----------



## Fan Railer

riles28 said:


> I`m looking forward for the ACS, but Amtrak have also plan to replace diesel locomotive and amfleet for better service across the america.


They are. My post from another forum:


> In August of 2013, the Illinois DOT, in conjunction with Amtrak and other state DOTs, released a joint procurement RFP for 32 high-speed (125 mph), PRIIA spec'd, diesel-electric locomotives for intra-state commuter services. Of the 32 base locomotives, 21 would be allocated for Illinois and Michigan service, 6 would be for Amtrak California service, with the remaining 5 for use on the Cascades service in Washington. The contract includes options for up to 75 additional commuter spec'd locomotives, and up to 150 long distance interstate locomotives (presumably for Amtrak) for a total of 257 locomotives. The long distance locomotives would differ mainly from the commuter locomotives in the following ways: larger fuel tank (2,200 gallons vs. 1800 gallons) and higher HEP capacity (1000 kW vs. 800 kW).
> http://www.dot.il.gov/procurement/NGEClocomotiveproject.html


----------



## Fan Railer

bagus70 said:


> Can I ask, what was the reason behind the withdrawal of SD90MAC-H? And why the EMD four stroke engines didn't sell well?


Poor reliability.


----------



## bagus70

^^ I see hno:
The GE AC6000CW did initially suffered the same trouble, before changing their engines to GEVO 16.


----------



## M-NL

Also I read several report on those big engine being impractical. Say if you would run a train with 2 6000 hp instead of 3 4000 hp engines. If one of them fails you have lost half of your traction power, instead of 1/3 for the smaller engines. Also with NA being as large as it is, it is very unlikely that there are spare engines available quickly.

And now for the kicker: because a 6000 hp engine does not have a significantly higher tractive effort at low speeds you can't actually move a heavier train with it, you can only move the same train faster.


----------



## bagus70

So far, only GE big engines still in operation in USA. Mostly with CSX. But as I said earlier, all of their AC6000CW have had their engines replaced with GEVO 16. These engines still able to deliver 6000hp, although it is actually derated. A full powered GEVO 16, in theory, could deliver 6600 hp.
There are also other railway companies outside USA that operate GE big engines, such as BHP Iron Ore in Australia (which like CSX, replaced the engines with GEVO 16) or Vale mining in Brazil which operate GE ES58ACi (a 6000 hp version of ES44AC).

China purchased recycled SD90MAC-H, whose are designated as JT56ACe and classed as HXN3. Unlike original SD90MAC-H, these locos are dual cab cowl locomotives.
They also have GE ES59AC which is identical with AC6000CW, although it feature Chinese-style cab.


----------



## Fan Railer

Here's a teaser video from my Boston trip. Unfortunately I can't upload the rest of it until tomorrow since the hotel internet is slow and inconsistent. Here, at one of the only stops on the NEC where trains can accelerate out of the station at full throttle without low speed restrictions, we are afforded rare opportunities to catch Amtrak's trains showing off their full might and power. Train 173 NE Regional departs first with Toaster Rehab 904. The Acela, train 2163 is running 20 minutes late, and the engineer does a good job of indicating that he plans to make up that time. Just watch her fly out of the station. This is also one of the few spots that affords a decent opportunity to record traction motor sounds. Can't wait to come back in a few years and see how the ACS-64s perform coming out of this station.


----------



## czm3

Suburbanist said:


> Being a pedestrian near the station or on the way to the airport is more dangerous in terms of fatality per billion passenger-km than driving, flying or driving (in US, majority of victims of car crashes are not car occupants but pedestrians, cyclists, bystanders etc).


Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Europe has much bigger problems with car/pedestrian accidents than north america where the vast majority of victims are in fact automobile occupants.


----------



## trainrover

Today's







:
_Shock at railway's use of 1-person crews after Lac-Mégantic disaster

MM&A has blamed the train's operator for failing to set enough hand brakes_
"_The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration's top official says he's "shocked" a Maine-based rail company is still using one-person crews following a deadly train disaster in Canada.

Canada's government already ordered Montreal, Maine & Atlantic to use at least two crew members for trains operating there.

But FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo says the company has continued to use one-person crews in Maine. The Portland Press Herald newspaper says he told the railroad the safety procedures used in Canada should be used in Maine._ ..."​


----------



## trainrover

Yesterday's








_Quebec seeks role in U.S. bankruptcy proceedings for MM&A railway


The beginning of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA) in St-Jean, PQ on July 16, 2013._​


----------



## trainrover

trainrover said:


> Yesterday's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _US officials were probing safety of Bakken oil route months before Lac-Mégantic
> _
> "... _investigators in Canada and the U.S. have said publicly they are concerned that the Bakken oil was more volatile than believed._ ..."​


...


----------



## trainrover

trainrover said:


> Say! might lying, stingy, greedy politicians who bear no spirit of goodwill have had their slutty selves found in the wrong bed the following morning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from Wednesday, then Thursday:
> 
> 4'39" - 4'59" *+ 4'59" - 5'22":*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Lac Megantic: US launches safety inspection blitz of oil shipments_​


----------



## phoenixboi08

This guy did a decent job on this.


----------



## Fan Railer

CNB30 said:


> ^^ Are those the same type of train they were going to use in Wisconsin?


yes


----------



## M-NL

The trainset itself looks very good, also on the inside, but the driving trailer could have been made to look a bit more stylish. (Yet it is still better looking then a AB V250 though)

Compared to any normal locomotive a Talgo set will look very low, simply because it is. It's floor level is about at the same level where the floor level of a double decker coach would be.

A Talgo set doesn't have Jacobs bogies, but independently suspended single wheels that are unique for Talgo.


----------



## hmmwv

M-NL said:


> The trainset itself looks very good, also on the inside, but the driving trailer could have been made to look a bit more stylish. (Yet it is still better looking then a AB V250 though)


I for some reason like its weird design, considering it's modeled after this:


----------



## zaphod

lol. I never saw it until now, now I can't unsee it.

(Serious) maybe they took the basic look of the renfe class 350 front end and reengineered it to meet FRA specs?

But it doesn't matter. It looks awful


----------



## Jay

This crazy accident recently happened. 

A 50 ton excavator thrown out of the way like a feather. North American trains FTW 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zpXOuYoK0k


----------



## Suburbanist

*Amtrak's food operations lost $ 609 million since 2006!*

This is beyond laughable, if not tragic.



> Last week, Congress held the latest in a series of hearings on Amtrak's inability to manage its food service. That's putting it kindly. Amtrak has lost more than $609 million on food and beverage since 2006. The situation is so bad that the $72 million loss it posted in this area last year is considered real progress:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> But the problems run deeper. According to testimony from Amtrak's inspector general


----------



## Nexis

I don't know why they feel the need to pick on Amtrak , maybe if they got more funding and replaced there aging infrastructure and rolling stock things would run better... Good luck getting those Long Distance routes scrapped , republicans who block more funding to Amtrak also blocking ending rural services. If Amtrak were given the same amount of funding the Airlines and roads were given would this even be an issue , the answer is no it wouldn't.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Suburbanist said:


> So the long-distance routes, which already are money-losers and a financial drain, are also a prime space for food revenue losses. The cross-service argument (subsidized food attracts paying passengers) doesn't even hold then.


This is very dubious. On AMTRAK, sleeping car passage (long distance routes only) includes meals and most (maybe 75%) of the people in the dining cars are sleeping car passengers. When one pays $300 to $500 per day of travel (sometimes more) for a sleeping car, the part of that assigned to food and beverage service is entirely artificial. One could as easily increase the food portion (and decrease the accommodation portion) and say food service is making money but the rest of the service is losing more.

In fact, I question any and all AMTRAK accounting. Many of their costs perform double duty. For example, how much of their expenses in the northeast corridor, which they claim makes money, for track maintenance etc is assignable to northeast only trains and how much is assignable to the through trains from New Orleans and Florida which are long distance routes. If the long distance trains didn't exist, they'd still have to maintain the rails.


----------



## zaphod

In some ways you'd think food would be a necessary loss leader. Would you spend 12 hours stuck on a train if all it had was cans of coke sold from a cart?


----------



## Cal_Escapee

zaphod said:


> In some ways you'd think food would be a necessary loss leader. Would you spend 12 hours stuck on a train if all it had was cans of coke sold from a cart?


No, I'd do what I do anyway: Bring food with me. I travel to and from New Orleans a lot. I love to buy a hyper-garlicky Muffaletta sandwich just before the train leaves and let it smell up the entire car. :devil:

I also miss the way it used to be in Europe where vendors in the stations used to sell food and the train windows opened so you could lean out and buy some cheese and the local booze.

Truth be told, the food on trains isn't very good any more and I only eat it because, as a sleeping car passenger, I've already paid for it plus I like the social experience of sharing a table in the dining car and meeting people.


----------



## Suburbanist

Cal_Escapee said:


> I also miss the way it used to be in Europe where vendors in the stations used to sell food and the train windows opened so you could lean out and buy some cheese and the local booze.


I don't remember having ever witnessed any scene like that, at least on Western Europe (I never traveled by train to Eastern Europe - former DDR excepted of course).


----------



## M-NL

If I remember correct (it was some 25 years ago I last saw it) at the Amersfoort or Deventer station in the Netherlands there used to be a selling cart on the platform similar to the onboard service at the time. At these stations you had to wait a few minutes for two train halves to split or combine.


----------



## Sunfuns

Me neither, that scene is from some long gone era at least as far as Europe is concerned. I have used trains in East Europe and it doesn't happen there either.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Suburbanist said:


> I don't remember having ever witnessed any scene like that, at least on Western Europe (I never traveled by train to Eastern Europe - former DDR excepted of course).


I suspect you aren't old enough and perhaps did not travel the Balkans under Communism.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Sunfuns said:


> Me neither, that scene is from some long gone era at least as far as Europe is concerned. I have used trains in East Europe and it doesn't happen there either.


1972 (as I best recall)--in Yugoslavia mostly.









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slivovitz








http://www.mesoprometcompany.co.rs/product_list.php?top_category_id=2

^^
The essentials of second class Balkan train travel in those days. Among other journeys, it sustained me from Salzburg (Austria) to Athens, a 3-day trip at the time.


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Sunfuns said:


> Me neither, that scene is from some long gone era at least as far as Europe is concerned. I have used trains in East Europe and it doesn't happen there either.


The secret police in black overcoats with snarling dogs on leashes and long mirrors to look under the trains are long gone too, but they had those in the early '70s as well (just like in old movies). When you cross a border from a country with a Communist dictator to one with a rightist military junta (Greece at the time), you see many things--all gone.

Traveling used to be a lot more interesting than today, I think.


----------



## Suburbanist

Cal_Escapee said:


> I suspect you aren't old enough and perhaps did not travel the Balkans under Communism.


I was on pre-K in 1989.


----------



## Sunfuns

I wasn't born yet in 1972 and all my train travel is from 90-ties and later. Maybe it was fun for you to travel through the iron curtain, but it was much less funny living behind it. I was born in USSR so forgive me for not missing it much


----------



## Cal_Escapee

Sunfuns said:


> I wasn't born yet in 1972 and all my train travel is from 90-ties and later. Maybe it was fun for you to travel through the iron curtain, but it was much less funny living behind it. I was born in USSR so forgive me for not missing it much


I think I can understand. The thing that most impressed me about Yugoslavia in those days was the absence of trucks. Everywhere one saw carts with truck tires pulled by horses . . . in the 1970s!

I also experienced a little of iron curtain living when I got my Yugoslav visa. Got it in their consulate in Munich. The place was full of Yugoslav workers trying to renew permission to work in the west. Some functionary literally pushed them out of my way and took me to an office where I could get a tourist visa.

Then, on the train trip, I shared a second class compartment with a group of Yugoslavs and one Albanian. The Yugoslavs were all fun and we drank Slivovitz, ate sausage and partied for 2 days. The Albanian wouldn't speak to me or in my presence.


----------



## 압둘라-爱- LOVE

Bad news  RIP


----------



## Nexis

Some Recent Amtrak Photos


Westbound Amtrak Regional Train with AME7 # 915 & 945 Passing Harrison,New Jersey by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Westbound Amtrak Regional Train with AEM-7 # 915 & 945 Passing Harrison,New Jersey by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Eastbound Amtrak Regional Train with ACS# 601 at Harrison Station by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Outbound Northeast Corridor Line Train Meets Eastbound Amtrak Regional Train at Harrison Station by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Amtrak Northeast Regional Train No. 173 (26) running late at Jersey Avenue by Camera-junkie, on Flickr


Amtrak Northeast Regional Train No. 173 approaching Jersey Avenue by Camera-junkie, on Flickr


Amtrak Holiday Train No. 1054 - Jersey Avenue by Camera-junkie, on Flickr


14-7760 by George Hamlin, on Flickr


Amtrak 6 in Roseville by CaliforniaRailfan101 Photography, on Flickr


20141116-DSC_8973 by wacamerabuff, on Flickr


CDTX 2010 at Twighlight by lennycarl08, on Flickr


Evening Commute by lennycarl08, on Flickr


----------



## benjaminh

Joshua Dodd said:


> Texas could see construction of the US's first high speed rail in 2016. (...) More than 100 miles of the 240-mile corridor would be built on elevated tracks to reduce the impact on communities (...).


I believe it when I see it! That infrastructure projects of such scale can be built more efficiently/cheaper by a non-government entity and paid for by someone other than the government (federal, state, or local) has to be proven first. I doubt it!

And good luck in particular with the 100 miles of elevated track; that is going to cost an arm and a leg. Those who think the first phase of the California HSR project is expensive (cost per mile of track) will be even more astonished here. This project is very likely going to cost significantly more (elevated track vs. at-grade). The high costs of the CA HSR project are (overwhelmingly) not a result of ineffective government management but a direct consequence of the complexities of such projects and the costs of labor in the U.S. People who don't like government infrastructure spending might not like it but it's true nevertheless.

Also good luck with acquiring the necessary land. Because eminent domain is not supposed to be used for the benefit of a private business. You will have to pay a premium then or deal with construction delays because of the legal proceedings. Again, the delays of the CA HSR project are (overwhelmingly) not a result of ineffective government management but a direct consequence of the complexities of such projects.

I'm not trying to say that there aren't any issues with the way CA is handling its HSR project but to assume that all issues can be resolved just because a project is managed/financed privately is wishful thinking based on ideology rather than fact.


----------



## particlez

^I'd want to thumbs up this post twice.

Benjaminh is right. Large scale infrastructure is a natural monopoly and beneficial to society as a whole. Its ROI will not cover its initial investment cost, but its indirect benefits far outweigh the total investment. Private companies have an obligation to maximize their own profit--they can pursue maximum profits in fast food or athletic shoes, but they're not going to replace the role of government itself in terms of infrastructure investment.

Postwar European reconstruction, Japanese Shinkansen, the present-day Chinese HSR were/are all bankrolled by the government. Their startup costs were/are very high, and they were built with maximum utility in mind--they weren't meant to generate a profit. But you could scoff at these socialist endeavors and say that true blue Americans wouldn't tolerate this road to serfdom. And you'd be wrong. Go back to the New Deal Interstate program. Go back to campaigns for public schools and public health and even the post office. And on a more pragmatic basis, infrastructure investment IS GOOD. Increasing productivity helps society.

You do have a few private companies dipping their fingers into public infrastructure. These companies generally want the smallest, most profitable share of the pie (e.g. BosWash corridor). Or they want to get some fat profits off inflated financing or consulting billings. Or they'll wait until the construction is done, then complain about supposed government inefficiency and lobby for infrastructure privatization--essentially having the public pay for the high upfront costs, then having a private company collect its future revenues.


----------



## phoenixboi08

I think the biggest issue is community outreach, which both of these groups have been pretty bad at. 

The CA authority financial plan makes perfect sense, but they keep fumbling the ball on how they explain it to people. It took them months before they realized they needed to explicitly point out that the point of the IOS is to connect the _existing_ rail connections near SF to the ones near LA (i.e. getting an end-to-end service, without having to build the entire system at once), borrow against fares to build the rest, all the while seeking profits through development around their stations. It's perfectly reasonable. In any case, much of the cost would be significantly less if they weren't financing it over 20+ years (people always forget about our little friend, interest).

It remains to be seen just how the TX Central group will finance the project (I don't see any single investor or bank shelling out big bucks to do this). As much as they wear it as a badge of pride, I don't buy their claim that they won't receive any public funding (e.g. eminent domain, grants, loans). At some point, they'll ask for something. Also, even though their route will require fewer takings, many of those they will be required to undertake will be just as difficult as in CA (if the current grumbling is any indication)...

To say nothing of the fact that the CAHSRA is a better model, so long as the bidding process is actually competitive (I have some suspicions that Amtrak may be one of the few to successfully bid to operate service). For all effects and purposes, it's a PPP model, which will mean (at the very least) cheaper fares (if not better service), since the authority will seek other means to recoup their capital costs (TOD) and the operator won't have any baggage beyond "renting" the right to use the ROW.

My biggest problem with TX Central is with their decision to also serve as operators of the service. In that instance, they only have to price competitively with air fares and not with any other rail operators.


----------



## XAN_

Joshua Dodd said:


> For the most part an electrification of these rails would not be as efficient for the freight tonnage. Europe's rails are predominantly passenger. About 90% passenger. The US rail system is 90% freight. There are also major operational issues with the use of electric locomotives. Though a diesel locomotive may go wherever it wish, an electric locomotive must necessarily remain under wire. Not only does this necessitate the expense of electrifying branch lines or maintaining a diesel fleet in electrified areas to handle traffic not originating or terminating on the mainline, but it also points to the problem that electric locomotives are power limited based on external factors to a degree that diesel locomotives are not. While any number of diesel locomotives may use up to their full ratings in a given area, subject only to the physical capabilities of drawbars and car couplings, a given substation can only provide a certain amount of power, providing an additional constraint on train capacity which requires additional or larger substations to overcome, increasing the expense still further. Again the US is 90% freight. To move the same number of tons, around seven times more trains are necessary in Europe. For a thousand tons the U.S. Class I railroads require 0.28 trains; in Europe it is 1.94. So European electrified rail costs are vastly larger. Operational costs per ton mile in Europe are almost more than double that of the US.
> 
> Having more trains (even if smaller) for less cargo moved implies higher fixed and variable costs. It implies more labor, line capacity use, and a smaller net/gross tons ratio per train for the same amount of goods moved. This explains to a large extent why U.S. railways are profitable and have been financially stable for the last 10 years, while in Europe their financial situation is, at best, precarious.
> 
> In conclusion, it is highly improbable that the US will electrify its freight lines. The lesson learned: Freight is better as is while passenger is best electrified. The only practical electrification is for passenger service and we are hopeful that a new high speed infrastructure will do that job. Don't forget that Conrail experimented with electrified freight rail. Needless to say that experiment was ditched in the 80s.


----------



## benjaminh

particlez said:


> Large scale infrastructure is a natural monopoly(...).


You're making a very good point there (that I forgot to include in my little litany about privately financed infrastructure projects): Basic economic theory postulates that certain economic decisions, because of their inherent characteristics, will/must always lead to inefficient results in a purely market based system. And this is not in any way a normative statement about market economies (I'm a big fan); it's a simple fact that can be understood based on economics 101. There are other situations in which similar things happen (asymmetric information, market power,...).

One more comment with regard to the TX HSR project in particular: Even if this worked the way it's supposed to (project managed and financed privately), the timeline (construction start 2016) would still be nothing but unrealistic. No one can tell me that over the next 24 months a) the necessary environmental studies will be finished, b) funding (double digit billion dollars) secured, c) land acquired, d) engineering of 240 miles of rail completed, and e) tenders put out and contracts awarded. Experience with similar large scale endeavors (East Side Access in NYC, Metro Silver Line in DC, Gateway Tunnel project, CA HSR,...) shows that it won't happen this quickly.

The general problem seems to be that every time a major infrastructure project is planned and the associated costs/implications become clear, someone claims that he/she can do it cheaper, quicker, more efficient, and less intrusive. And people fall for it even though at a later stage (if the allegedly better proposal ever gets to that point) it becomes clear that the costs, complexities, etc. were radically understated.


----------



## Joshua Dodd

benjaminh said:


> I believe it when I see it! That infrastructure projects of such scale can be built more efficiently/cheaper by a non-government entity and paid for by someone other than the government (federal, state, or local) has to be proven first. I doubt it!
> 
> And good luck in particular with the 100 miles of elevated track; that is going to cost an arm and a leg. Those who think the first phase of the California HSR project is expensive (cost per mile of track) will be even more astonished here. This project is very likely going to cost significantly more (elevated track vs. at-grade). The high costs of the CA HSR project are (overwhelmingly) not a result of ineffective government management but a direct consequence of the complexities of such projects and the costs of labor in the U.S. People who don't like government infrastructure spending might not like it but it's true nevertheless.
> 
> Also good luck with acquiring the necessary land. Because eminent domain is not supposed to be used for the benefit of a private business. You will have to pay a premium then or deal with construction delays because of the legal proceedings. Again, the delays of the CA HSR project are (overwhelmingly) not a result of ineffective government management but a direct consequence of the complexities of such projects.
> 
> I'm not trying to say that there aren't any issues with the way CA is handling its HSR project but to assume that all issues can be resolved just because a project is managed/financed privately is wishful thinking based on ideology rather than fact.


What remains true is that there are only three high speed rail projects in the US that are in advanced stages of development. This includes, of course, California and Texas, but also Florida.

Japan Railway has been trying to enter the US market for quite sometime now and hopes were high after Obama unveiled his vision of a high speed rail network in the US shortly after his inauguration in 2009. As you have pointed out there have been numerous issues obstructing much progress. Land right issues, engineering costs, ect ect ect. Indeed it is a massive headache. 

However, as of current, Japan Railway has had more progress working with the Texas Central Railway. Texas Central, formerly Lone Star High-Speed Rail, was created in 2010 to develop a platform for Japan Railway’s technology in America. Texas Central officials say Japan Railway is not financing the Texas project, but is a “promotional and technical partner.” If the project moves forward, J.R. Central would sell its trains to the company and play some advisory role on the system’s operations, but the extent of its intended involvement is unclear.

Where is funding coming from? I myself was curious as to know where they will attain the necessary funds to execute such a large scale project as its cost is expected to range at 10 billion dollars. That's a lot of money to be found privately. According to the TCR CEO, Richard Lawless, who is refusing any form of government subsidy for the project, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation participated in “an exhaustive study” of the Dallas-Houston line and is willing to back the project. It’s expected to provide up to half the debt financing for the Texas line, with “extremely attractive” interest rates, he said. The loan could be $3.5 billion or higher, depending on the final costs and debt-to-equity structure. (This is as of November 2014) The bank also has the authority to throw in an equity investment in high-speed rail, a provision that was adopted in 2012, he said. 

Again, we will have to wait and see how this plans out. 

As for your dubious skepticism about land acquisitions, I would like to point out that a possible route might be underway after the environmental study is completed. Originally there were nine proposals. That has been slashed down to 3. One proposal is more likely than the rest, which is building the line along existing BNSF and UP railroad right of ways. According to the TCR's website the track would have a very narrow footprint (approximately 80 ft. in width), including security fencing; and will only require surface access rights, so Texans can retain complete ownership of the land itself, including 100% of all their oil, mineral and gas rights. For the most part they are working with the BNSF and UP to build along their right of ways.


----------



## Joshua Dodd

particlez said:


> ^I'd want to thumbs up this post twice.
> 
> Benjaminh is right. Large scale infrastructure is a natural monopoly and beneficial to society as a whole. Its ROI will not cover its initial investment cost, but its indirect benefits far outweigh the total investment. Private companies have an obligation to maximize their own profit--they can pursue maximum profits in fast food or athletic shoes, but they're not going to replace the role of government itself in terms of infrastructure investment.
> 
> Postwar European reconstruction, Japanese Shinkansen, the present-day Chinese HSR were/are all bankrolled by the government. Their startup costs were/are very high, and they were built with maximum utility in mind--they weren't meant to generate a profit. But you could scoff at these socialist endeavors and say that true blue Americans wouldn't tolerate this road to serfdom. And you'd be wrong. Go back to the New Deal Interstate program. Go back to campaigns for public schools and public health and even the post office. And on a more pragmatic basis, infrastructure investment IS GOOD. Increasing productivity helps society.
> 
> You do have a few private companies dipping their fingers into public infrastructure. These companies generally want the smallest, most profitable share of the pie (e.g. BosWash corridor). Or they want to get some fat profits off inflated financing or consulting billings. Or they'll wait until the construction is done, then complain about supposed government inefficiency and lobby for infrastructure privatization--essentially having the public pay for the high upfront costs, then having a private company collect its future revenues.


You do realize that American freight rails, a massive infrastructure that our economy is dependent on, are financed privately entirely. In the mid 20th century the American railroads were on near collapse because of over regulation. After the Stagglers Act deregulated the industry American rails have experienced a Renaissance style boom. Each year the companies invest billions upon billions on improving infrastructure and their profit margins have increased as a result as well as an 80% efficiency increase since the 1980s.


----------



## Joshua Dodd

XAN_ said:


>


Cool trains. 

But again you missed a major point: 90% of all European rails are passenger and do not carry nearly the capacity of freight tonnage US rails do. Also, US freight locomotives are extremely heavy, as well as cars, in comparison with European rails. Cars and locomotives are designed to haul larger loads of freight. This is why they are also built with larger dimensions.


----------



## Suburbanist

European freight trains are usually shorter not because they are electric-powered, but because of signaling blocks. They don't want to mess with the blocks. 

25kV AC electrification can deliver much traction power equivalent with relatively limited number of substations. Things change if you go for 3kV DC.... 

I'd also say the ridiculously outdated coupling mechanisms used on freight trains in Europe are the major reason by which longer trains are difficult to come by, regardless of traction.

Some new freight-only lines are planned. One has been built: the Betuweroute in Netherlands - it only carries freight, opened in the 2000s between the Port of Rotterdam and the German border in Emmerich. A state-of-the-art freight railway


----------



## benjaminh

Joshua Dodd said:


> You do realize that American freight rails, a massive infrastructure that our economy is dependent on, are financed privately entirely.


People do realize that. But the fact that private railroads own freight infrastructure in the U.S. doesn't mean that there is sufficient competition in the market and it doesn't mean that the outcomes are efficient (from an economics perspective). The argument goes like this (simplified, I admit): A private business that builds a railroad line is not going to share it with potential competitors because it needs to earn the money back that it spent on the construction and that works best if it monopolizes the supply side. For real competition to develop, a different company would have to build its own tracks then. That's not likely (because it requires significant amounts of money) and, if it does happen, it's not efficient (again, from an economics perspective) because you would end up with two parallel railroad lines_._ It would be more efficient (and this has nothing to do with pro- or anti-government ideology) if the public/the government built one line and let multiple competing railroad companies use it in return for usage fees.


----------



## MarcVD

To build on what Suburbanist said on this subject :

Longer/heavier trains have been tried in Europe but the main limiting
factor is the signalling system, the length of sidings, and the strength of the
couplers.

But, don't paint this with a too wide brush. The two pictures shown depicts
two examples where freight, not passenger, is predominant. The first is a
picture of a dedicated line to bring iron ore from the mine to the sea shore.
Locos feature 2x5400kW and 600 kN of tractive effort, pulling trains of 8600 tons.

The second is a picture of a russian freight train; I don't know the specifics
of the loco, but this network is definitely not passenger-predominant, yet it
is massively electrified, and undoubtly successful.

Those two networks, however, have adequate infrastructure for long and heavy
trains.

So, yes, electrification of freight-oriented railroads can be successful.


----------



## Joshua Dodd

benjaminh said:


> People do realize that. But the fact that private railroads own freight infrastructure in the U.S. doesn't mean that there is sufficient competition in the market and it doesn't mean that the outcomes are efficient (from an economics perspective). The argument goes like this (simplified, I admit): A private business that builds a railroad line is not going to share it with potential competitors because it needs to earn the money back that it spent on the construction and that works best if it monopolizes the supply side. For real competition to develop, a different company would have to build its own tracks then. That's not likely (because it requires significant amounts of money) and, if it does happen, it's not efficient (again, from an economics perspective) because you would end up with two parallel railroad lines_._ It would be more efficient (and this has nothing to do with pro- or anti-government ideology) if the public/the government built one line and let multiple competing railroad companies use it in return for usage fees.



Looking at the 1950s when there were more than 50 Class I railroads vs today's 6 Class I railroads that are left, a fair estimation can be asserted that there is a lack of competition. However, there are several factors that must be considered that disprove this estimation. You must remember that there are three different classifications of railroads: Class I, Class II and Class III. There are many short line and regional rail lines that have sprouted post Staggers Act era. (last 30 years) 

In the sanctity of eschewing ideological bias, lets take a historical perspective to answer your points. 

The reason why there seems to be a fair lacking of competition in the rail industry is because during the 1970s the railroad experienced a fallout of bankruptcies that decimated it. More than 21 percent of the nation’s rail mileage was accounted for by bankrupt railroads. Between 1970 and 1979, the rail industry’s return on investment never exceeded 2.9 percent and averaged 2.0 percent. Railroads’ low average rate of return had been falling for decades: it was 4.1 percent in the 1940s, 3.7 percent in the 1950s, and 2.8 percent in the 1960s. By 1978, the railroad share of intercity freight had fallen to 35 percent, down from 75 percent in the 1920s. Growth in air and truck technology, especially with the freeways, contributed to this. Railroads lacked the funds to properly maintain their tracks. By 1976, more than 47,000 miles of track had to be operated at reduced speeds because of unsafe conditions. Deferred maintenance — maintenance that needed to be done but railroads could not afford — was in the billions of dollars.

Conrail was charted by the federal government to figure out why this was happening at such a dramatic scale. Over-regulation of the industry was discovered to be the culprit, which resulted in the deregulation of the industry via the Staggers Act of 1980. 

As a way to survive, the industry went into a rapid phase of mergers. One after another, major lines absorbed such as the Pennsylvania merging with the New York Central, becoming Penn Central, which was then transformed into Conrail. Great Northern merging with the Burlington Route, becoming the Burlington Northern, which then merged with the Santa Fe, becoming what is today the BNSF. Many Class I lines were unfortunate to collapse because of the over regulations. Government was also regulating the railroad with fixed fee prices for freight transport. With the Staggers Act passage it allowed railroads to base most of their rates on market demand instead of government controls. It allowed railroads and shippers to enter into confidential contracts; streamlined procedures for the sale of rail lines to new short line railroads; recognized railroads’ need to earn adequate revenues.


"A private business that builds a railroad line is not going to share it with potential competitors because it needs to earn the money back that it spent on the construction and that works best if it monopolizes the supply side."

This is an absolutely false statement. American railroads do, in fact, allow other competitors to use their freight lines. This is common throughout the US corridors. Competitors are even known to serve shippers and receivers on other company's rails. This is done so through usage fees. For instance, where I live, the BNSF runs a mainline that the UP uses to haul local freight. This brings in sufficient funds to maintain and invest into the infrastructure, thus making it financially viable without the use of any government subsidy.

"For real competition to develop, a different company would have to build its own tracks then. That's not likely (because it requires significant amounts of money) and, if it does happen, it's not efficient (again, from an economics perspective) because you would end up with two parallel railroad lines."

For a new Class I railroad I can see this being true, but only for that case. Aside that this is also false and the last 30 years of post Staggers Act has proven so. Many start up lines use former abandoned tracks that were disused after the collapses of the 70s. Some examples would be the Fort Worth and Western, Wheeling and Lake Eerie, R.J. Corman railroad, ect ect. All these lines use either former abandoned lines or share usage rights along Class I competitor lines. New competitor Class III and II rail lines now operate more than 45,000 miles of rails.

You keep saying it is not economically viable to allow a private business to run imperative infrastructure. But this is absolutely false. Rail market share is now approximately 40%, more than any other transportation. Freight railroads have reinvested $550 billion of their own funds back into their
operations to create a national freight rail network that is second to none in the world. Without government it is actually proving more efficient. Rail industry productivity has shot up by 130%. Railroads are stronger financially.
Return on investment rose to 4.4 percent in the 1980s, 7.0 percent in the 1990s, and 9.2 percent from 2000 to 2013. Improved rail earnings are a positive development because they allow railroads to more readily afford the massive investments needed to keep their track and equipment in top condition, improve service, and add the new rail capacity that America will need in the years ahead. 

Based on these statistical facts, economics actually encourages the absolute separation of government and rail infrastructure.


----------



## benjaminh

Let me first say, Joshua Dodd, that I really enjoy having a fact-based and non-ideologic discussion about a complex issue which is usually hard to find in forums/threads. I also admit that you certainly know (much) more than I do about the history and current situation of freight rail in the U.S. And I admit that the remarks I made about postulates of economic theory certainly do not apply to every specific case since reality is usually much more complicated than the ceteris paribus deductions of economic theory.

What I was trying to do was to start a discussion about the viability of a privately funded high speed rail system in the U.S. In my opinion, there is a reason why most countries have chosen to build HSR lines/systems financed by the/a government (federal/state/local). The reason seems to be that passenger rail isn't profitable if you take into account the up front infrastructure costs. My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the price that is determined in the market place is too low - because of competition by other modes of transportation that did not require the same investment - to cover the variable costs of high speed rail as well as the fixed costs of the infrastructure. Take Amtrak's NEC for example: Acela as well as the NE Regional are highly profitable but the profit is by far not high enough to build real HSR in the Northeast. In other words, Amtrak would not be able to earn back the money that would have been necessary to build the system in the first place either. My assumption is that this is not the case because of inefficiencies of the government-run Amtrak but because of the inherent characteristics of these types of economic activities. Now, you could theoretically make a private HSR business profitable if you could create a monopoly. It's probably not possible under real life conditions because you can't outlaw air traffic or intercity bus service between the respective cities. But even if you could, the system would be inefficient from an economics perspective as any monopoly is.

The approach that economic theory, in my opinion, suggests is a system where the infrastructure is built by the government and various service providers pay fees for the use of it. The competition of these service providers then creates efficient (from an economics perspective) prices. One could also have service providers bid for exclusive contracts; the competition would then take place in this bidding process and not the actual service provision. This is basically what has been undertaken in the UK after the privatization of British Rail in the 1990s. And even though not everything is perfect about that system, it actually does work better than people make it sound.

I apologize if I presented this in a confusing way. It's late and English is still my second language. 

BTW: I would have no problem whatsoever with the TX HSR project succeeding. I think a Dallas-Houston link is actually one of the potential HSR projects that make the most sense (the others being NEC, CA, and possibly FL). And if this worked we would have found a solution for the decade old problem that certain regions deserve efficient HSR transportation but we don't seem to be able or willing to contribute enough taxpayer money to make it happen.


----------



## Woonsocket54

*New Dearborn, MI Amtrak Station - service begins 2014.12.10*



Woonsocket54 said:


> A train station in Troy, MI opened earlier this month, and the new one in Dearborn, MI should open soon.


Press & Guide
http://www.pressandguide.com/articles/2014/12/05/news/doc5481b8177aefd896121105.txt



> *Train station construction finally reaching the end of the line*
> 
> Published: Friday, December 05, 2014
> 
> By Jodi Rempala
> Press & Guide
> 
> Amtrak passengers have to wait just a few more days before taking advantage of the new station’s amenities. It is scheduled to open Wednesday.
> 
> The first train will roll into the new station, 21201 Michigan Ave. at 6:51 a.m.
> 
> Amtrak is moving all of its operations from the current train station behind the Dearborn Police Station to the new 16,000-square-foot Dingell Transit Center.
> 
> City leaders say the transit center promotes intermodal transportation, connecting travelers via train, bus, taxi and pedestrian and bike paths to work, education, cultural attractions, shopping and recreation in Dearborn and beyond.
> 
> The station is an important component in initiatives to boost commuter rail from Ann Arbor to Detroit and accelerated speed rail from Pontiac to Chicago.
> 
> Six Amtrak trains will stop daily at Dingell Transit Center, with increased Amtrak service and the addition of commuter rail expected in the coming years.
> 
> Almost 80,000 passengers used the current Amtrak station during the 2014 fiscal year.
> 
> In fact, Dearborn is the most popular Amtrak location in the Detroit metropolitan area, according to Marc Magliari, spokesman for Amtrak.
> 
> He expects that number to grow.
> 
> “Dearborn is excited to be part of the future of rail. We will continue to work with our partners to increase convenient travel that starts in Dearborn and takes riders throughout southeast Michigan, as well as between Dearborn and Chicago,” said Mayor Jack O’Reilly.
> 
> “We’re anticipating bringing more customers to our Dearborn businesses and more visitors to our cultural and entertainment venues,” O’Reilly said. “And in the near future, people are going to find it very easy to get on a train in Dearborn and connect with the new M1-Rail in Detroit for an evening out or to go to a game.”
> 
> Magliari said Amtrak is planning to expand in the future, adding to the six lines already running from Dearborn.
> 
> Right now, he said the most popular trips from Michigan are to Chicago and sites in western Michigan.
> 
> The transit center was funded entirely with $28.2 million from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
> 
> The city of Dearborn owns the station and the seven-acre site, while Amtrak will run the facility.
> 
> Residents hoping to get a look inside the new facility are welcome to attend an open house scheduled for Dec. 15.
> 
> The open house takes place from 4-6 p.m. at the transit center, which sits near Brady Street and marks the entrance to the west downtown business district.
> 
> During the open house, visitors can tour the station, see informative displays and talk with people knowledgeable about the future of train travel. A mural created by Dearborn students will also be featured.
> 
> Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) and his wife, Debbie are expected to be at the open house.
> 
> In addition, people attending the open house can enter a free drawing to win tickets to The Henry Ford’s popular Holiday Nights in Greenfield Village.
> 
> The Henry Ford has historic displays inside the center, including an iconic Davenport train engine.
> 
> The transit center also features a pedestrian bridge over the tracks that will allow travelers to access a new entrance to The Henry Ford complex, including the Henry Ford Museum, Greenfield Village, the IMAX Theater, and Ford Rouge Factory Tours.
> 
> About 1.6 million people a year visit The Henry Ford.
> 
> Ford Motor Company expects to showcase a new F-150 on site, as well.
> 
> The transit center has received a silver certification from the U.S. Green Building Council’s
> 
> Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design. The building features a metal roof with solar collectors, energy efficient lighting and geothermal heating and cooling.


----------



## Woonsocket54

*Amtrak Cascades in Edmonds, WA - 2014.11.29*









http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=509030&nseq=5

along Puget Sound


----------



## particlez

Joshua Dodd said:


> You do realize that American freight rails, a massive infrastructure that our economy is dependent on, are financed privately entirely. In the mid 20th century the American railroads were on near collapse because of over regulation. After the Stagglers Act deregulated the industry American rails have experienced a Renaissance style boom. Each year the companies invest billions upon billions on improving infrastructure and their profit margins have increased as a result as well as an 80% efficiency increase since the 1980s.


@Joshua Dodd

By entirely "privately" financed, you're referring to smaller pre Civil War Southern railroads connecting cotton plantations to the nearest ports for export. These railways didn't require as much capital investment and were more easily profitable. Other more grandiose ventures like the Baltimore and Ohio Railway spanned a much larger area, had much higher upfront costs, and did require Governmental guarantees and more importantly, land grants for the railways.

The Intercontinental Railway connecting Omaha to Sacramento went over long distances, inhospitable, difficult, and often uninhabited terrain, and relied on large scale government subsidies. Worse yet, the railroad companies themselves were often crooks, embezzling via phantom finance charges. Thomas Durant and Credit Mobilier? Union Pacific went bankrupt multiple times--and it was bailed out by the government. Worse yet, the land grant giveaways empowered the Gilded Age's robber barons. I grew up in California. All the geographic references to Hopkins, Harriman, Crocker, Stanford, etc. sounded distinguished--until I realized they were just ruthless businessmen. Their railway company(ies) needed the government's help, yet they became billionaires from the railway land grant economic spinoffs.

So in short, hugely expensive infrastructure projects with no change of recouping their initial investment need government help. The upfront expenses are too high, the economic payback is too slow, and there's a lot of risk. Ditto with the interstates, airports, etc. 

I'm not sure why you broached the Staggers Act.


----------



## mcarling

benjaminh said:


> People do realize that. But the fact that private railroads own freight infrastructure in the U.S. doesn't mean that there is sufficient competition in the market and it doesn't mean that the outcomes are efficient (from an economics perspective). The argument goes like this (simplified, I admit): A private business that builds a railroad line is not going to share it with potential competitors because it needs to earn the money back that it spent on the construction and that works best if it monopolizes the supply side. For real competition to develop, a different company would have to build its own tracks then. That's not likely (because it requires significant amounts of money) and, if it does happen, it's not efficient (again, from an economics perspective) because you would end up with two parallel railroad lines_._ It would be more efficient (and this has nothing to do with pro- or anti-government ideology) if the public/the government built one line and let multiple competing railroad companies use it in return for usage fees.


The much more efficient solution to ensuring competition in the freight (and passenger) rail business is to split the track ownership from the train operations. Any company (and its associated companies) that own rail track cannot own or operate trains and vice-versa. Then both the rail network and the train operations are competitive on a level playing field. No government involvement is required except for enforcement of safety standards and the separation rule above.


----------



## Joshua Dodd

particlez said:


> @Joshua Dodd
> 
> By entirely "privately" financed, you're referring to smaller pre Civil War Southern railroads connecting cotton plantations to the nearest ports for export. These railways didn't require as much capital investment and were more easily profitable. Other more grandiose ventures like the Baltimore and Ohio Railway spanned a much larger area, had much higher upfront costs, and did require Governmental guarantees and more importantly, land grants for the railways.
> 
> The Intercontinental Railway connecting Omaha to Sacramento went over long distances, inhospitable, difficult, and often uninhabited terrain, and relied on large scale government subsidies. Worse yet, the railroad companies themselves were often crooks, embezzling via phantom finance charges. Thomas Durant and Credit Mobilier? Union Pacific went bankrupt multiple times--and it was bailed out by the government. Worse yet, the land grant giveaways empowered the Gilded Age's robber barons. I grew up in California. All the geographic references to Hopkins, Harriman, Crocker, Stanford, etc. sounded distinguished--until I realized they were just ruthless businessmen. Their railway company(ies) needed the government's help, yet they became billionaires from the railway land grant economic spinoffs.
> 
> So in short, hugely expensive infrastructure projects with no change of recouping their initial investment need government help. The upfront expenses are too high, the economic payback is too slow, and there's a lot of risk. Ditto with the interstates, airports, etc.
> 
> I'm not sure why you broached the Staggers Act.


I do not know what it is with this infrastructure relies only on government funds myth with you people. 

By "entirely" private I am referring to the railroads today, which I have made very clear in previous posts. Privately owned railroads have spent $550 billion since 1980 building, maintaining and growing their 140,000-mile rail network. That amount equals 40 cents of every revenue dollar. Even during the economic downturn, America’s freight railroads spent approximately $25 billion annually to build and maintain the most efficient rail system in the world. In 2014, that investment is expected to increase to an estimated $26 billion, helping to keep America competitive. This investment includes $13 billion in projected capital expenditures, or CapEx, which go toward upgrading or enhancing rail network capacity. “While most other transportation modes rely on government funds, America’s freight railroads operate on infrastructure they own, maintain and upgrade to serve their customers and power our economy,” said AAR President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger. In recent years, railroads have been spending roughly 17 percent of their annual revenue on capital expenditures, compared with the average U.S. manufacturer that spends roughly 3 percent of revenue on capital expenditures. And they are all entirely privately financed as well as incredibly profitable. That is an incontrovertible fact. 

What is true is that the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads are prime examples of government financed railroads. They received per-mile subsidies from the federal government in the form of low-interest loans as well as massive land grants. This is what built the famed Transcontinental railroad. However, what is not so well known is how poorly the Transcontinental was built. It was so poorly built it had to be rebuilt.

The names you mention are indeed some notorious ones. But what do they have to do with entirely privately financed roads? Nothing. Because their roads were financed by government subsidies. However, the Great Northern railroad was not. The Great Northern was the first transcontinental railroad built by private money and without government aid. James J. Hill built the Great Northern without government help while other robber barons relied heavily on some form of government subsidy. Hill purchased Jay Cooke's Northern Pacific, which had been a road financed by the government. The NP was built incredibly poorly and was driven into bankruptcy. After Hill purchased the line with private money he directed work and workers began laying rails twice as quickly as the NP crews had, and even at that speed he built what everyone at the time considered to be the highest-quality line. And this was all being done by private money. No government. The efficiency of Hill's micromanagement of the GN lead to cost cutting. Cost reductions were passed to customers via lower rates. Also, the Great Northern didn't want to become dependent on a single crop and therefore subject to the uncertainties of price fluctuation, as the southern lines you mentioned were.

Hill's Great Northern was, consequently, the "best constructed and most profitable of all the world's major railroads." Hill's Great Northern was the only transcontinental railroad that never went bankrupt.

The Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 created the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific railroads. For each mile of track built Congress gave these companies a section of land. as well as a sizable loan: $16,000 per mile for track built on flat prairie land; $32,000 for hilly terrain; and $48,000 in the mountains. As was the case with Jay Cooke's Northern Pacific, these railroads tried to build as quickly and as cheaply as possible in order to take advantage of the subsidies. Where James J. Hill would be obsessed with finding the shortest route for his railroad, these government-subsidized companies, knowing they were paid by the mile, "sometimes built winding, circuitous roads to collect for more mileage," according to Burton Folsom. 

Now I am not saying Hill was a saint. But what I am saying is that your claim that "hugely expensive infrastructure projects with no change of recouping their initial investment need government help" is false. As for the interstate freeways, a lot of people don't seem to realize that the original purpose for the freeway system was not so much commerce as it is for the rapid movement of the military. The interstate was built, according to the act that created it, for the military. Originally Roosevelt wanted to create the freeway system to help spur job growth but the war interfered. It was Eisenhower, who noted the strategic advantage of Germany's autobahn, who brought us the interstate system since he saw it as national defense interest. He considered it important to "protect the vital interest of every citizen in a safe and adequate highway system." But I digress.

I am simply making my assertion based on historical and statistical evidence. But it seems to me you are taking your stance based on ideological bias.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Amtrak's newly built baggage cars are being delivered from the factory in Elmira Heights, NY to Hialeah, FL for final inspections.









https://twitter.com/Amtrak/status/545234022700298242/photo/1

Story here: http://www.stargazette.com/story/ne...mtrak-train-elmira-heights-contract/20529593/


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

Nexis said:


> *Amtrak Trains at Trenton Transit Center*
> 
> AEM-7 # 948 pulling Westbound Amtrak Regional Train # 129 to Washington DC
> 
> 
> AEM-7 # 948 pulling Amtrak Regional Train # 129 arriving at Trenton,NJ by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr
> 
> 
> AEM-7 # 948 pulling Amtrak Regional Train # 129 arriving at Trenton,NJ by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr
> 
> 
> Amtrak Regional Train # 129 arriving at Trenton,NJ by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr
> 
> AEM-7 # 924 pulling Eastbound Amtrak Regional train # 148 to Springfield,MA
> 
> 
> AEM-7 # 924 pulling Amtrak Regional train # 148 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr
> 
> Eastbound Amtrak Keystone Train at Trenton
> 
> 
> Eastbound Amtrak Keystone Train at Trenton by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr
> 
> 
> Eastbound Amtrak Keystone Train at Trenton by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr
> 
> 
> Eastbound Amtrak Keystone Train departing Trenton with Cities Sprinters # 609 by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr
> 
> Amtrak AEM-7 # 944 pulling Eastbound Silver Star # 92 to New York
> 
> 
> Amtrak AEM-7 # 944 pulling Silver Star # 92 arriving at Trenton by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr
> 
> 
> Amtrak Silver Star # 92 at Trenton by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr
> 
> 
> Amtrak Silver Star # 92 departing Trenton by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Are there AEM-7 "Toasters" still in operation? I thought that all AEM-7 were retired after the purchase of HPP-7 and new Siemens locomotives...


----------



## Nexis

Rodalvesdepaula said:


> Are there AEM-7 "Toasters" still in operation? I thought that all AEM-7 were retired after the purchase of HPP-7 and new Siemens locomotives...


All the HHP-8 Locomotives have been retired , but Amtrak still uses the Toasters. Although there being slowly replaced by the Cities Sprinters...


----------



## Nexis

Some old NEC photos from Baltimore


PRR md177 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR md176 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR md170 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR md169 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR md168 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR md167 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR md166 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR md163 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR md162 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


----------



## CNB30

:drool:


----------



## Nexis

The Hideous FRA Designed Talgo Cab car


Talgo Cab Car by rovertrain, on Flickr


----------



## Robi_damian

You ruined the Talgo :rant:

On another note, those pictures of the NE corridor are simply stunning. It is impressive what a headstart the U.S. had in passenger transport development by the late 1930´s, and how it went out the window.


----------



## Tower Dude

Che peccato! And so much more could have been done if not for the short sightedness brought with the auto motive age


----------



## Nexis

Amtrak Cities Sprinter # 601 in Philly


AMTK 601 South at 30th St., Philadelphia, Pa. by s_c_kos, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

Northeast Corridor around Morrisville,PA


PRR NY336 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR NY339 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR NY342 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr

Around Newark,NJ


PRR NY007 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR NY008 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR NY009 by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


PRR NY003a by barrigerlibrary, on Flickr


----------



## SpiderBHZ

Nexis said:


>


I hardly can't for April 29!!  I'll be so happy traveling in one of these between LA and San Francisco!! :banana:


----------



## CNB30

Nexis said:


> Northeast Corridor around Morrisville,PA


How fast did the trains travel at that time on the NEC?


----------



## Nexis

CNB30 said:


> How fast did the trains travel at that time on the NEC?


I would assume at least 100mph...


----------



## Fan Railer

GG1s were good for 100 mph.


----------



## Nexis

> *Amtrak service from New Orleans to Orlando: Return possible​*
> By Richard Rainey, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
> Email the author | Follow on Twitter
> on March 17, 2015 at 2:37 PM, updated March 17, 2015 at 2:38 PM
> 
> Discontinued after Hurricane Katrina, Amtrak passenger trains could once again rumble along the Gulf Coast from New Orleans to Orlando, Fla.
> 
> But not before it clears a few political hurdles first.
> 
> A bill working its way through Congress calls for the formation of a working group to consider the ins and outs of restoring that passenger rail route. Its members, selected by the Federal Railroad Administration, would include representatives from Amtrak, the states and cities along the route, members of the Southern Rail Commission and railroad company officials, among others.


Read the rest at : http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/03/a_return_of_amtrak_service_fro.html


----------



## Nexis

> *Indiana's Hoosier State service gets 30-day extension​*
> The Amtrak Hoosier State service between Indianapolis and Chicago will get a 30-day extension through the end of April, keeping alive the possibility that the service won't be ended after all.
> 
> Earlier this month, Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) announced the service would end April 1. But the extension announcement follows a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) phone call last week with INDOT Commissioner Karl Browning, during which FRA Acting Administrator Sarah Feinberg committed to reconsider the position that INDOT officials say would cause the Hoosier State service to end.
> 
> "It is not clear that the FRA will change its mind," Browning said in a press release. "Because Ms. Feinberg committed to reviewing this, we want to give the FRA another opportunity to consider the problems Indiana has been airing."


http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Indianas-Hoosier-State-service-gets-30day-extension--43831


----------



## Nexis

> *Pact bodes well for restored Amtrak Montrealer​*
> Written by Douglas John Bowen
> 
> 
> 
> A U.S.-Canada agreement on cross-border travel and security signed Monday, March 16, 2015 bolsters efforts to restore Amtrak's Montrealer, discontinued in 1995, particularly if Customs pre-clearance facilities are established to eliminate long dwell times at the U.S.-Canada border.
> 
> The announcement, made from U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D-Vt.) office Monday, said, "U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Canadian Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney signed a new pre-clearance agreement in Washington that was negotiated under the Beyond the Border Action Plan approved earlier by President Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper."


http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/agreement-bodes-well-for-restored-amtrak-montrealer.html


----------



## dl3000

Nexis said:


>


Thanks for sharing. Most of the beginning is filmed in Del Mar, CA and northern San Diego County. The segment right on the beach is in San Clemente in Orange County.


----------



## Fan Railer

Video of freshly overhauled GE P32-8WH 512 calling at Tyrone, PA with Pennsylvanian Train 43 (3/18/15). Wicked K5LA XD:


----------



## Nexis

Early Morning Amtrak Regional at Secaucus


Eastbound Amtrak Regional # 170 with Cities Sprinter # 602 approaching Secaucus Junction by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Eastbound Amtrak Regional # 170 with Cities Sprinter # 602 Roaring through Secaucus Junction by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


Eastbound Amtrak Regional # 170 with Cities Sprinter # 602 Roaring through Secaucus Junction by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr


----------



## Anday

moon993 said:


> ^There is a separate thread for High Speed Rail in the USA.


Thank you I new I hit the wrong one


----------



## Suburbanist

A very scary accident in New Orleans: strong winds blow off freight rail cars off track from an elevated railway


----------



## skyscraperhighrise

Suburbanist said:


> A very scary accident in New Orleans: strong winds blow off freight rail cars off track from an elevated railway


At least nobody was seriously injured, thank god.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Tower Dude

So the Port Authority hosted a Summit on Tran-Hudson Capacity solutions here is a Link to the page, and the Slide shows by the PA, MTA, NJT, Amtrak and the RPA are at the bottom of the page. Enjoy!

http://www.transhudsonsummit.com/


----------



## Nexis

Some Amtrak Photos taken from Hamilton Station Yesterday

*Westbound Keystone*


Trains at Hamilton Station on the Northeast Corridor by Corey Best, on Flickr


Trains at Hamilton Station on the Northeast Corridor by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Silver Star # 91 to Miami​*

Trains at Hamilton Station on the Northeast Corridor by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound Amtrak Regional*


Trains at Hamilton Station on the Northeast Corridor by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak Empire Service # 237 to Albany passing Glenwood Station in Yonkers,NY*


Amtrak Empire Service passing thru Glenwood Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


054 by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

^^At this stretch, GE Genesis locomotives operate with electricity from third rail or diesel engine?


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

What is happening with Amtrak?

Fire on _Hiawatta_ train, today. 

https://www.facebook.com/tmj4/videos/10152999343283757/


----------



## Tower Dude

The Genesis locomotives are showing there age? Doesn't really make sense because they are pretty young still, but must have been an oversight during maintenance. Also no they don't they only can run on third rail for 15 minutes while with in the boundaries of Manhattan island.


----------



## CNB30

Good luck convincing the Republican congress to appropriate funding for any new ones. ^^ :lol:


----------



## Nexis

Rodalvesdepaula said:


> ^^At this stretch, GE Genesis locomotives operate with electricity from third rail or diesel engine?


After they leave Penn Station they operate on Diesel...


----------



## Nexis

One of the few remaining Grade Crossings on the Northeast Corridor in Mystic,CT


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

Tower Dude said:


> The Genesis locomotives are showing there age? Doesn't really make sense because they are pretty young still, but must have been an oversight during maintenance. Also no they don't they only can run on third rail for 15 minutes while with in the boundaries of Manhattan island.



(about this video of GE Genesis fire)

GE Genesis locomotives are in midlife. This Genesis locomotive #24 was built in 1996. 

I believe in poorly maintianed. GE locomotives aren't too robust like EMD F40PH or "old-school" EMD F7. These machines should have a good maintenance or they will go break. 

In the other hand, _Hiawatta_ deserves a new rolling stock. A MPI locomotive with CAF USA new passenger cars could be a good choice. In the far future, Chicago - Milwaukee could be electrified and receive some new tilting trainsets. This _Hiawatta_ Corridor has a great potential to catch new passengers from low-cost airlines, automobile and Greyhound buses.


----------



## Nexis

*Riding through Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard in Queens,NY​*

Northeast Corridor Trains in Sunnyside - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains in Sunnyside - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains in Sunnyside - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains in Sunnyside - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains in Sunnyside - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains in Sunnyside - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains in Sunnyside - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains in Sunnyside - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains in Sunnyside - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains in Sunnyside - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains in Sunnyside - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

Some Amtrak Cascades videos from Tim M


*Ride AMTRAK's Cascade - the Most Beautiful Train Ride in America!*







*Riding AMTRAK from Seattle to Vancouver (Cascade)*


----------



## Sopomon

^^
Taking the Cascades from Seattle to Vancouver was one of the most beautiful train rides I've ever experienced. However, the track in Vancouver is really slow. With some small improvements, half an hour could easily be cut from journey times.


----------



## Nexis

*How the DEA Harasses Amtrak Passengers*

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-the-dea-harasses-amtrak-passengers/393230/


----------



## Nexis

*How Safe Is Amtrak Compared to Your Local Commuter Rail?*

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/amtrak-safety-rates-commuter-rail-20150515


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak Xtra 844 w, 10 Viewliner II Baggage Cars @ New Hamburg (Hudson line)*


----------



## suburbicide

Nexis said:


> *How the DEA Harasses Amtrak Passengers*


The guy writing that piece seemed like a bigger ass than the DEA officer...hno:


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

Nexis said:


> *Amtrak Xtra 844 w, 10 Viewliner II Baggage Cars @ New Hamburg (Hudson line)*


Are there one of new rail cars built by CAF USA?


----------



## Nexis

Rodalvesdepaula said:


> Are there one of new rail cars built by CAF USA?


Yes at there upstate NY plant..


----------



## mrsmartman

*New York Central Railroad - 1950's - "The Big Train" - WDTVLIVE42*






*Pennsylvania RailRoad 1946 "Clear Track Ahead!" - Historic Trains in America*


----------



## Nexis

*The Vermontrealer? It’s a long way back for passenger rail to Montreal*

http://vtdigger.org/2015/05/24/the-vermontrealer-its-a-long-way-back-for-passenger-rail-to-montreal/?utm_source=Seven+Days+Email+Newsletters&utm_campaign=3a0df5e4e2-Daily_7_Monday_0525155_25_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_24eb556688-3a0df5e4e2-296169357


----------



## Nexis

Northeast Regional and Skyline by Jarrett Stewart, on Flickr


----------



## Wee.tanuki

Does anyone have any updates or info about the new Niagara Falls (NY) station that is currently being built? I can't find anything on it.


----------



## mrsmartman

*A Lake Shore Limited train backing into Chicago Union Station*


----------



## Nexis

Wee.tanuki said:


> Does anyone have any updates or info about the new Niagara Falls (NY) station that is currently being built? I can't find anything on it.


I'll ask on the Amtrak forums....its been a while since ive heard anything about Schenectady aswell.


----------



## mrsmartman

*Hoboken Terminal Exterior with Ferry 3*


----------



## Nexis

Hoboken Terminal is Regional Rail...


----------



## Nexis

*Eastbound Amtrak Regional Train Passing Fairfield Metro*


086 by Corey Best, on Flickr


Eastbound Amtrak Regional passing Fairfield Metro by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound Amtrak Regional Train passing Compos Road in Westport*


Westbound Amtrak Regional passing through Westport by Corey Best, on Flickr


Westbound Amtrak Regional passing through Westport by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound Amtrak Regional train passing Westport Station*


Eastbound Amtrak Regional Train Passing Westport Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Eastbound Amtrak Regional Train Passing Westport Station by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound Amtrak Regional train meets Eastbound Metro North M8 at SoNo*


New Haven Line trains at South Norwalk by Corey Best, on Flickr


207 by Corey Best, on Flickr


New Haven Line trains at South Norwalk by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

> *When will the new Middletown Amtrak station project begin?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Artist's drawing of what the Amtrak station In Middletown could look like.


http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/06/when_will_the_new_middletown_a.html


----------



## jchernin

https://m.facebook.com/sonomamarint...1028397555/1116617045034610/?type=1&source=45


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak Cities Sprinters # 637 pulling Silver Meteor # 97 into Newark Penn Station*


Amtrak Cities Sprinters # 637 pulling Silver Meteor # 97 into Newark Penn Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak Cities Sprinters # 637 pulling Silver Meteor # 97 into Newark Penn Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak Cities Sprinters # 637 pulling Silver Meteor # 97 into Newark Penn Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak Cities Sprinters # 637 pulling Silver Meteor # 97 into Newark Penn Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Nexis

*This Czech company wants to bring Euro-style trains to the U.S.*

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/15/news/economy/european-trains-leo-express/

Leo Express in the Midwest or Northeast?


----------



## Fan Railer

This morning, in Manassas:


----------



## Fan Railer




----------



## Nexis

We have a Steam train thread here....


----------



## mrsmartman

^^ The look of the new engine is really refreshing.


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

The front of Metroliner cab car is so ugly with this welded (?) gangway... Amtrak made a "good" work.

The original front, made by Budd for Pennsylvania Railroad was much better. 









http://passcarphotos.info/Indices/PRR1.htm


----------



## Robi_damian

When does Amtrak release updated timetables? Are the cuts voted by Congress going to see service cut? Also, does Amtrak have a timeline for upgraded service on the corridors that got stimulus money (like the Seattle area and Chicago-St. Louis)?


----------



## webeagle12

LFMAO at "*High Speed* Amtrak Trains at Princeton Junction Station" :lol:


----------



## Anday

webeagle12 said:


> LFMAO at "*High Speed* Amtrak Trains at Princeton Junction Station" :lol:


They're high speed just not high speed compared to other countries.


----------



## Nexis

webeagle12 said:


> LFMAO at "*High Speed* Amtrak Trains at Princeton Junction Station" :lol:


The Speed limit is 135mph..


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

135 mph is High-Speed railway in every nation of the world. 

Acela Express trainsets runs at this top speed in Princeton Junction?


----------



## Nexis

Rodalvesdepaula said:


> 135 mph is High-Speed railway in every nation of the world.
> 
> Acela Express trainsets runs at this top speed in Princeton Junction?


There limited to 135mph , but in 2017 that will be raised up to 160mph...


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

By the way, are there any plans for Amtrak to introduce the Acela Express trainsets to operate a possible service in Keystone Corridor?

I believe there's demand for two daily round trips from New Haven to Harrisburg stopping only in Stamford, New York-Penn Station, Newark, Philadelphia 30th Street and Parkesburg. This service could call _Acela Keystone_ itself, with a suggestive timetable:

New Haven to Harrisburg - 09:55 AM 04:35 PM
Harrisburg to New Haven - 04:50 AM 08:10 PM


----------



## jstarra49

There are no plans to introduce Acela Express on Keystone Corridor. In fact there are no spare Acela sets available at present. Every set is accounte3d for between sets required for current NEC service and maintenance and protect sets.


----------



## zaphod

Won't the segment around Princeton be upgraded to 150 mph eventually?


----------



## Nexis

zaphod said:


> Won't the segment around Princeton be upgraded to 150 mph eventually?


Its 160mph on the Inner tracks and 125mph on the outer tracks and its between New Brunswick & Morrisville,PA.


----------



## zaphod

Nexis said:


> Its 160mph on the Inner tracks and 125mph on the outer tracks and its between New Brunswick & Morrisville,PA.


So basically then Acela will be flying through Princeton at approximately the speed the earlier generations of Shinkansen went on the oldest parts of the Tokaido. It's progress. I wish we could have at least one segment of 186 mph track somewhere though :cheers:

Speaking of the area, I wonder if the Dinky could be upgraded into a light rail that penetrated further within Princeton. Would increase ridership I'm sure.


----------



## hammersklavier

zaphod said:


> So basically then Acela will be flying through Princeton at approximately the speed the earlier generations of Shinkansen went on the oldest parts of the Tokaido. It's progress. I wish we could have at least one segment of 186 mph track somewhere though :cheers:
> 
> Speaking of the area, I wonder if the Dinky could be upgraded into a light rail that penetrated further within Princeton. Would increase ridership I'm sure.


Increasing its frequency and timing its schedule to maximize meets would help even more.

That said, the track the dinky runs on has been physically separated from the NEC (I have no idea why) so perhaps light rail isn't a terrible idea. A lot of it would depend on _how much_ ridership gains there are, though, and outside of the town proper (whose main street abuts the school as it is) most of the area's jobs are in the sprawliest sprawlsville you can possibly imagine.


----------



## Nexis

zaphod said:


> So basically then Acela will be flying through Princeton at approximately the speed the earlier generations of Shinkansen went on the oldest parts of the Tokaido. It's progress. I wish we could have at least one segment of 186 mph track somewhere though :cheers:
> 
> *Speaking of the area, I wonder if the Dinky could be upgraded into a light rail that penetrated further within Princeton. Would increase ridership I'm sure.*


I think that's a wonderful idea , I know NJT has proposed BRT instead LRT. But the people in Princeton would rather see a LRT.... I think LRT would be better...also for the proposed New Brunswick network... NJT's version of BRT is not real BRT or even SBS like in NYC its just an enhanced bus line...


----------



## phoenixboi08

Nexis said:


> ...also for the proposed New Brunswick network... NJT's version of BRT is not real BRT or even SBS like in NYC its just an enhanced bus line...


Do you mean proposed BRT or LRT?


----------



## Nexis

phoenixboi08 said:


> Do you mean proposed BRT or LRT?


It was a LRT and BRT line , but now its just a BRT line...and not even that...just some fancy bus stops...with regular buses.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## hammersklavier

Nexis said:


>


If you're gonna build a retractable platform (not really a superior solution to begin with) why don't you build one that actually extends all the way to the train car so you don't need the bridge plate?!?

Gods the fail hno:


----------



## Sopomon

Why not make the whole platform high level - the marginal increase in cost is really not that much.


----------



## Nexis

Sopomon said:


> Why not make the whole platform high level - the marginal increase in cost is really not that much.


Shhhhhhh , your common sense logic is non compatible with American thinking.... :lol:hno:


----------



## mrsmartman

*Union Pacific e-9 led Executive Train at Winfield, IL*










Union Pacific executive train passes Winfield, Illinois with a train of matching passenger cars. Pulled behind a shiny set 0f E-9s with number 949 on the point.

Published in the 20th Century Railroad Club newsletter

Links
www.uprr.com
www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/passengr.shtml
www.uprr.com/aboutup/photos/diesel_passenger.shtml
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_E9
www.oerm.org/pages/up942.html


----------



## Crownsteler

hammersklavier said:


> If you're gonna build a retractable platform (not really a superior solution to begin with) why don't you build one that actually extends all the way to the train car so you don't need the bridge plate?!?
> 
> Gods the fail hno:


Doesn't it have to do with clearance of freight trains? Passenger trains are narrower than freight trains, and platforms can't obstruct their loading gauge?


----------



## rodineisilveira

ren0312 said:


> Can AMTRAK just buy the railways? Average speeds for normal trains needs to be at least 70 mph to be competitive with car travel.


70 mph = 113 km/h.


----------



## hammersklavier

Crownsteler said:


> Doesn't it have to do with clearance of freight trains? Passenger trains are narrower than freight trains, and platforms can't obstruct their loading gauge?


Dubious.

While there may be clearance restrictions between high-level platforms and _certain types_ of cars (specifically well cars), the vast majority of freight equipment in the US today can operate past high-level platforms. This includes run-of-the-mill boxcars, flatcars, hopper cars, tank cars, etc., as well as autoracks. Most US clearance issues are of a vertical rather than horizontal nature (can it fit under the bridge? catenary wire (if installed)? through the tunnel?).


----------



## Crownsteler

This is what the description of the video on Youtube says:



> The system includes a ramp to reach the proper height of train doors, and a platform to be extended to within inches of train. When no trains are loading, it is retracted to allow wide freight loads to pass safely.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## mrsmartman

MTA Metro North FL-9 # 2013,( ex Conrail # 5040 ) built by EMD in 1955. This FL9 has a 16 cylinder 1800 HP engine, and was painted in New York Central colors in 1999 to celebrate the 175th anniversary of passenger service on the Hudson Division. It arrived at The Danbury Railway Museum on 5/5/2000. Danbury Connecticut. 7/6/02.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## ChuckScraperMiami#1

^^OH My GOD :bow:reach:, This is Fantastic Nexis. and so Many other Train Photos, This All Aboard Florida is 100 % Private Funded all 1.75 Billion Private Funds , No Taxpayer's Money, and a Tri =- Rail Station with the Miami Gran Downtown Station is being Built on a 1,000 Feet PlatForm over 50 Feet High with all 6 Trains and Trains On TOP !! :cheer::hi::angel1:



Nexis said:


>


----------



## ChuckScraperMiami#1

Nexis you the SSC Friendly Family Knows USA Transportation Friend To Every SSC Member, Moderator and Founder and Co - Founder , Administrator SSC Website Friendly Family Person Here :banana:!!
:cheers:Fantastic Nexis
^^and This All Aboard Florida Train will be Completed by at Least the Late Part of 2018, But I say 2019 For sure from West Palm Beach to Downtown Miami with 3 Huge Towers on top of the 50 Feet High , 1.000 Feet Long , 6 Full Sets of Tracks , 4 For AAF and 2 For Tri- Rail, all Fully 100 % Private Owned and Private Funded No Taxpayer's Money at All !! 



Nexis said:


>


This will be History Made, when Fully Completed to The Orlando International Airport INTERMODAL Connection Center, also Costing the Airport there with Their Passenger Funded over 2 Billion Project , all Fully Funded and Under Construction For a Year Now, with vertical Very Soon there , and all the way down To Downtown Miami by 2021 For sure !! It's a Done Deal !!


----------



## OakRidge

Another interesting bit of information is that the rolling stock to be used, Siemens Chargers, will be manufactured right near me at the Siemens factory in Sacramento, California.


----------



## ramakrishna1984

US-based railroad operator Union Pacific is planning to invest $13.5m to improve transportation infrastructure in Wyoming.Project including $48m to maintain railroad track, $3m to improve signal systems and nearly $700,000 to maintain or replace bridges.


----------



## mrsmartman

*New York Connecting Railroad Bridge / The East River Arch Bridge*



Nexis said:


> *Hell Gate Bridge *
> 
> 
> Hell Gate by Doug Ensel, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

Amtrak Acela Express at Baltimore Penn Station


Acela Power Car 2022 by ExactoCreation, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

*Lehigh Valley mayors restarting push to get regional train service*

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/08/lehigh_valley_mayors_restartin.html


----------



## Nexis




----------



## CNB30

If only Christie hadn't killed plans for a new tunnel plan.

Either way, we bicker about funding for a much needed tunnel repair that will take longer than the time it took China to build an entire HSR network.


----------



## M-NL

Despite 7 years advance warning at the end of the year most railways will be not even be close to being ready for the mandatory PTC: Most US railways will miss PTC deadline says FRA
As a European I find it irresponsible to run heavy freight trains and passenger trains without it, because human operators are guaranteed to make mistakes.


----------



## Nexis

*New Hoosier State in the Windy City*



> In its second week of revenue service, Iowa Pacific's new 'Hoosier State', (listed as Amtrak train 850), departs Chicago Union Station behind GP40FH-2 4135.



New Hoosier State in the Windy City by Jonathan Lee, on Flickr


----------



## Tower Dude

Indeed and they won't be replaced until disaster happens in which the structural integrity of the Amfleet coaches is to blame.


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

I didn't know Empire Tunnel has overhead wires...


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak Photos from this across the NYC region*

*Metro North - New Haven Line @ East Norwalk*

*Eastbound Amtrak Regional racing thru*


Metro North - New Haven Line at East Norwalk Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Metro North - New Haven Line at East Norwalk Station by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound Amtrak Acela Express *


Metro North - New Haven Line at East Norwalk Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Metro North - New Haven Line at East Norwalk Station by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Metro North - New Haven Line @ Southport*

*Westbound Acela Express passing just north of the station*


Amtrak Acela Express racin through Southport,CT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak Acela Express racin through Southport,CT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak Acela Express racin through Southport,CT by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound Regional meets Westbound Metro North Express*


Metro North - New Haven Line at Southport Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Metro North - New Haven Line at Southport Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Metro North - New Haven Line at Southport Station by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Another Westbound Acela Express*


Metro North - New Haven Line at Southport Station by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Westbound SLE train meets Eastbound Acela Express*


Metro North - New Haven Line at Southport Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Metro North - New Haven Line at Southport Station by Corey Best, on Flickr

*New Jersey Transit - NEC @ Edison*

*Eastbound Lone Amtrak Loco*


Northeast Corridor Trains at Edison Station by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound Acela Express*


Northeast Corridor Trains at Edison Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains at Edison Station by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Westbound Acela Express meets Eastbound Regional*


Northeast Corridor Trains at Edison Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains at Edison Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains at Edison Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains at Edison Station by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Trains at Edison Station by Corey Best, on Flickr

*New Jersey transit - NEC @ New Brunswick*

*Eastbound Amtrak Long Distance train meets Westbound Local *


Northeast Corridor trains in New Brunswick,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor trains in New Brunswick,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor trains in New Brunswick,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Westbound NJT Equipment move meets Eastbound Amtrak Regional*


Northeast Corridor trains in New Brunswick,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor trains in New Brunswick,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Highland Park,NJ*

*Eastbound Amtrak Regional Roaring past*


Amtrak Cities Sprinter Roaring thru Highland Park,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Rahway & Linden,NJ*

*Westbound Amtrak*


Amtrak Trains along the Northeast Corridor by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound Acela Express*


Amtrak Trains along the Northeast Corridor by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

A working day in New York New Jersey Rail LLC (NYNJ), a short railroad that operates car barges in Port of New York.

This is the only way for freight trains to access LIRR tracks in Long Island and Brooklyn. In 2012, as a part of new Cross-Harbour Tunnel project, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey acquired NYNJ.


----------



## Nexis

^ That would be better suited for the Freight thread...


----------



## Anday

*Railroads threaten shutdown over automated trains*












> Rail companies are threatening to shut down passenger and freight train service at the beginning of next year if Congress does not extend a federal deadline for automating trains that most railroads say they won't be able to meet.
> 
> Railroads currently have until Dec. 31 to install an automated train navigation system known as Positive Train Control (PTC), which regulates the speed and track movements of trains. Several companies have already said they will shut down service in January 2016 to avoid fines for not meeting the deadline.
> 
> 
> Advocates for the industry in Congress have called for an extension of the deadline, but rail regulators in the Obama administration say their hands are tied unless Congress passes an extension of the mandate.
> 
> "There are many railroads that making a good faith effort and we believe have been working diligently toward PTC implementation, but the law and the statute and the deadline is very black and white and in our read does not give flexibility to railroads that are acting diligently and railroads who are not," Acting Federal Railroad Administration chief Sarah Feinberg told lawmakers this week during a confirmation hearing for her appointment to the position on a full-time basis.
> 
> The December deadline for automated trains on most of the nation's commuter and freight railroads was set under a law passed in the aftermath of a 2008 commuter rail crash in California.


http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/254260-railroads-threaten-shutdown-over-automated-trains

Sorry if this doesn't go here.


----------



## Nexis

*New Jersey Transit & Amtrak Trains Parked in Sunnyside Yard*

*From the 7 Train*


Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard in Long Island City - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard in Long Island City - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard in Long Island City - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard in Long Island City - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard in Long Island City - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard in Long Island City - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr

*On a Eastbound LIRR train...*


Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard in Long Island City - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard in Long Island City - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard in Long Island City - Queens,NY by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

Delete


----------



## Sopomon

Is there a replacement schedule for the metroliner carriages?


----------



## Tower Dude

You mean Amfleet? It was in the 2010 fleet replacement strategy, but we know what happened later that year.


----------



## Nexis

*Englewood Flyover, CREATE Project*






*75th Street Corridor in Chicago*


----------



## Nexis

*Taking photos on train tracks: ‘A mistake you can’t undo.’*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/taking-photos-on-train-tracks-a-mistake-you-cant-undo/2015/10/02/99769f94-6218-11e5-9757-e49273f05f65_story.html?postshare=2591443787418086


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

Amtrak has nay plans to improve its Express Shipping service?

I think Amtrak could make a partnership with courier delivery companies (FedEx, DHL, UPS...) and freight railroads (UP, CSX, NS, BNSF and some Class III railroads) to improve the transportation of package and LTL (less-than-trucking) using Amtrak trains as a "high-speed" cargo service. This could bring more profits to Amtrak and reduce truck traffic on congested US Interstate highways.

A Fedex-Amtrak LTL cargo service on dedicated railcars in Northeast Regional "mixed" trains could be interesting.


----------



## zaphod

That would be cool but it seems like train stations are likely peripheral to their logistics networks. if it so happened there was a huge FedEx warehouse adjacent to DC Union Station and another one at some basement level attached to NY Penn, then I could see that working. But wouldn't it add time and manpower to transload from a truck to a train to a truck to another truck?

I believe there were Amtrak mail trains running out of LA and out of Springfield, Mass but not anymore. That or the practice has been reduced.


----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

In NEC, I see a great opportunity for FedEx railcars on Northeast Regional trains between Washington D.C., Philly-30th Street, Newark, New York-New Rochelle, New Haven, Providence and Boston. Small packages and LTL would be transported in baggage cars that would be leased to FedEx and the discharge would be performed at the station platform by FedEx employees.

In Midwest, an alternative would be the use of 10-foot containers for package and LTL. The containers would be loaded on flat wagons in a rail yard before the train go to station. These containers could be similar to Japan Freight Railways ones. 









http://tefutefu.blog.eonet.jp/default/2010/05/h2252-8d76.html

Here in Brazil, express packages are carried by intercity buses.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Rodalvesdepaula

Ethan Allen Express?


----------



## Nexis

Rodalvesdepaula said:


> Ethan Allen Express?


Vermonter..


----------



## bima_mtks

i hear this railway has connect america and make this country became a superpower


----------



## Nexis

> *Derailed Amtrak train car transported to Northfield Center*


Video in link : http://www.wcax.com/story/30233121/derailed-amtrak-train-car-transported-to-northfield-center


----------



## CNB30

Nexis said:


> Worcester , Albuquerque , Richmond , Barstow , San Bernardino , Utica , Kansas City , Indianapolis , Salt Lake City , Ogden , Springfield... Scranton could be activated to service Regional & Suburban trains sometime in the 2020s...


I made a map a while back with Commuter Rail for Main Street Station. Also, I've taken the train out of there a few times before as well. MUCH nicer than Staples Mill.


----------



## webeagle12

Nexis said:


> *Brand new Solari Board in Newark*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I change my mind this looks horrendous...


1980 meet 1960's, as always 0% taste in graphic skills


----------



## Suburbanist

*Oil by rail in US*

While people oppose pipelines, oil is travelling by rail 










CREDIT: EIA DATA[


----------



## Cal_Escapee

An analysis of the rail provisions in the new transportation bill Congress is about to pass: http://www.narprail.org/news/blog/section-by-section-analysis-of-fast-act/

It looks pretty good for AMTRAK folks.


----------



## mrsmartman

*Pennsylvania Railroad GG1 leaves Penn Station, New York, 1960s*










Traveling westwards towards New Jersey. The 9th Avenue bridge is over the tracks in the background. In the distance is the top of the Empire State Building. See earlier post on the GG1.

http://transpressnz.blogspot.hk/2013/03/pennsylvania-railroad-gg1-leaves-penn.html


----------



## CNB30

^^ I'm so unhappy that they covered the rail yard. BIG mistake


----------



## Neb81

Just wondering - Has Amtrak and/or any of the commuter rail operators ever lobbied for the Federal Railroad Administration to modernise their rules regarding crash-worthiness and singalling/max line speed rules? If the FRA were to modernise them to bring them into line with Europe then I assume they couldall save a fortune both on procurement and operational costs - and get far better equipment (modern EMUs and DMUs) into the bargain. Given a lot of the European manufacturers already have assembly facilities in North America (or are North American-European joint ventures) I can't really see it working as a protectionist measure anymore. 

It'd be great to see Amtrak get more Talgo rolling stock as part of the fleet modernisation (Talgo XXI, perhaps?), without it being weighed down by concrete.


----------



## Nexis

If lines have PTC installed on them then the agency or company can purchase lighter trains...from what ive heard.


----------



## hammersklavier

Neb81 said:


> Just wondering - Has Amtrak and/or any of the commuter rail operators ever lobbied for the Federal Railroad Administration to modernise their rules regarding crash-worthiness and singalling/max line speed rules? If the FRA were to modernise them to bring them into line with Europe then I assume they couldall save a fortune both on procurement and operational costs - and get far better equipment (modern EMUs and DMUs) into the bargain. Given a lot of the European manufacturers already have assembly facilities in North America (or are North American-European joint ventures) I can't really see it working as a protectionist measure anymore.
> 
> It'd be great to see Amtrak get more Talgo rolling stock as part of the fleet modernisation (Talgo XXI, perhaps?), without it being weighed down by concrete.


They have ... with, ah, _limited_ success.

See this article.


----------



## Neb81

hammersklavier said:


> They have ... with, ah, _limited_ success.
> 
> See this article.


Wow. That's pretty depressing reading. In other words, "We know our rules are stupid but instead of changing them, it's better to ask us for permission to ignore them instead."


----------



## hans280

Neb81 said:


> Wow. That's pretty depressing reading. In other words, "We know our rules are stupid but instead of changing them, it's better to ask us for permission to ignore them instead."


It sounds to my (European) ears like a very "American problem". The FRA seem to be covering their bacon amid a quite individualistic and litigious population. If I have understood the underlying issue correctly then the main rationale for the crash-worthiness rules is collisions at low velocity? (If the train is near maximum speed when it collides then the strength of the chassis hardly matters.) In more "collectivist" Europe and Japan one could get away with saying that this is a rare occurrence that should not act as an obstacle to providing the best service to the greater number of passengers. But I suppose that FRA is afraid that, in case such an accident does occur, they'll be subject of devastating criticism, legal action, etc.?


----------



## phoenixboi08

hans280 said:


> It sounds to my (European) ears like a very "American problem". The FRA seem to be covering their bacon amid a quite individualistic and litigious population. If I have understood the underlying issue correctly then the main rationale for the crash-worthiness rules is collisions at low velocity? (If the train is near maximum speed when it collides then the strength of the chassis hardly matters.) In more "collectivist" Europe and Japan one could get away with saying that this is a rare occurrence that should not act as an obstacle to providing the best service to the greater number of passengers. But I suppose that FRA is afraid that, in case such an accident does occur, they'll be subject of devastating criticism, legal action, etc.?


_(This has always struck me as a silly myth: there are things/situations worth being litigious about...but I guess it's only so when it's a European bringing the suit ?

If the McDonald's coffee incident is what informs this opinion, I'll go ahead about point out that that suit was not about what most people think it was about - as is often the case. Again with that woman who supposedly sued her nephew for hugging her)_
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Anyways, it's hardly about personal liberties and litigiousness...it's just inertia.

They wouldn't be any more liable for damages if someone sabotaged the tracks, simply because the train was more "crashworthy." That doesn't make sense. For better or worse, they care about safety, as any agency does, and heavy trains has been their method of choice, historically. 

The previous comment from Nexis is more prescient; they could (and seem to be willing to) attack "Crashworthiness" in more efficient ways, by mandating specific technologies that actually prevent [most] accidents.

They have been signaling that this is a direction in which they're willing to go - specifically, in regards to standards for HSR rolling stock. 

I think the hope is that they will just begin expanding these standards to cover all passenger services, which is a natural progression of revisiting these standards to begin with.


----------



## Nexis

Its classic American ignorance..., but that was posted in 2011 and they soften up abit since then..


----------



## Tower Dude

What about that rules change that wis supposed to come at the end of the year?


----------



## hammersklavier

phoenixboi08 said:


> _(This has always struck me as a silly myth: there are things/situations worth being litigious about...but I guess it's only so when it's a European bringing the suit ?
> 
> If the McDonald's coffee incident is what informs this opinion, I'll go ahead about point out that that suit was not about what most people think it was about - as is often the case. Again with that woman who supposedly sued her nephew for hugging her)_
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Anyways, it's hardly about personal liberties and litigiousness...it's just inertia.
> 
> They wouldn't be any more liable for damages if someone sabotaged the tracks, simply because the train was more "crashworthy." That doesn't make sense. For better or worse, they care about safety, as any agency does, and heavy trains has been their method of choice, historically.
> 
> The previous comment from Nexis is more prescient; they could (and seem to be willing to) attack "Crashworthiness" in more efficient ways, by mandating specific technologies that actually prevent [most] accidents.
> 
> They have been signaling that this is a direction in which they're willing to go - specifically, in regards to standards for HSR rolling stock.
> 
> I think the hope is that they will just begin expanding these standards to cover all passenger services, which is a natural progression of revisiting these standards to begin with.


They _say_ that, and then...



> *t would appear that the FRA learned nothing from the Acela-1 fiasco. The nonsensical design requirements will scare away bidders. With fewer bidders (plus the extreme cost of a full-custom trainset), the Acela-2 trains will probably be really expensive.*_ Hopefully, Acela-2 won’t be as unreliable._


----------



## Neb81

hammersklavier said:


> They _say_ that, and then...


If the FRA can be persuaded to sit the correct way around on the toilet seat to allow UIC spec trains on shared track, and Amtrak can get some assurances about funding, it would make sense for Amtrak and the California HSR authority to jointly purchase a standardised HSR fleet.


----------



## Nexis

> *Amtrak eyes Lehigh Valley passenger rail test run to NYC metro area*
> 
> Amtrak is working on bringing an "inspection train" to the Lehigh Valley that would use existing freight lines to run passengers from the Valley to the New York City metro area, according to an Amtrak executive.
> 
> [..]
> 
> McHugh also pointed to an abundance of freight lines in the region, but added that Amtrak doesn't own them and would need permission from the owner – both to run the inspection train and for any regular service in the future.
> 
> [..]
> 
> In the case of the Lehigh Valley, most of the lines belong to Norfolk Southern. Amtrak would need the company to give it right-of-way.
> 
> McHugh said Amtrak has a strong relationship with Norfolk Southern and believes something could be worked out.
> 
> A Norfolk Southern spokesman also said the company has a history of working with Amtrak.


Read Full Article


----------



## mrsmartman

*THE PENNSY AT BROAD STREET*










http://www.puzzlewarehouse.com/The-Pennsy-at-Broad-Street-21174so.html


----------



## mrsmartman




----------



## mrsmartman

*Grand Central Terminal, New York*










http://secondavenuesagas.com/2012/04/30/a-look-at-the-east-side-access-escalators/


----------



## mrsmartman

Why Penn Central failed but other railroads survived?


----------



## Tower Dude

Two railroads with giant money losing passenger and commuter operations merged and the deficits of these operations outweighed the freight revenue brought in.


----------



## mrsmartman

Is it because of excessive infrastructural debt?


----------



## Tower Dude

Yes in addition to federal subsidization of air travel and high ways and immensely burdensome federal regulations, some of which still exist like crashworthiness. These really hampered American railroads.


----------



## zaphod

Railroad monopolies in the 1800s could play favorites with goods shippers, overcharge small farmers, could cripple a small town by bypassing it or closing its station, etc. They underpaid their workers while the bosses and owners were greedy robber barons. Railroads often got government support to build new lines and there was always a lot of corruption and waste involved.

So in that era, heavy federal regulations of railroads made sense. Railroads were forced to be common carriers, forced to maintain a certain degree of passenger service, had to have more generous worker benefits, etc. This insured that other businesses could pay a fair market rate for shipping and people living in rural places dependent on trains for mail and passenger service wouldn't be cut of.

However by the middle of the 20th century, trucking and air travel made the transportation industry competitive. The old regulations were no longer necessary since competition meant railroads could not be greedy and instead were being held back by them so they were gradually removed. Amtrak took the burden of passenger service.. In Then in 1980 there was the Staggers Act which greatly deregulated rail transportation in the US. This revived American freight rail and brought it back from the severe decay it was suffering in the 60's. But it also allowed "Merger Mania" and some other things so its contentious. But whatever.

Incidentally there could be a lesson here for how we regulate telco's and internet service providers to keep people and businesses who need the internet(all of them) from being railroaded by greedy companies like Comcast. The best strategies are Net Neutrality and supporting more competition in the marketplace. The worst strategies are when cities make deals that give them exclusive rights to areas in exchange for financing those wires in the streets. And we don't necessarily need a state run internet company, just break up monopolies and force them to be common carriers were bandwidth costs are like tariff rate per ton of cargo on a railroad.


----------



## mrsmartman

Thanks for your explanation. Free telecom market should be good.


----------



## phoenixboi08

zaphod said:


> Railroad monopolies in the 1800s could play favorites with goods shippers, overcharge small farmers, could cripple a small town by bypassing it or closing its station, etc. They underpaid their workers while the bosses and owners were greedy robber barons. Railroads often got government support to build new lines and there was always a lot of corruption and waste involved. So in that era, heavy federal regulations of railroads made sense. Railroads were forced to be common carriers, forced to maintain a certain degree of passenger service, had to have more generous worker benefits, etc. This insured that other businesses could pay a fair market rate for shipping and people living in rural places dependent on trains for mail and passenger service wouldn't be cut of. However by the middle of the 20th century, trucking and air travel made the transportation industry competitive. The old regulations were no longer necessary since competition meant railroads could not be greedy and instead were being held back by them so they were gradually removed. Amtrak took the burden of passenger service.. In Then in 1980 there was the Staggers Act which greatly deregulated rail transportation in the US. This revived American freight rail and brought it back from the severe decay it was suffering in the 60's. But it also allowed "Merger Mania" and some other things so its contentious. But whatever. Incidentally there could be a lesson here for how we regulate telco's and internet service providers to keep people and businesses who need the internet(all of them) from being railroaded by greedy companies like Comcast. The best strategies are Net Neutrality and supporting more competition in the marketplace. The worst strategies are when cities make deals that give them exclusive rights to areas in exchange for financing those wires in the streets. And we don't necessarily need a state run internet company, just break up monopolies and force them to be common carriers were bandwidth costs are like tariff rate per ton of cargo on a railroad.


Additionally, I think that was also what was done poorly: we nationalized service but not the infrastructure needed to run it. We simply removed that burden from the private railroads...but never gave Amtrak the assets it needed. In other places - like the UK - they've done the opposite: the infrastructure is largely nationalized, but service is often run by concessions, not ideal either. 

For that reason, it always perplexes me that Amtrak gets such a bad rap as being inherently uncompetitive and unattractive to consumers - and that people seem to think the NEC is the only place worth investing in. Both are completely false, for similar reasons. 

People overemphasize the burden of regulations and underemphasize the benefits. Like the crashworthiness standards... Removing it won't magically solve all problems, because it was largely a response to the actual root cause ot those problems: poor funding. 

It's hard to implement a technological solution ( e.g. PTC) when there's no money to fund it. Instead of technologies to prevent crashes, it's more viable to ensure limited damage. 

But I guess it's more fun to carry on like the FRA is just that out of touch with reality...


----------



## BoulderGrad

phoenixboi08 said:


> But I guess it's more fun to carry on like the FRA is just that out of touch with reality...


You could say they've been... Railroaded... on that subject...?  :duck:


----------



## hammersklavier

mrsmartman said:


> Why Penn Central failed but other railroads survived?


There are a whole host of reasons.

To begin with, rail shipping volumes were on the decline. There was much more rail infrastructure between Chicago and the Northeast than was needed.

Secondly, the merger was an internal consolidation, the wrong move entirely. Successful mergers largely extended market reach; the Penn Central did not.

Thirdly, the corporate cultures were fundamentally incompatible. The NYC was innovative and flexible while the PRR was strict and hierarchical.

Fourth, deferred maintenance had all but destroyed almost all non-key infrastructure. On the PRR side, even long stretches of mainline were under slow orders due to deferred maintenance.

Fifth, inept administration. The problem was the the PRR was the one with the bigger problems and it was also had the more dominant management. Most of the NYC's upper-level administrators left after the merger. Perelman wound up at the B&O, the dominant historical railroad in today's CSX. PRR management was stuck in the 1930's way of doing things, except the Standard Railroad of the World ... no longer set the standards.

Sixth, suffocating regulations. Even though the PC was justified as being a way to liquidate redundant rail infrastructure in the region, the ICC tied their hands with abandonment, pricing, and a whole host of other issues. Regulators also demanded the road include the New Haven, which was a financial albatross about its neck.

(Incidentally, this is neither the first nor the last Philadelphia-based company that regulators effectively destroyed by forcing it to merge with a financial albatross. The Philadelphia Savings Fund Society was another such victim.)

The prevailing sense seems to have been "We lose money on every shipment, but we make up for it on volume." Not a recipe for success.

I'll also note that the PC was merely the most spectacular of the major railroad failures of the 1970s. In this decade, the Erie-Lackawanna, Rock Island, and Milwaukee Road all failed outright. (The latter is the most inexplicable, as its failure can be 100% attributed to pure incompetence at the top.)


----------



## zaphod

Interesting.

To me, the Milwaukee Road covered sort of the same territory as BN and the CNW, and I'm sure Erie Lackawanna had lots of company out east. When those died all that did was remove the extra parallel main lines that all went to the same cities anyways. 

But a lot of lines vanished for good when Rock Island croaked. It went more west of what Mopac and Cotton Belt served I think. Who was driving it out of business? SP? MKT was dying a slow death back then.


----------



## hammersklavier

zaphod said:


> Interesting.
> 
> To me, the Milwaukee Road covered sort of the same territory as BN and the CNW, and I'm sure Erie Lackawanna had lots of company out east. When those died all that did was remove the extra parallel main lines that all went to the same cities anyways.
> 
> But a lot of lines vanished for good when Rock Island croaked. It went more west of what Mopac and Cotton Belt served I think. Who was driving it out of business? SP? MKT was dying a slow death back then.


Well the E-L had a single--exceedingly circuitous--line west of Pennsylvania on to Chicago. Outside of that, its primary claim to fame was that it was the only major railroad to serve all of the Southern Tier markets. The Southern Tier itself was in a post-industrial decline, though. The E-L was always a merger of necessity (a major hurricane in the late '50s destroyed more of the Lackawanna's infrastructure than it had the financial ability to repair, and its occasional partner/occasional competitor, the Erie, essentially saved it by merging with it).

The Rock Island served a lot of Plains markets. The problem was that it didn't serve the major ones particularly _directly_. This put it at a significant time disadvantage, and the railroad pretty much spent its last thirty years dying a slow death.

What makes the Milwaukee especially bad is that forensic audits actually showed _it was profitable_. Conditions associated with the massive BN merger in 1970 had massively increased its Pacific Extension traffic -- the route was direct and well-engineered, and the Milwaukee either direct access or trackage rights to all of the Pacific Northwest's major markets.

The problem is that its management was stuck with a granger road mentality, perceiving it as competing against the CNW or Soo Line, and so, instead of abandoning its branches to random grain silos as they lost traffic and focusing on the transcontinental trade, when it invested in its infrastructure at all, it generally malinvested, into older mains instead of its biggest traffic source.

The biggest irony is that -- even with extended deferred maintenance -- the Pacific Extension was profitable right up to the end! An accounting fail of epic proportions -- expenses were all double-booked -- essentially made the MILW's failure the anti-Enron.


----------



## Joshua Dodd

mrsmartman said:


> Why Penn Central failed but other railroads survived?












This is a great question to ask. I am happy to answer this for you as I am a railroad historian 

At the time of Penn Central's establishment from the mergers of the Pennsylvania and New York Central Railroads, America's railroad were actually experiencing collapse. Road infrastructure was deplorable and wrecks were common. Many factors played into the collapse of the railroad in the 60s and 70s. As many lines were going bankrupt costumers started turning to trucks and planes. Regulations also had a huge part to play in the destruction of America's railroads. Government regulations on America's railroads were actually very strict, to the extent that a railroad had to get approval from a government body to abandoned a rail line. That is true. Thus the railroads were losing so much money that they could not invest into infrastructure and update their systems. The only answer for survival was mergers.

In the 1950s there were 127 Class I railroads. Today there are around 7.

When the Penn Central failed in the 70s, the growing crisis in America's railroad deterioration had become so disastrous that the federal government decided to intervene. The government took what was left of Penn Central and through it they created Conrail. Conrail was an experiment whose purpose was to figure out what was wrong with our railroads. Even as giant companies like the Great Northern and Burlington Route merged together to create the Burlington Northern, still mergers were failing to save the railroads. By the end of the 70s the Rock Island had failed and the Union Pacific was talking about acquiring the Missouri Pacific. Many lines were dying. Roads were in horrible condition. Machinery was constantly breaking down and bankruptcies were the norm. But why? This was the job for Conrail to ultimately figure out. And Conrail found the answer.

It was through Conrail when the realization finally dawned on Washington. Government regulations of the railroad was the main killer of the systems. Thus in the early 80s the federal government deregulated the railroads with the Staggers Act. Now let's fast-forward to today. Since the Staggers Act, America's railroad system has experienced a Renaissance. 

"Congress passed the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which instituted a system of balanced regulation in the rail industry, ushering in a new era in which railroads could largely decide for themselves—rather than have Washington decide for them—what routes to use, what services to offer, and what rates to charge. Since Staggers, average rail rates have fallen 43 percent, train accident rates are down 80 percent, rail traffic volume has doubled, and railroads have reinvested $575 billion—their own funds, not taxpayer funds—back into their systems. Balanced, reasonable regulation works for rail customers, railroads, and America at large."

https://www.aar.org/BackgroundPapers/Impact of the Staggers Act.pdf

http://www.conrail.com/history/

http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2015-05-13-hamberger.pdf


----------



## Tower Dude

Though passenger rail has continually suffered


----------



## Joshua Dodd

^^ That's because Amtrak is an absolute failure. Even the Rio Grande could see the failure Amtrak was going to be. That's why the Rio Grande was the only railroad that refused to handover its passenger service to Amtrak.


----------



## Tower Dude

Because of lack of will to develop the basic infrastructure needed to support a passenger system


----------



## Joshua Dodd

The best bet for a passenger system would be high speed rail. That's really the only option for a passenger system in the US.


----------



## Tower Dude

Ya but with out regional rail or metro rail systems high speed rail is basically pointless


----------



## Nexis

Hopefully this year the Gateway Project finally gets funded....and starts construction.


----------



## Tower Dude

:cheers: to that Nexis!


----------



## zaphod

Tower Dude said:


> Ya but with out regional rail or metro rail systems high speed rail is basically pointless


People might think this is crazy, but in 25 years I think self-driving cars will make high speed rail more practical. Basically super cheap taxis that instantly arrive to greet you at the station will make reaching your final destination much easier. A lot of people opt to drive distances of 3 or 4 hours not because it is convenient but only because they need to have a car with them at their destination. Otherwise the time savings would make a train or plane more desirable. Also eliminating the necessity of having the stations downtown(though desirable anyways) greatly increases the feasibility of getting a line built in the first place since urban segments will always be costly.

Of course on the other hand I think the comfort level of a self driving car might greatly reduce demand for commuter or slow speed intercity rail. Right now people chose rail and even flying so they can chill instead of driving. But if you could watch netflix and browse SSC while in your pajamas drinking a beer(why not?) while the car drives itself its no worse than being at home. Without the flaws of a human driver, who knows how fast these cars could go, too. 90 mph top speed for normal cars on rural interstates if a computer was behind the wheel seems plausible. Since they won't need close-by parking(your car will automatically valet itself) they will reduce demand or need for mass transit too. Especially if subscribing to a robot car share is affordable to low income people who currently ride the bus.

This is something that's been in the back of my mind when I think of the future of passenger rail and whether or not certain long term investments are worthwhile or not.

High speed rail, yes. General purpose road transportation will never be able to go that fast. But I don't know much money should be put into slow speed regional rail that isn't being built so much for capacity and speed but trip comfort.


----------



## Tower Dude

Ya you are right outside of New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Chicago. Maybe Los Angeles, San Fransico, Portland, Seattle, Dallas, Houston, and Denver. HSR is useless to most people but with Electric driverless cars HSR and other forms of mass transit become slightly more plausible


----------



## phoenixboi08

The point of self-driving technology, however, are that the cars themselves will be a service, not a good, as you astutely pointed out. THIS is what car manufacturers are increasingly beginning to realize.

As a service, like any other, it internalizes all of the external costs associated with that mode. The idea that people will suddenly begin taking 500mi+ trips, just because the car can drive itself is misplaced, because the cost of that service will be higher, or as high as, flying or inter-city rail.

Think about it, if you have a service that forces the "driver" to suddenly pay, and consider, all of the marginal costs that are currently not charged to them (or are invisible), other modes become more competitive, not less. 

Self-driving cars will likely never replace the role of regional/commuter rail in most markets (e.g. between NJ and NYC). In fact, I believe it will push more commuters in the opposite direction.

Taking away the human driver in an Uber won't necessarily reduce the price that much, overall, because it will still charge based on demand, and local governments will quickly learn it's easy to introduce user fees to "drivers" when these charges are masked as the marginal cost of a "fee" to use this service (i.e. you're gonna be paying a "VMT" equivalent, higher share of the fuel costs, a penalty for low occupancy, etc). 

Self-driving cars won't harm transit, and they will not be a panacea. They'll simply ratchet down the personal-vehicle from the most preferred option, to one more equal with others.

As for HSR not being needed outside of the largest cities, the point of HSR is not that it's fast but that it connects markets between which people travel. The speed is ancillary. We focus too much on technicalities, whether something is above such-and-such threshold. The bottom line is the service needs to pair enough travel markets that demand is high enough to sustain the entire route. Speed is an operational consideration that helps induce demand by making the service more attractive than others, not the other way around; it only needs to be "fast enough" for what is needed to push passengers toward the mode. In fact, you'll notice that, despite much fanfare indicating otherwise, very few services in China actually even operate above the 300kmh, threshold. The half dozen or so that do, are longer-distance services that are aggressively competing with air travel, and many are services (lines) that operate along similar routes.

There are plenty of places where high-speed, inter-city service makes sense, if the service is adequate. The reason so few people take Amtrak, today, isn't because it's slow, I think. Amtrak either can't offer - or has failed to recognize the opportunity for - the shorter, intermediate services on its long-distance routes that are the _true_ travel markets in much of the country. Because of this, ridership is low and fares are way too high, even for these shorter-distance trips.

Very few people travel between New Orleans and NYC, but more would travel between New Orleans and Charlotte (and all points, in between), if service - and fares - were adequate. 

The challenge in establishing a National Network, in this country, is first bolstering this segment of the travel market before trying to embark on the more ambitious project of connecting some of them to one another - very few will need to be. There just isn't a market for much trans-continental, rail travel.


----------



## mrsmartman

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...lls-this-a-threat-but-is-he-really-worri.aspx


----------



## plumpesq

Don't give up on US rail just yet. Amtrak, and other privately funded schemes may pull through.

The downfall of rail in the US was not without extensive help from tire, oil and bus companies with a strong interest in rails demise.

These companies have been hobbled, offshored, and otherwise disempowered, and the transit need remains.


----------



## Sunfuns

HSR is useful even without great public transportation at both ends as long as either the place you are going to OR coming from is close to the station. For the other end you can use your car or taxi. That's a fairly common situation if you live in a vicinity of city A and go for a business trip to the downtown of city B. 

About Chinese HSR - the top speed is not always extremely high, but they do achieve very high average speeds due to brand new lines almost entirely on viaducts or in tunnels.


----------



## zaphod

The federal government should fund the construction of completely new lines and/or buy ones from private railroads.

I've always felt that good "low hanging fruit" exists between DC and Richmond. It would be an extension of the NEC and show off to the rest of the country what high speed rail can look like if done right. The line would go through moderately rolling hills but it would be pretty rural and not too hard to get land for tracks I think. It would greatly speed up many different trains and improve quality of travel for many passengers since Richmond is where multiple long distance and regional services from the South combine into a single "trunk". Longer term it would be cool if we had fast diesels as far as Norfolk.

I guess all this boils down to why we actually need/want better trains though. Is it just national pride, or is there some serious need? Is it a problem in search of a solution or what? Personally I think it does fill a real need for transportation between strong urban economies and marginal outlying ones, creating more opportunities. People could do job interviews in another city easily, businesses could shuffle managers between locations, specialist doctors could commute between different hospitals without sacrificing lots of time. I dunno. What proposals accomplish that and which ones don't? CAHSR would be helpful to the Central Valley. So would anything in the Midwest, but those states are going through a conservative swing and won't commit to a project like this.


----------



## Nexis

The NEC should be at least extended down to Richmond and Northwards to Portland,ME... I would completely grade separate and build bypasses to reduce the travel times.


----------



## zaphod

You'd be talking billions and billions to directly link south station and north station in Boston though. I think the Big Dig being a big hassle may have ruined a big dig for trains, right?

I think it would make more sense to have "fast" 125 mph trains with Siemens Charger diesel locomotives going to Portland, ME and also Nashua and Manchester in NH. The difference in speed between that and a true high speed railway would be marginal but the difference in cost very large I think due to the short to moderate distances involved. But fast rail would be good enough to make trips between downtown Boston and those places really convenient and help improve their local economies. Its an example of what I thinking about in my last post-Boston has lots of jobs and business and opportunities but its also very expensive to live there. Southern New Hampshire and Maine are economically depressed but cheap and just barely beyond the limit of what most people consider reasonable commute times from Boston. Joining them would give each the thing it lacks and fix the greatest problems the region faces.


----------



## Tower Dude

Ya and if Boston is going to spend billions on transportation projects an extension of the blue and green lines, and the conversation of the silver line to LRT would be good, also the electrification of the south station lines would be good as well as well as a renegotiation of the NEC deal they have with Amtrak.


----------



## Nexis

Some trains at Monmouth JCT


----------



## hammersklavier

zaphod said:


> I've always felt that good "low hanging fruit" exists between DC and Richmond. It would be an extension of the NEC and show off to the rest of the country what high speed rail can look like if done right. The line would go through moderately rolling hills but it would be pretty rural and not too hard to get land for tracks I think. It would greatly speed up many different trains and improve quality of travel for many passengers since Richmond is where multiple long distance and regional services from the South combine into a single "trunk". Longer term it would be cool if we had fast diesels as far as Norfolk.


A good eye!

DC-Richmond has historically been something of a bottleneck in the US rail network. From DC north was historically the province of Northern railroads (esp. the PRR and B&O); for routes that served Tidewater, Richmond was the northern terminus.

These two termini were historically linked by a bridge hauler, the Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac (RF&P) that maintained a monopoly status on the traffic all the way to 1991 (!) when it was merged with CSX, which, by that point, it was making most of its money from anyhow.

A new high-speed line between DC and Richmond would therefore be useful to increase capacity between the two cities for both passenger and freight trains. Heck, done right, you would put a high-speed and fast freight line right next to each other, and reserve the old ROW for local pax services. That would be the solution most in keeping with international best practices.


----------



## Nexis

Some Recent Beautiful Northeast Corridor photos taken by Jose Rendon  


Amtrak Pennsylvanian Train No. 42 on Track 2 approaching Edison Station as the sun goes down on a cold and windy day by J Rendon, on Flickr


Amtrak Pennsylvanian Train No. 42 heading to NYC by J Rendon, on Flickr


Amtrak Acela Express heads westbound as the sun sets by J Rendon, on Flickr


----------



## zaphod

One day soon there will nice modern catenary installed and that view will look even better!


----------



## Nexis

Overhauled Penn Station 

Some New/Old Renderings of Penn station


Redeveloped Penn Station Exterior: View from 8th Avenue by governorandrewcuomo, on Flickr


Farley Post Office Redevelopment: View from New Train Hall by governorandrewcuomo, on Flickr


Completed Empire Station Complex Rendering by governorandrewcuomo, on Flickr


New LIRR 33rd Street Concourse Rendering by governorandrewcuomo, on Flickr


Empire Station Complex: 33rd Street Entrance by Day by governorandrewcuomo, on Flickr


Empire Station Complex: 33rd Street Entrance by Night by governorandrewcuomo, on Flickr


Empire Station Complex: Exterior View from Southeast by governorandrewcuomo, on Flickr


Empire Station Complex: Midblock Section by governorandrewcuomo, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

zaphod said:


> One day soon there will nice modern catenary installed and that view will look even better!


There keeping the PRR design , so while it will be newer it won't change.


----------



## Nexis

*Wallingford rail project on track for 2018 completion*

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20160105/wallingford-rail-project-on-track-for-2018-completion


----------



## Nexis

*New Hudson rail tunnel project would dwarf initial plan * < read the article here 



> *ARC vs. Gateway*
> 
> Both the current Gateway proposal and the canceled ARC project would put two new sets of tracks under the Hudson River and build a loop that bypasses Secaucus Junction to provide a one-seat ride from North Jersey. Here are some of the key differences:
> 
> COST
> 
> ARC: $8.9 billion
> 
> Gateway: $20 billion
> 
> NEW YORK TERMINUS
> 
> ARC: New transit hub under West 34th Street between Eighth and Sixth avenues.
> 
> Gateway: Expansion of Penn Station one block south between 30th Street and 31st Street.
> 
> NEW TRACKS
> 
> ARC: Additional tracks between |Secaucus Junction and Manhattan.
> 
> Gateway: Additional tracks between Newark Penn Station and Manhattan.
> 
> ADDED TO GATEWAY
> 
> 
> Rehabilitation and rebuilding of existing Hudson tunnels.
> Replacement of century-old Portal Bridge in Secaucus with twin, two-track, high-level bridges.
> Replacement and renewal of 105-year-old, two-track rail embankment between Newark and Secaucus. Also, building of two additional rail lines running parallel to the embankment.
> Replacement of Sawtooth Bridge over |Passaic River, plus expansion of railway line from two to four tracks.


----------



## glenpark

nice footage from Prelinger Archive showing the Key Railroad, which serviced San Francisco Transbay Terminal from East Bay communities including running on dedicated lanes of the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge. 
https://archive.org/details/6358_HM_Key_System_ca_1959_01_15_49_00

this Transbay light rail service ended in 1962


----------



## Innsertnamehere

Gateway is an extremely exciting project.. It would fix almost all the major issues with NYC and intercity services. Too bad it has an absolutely stupifying price tag.


----------



## Nexis

> *Can a New Train Station Transform Paoli?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A rendering of the new Paoli Intermodal Transportation Center//Photo courtesy of Sowinski Sullivan Architects.
> 
> The reality is that many people board in Paoli. The Amtrak-owned station serves about 1,300 passengers daily. Dating back to 1893, its Victorian-style depot was replaced in 60 years later—and hasn’t been significantly altered since. In 2013, Paoli served 175,300 Amtrak riders and 738,000 SEPTA passengers—the most riders in any station in the western suburbs. It’s also one of the busiest in the metropolitan area and in the state. It’s so bustling that the building and parking facilities can no longer accommodate the volume. Paoli merchants remain frustrated by commuters consuming the limited downtown spaces, while buses and shuttles squeeze into cramped parking lots adjacent to the station.


Read Full Story Here


----------



## Nexis




----------



## mrsmartman




----------



## zaphod

Nexis said:


>


Makes sense. Amtrak and others could carve out a niche for themselves with something like this. People who need to travel long distances because they are moving or visiting family and need to take their dog or cat. But those animals aren't always safe flying as cargo, not all motels allow pets, etc. Plus some people might enjoy having a dog along for the ride with them.

Of course those pets need to be kept in one car designed a pet car so that people with allergies or issues with animals aren't bothered by them.


----------



## sdery

> Of course those pets need to be kept in one car designed a pet car so that people with allergies or issues with animals aren't bothered by them.


That will be the biggest challenge. Of course people are going to ignore this rule just like they ignore the rules about bring pets (not service animals) into every grocery store, restaurant, and shop near my house. Their reasoning seems to be that it is okay until someone tells me I can't...instead of politely asking first.

(sorry..."pet" peeve of mine)


----------



## mrsmartman

"A high-speed electric locomotive on the Pennsylvania bringing a through train out of the tunnel underneath the Hudson River and into the New York City terminal." Train entering Penn Station from New Jersey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad#/media/File:Pennstation1910.jpg


----------



## mrsmartman

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/431149364303044422/


----------



## Nexis

Taken Yesterday at Newark Airport Station - 2.11.16

Amtrak silver meteor #97 meets Amtrak regional to New York


Northeast Corridor trains at Newark Airport Station in Newark,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor trains at Newark Airport Station in Newark,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor trains at Newark Airport Station in Newark,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr

Amtrak Silver Star #92 roars past EWR station


Northeast Corridor trains at Newark Airport Station in Newark,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor trains at Newark Airport Station in Newark,NJ by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

Portal Bridge had issues yesterday so trains were wrong railing from New York Penn to Newark Penn...


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Nexis

> * Amtrak considering Atlanta-Dallas route *
> 
> Amtrak is considering someday running a daily train from Atlanta to Dallas.
> 
> Right now, to get to Texas from Atlanta by train, passengers have to go to New Orleans, then connect to a train that only runs three days a week, explained Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari.
> 
> “[The potential route] would give you a daily connection to Texas that would be faster than the current route, and more direct,” he said.
> 
> Magliari said Amtrak has been talking with people in East Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana for a long time about the route. Eventually, he said, Amtrak hopes to do more research on it.
> 
> Meanwhile, the corporation is further along on another Southern route. Next week, it will run an inspection train from New Orleans to Jacksonville to see about reopening a route that has been closed since Hurricane Katrina.


Read Full Article Here :


----------



## mrsmartman

http://www.kinglyheirs.com/NewYorkStateRailroads/Utica.html#.Vscg9PJ96Uk


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Nexis said:


> Read Full Article Here :


Amtrak is so ridiculous. Who's going to take a train from Atlanta to Dallas? Much less a 25mph train that'll get to Dallas after 5 days waiting for freight trains to pass. This market is 99% plane for a reason. Amtrak should be spending this money making the Northeast more profitable.


----------



## zaphod

Nobody, but I bet people would ride a train between bossier city (casinos) and Dallas, or between a place like Longview and Dallas Love field to catch a domestic low cost flight.

Intercity trains would work if they were at least twice daily.


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak Blue Water at 110 Miles Per Hour! *


----------



## mrsmartman

Nexis said:


> Caltrain Tracks at Night by Brian Tobin, on Flickr


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1896606


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...a-awards-level-crossing-upgrading-grants.html
> 
> *FRA awards level crossing upgrading grants*
> 24 Feb 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA: The Federal Railroad Administration has awarded nearly $10m in grants for nine projects to increase the safety of level crossings on routes used by oil trains. ‘Today's grants will upgrade the warning systems at critical crossings and close others where crude oil and other energy products are transported’, said FRA Administrator Sarah E Feinberg on February 18.
> 
> The funding is being provided under the Safe Transportation of Energy Products programme. FRA received 34 eligible applications, requesting five times the $10m available for STEP.
> 
> FRA said collisions between trains and road vehicles at crossings were the second-leading cause of all railway-related fatalities, with 267 people killed in 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## hammersklavier

Nexis said:


> *Amtrak Blue Water at 110 Miles Per Hour! *


Progress is happening ... slowly.

Next step, now that there are some 110 mph routes in the Midwest, is to make 125 mph diesel trainsets optimized for these corridors.

(God, we're so far behind.)

(Also somebody should tell that town that there's more than enough room for a bike lane on that street.)


----------



## mrsmartman

^^ This is what American railroad should be.


----------



## mrsmartman

*Altoona Transportation Center*










https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4390146148










http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=403141


----------



## Nexis

Taken Yesterday - 3/3/16

Amtrak Regional to Boston cruising through South Norwalk,CT


Amtrak Regional to Boston cruising through SoNo by Corey Best, on Flickr

Amtrak Regional train to Richmond,VA arriving in Stamford,CT


Amtrak Regional to Richmond meets Metro North local in Stamford by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak West Side line in Inwood - Upper Manhattan*


Amtrak Empire line cutting through Inwood Park in Manhattan,New York by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak Empire line cutting through Inwood Park in Manhattan,New York by Corey Best, on Flickr


Amtrak Bridge over the Harlem River by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Woonsocket54

Woonsocket54 said:


> In Waterloo, Indiana, the old train depot was moved to the Amtrak station to serve as the passenger waiting area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.greatamericanstations.com/news-events/waterloo-depots-big-move


Waterloo Amtrak Station Dedication is 2016.06.24

https://csanders429.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/waterloo-amtrak-station-dedication-is-june-24/


----------



## Nexis

*Inside the Massive Factory Where Siemens Builds Trains*


----------



## OakRidge

Nexis said:


> *Inside the Massive Factory Where Siemens Builds Trains*


In my neck of the woods. :banana:


----------



## jonasry

Nexis said:


> *Inside the Massive Factory Where Siemens Builds Trains*


It would be interesting to see the First/Business class configuration. In Europe there's been a trend towards increased comfort in order to attract business customers, but to my knowledge First and Business class in US trains has been lagging behind for many years. Would be great to see a positive change with Brightline.


----------



## GojiMet86

Amtrak hosted an excursion yesterday (June 18, 2016) for fans. It was the Farewell trip of the AEM-7, which has been the workhorse of Amtrak for almost 40 years. Leading the way was unit #942 with #946 coupled behind. The special went from Washington D.C.'s Union Station to Philadelphia's 30th Street and back down to Wilmington, Delaware for a tour of Amtrak's shops.

IMG_2358 by GojiMet86, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak NEC ARSENAL to BALDWIN rear view*


----------



## mrsmartman

*Tennessee Valley Railroad*



*Your Trusted Source of Railroad Photographs*


----------



## Nexis

*Thanks for the Memories: A Farewell to AEM-7*


----------



## mrsmartman

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from Pennsylvania*


----------



## M-NL

Nexis said:


> *Thanks for the Memories: A Farewell to AEM-7*


I find the history of AEM-7 quite interesting. 
In 1976-77 Amtrak tested 2 locomotives to replace the E60: A Swedish ASEA Rc4 and a French Alsthom CC 21000. The ride of the French loco was found unsatisfactory, because of the stiff primary and softer secondary suspension required by the C-C axle layout. This layout working fine on the well aligned French tracks, but not so much on the tracks of the NEC.
Thus they choose to go with the Rc4 as the basis for the AEM-7.
This still gives a feeling they compared apples and pears. Why they didn't test a BB 15000 also or instead? 2 axle bogies will always have a better ride compared to 3 axles.


----------



## GojiMet86

IMG_4457 by GojiMet86, on Flickr

IMG_4395 by GojiMet86, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

Its a shame you didn't catch a train crossing it with the firework going off...


----------



## MarcVD

M-NL said:


> Why they didn't test a BB 15000 also or instead? 2 axle bogies will always have a better ride compared to 3 axles.


Not sure it's the right answer, but BB15000 locs are and have always been 
limited to 160 km/h, while the E60 locs that were originally developed for the
NEC were (initially) approved for 120 mph. The CC21000 had the same top
speed as the CC6500, 220 km/h, and 200 km/h regular practice on the Paris
Bordeaux and Paris-Toulouse lines. BB15000 would have indeed be more
reliable than CC21000 on American tracks, but they were not fitting the
requirements (speed and probably also traction power).


----------



## M-NL

The running gear of the BB7200, BB15000 and BB 22200 is basically identical and there are 200 km/h variants of the BB7200 and BB22200.
Traction power for the French model was limited by it's weight. When you consider that in the USA the axle load can be raised by about 3 t per axle, for the production model they could probably have fitted CC21000s transformer and motors in a BB15000 body.


----------



## MarcVD

M-NL said:


> The running gear of the BB7200, BB15000 and BB 22200 is basically identical and there are 200 km/h variants of the BB7200 and BB22200.


As far as I remember, those 200 km/h bogies appeared after the CC21000 
test. At that time, all 200 km/h services on the SNCF region sud-ouest were
assumed by CC6500. They appeared only on BB7200 first, then later on the
BB22200 by way of bogie swaps. There were never any bogie swaps with
BB15000 that I'm aware of.



M-NL said:


> Traction power for the French model was limited by it's weight. When you consider that in the USA the axle load can be raised by about 3 t per axle, for the production model they could probably have fitted CC21000s transformer and motors in a BB15000 body.


Probably too big of an exercise for a demonstration in a project that you're
not sure to win.


----------



## M-NL

MarcVD said:


> Probably too big of an exercise for a demonstration in a project that you're not sure to win.


Of course. The same applied to the Rc4 test unit (X995).

BB15000: 4,4 MW, 294 kN, 82t, 110 mph
Rc4: 3,6 MW, 290 kN, 78t, 84 mph
AEM-7: 5,1 MW, 240 kN, 93t, 125 mph
So test wise a BB15000 would have easily exceeded a Rc4 on performance data.


----------



## mrsmartman

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from Pennsylvania*


----------



## Nexis

Taken Yesterday - 8/5/16

Sunnyside Yard


Amtrak Locomotives parked in the Sunnyside yard by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Bridgeport*


Westbound Acela Express crawling through Bridgeport by Corey Best, on Flickr


Westbound Acela Express crawling through Bridgeport by Corey Best, on Flickr


Westbound Acela Express crawling through Bridgeport by Corey Best, on Flickr


Eastbound Amtrak Regional Coasting through Bridgeport by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## mrsmartman

Four trains on four tracks passing each other on Pennsylvania Railroad mainline near the curve, c. 1907

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from Pennsylvania*


----------



## mrsmartman

Grand Central, minus the statuary group

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from Pennsylvania and New York*


----------



## MarcVD

The center gorge is for power supply pickup, or is it cable traction like in SF ?


----------



## Harbornite

*[US] Watch it go: Siemens Charger no. 4601 at Pueblo Colorado test center*

What do you all think of the new Siemens Charger diesel locomotives? Personally, I think the ACS-64s are better looking. I had assumed that these were the new EMD locos, turns out I was thinking of the EMD F125s.

Anyway, I recommend that you read this. Interesting stuff. :cheers:












> Siemens new diesel-electric Charger locomotives are advancing through a rigorous testing program at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. A variety of tests and validation exercises including maximum speed runs, acceleration and braking and the overall performance capabilities of the locomotive are conducted to ensure it is operating and performing as designed and that the locomotive is ready to provide reliable service for passengers.
> 
> The Charger locomotive is powered by a high-performance, environmentally friendly, 4,400 horsepower-rated Cummins QSK95 diesel engine. Designed to operate at speeds up to 125 miles per hour, the locomotives are the first high-speed passenger locomotive to receive Tier 4 emissions certification from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
> 
> The locomotive featured in this article is unit no. 4601, to be delivered to the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Read more about this customer at our website MainlineDiesels.net
> 
> “These diesel-electric locomotives truly represent the next generation of clean and efficient rail travel in the United States, and the testing being done in Pueblo is a crucial step in bringing this advanced rail technology to states across the country,” said Michael Cahill, President of Siemens Rolling Stock. “The Siemens Charger not only is the first diesel-electric locomotive to meet the EPA’s strict Tier 4 emissions standards, but it is also a powerful example of what can be accomplished through American manufacturing.”
> 
> “These locomotives mark a new era in Pacific Northwest train travel,” said Ron Pate, director of Rail, Freight and Ports for the Washington State Department of Transportation, who traveled to Colorado for the testing. “They will help provide more frequent, reliable and faster service to our Amtrak Cascades customers and also advance our agency’s commitment to offering alternative and sustainable transportation choices.”
> 
> The Buy America-compliant locomotives, built at Siemens nearly 1,000-person Sacramento, CA plant which is powered in part by solar, will operate in states across the U.S. including Illinois, California, Michigan, Washington, Maryland and Missouri and will power trainsets for Florida’s new Brightline passenger rail service.
> 
> “The Charger will provide California’s Intercity Passenger Rail Services with a fleet of locomotives that meet very stringent Tier 4 emission standards and that help promote Caltrans’ mission of a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system,” said Caltrans Division of Rail Chief Bruce Roberts. “The new locomotives are capable of quicker acceleration, higher top-end speeds and will provide passengers with the safety of positive train control.”
> 
> The new locomotives are among the cleanest in the nation and will result in dramatic emission reduction of approximately 90 percent compared to trains powered by currently operating Tier 0 locomotives. They are equipped with electronically-controlled regenerative braking systems that use energy from the traction motors during braking to feed the auxiliary and head-end power systems to minimize fuel consumption.
> 
> “Cummins QSK95 is the first locomotive prime mover for single engine installations to be certified to the United States EPA’s ultra-low Tier 4 emissions regulations,” said Melina Kennedy, General Manager, Cummins Global Rail and Defense Business. “Not only is it the cleanest diesel engine for locomotives, it also offers large gains in fuel efficiency over the non-certified engines currently being used in many passenger rail applications.”
> 
> The powerful diesel-electric drivetrain allows for better acceleration, cleaner emissions, and low noise levels while on-board and waiting at the platform. The Chargers also feature an attractive streamlined design and smoother traction control which results in better ride quality for passengers. The locomotives also meet the latest federal safety regulations, including enhanced carbody structure safety with crash energy management.
> 
> All main components of the new locomotive are produced in Siemens plants in the United States – including traction motors and gearboxes in Norwood, Ohio and propulsion containers in Alpharetta, GA. The diesel engines are manufactured by Cummins in its Seymour, Indiana plant. Siemens has also established a robust and diverse base of U.S. suppliers across the country to support production of the Charger locomotives. Transformers and alternators are supplied out of Florida, brake components out of Maryland, diesel engines from Indiana, HVAC systems out of Nebraska, and steel and fabrication parts out of California and Oregon.
> 
> “TTCI is honored to assist Siemens in qualifying the new Charger locomotive,” said Lisa Stabler, president of the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. “And we are happy to be able to provide a testing facility that enables our customers to evaluate their product’s performance in a real-world environment.”
> 
> The first Charger locomotives were ordered under a $225 million contract awarded in 2014 by a multi-state coalition of led by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Since then, additional options have been ordered for use in six states including Illinois, California, Michigan, Washington, Maryland and Missouri. In addition, the first trainsets for the new Brightline passenger service in Florida, each powered by two Charger Locomotives will ship this fall. The Illinois Department of Transportation will receive their first Charger locomotive later this year, with additional customers to follow throughout 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> Want to read more about the Siemens Charger locomotives? You can find a full customer and fleet overview at our website MainlineDiesels.net


http://railcolornews.com/2016/08/12...arger-no-4601-at-pueblo-colorado-test-center/



In case anyone doesn't know what an EMD F125 looks like...










http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4479889


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/people/single-view/view/moorman-named-as-amtrak-president.html
> 
> *Moorman named as Amtrak President*
> 19 Aug 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA: Former Norfolk Southern Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Charles W. ‘Wick’ Moorman has been named as the next President & CEO of Amtrak with effect from September 1, the national passenger operator announced on August 19. He succeeds Joe Boardman, who has served as President for the past eight years but last year announced his intention to retire.
> 
> Moorman became Chairman & CEO of Norfolk Southern on February 1 2006, having served as President since 2004 and Chief Executive Officer since 2005. A graduate of Georgia Tech and Harvard Business School, he joined NS in 1970, and served in various leadership positions, including Senior Vice-President, Corporate Planning & Services, and Vice-President, Personnel & Labour Relations. He retired in October 2015
> 
> ...


----------



## mrsmartman

Bureaucracy has ruined America.


----------



## Nexis

Newark's Northeast Corridor Mural


Northeast Corridor Mural in Newark by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Mural in Newark by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Mural in Newark by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Mural in Newark by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Mural in Newark by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Mural in Newark by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Mural in Newark by Corey Best, on Flickr


Northeast Corridor Mural in Newark by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak @ Secaucus JCT*

*Westbound Regional *


Westbound Regional appoarching Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Westbound Regional appoarching Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Clear NEC Signals*


NEC Signals by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound Commuter Express racing through*


Eastbound Express flying through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Eastbound Express flying through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Clear Signal for Track A*


NEC Signals by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Inbound train departing*


Dual Power... by Corey Best, on Flickr


Enroute to New Yawk by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Silver Meteor train #97*


Silver Meteor train #97 passing through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Silver Meteor train #97 passing through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Westbound Commuter passing through*


Westbound Express roaring through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound Keystone train crawling through*


Eastbound Keystone crawling through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Eastbound Keystone crawling through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Eastbound Keystone crawling through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Eastbound Keystone crawling through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Westbound Regional crawling through Secaucus *


Westbound Amtrak Regional at Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Westbound Amtrak Regional at Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound Acela Express roaring through*


Eastbound Acela Express roaring through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Eastbound Acela Express roaring through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Eastbound Acela Express roaring through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound meets Westbound
*


Eastbound Regional cruising through Secaucus by Corey Best, on Flickr


Regional meet near Secaucus by Corey Best, on Flickr


Westbound Regional Roaring through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr

*Eastbound Keystone meets Eastbound Commuter*


Train Meet at Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Train Meet at Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Inbound Keystone Train passing through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


Inbound Keystone Train passing through Secaucus JCT by Corey Best, on Flickr


----------



## Fan Railer

lol that's not a "Clear" aspect for track A. You can only get a maximum of Limited Clear on that signal.


----------



## Fan Railer

Long Island Rail Road / NYAR @ Mineola:





Photos: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...073741949.100001258801227&type=1&l=678cede528


----------



## Nexis

*30th Street Station Solari Board: Departing 2016*


----------



## Ginkgo

Point Defiance Bypass fall 2016 update from Sound Transit.


----------



## Nexis

*AAF/BrightLine Update P2*


----------



## riles28

I'm just wondering what happen to the 2 amtrak city sprinter locomotive involve in the accident the 601 and the 627 are their scrapped or under repair and they still under warranty of siemens?


----------



## jonasry

So, what will happen to the Amtrak trains once Miami Central opens? Will they use the new station to or continue to use the current suburban station?


----------



## Arnorian

A great map of Amtrak by Cameron Booth:










full:
http://www.cambooth.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Amtrak2016_4000px.jpg

more:
http://www.cambooth.net/2016-amtrak-subway-map/2016-amtrak-large/


----------



## Ginkgo

Continuing track work at Seattle's King Street Station, used by Amtrak and Sounder commuter trains. The station is one street over from the International District/Chinatown Link light rail station.


----------



## Nexis

*Amtrak Train 172 - New Haven to Old Saybrook Rear View (GoPro)*


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Woonsocket54

Earlier this month, construction commenced on the Amtrak station in Marks, which is a village in northern Mississippi between Memphis, TN and Greenwood, MS. The station is expected to open next year. "City of New Orleans" (Chicago-New Orleans) trains will stop there.

http://www.greatamericanstations.com/news-events/ground-broken-for-future-marks-miss-station

Apparently the station was proposed a long time ago and was even featured on schedules and maps, but they are just now getting around to building it.



















(this is a map from a while ago - it shows some routes that no longer exist, such as the one east out of New Orleans toward Jacksonville as well as the Indianapolis-Louisville segment)

http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/marks.htm


----------



## kokomo

Arnorian said:


> A great map of Amtrak by Cameron Booth:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> full:
> http://www.cambooth.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Amtrak2016_4000px.jpg
> 
> more:
> http://www.cambooth.net/2016-amtrak-subway-map/2016-amtrak-large/


I am astonished to see how big still is the US passenger network serviced by Amtrak. Especially on a country where the plane is king! How is ridership on long distance connections for instance?


----------



## Nikkodemo

UP3039 DPU MWCNP 20 by Andrew, en Flickr


Arrowhead Jct California by Andrew, en Flickr


Eastbound at Saltus , Needles sub by Andrew, en Flickr


Eastbound at Harris by Andrew, en Flickr


----------



## mrsmartman

*The birth, life, and death of old Penn Station*

_The story of one of NYC’s greatest architectural losses_



Curbed New York said:


> When Pennsylvania Station first opened in 1910, it was a far cry from the confusing maze of underground tunnels that it is today. The building, which covered eight acres in midtown Manhattan, was an impressive Classical gateway to New York City. The waiting room, inspired by the Roman Baths of Caracalla, had a coffered ceiling that soared 148 feet high. One descended onto sun-bathed train platforms beneath a canopy of iron and glass.
> 
> But just 54 years later, that Penn Station was demolished, replaced by the current transit hub that is undergoing a major overhaul due to its ineffective—if not downright unpleasant—design.
> 
> The original station was commissioned by the Pennsylvania Railroad, which billed itself around the turn of the 20th century as “the standard railroad of the world.”
> 
> ...


Read more at: https://ny.curbed.com/2017/11/7/16616314/old-penn-station-history-photos-mckim










The main waiting room of old Penn Station. George P. Hall and Son. Interior of Pennsylvania Station. 1911. Museum of the City of New York. X2010.11.5113


----------



## prageethSL

New train cars to increase capacity on Capitol Corridor, San Joaquins and Pacific Surfliner routes













> Commuters heading into the Bay Area on the San Joaquins or Capitol Corridor routes can look forward to a little more breathing room: Caltrans announced last week a $371 million contract for new train cars. The highway agency funds Amtrak’s two commuter lines that bisect the Bay Area, plus the Pacific Surfliner, which rolls along the California coast. Caltrans said it will receive 49 new cars to use in California, adding to the 174 train cars currently in use, some of which are leased from Amtrak.
> “(We’re) ready for these new railcars to provide additional seating capacity for our busy trains and support planned improvements to passenger service,” Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty said in a statement.
> The cars will add some extra capacity, said Caltrans spokeswoman Vanessa Wiseman, but they will also allow Caltrans to retire aging train cars and reduce the number of cars it leases from Amtrak.
> Production of the cars will take place in Sacramento, beginning next summer. And, the first set of cars will hit the rails in mid-2020, Wiseman said. All of the new cars are expected to be in service by May 2023. They’ll come equipped with WiFi, power outlets, bike racks, overhead luggage storage, work tables and large windows, Caltrans officials said.
> They are 100 percent “American made,” according to Caltrans, and each car will be built at the Siemans rail manufacturing plant in Sacramento.


----------



## zaphod

:banana::banana::banana:


Excellent. Article doesn't make it clear but an even larger order of this same car is also underway for Midwest Amtrak routes, like Chicago-St. Louis and the Hiawatha service to Milwaukee, as well as a couple lines in Michigan. Combined with Siemens Charger locos and the track upgrades up to 110 mph-125 mph(180-200km/h) service will be possible.

Also just railfan wank but maybe these will be considered as an Amfleet replacement for the Northeast Corridor as well.

I hope the age of clunky trains on US passenger railways is a thing of the past. Passenger experience on these viaggio comfort based coaches will be much better than the glorified 1950's gallery cars that they were originally going to buy. These should be just as good as train in Europe, from the rider's perspective.

Here's a Charger in the California livery:

(edit: image is huge)
https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/pressebilder/2017/mobility/300dpi/IM2017040554MO_300dpi.jpg


----------



## MrAronymous

Look like they use the same base architecture as the Siemens brightline trains. Does anyone know the reason they didn't go double decker?


----------



## phoenixboi08

zaphod said:


> :banana::banana::banana:
> 
> Also just railfan wank but maybe these will be considered as an Amfleet replacement for the Northeast Corridor as well.


Good point.

AFAIK, Amtrak will soon be deciding whether to strip-down and upgrade the AmFleet cars or order new ones: I personally would like to see them order an entirely new fleet _as well as_ rehabilitating the old ones, but that may not be feasible.

The current refresh of the cars is supposed to bide them ~6 in the interim, so it seems like any new procurements would arrive around 2024-2025 or so - and is why the cars are currently getting a refresh. 



> *
> Amtrak updates Northeast train seating, with some improvements in time for holidays*
> Author: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY
> Published: 9:28 PM EST November 13, 2017
> 
> _"Amtrak’s board will decide during the next year whether to completely overhaul the railroad cars, gutting them to their metal shells, or to buy new cars," Yachmetz said. "But the current renovations are intended to improve customer service immediately because replacing or gutting the cars will take at least six years."_


Given some of the ideas that have been floated (eg reducing seat pitch, leg room, to squeeze in more passengers....), it seems the current view at the Amtrak is to increase efficiency by reducing costs. That is, I interpret some of their actions as prioritizing a situation in which they build ridership by offering lower fares while introducing more 'business comforts' into the rest of their service offerings as a means for greater revenue generation from that segment of the travel market (ie: the manner in which airlines operate) rather than focusing that strategy solely upon the Acela. The fact that the current CEO was formerly at Delta bolsters my thoughts on this.

Thus, I could envision a scenario in which the new cars are phased in slowly as business/premier seating and the rehabilitated cars serve as economy, with Acela being positioned more and more as the express option it's meant to be - provided anticipated improvements are made/initiated over the next 1.5 decades.

The big flaws in my hunch, of course, are that 1) I have no clue how much longer the consists can get, realistically, and 2) I don't know how many more trips Amtrak can run on the NEC given constraints at NYPS. So, there may be no sense in trying to increase the fleet size(?).

In any case, there are some things to be optimistic about, short-term (CA's 2018 State Rail Plan & HSR, Midwest improvements, WAS improvements, NEC, etc). 

I'm definitely keeping my eyes peeled for any talk of modernizing their fare/revenue management systems to be more 'dynamic;' or at least, to maximize occupancy...once I hear that, I'll be very happy. 

I do think it makes a lot of sense to bring ticket costs down rather than focusing predominately on speed/travel times, per say...

Though, it all hinges on Gateway/NYPS hno:


----------



## mrsmartman

*Old Penn Station advocates drum up support through new ad campaign*

_A new ad campaign is looking to target riders getting into Penn Station_



Curbed New York said:


> Penn Station’s $1.6B revamp is moving forward, but that hasn’t stopped architects and city planners from presenting different visions of a new Penn Station. Vishaan Chakrabarti’s Practice for Architecture and Urbanism (PAU) proposed a plan that would move Madison Square Garden, but incorporate the shell of that building into the new station; and a group of architects and preservationists have been pushing to recreate the original Penn Station designed by McKim, Mead and White.
> 
> On Monday, this group, known as Rebuild Penn Station, launched an ad campaign to drum up support for their vision. Several New Jersey Transit trains arriving at Penn Station now feature illustrations by Jeff Stikeman that show off recreations of the old Penn Station. Amtrak and LIRR riders will also be given leaflets of these ads, and the question the group is trying to pose to them through this campaign is, “wouldn’t you rather arrive here?”
> 
> ...


Read more at: https://ny.curbed.com/2017/11/20/16678960/old-penn-station-ad-campaign


----------



## aquaticko

I'm not sure how I'd feel about a shot-for-shot rebuild. Beautiful though it would naturally be, there's something very...tactless about historical recreations of that kind. The destruction of the old Penn Station was an architectural tragedy; let the dead lie sleeping.


----------



## jonasry

aquaticko said:


> I'm not sure how I'd feel about a shot-for-shot rebuild. Beautiful though it would naturally be, there's something very...tactless about historical recreations of that kind. The destruction of the old Penn Station was an architectural tragedy; let the dead lie sleeping.


Maybe this discussion belongs in another section, but I see no issues with _improving on a previous design_. Simply making an replica it pretty bad, but I would love to use architectural elements in an revamped Penn station.


----------



## mrsmartman

*The New Penn Station: Everything You Should Know*

_Replacing NYC’s most despised transportation hub—a win for both preservationists and more than 600,000 commuters a day—could be closer to happening than we thought_



AD said:


> Rebuild Penn Station hopes to not just recreate the spaciousness and beauty of the pre-1963 hub but also improve upon it. Under the organization’s proposal, platforms would be widened and the number of escalators would be tripled, which should “vastly increase vertical circulation,” Shubow says. More platform space would allow some commuters to wait on the platform, hopefully ending the terrifying scramble riders currently engage in each time a track number is announced...
> 
> Of course, there are competing schools of thought for what should be done with the current “modernist mediocrity,” as Scully called it.
> 
> Architect Vishaan Chakrabarti, in concert with New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman, has suggested a glass enclosure over a repurposed Madison Square Garden. His plan would make what Kimmelman calls “a glass pavilion, which becomes a neighborhood gathering spot.” Kimmelman suggests it would be a relatively affordable solution.
> 
> Shubow disagrees. “This is a work of technology not of art,” he says of Chakrabarti’s renderings. “It will never be iconic." Besides, New York City has enough glass buildings already in his opinion...












An illustration of the exterior of the proposed newly rebuilt Penn Station, where Madison Square Garden and the current transportation hub are now located.

Read more at: https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/new-penn-station

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## BoulderGrad

^^You just spamming this "Rebuild Penn Station" stuff to every rail US page every couple weeks? 

MSG Co just spent over $1bil to pretty much completely rebuild MSG. They aren't moving any time soon (at least not without the already cash strapped city giving them a huuuuge briefcase full of money). Best NYC is getting is the gutted/rebuilt post office building and some reworked entrances on the current MSG buildings.


----------



## mrsmartman

*Cuomo floats use of eminent domain for Penn Station overhaul*

_Governor vows to deliver on plan to 'restructure and rebuild' train hub_



Crain's New York Business said:


> Gov. Andrew Cuomo promised in his annual State of the State address Wednesday to cooperate with the local real estate interests in the redevelopment of Penn Station—but also raised the possibility of expropriating their property.
> 
> The governor used part of the speech in the state capitol to reaffirm his intention to "restructure and rebuild" the 50-year-old Manhattan terminal, framing it at once as a matter of cosmetics and counterterrorism. He noted that the conversion of the Farley Post Office, which sits on the opposite side of Eighth Avenue, into the Moynihan Train Hall is already underway—creating a valve to ease pressure on Penn during the refurbishment.
> 
> At one point in his speech Cuomo appeared to raise the ultimate cudgel to threaten any private interest that might hold up the process...












Commuters packed into Penn Station _Photo: Buck Ennis_

Read more at: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/articl...e-of-eminent-domain-for-penn-station-overhaul

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## bagus70

Are they really going to rebuilt Penn station?


----------



## BoulderGrad

bagus70 said:


> Are they really going to rebuilt Penn station?


No, extensive renovation. 

Here's the official projects: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/6t...-penn-station-and-farley-post-office-building

Redeveloping the Farley former post office building, and redo-ing the entrances at Madison Square Garden.


----------



## Woonsocket54




----------



## Fan Railer

MARC testing their Siemens Chargers (capable of 125 MPH operation):





Additional Amtrak & MARC trains:


----------



## bagus70

BoulderGrad said:


> No, extensive renovation.
> 
> Here's the official projects: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/6t...-penn-station-and-farley-post-office-building
> 
> Redeveloping the Farley former post office building, and redo-ing the entrances at Madison Square Garden.


I think that is more realistic. Turning the Farley building into Penn station new head house. 

Demolisihing Madison Square Garden and rebuilding the Penn station like the original would have been very expensive


----------



## Woonsocket54

Birmingham, AL: Amtrak station opens 

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2018/02/amtrak_station_now_open_at_bir.html


----------



## [atomic]

Yet another deadly accident:


----------



## Woonsocket54

[atomic] said:


> Yet another deadly accident:


official report from central government television:

*Amtrak boss blames CSX, feds after deadly crash in South Carolina*

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/0...m-could-have-prevented-safety-chief-says.html


----------



## towerpower123

^^^ CSX was doing work on the signals and switches so they had the systems shut off and diverted the train onto the siding where a CSX freight train was parked. The normal speed limit on the tracks was 59 MPH. The engineer and conductor were killed, as the front of the engine was completely destroyed despite strict safety and structural strength rules for American locomotives that make them far heavier than European versions, and 116 passengers and crew were injured.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/04/us/amtrak-south-carolina-crash/index.html
The train was going 56 MPH and the breaks were applied 5 seconds before the crash, slowing the train to 50 MPH. 
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article198563109.html

































http://abcnews.go.com/US/amtrak-passenger-train-collides-freight-train-sc-injuries/story?id=52826058

This is what the engine used to look like as seen in 2008.








http://www.trainweb.org/amtrakpix/locoshots/p42dc/AMTK047A.html

And in 2014








http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locopicture.aspx?id=2166&Page=5

Whoever manually set that switch or forgot to reset it is directly at fault as the Amtrak train crew obviously did nothing wrong.


----------



## 8166UY

It says more about the quality of safety procedures and having the proper redundancy build in if a system fails...


----------



## Woonsocket54

CSX has powerful lobbyists, and the US federal government regulators (in this case, the NTSB and the Federal Railroad Administration) are subject to regulatory capture.

These incidents will continue to happen, Americans will continue to die, and Positive Train Control will continue to be delayed by Congress.

American exceptionalism!


----------



## [atomic]

towerpower123 said:


> CSX was doing work on the signals and switches so they had the systems shut off and diverted the train onto the siding where a CSX freight train was parked.


So nobody bothered to check weather the track is free before switching. Can one person (on the ground?) do that?


towerpower123 said:


> The train was going 56 MPH and the breaks were applied 5 seconds before the crash, slowing the train to 50 MPH.
> 
> Whoever manually set that switch or forgot to reset it is directly at fault as the Amtrak train crew obviously did nothing wrong.


..and at the same time the train was allowed to travel the section with signals down at up to 60mph? 
They don't just need to introduce positive train control but must fix their protocols asap.


----------



## Woonsocket54

[atomic] said:


> They don't just need to introduce positive train control but must fix their protocols asap.


Nothing is going to happen until a bunch of folks die. Three over here and two over there is not enough. 

You need dead bodies, and lots of 'em - otherwise there's no impetus to change the rules (or even enforce the existing ones).


----------



## aquaticko

Not to go too O/T here, but we've said the same thing about gun control here; once people start dying en mass, then thing will change. We've had how many mass shootings in the past couple of years? Nothing's changed.

If there's one thing America doesn't seem to care about, it's Americans.


----------



## towerpower123

[atomic] said:


> So nobody bothered to check weather the track is free before switching. Can one person (on the ground?) do that?
> 
> 
> ..and at the same time the train was allowed to travel the section with signals down at up to 60mph?
> They don't just need to introduce positive train control but must fix their protocols asap.


1. Regardless of whether someone checked, the train should not have been sent to the siding anyway as it curves away from the actual main line. Actually, CSX had padlocked the switch in place to direct to the siding.
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-train-investigation/corrected-update-1-locked-track-switch-blamed-in-fatal-south-carolina-amtrak-crash-idUSL2N1PV0YD
I believe the accident occured here: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9386318,-81.0977898,647m/data=!3m1!1e3 and if so, no passenger train should ever have been directed onto those sidings.

2. Railroad rules allow a top speed of 59 MPH with proper approval from the alternative control system when regular signals are down, unless of course that actual speed limits are lower there.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/amtrak-passenger-train-collides-freight-train-sc-injuries/story?id=52826058


----------



## Woonsocket54

This country is a total embarrassment.

The head of the Federal Railroad Administration was moonlighting as a sheriff's spokesman in Mississippi.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/10/railroad-safety-agency-chief-resigns-heath-hall-402093

Unless a thousand evangelical fetuses perish in a train crash, nothing will change LOL.


----------



## southwestforests

I think the author has a point.
Several points actually.
*America’s railroad blues are self-inflicted wounds*
Deadly Amtrak train crashes point to a deeper problem with America's railroad system.
Originally published February 10, 2018 at 6:00 am Updated February 10, 2018 at 11:43 am 
By Jon Talton
Special to The Seattle Times



> "The biggest problem sewn into the creation of Amtrak was the lack of a reliable and adequate federal subsidy. As a result, Amtrak’s funding help is the source of an annual fight in Congress."


That's gotta be a drain on morale, and deadly to long-term planning.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/economy/americas-railroad-blues-are-self-inflicted-wounds/


----------



## Woonsocket54

*Americans will keep dying LOL*

"*Amtrak Pays Victims of its Accidents Even if the Host Railroad is at Fault or Negligent in its Cause*"

https://csanders429.wordpress.com/2...ilroad-is-at-fault-or-negligent-in-its-cause/

The freight railroads have no incentive for safety.


----------



## aquaticko

This country is such a joke. Maybe I _should_ move.

I mean, nowhere is perfect, but at least not everywhere is so damned _proud_ of their problems.


----------



## M-NL

Woonsocket54 said:


> The freight railroads have no incentive for safety.


Yes they have, because even they don't want their train to derail or collide while in transit. The problem is the major difference between a line you can run a train on and a line you can run a train on fast.


----------



## Woonsocket54

M-NL said:


> Yes they have, because even they don't want their train to derail or collide while in transit.


I never said that. 

What I mean to say is that given the expense involved in installing PTC, the inaction of Congress, the regulatory capture prevalent in US (in other countries this is typically called bribery or corruption) and the moral hazard created by insurance, it is actually much cheaper to have a derailment than to invest in technology and resources that would prevent a derailment. Everyone understands this.


----------



## aquaticko

I'm sorry, but I'm internally cackling at this. What do you know; us libdems were right! Rural voters voted against their own interests. 

Ironically, of course, this is one spot where I agree with the Trump administration. Long-distance routes are a vestige of days gone by, and guess what? So is rural living. Unless your work requires living out in the country--unless you work the land--then living out there is inefficient and societally costly, and strictly speaking, not "21st century". 

The only danger this poses is if rail service, sui generis, is determined to be not worth government subsidy, and the entire view of it as a public service worth more than its profits becomes less obvious than it should be. _That_ is when we'll have to decide whether this country really wants the benefits of good rail service, or if we think we can actually do without (we can't).

By contrast, we will at least hypothetically be better off without federally-funded trains between St. Louis and Albuquerque.


----------



## wgerman

Woonsocket54 said:


> I never said that.
> 
> What I mean to say is that given the expense involved in installing PTC, the inaction of Congress, the regulatory capture prevalent in US (in other countries this is typically called bribery or corruption) and the moral hazard created by insurance, it is actually much cheaper to have a derailment than to invest in technology and resources that would prevent a derailment. Everyone understands this.


PTC is not the panacea you make it out to be. It will not stop Amtrak trains from hitting trucks, buses or cars and killing people. The #1 causes of death in the railroad industry. It will stop a human from lining a main line track to the siding when PTC is off for maintenance or installation. 

I have traveled Amtrak extensively in the last 30 years, and the only thing I was concerned about was not running into another freight or pax train but the guy in a dump truck trying to be a short 10 car train.


----------



## Woonsocket54

wgerman said:


> I have traveled Amtrak extensively in the last 30 years, and the only thing I was concerned about was not running into another freight or pax train but the guy in a dump truck trying to be a short 10 car train.


Amtrak operator error/drowsiness/apnea/distraction was not a concern for you?


----------



## wgerman

Woonsocket54 said:


> Amtrak operator error/drowsiness/apnea/distraction was not a concern for you?


No, because its a rare cause of Amtrak accidents but the idiot trying to beat the train............


----------



## Woonsocket54

wgerman said:


> No, because its a rare cause of Amtrak accidents but the idiot trying to beat the train............


OK; let's not invest in anything that may contribute to safety but will not solve the "main cause"


----------



## wgerman

Woonsocket54 said:


> OK; let's not invest in anything that may contribute to safety but will not solve the "main cause"


No one is saying that, its not the end all be all everyone think it is.


----------



## Woonsocket54

wgerman said:


> No one is saying that, its not the end all be all everyone think it is.


The recent incidents that killed passengers or Amtrak crew (Philadelphia; Tacoma; South Carolina) would have likely been prevented by PTC.


----------



## Art Nouveau City

*Northtown yard, Minnesota*









https://trainphoto.org.ua/view/78238/









https://trainphoto.org.ua/view/78237/

Bonus=)








https://trainphoto.org.ua/view/78095/


----------



## mrrame

*Amtrak | Acela Express compilation*


----------



## Art Nouveau City

*EMD FP7; Stone Mountain Scenic Railroad*

The Stone Mountain Scenic Railroad is a standard gauge railroad that circles the perimeter of Stone Mountain Park in a loop, and provides views of the mountain en route.









https://trainphoto.org.ua/view/78137/


----------



## Art Nouveau City

*NS GP33ECO*









https://trainphoto.org.ua/view/76878/


----------



## Woonsocket54

In South Carolina, the old Amtrak station in North Charleston has been replaced by a new facility.

Old station:








https://twitter.com/NorthCharleston/status/1072941744180920322

New station:








https://twitter.com/NorthCharleston/status/1072941744180920322









https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1073416687800803330


----------



## jonasry

Could someone give a quick recap on why it's okey to build low-level platforms. How can it be compatible with ADA?


----------



## wgerman

Amtrak orders new locomotives.

https://media.amtrak.com/2018/12/amtrak-to-improve-national-network-with-new-locomotives/


----------



## JMBasquiat

New Amtrak station in Carlinville, Illinois (sorry if it's a repost)










































Lincoln was there of course 










https://www.flickr.com/photos/idot_illinois


----------



## Coccodrillo

jonasry said:


> Could someone give a quick recap on why it's okey to build low-level platforms. How can it be compatible with ADA?


Certainly with mobile elevators, like many urban buses. When I have been in the USA 15 years ago I saw basically only high floor buses, even modern ones, while in Europe low floor buses started becoming widespresd a few years before.


----------



## benstro

Woonsocket54 said:


> In South Carolina, the old Amtrak station in North Charleston has been replaced by a new facility.
> ...



Is the access with public transportation anyhow better? The station is extremely far away from city center.


----------



## Art Nouveau City




----------



## hkskyline

*House chair vows to get New York rail tunnel built*
_Excerpt_
3 May 2019

NEW YORK (AP) — The chairman of a House transportation committee said Thursday he'll get a new rail tunnel built between New Jersey and New York even if it takes legislative maneuvering.

Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio spoke at New York's Penn Station as he and several members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure prepared to tour the 109-year-old Hudson River tunnel and other rail infrastructure.

The $13 billion tunnel project is mired in a funding dispute with President Donald Trump's administration that has taken on a political tinge. It also has been awaiting final environmental approval for more than a year, longer than most projects wait.

DeFazio said Thursday the House could deem the project environmentally approved, allowing it to proceed, something he said Trump has done with offshore drilling projects, for example.

"Under Republican control, there have been numerous times they've waived environmental laws and just gone ahead with projects," he said. "We don't normally do that, but I find it hard to believe there's a negative environmental impact."

DeFazio's visit came on the same day Amtrak, which operates Penn Station and most of the track infrastructure up and down the corridor between Boston and Washington, D.C., announced summer schedule disruptions due to repairs to fix aging tracks and equipment.

It's the second time in three years that the replacement of equipment at the station will cause delays for some of the more than 200,000 commuters from New Jersey and Long Island. The station handles more than 500,000 people daily when the city's subway system is taken into account.

Two years ago, repairs on the station's west side near the Hudson River tunnel required the closing of several tracks and prompted a 20% reduction in rail service. Predictions of a "Summer of Hell" by Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo largely went unrealized, however, as disruptions were handled efficiently.

This year's work, centered on the station's east side that connects to rail yards in Queens, is less extensive, and no one is predicting the same level of disruption. Still, the Long Island Rail Road said it will have to cancel or divert seven trains each during the morning and afternoon commutes in July and August. The operator is adding trains before and after the peak periods in hopes of easing the crush.

Meanwhile, New Jersey Transit said 10 trains that normally originate or terminate in New York will switch to Hoboken, across the Hudson River, forcing commuters to take buses, ferries or other rail service to complete their journeys. That will add an estimated 20 to 30 minutes each way, NJ Transit officials said.

The Hudson River tunnel was damaged during Superstorm Sandy in 2012 and requires ongoing maintenance to restore crumbling concrete and protect an aging electrical system. Most of that work is done overnight and on weekends, but Amtrak has warned that the state of deterioration could force longer shutdowns for repairs. It has estimated that shutting down one of the tunnel's tubes during peak periods would reduce the number of trains from 24 per hour to six.


----------



## Art Nouveau City

> BNSF 7254 barely fits in the frame with the Z-PHXWSP7-12L with 4185 tons, 5865 feet, head-end stacks and 28 UPS/FedEx loads as it snakes its way through the loops above Daze, AZ on the BNSF Phoenix Subdivision dodging clouds as it climbs toward Williams Junction and the connection with the Transcon on May 12, 2018



BNSF 7254 East at Daze, AZ by John Benner, on Flickr


----------



## mrsmartman

> *New York City's Pennsylvania Station's Tower A
> New York City, New York*
> 
> Tower A was opened on November 27th 1910 and housed a Union Switch and Signal Company Model 14 interlocking machine. The machine was the largest machine used in the station and had 179 levers. Of the 4 towers at the station this is the only machine having over 100 levers; as Tower D reached 71. Tower A had 141 levers to control the 124 signals, 15 double slip switches, and 47 switches. The tower was located above the rails, later the tower was covered by the station making it seem as though the tower was located in the ceilings of the station. In the 1940's the interlocking machine received an upgrade as the entire original wooden interlocking cabinet was replaced with the more recognized steel cabinet and steel levers replaced the original brass levers. The switch and signal indicators were also replaced from the old style of boxed lamps at the back of the machine to the modern front panels of lamps. The other 3 interlocking machines at Penn Station never got these upgrades. Tower A remained mostly intact over the years as it was busy all the time. In the 1980's the tower was given control of Bergen Interlocking and later Portal tower was closed and remoted to Tower A. The tower was manned by two train directors, an assistant train director, and two levermen. The cutover to close Tower A started on September 30th 1994 and the tower officially closed on October 1st 1994 at 2:44 Pm. Control of Tower A was given to the new Penn Station Control Center known as (PSCC). The tower still remains today above the station tracks. The interlocking machine front has been gutted and the levers have been mostly removed. The locking bed remains intact and the circuit controllers are also intact. The model board remains above the machine and dark. Power to the tower has been cut and the lights dark. A thick layer of dust and dirt cover everything inside, over the years things have been taken apart, probably kept as keep sakes. To get to the tower you have to walk up a very narrow spiral stair case then walk a narrow catwalk that goes around the tower. To most you would never even know a tower was there, but to a few it's an interesting place. Encased by the surrounding station and with the very busy tracks below, the tower is probably never going anywhere.
> 
> Source: RR SIGNAL PIX . COM


Penn Track Layout

Pictures

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## mrsmartman

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## D.S. Lewith

So, there may come an I-20 railroad connecting Fort Worth with Atlanta

https://www.knoe.com/content/news/New-plan-could-bring-Amtrak-to-Monroe-510647411.html


----------



## mrsmartman

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## mrsmartman

> #TodayinHistory: #OnThisDay in 1978, a Supreme Court decision was made that designated Grand Central Terminal a “landmark” and the block that it occupies, a “landmark site.” Former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and The Municipal Art Society of New York were instrumental in the success of GCT’s preservation.
> 
> Despite this success, the building had fallen into major disrepair by 1978 and was in need of rehabilitation. The gorgeous constellation ceiling was covered in years of grime, the main concourse was filled with advertisements, and the roof was leaking. Renovations began on the terminal in 1996 and included the addition of a second grand staircase, four new restaurants on the balconies in the main concourse, and shops lining the other concourses, including the #NYTransitMuseum Gallery & Store!
> 
> What’s your favorite part of Grand Central Terminal?












Covering the Construction Behind Advertising, late 1990s; New York Transit Museum, Photograph by Frank English










The Terminal’s Roof Under Renovation, 1985; New York Transit Museum, Photograph by Frank English










A Cleaned Patch of Ceiling, ca. 1988; From the Collection of Beyer Blinder Bell, Photograph by Ross Mulr










Recognizing Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis, 1995; New York Transit Museum

Courtesy of the New York Transit Museum Collection.

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## mrsmartman

*Old Penn Station*










Courtesy of Old New York City.

*Old Penn Station, Manhattan, New York*










Courtesy of Old New York City.

*Old Penn Station*










Courtesy of Old New York City.

*Old Penn Station Circa 1911*










Courtesy of Old New York City.

*Old Penn Station 1911*










Courtesy of Old New York City.

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## mrsmartman

> #TodayinHistory: #OnThisDay 50 years ago, astronauts #NeilArmstrong and #BuzzAldrin made history, becoming the first humans to set foot on the moon. Did you know that Grand Central Terminal played its own special part in the #SpaceRace?
> 
> #GrandCentralTerminal often showcased pioneering technology, a fitting role for a building that was itself a technological pioneer. Shortly after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the U.S. Army erected a Redstone rocket in the Terminal to raise support for America’s space program, and show that the U.S. was a powerful contender in the Space Race. In the center of the Terminal’s celestial ceiling, just above the constellation Pisces, a small hole was made for the rocket’s stabilizing cables – look up and you can still see the hole today!
> 
> U.S. space exploration efforts again took the spotlight at Grand Central in 1962. Crowds gathered in the Terminal to watch John Glenn become the first American to orbit Earth. Live coverage was broadcast on screens in the Main Concourse by CBS News, which operated a broadcast studio in Grand Central at the time.
> 
> In 1969, New Yorkers commuting through Grand Central were among the first to see photos of the #Apollo11 mission. Kodak engineers rushed to print #NASA's just-released negatives from the #MoonLanding, and displayed the iconic images on the 18’ x 60’ Colorama in the Main Concourse, before the photos were published in print.
> 
> Do you remember where you were on July 20th, 1969? #Apollo50 #Apollo50th #Apollo11at50


Redstone Rocket, 1957; Courtesy of Walter Sanders / Time & Life Pictures










Watching John Glenn’s Orbit, 1962; Courtesy of Corbis Images.










Grand Central Terminal Ceiling Hole from Redstone Rocket Cables; Photo by New York Transit Museum










National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (American, estab. 1958). Colorama No. 327 (First Landing on the Moon, July 20, 1969), 1969. George Eastman Museum, gift of Eastman Kodak Company. Courtesy of the George Eastman Museum.










Courtesy of the New York Transit Museum Collection.

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## mrsmartman

> Grand Central was a technological pioneer. For the changeover from steam engines to electricity, engineers William Wilgus and Frank Sprague designed a groundbreaking "Under Contact Third Rail". Train cars made contact with the underside of the power rail, whose top and sides were sheathed in wood to protect workers from electrocution.
> 
> The New York Central completed the first phase of electrification in 1906. Here, the line’s first electric train stands outside the Grand Central train shed after its first test run from High Bridge on the Harlem River in Northern Manhattan.
> 
> Learn more at gcthistory.com.












Courtesy of the New York Transit Museum Collection.

*New York City 1950s*










Courtesy of the Postcards from old New York.

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## doc7austin

Travelling from Los Angeles to San Francisco 4th & King Street with Amtrak's Coast Starlight in a Superliner Sleeping Car (category: Roomette) and Caltrain:









Enjoy!


----------



## mrsmartman

__ https://www.facebook.com/nytransitmuseum/posts/10157457635608843



*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## mgk920

A bit over a decade later, the Chicago and Northwestern Railway constructed their new-ROW Adams line across much of Wisconsin (it runs west-northwestward out of Milwaukee, now operated by Union Pacific as a freight-only line), after which they inaugurated their high-speed (for the day) '400' service, offering a trip between downtown Chicago and downtown Minneapolis on a 400 minute (6h, 40m) schedule. Their subsequent '400' series of intercity trains were popular into the 1950s.

Mike


----------



## cuartango

mgk920 said:


> A bit over a decade later, the Chicago and Northwestern Railway constructed their new-ROW Adams line across much of Wisconsin (it runs west-northwestward out of Milwaukee, now operated by Union Pacific as a freight-only line), after which they inaugurated their high-speed (for the day) '400' service, offering a trip between downtown Chicago and downtown Minneapolis on a 400 minute (6h, 40m) schedule. Their subsequent '400' series of intercity trains were popular into the 1950s.
> 
> Mike


How long does it take today to travel between Chicago and Minneapolis by train, if possible?.


----------



## mgk920

In the most recent printed timetable that I have (2012), Amtrak 7 and 8 (the Empire Builder long-distance trains) make the trip in 8h, 16m (westbound, towards MStP) and 8h, 05m (eastbound, towards Chicago). The trains make nine scheduled station stops along the way.

Mike


----------



## zaphod

They are testing the new Siemens single-levels at speed on the NEC. These cars are going to be for California and the Midwest regional services for now but the rumor is they will probably be what replaces the Amfleets(the tubular shaped 70s cars in the train in the video). A variant of these is what Virgin Trains/Brightline has in Florida.

Also notice the new catenary, capable of supporting Acela speeds up to 160 mph someday. What a nice change from the rusty PRR dinosaur wire job. It's almost like we live in a developed country or something...

video credit: "superstarrendon" "amtrak test train - siemens venture trainset coach on the northeast corridor"


----------



## mrsmartman

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1238146586770890754
*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## mrsmartman

__ https://www.facebook.com/nypostcards/posts/1352907364892814



*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## mrsmartman

__ https://www.facebook.com/nytransitmuseum/posts/10157519286278843



*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## mrsmartman

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## mrsmartman

__ https://www.facebook.com/nytransitmuseum/posts/10157542907863843



*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## Anday

*Delaware legislators offer bill aimed at getting Maryland commuter trains to Newark*



> Amid signs that Maryland is becoming more receptive to extending its commuter rail line to Delaware, state Rep. Ed Osienski and state Sen. Stephanie Hansen filed legislation that would authorize the Delaware Department of Transportation to work with other agencies to improve the regional rail network.
> 
> House Concurrent Resolution 81 would direct DelDOT to work with the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania, Amtrak and all appropriate regional entities to connect and enhance the regional rail service that serves the three states.


*Maryland looks at connecting MARC toward Philadelphia and within Baltimore*


> Imagine being able to travel all the way from New England, New York, or Philadelphia all the way to Baltimore, Washington, DC, or even Alexandria without ever once setting foot on an Amtrak train or a bus. Imagine being able to make your daily commute from Delaware or Cecil County to Baltimore by train.
> 
> Imagine being able to take the MARC Penn Line straight into Downtown Baltimore or being able to switch MARC trains much faster if the one you’re on breaks down. All these options might become a reality under studies the Maryland legislature has prescribed.
Click to expand...


----------



## mrsmartman

__ https://www.facebook.com/OldNewYorkImages/posts/2507497922684526



*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## GojiMet86

The new CalTrain Stadler KISS trains.

From the Facebook page Desert Empire Project


----------



## TM_Germany

They look different from those in Europe. It looks like it adopts the more generous US loading gauge leading to more interior space, but it also looks a bit uglier imo.


----------



## btrs

TM_Germany said:


> They look different from those in Europe. It looks like it adopts the more generous US loading gauge leading to more interior space, but it also looks a bit uglier imo.


Well, the KISS for the CIS-countries (Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) also look different from the European models, but more like this US-one:




__





KISS Eurasia — Trainspo


KISS Eurasia - emu build by Stadler.




trainspo.com





Are the US ones also electric or diesel-powered ? Couldn't see a diesel module like they use in the FLIRT Bi-Mode ones..


----------



## M-NL

Full electric. Also this set isn't full length yet, because it is supposed to have 6 or 8 eight cars. The double doors are a nice intermediate solution, but lets hope the high doors will ever be used.
I wish we had an as generous loading gauge in Europe. The upper deck of double decker trains is always a bit more cramped because of the required roof shape and the limited maximum height..But that's the unfortunate downside of a rail network that already existed before double deckers and electrification (and the UK is even worse). Otherwise they would probably have chosen something more similar to Russia's loading gauge (including track gauge, because wider track is better for high speed stability).


----------



## mrsmartman

__ https://www.facebook.com/nypostcards/posts/1379235915593292



*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## mrsmartman

__ https://www.facebook.com/OldNewYorkImages/posts/2521144287986556



*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## hkskyline

Amtrak needs $1.5 billion bailout, prepares to cut up to 20% of workforce


U.S. passenger railroad service Amtrak said on Tuesday it needs a further $1.475 billion bailout and disclosed plans to cut its workforce by up to 20% in the coming budget year.




www.reuters.com


----------



## mrsmartman

*AMTK Empire Tunnel crossing PRR North River Tunnel under LIRR West Side Yard approaching New York Penn Station*















Penn Station track question - Trains Magazine - Trains News Wire, Railroad News, Railroad Industry News, Web Cams, and Forms


Trains magazine offers railroad news, railroad industry insight, commentary on today's freight railroads, passenger service (Amtrak), locomotive technology, railroad preservation and history, railfan opportunities (tourist railroads, fan trips), and great railroad photography.



cs.trains.com





*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## Poorna90

*Avelia Liberty Super Train Introduction Video*






Avelia Liberty/Acela II is the latest stock to the Avelia family of very high-speed trains, ordered in 2016 by Amtrak for the Northeast section in the USA. It has increased the capacity of the Acela Express service which is fast reaching saturation point. Equipped with Tiltronix technology, it is able to take curves faster while reducing the total journey time. It can ride fast up to 300 km/h (186 mph) which is also very safety. 

Trainsets are longer and power cars are shorter. This has allowed passenger capacity up to 30% higher than on the existing Acela trains. Concentrated power cars at each end of the trainset provide enhanced protection for train passengers in the event of a collision. 28 Avelia Liberty trainsets were sold to Amtrak USA railway company. In future, it is possible that Amtrak will purchase more to expand the very speed train services. With bogies placed between cars instead of beneath seats, passengers enjoy reduced noise and vibration levels which is very peaceful! 

Interiors have been optimised so that the ergonomically-designed seats also provide best legroom space for Avelia Liberty passengers. Electrical and USB sockets, broadband Wi-Fi and individual lighting are available for every seats. These can increase nine cars up to 12 without any changes to the traction system, and can increase speed up to 350 km/h (220 mph). 

Passenger will be extremely satisfied once they take a train journey on this super train. Talented Alstom’s engineers created Avelia Liberty to be cheaper to own throughout its life cycle and lighter than other trains. Reliability and ease of maintenance will also reduce the maintenance costs up to 10%. 

Information by Alstom official website. 
Photo credits goes to the original owners.


----------



## mrsmartman

LIRR And MNRR Random Thoughts Thread







www.nyctransitforums.com





*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## davide84

US FTA approves $US 767m funding for New Jersey bridge


The US Federal Transit Authority has approved $US 767m for New Jersey Transit’s long-planned Portal North Bridge replacement project.




www.railjournal.com







https://www.portalbridgenec.com/


----------



## mrsmartman

*Your Trusted Source of Photographs from New York and Pennsylvania*


----------



## GojiMet86

Some Amtrak related articles:









Amtrak Prepares for New Diesel Locomotive Fleet - Amtrak Media


Amtrak today released renderings and other information about the first of the diesel-electric locomotives that will replace the current fleet on the National Network, including all long distance and many state-sponsored routes.




media.amtrak.com







> *Transitional paint scheme on the first ALC-42 Siemens Chargers*
> WASHINGTON – Amtrak today released renderings and other information about the first of the diesel-electric locomotives that will replace the current fleet on the National Network, including all long distance and many state-sponsored routes.
> 
> Five of the first six locomotives will have this version of our current Phase VI paint scheme (a “livery” in trade terms) and one will be painted to recognize next year’s 50th anniversary of the inauguration of Amtrak service. A final livery will be unveiled later as part of a fleet-wide plan.
> 
> The ALC-42 series was developed by Amtrak with Siemens Mobility and is equipped with the latest safety systems, including Positive Train Control and Crash Energy Management. They have Alternating Current Propulsion for a maximum speed of 125 mph. The 16-cylinder Cummins QSK95 engine has Tier 4 Emissions Technology to reduce nitrogen oxide by more than 89 percent and particulate matter by 95 percent, while providing a savings in diesel fuel consumption and reaching Amtrak Sustainability goals.
> 
> The initial order of 75 new locomotives was first announced by Amtrak in December 2018, with deliveries expected through 2024. Amtrak also has a provision to order additional ALC-42 locomotives.
> 
> They are similar to the SC-44 locomotives purchased by some state agencies and operated by Amtrak, but have greater fuel capacity for longer routes and increased Head End Power generating capacity for bigger trains. A multitude of other upgrades will also lead to longer maintenance intervals. The front of the ALC-42 locomotive will serve as a “new face of Amtrak” in much of the U.S. and is designed to enhance safety, aesthetics and to simplify repairs.
> 
> The new locomotives are designated as ALC-42 for “Amtrak Long-distance Charger, 4,200-horsepower” and are in production in Sacramento, Calif. They will primarily replace Amtrak P40 and P42 diesel-electric locomotives. Although modern when bought in the 90s, the P-series locomotives have been intensively used for more than 25 years, lack up to date technology and do not achieve Tier 4 emissions standards.
> 
> Amtrak is purchasing the new locomotives through available funds and fulfills “Buy American” provisions. Siemens Mobility has suppliers across the United States to support locomotive production, including Cummins, which manufactures the diesel engines in Seymour, Ind.
> 
> These new locomotives are part of Amtrak’s long-term planned series of improvements for fleet, infrastructure and stations, including new _Acela_ trainsets now undergoing tests to begin service next year. Improvements are ongoing at New York Penn Station and Moynihan Train Hall, in addition to expanded development of the major stations at Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia and Chicago.
> 
> Additional renderings of this new series of locomotives are in the Amtrak Media Center.





New rolling stock for Amtrak Midwest. From the Illinois Department of Transportation facebook page:




__ https://www.facebook.com/IllinoisDepartmentofTransportation/posts/10157656454567201





> We’re thrilled to see the initial wave of new passenger railcars arrive in Chicago – the first of many more to come from Siemens for #AmtrakMidwest service.
> 
> After several weeks of testing, they will be put into
> Amtrak service, providing the latest in passenger amenities for riders in the Midwest. Stay tuned for more details as the new cars are rolled out.
> 
> Wisconsin Department of Transportation
> Missouri River Runner
> Michigan Department of Transportation


----------



## Memma

archifreese said:


> rail transit in america should be expanded and funding as well as benefits should go towards those who develop rail. Regional clusters are best, air is more efficient for anything over 500 miles or so.
> 
> The problem is Americas lack of interest/identification with rail. We have such a car-bubble mentality that its hard to get it going in a lot of cities. Florida voted down a HSR from Tampa-Orlando-Miami (almost 10 million in that triangle) and then Miami and Miami Beach voted for localized lightrail but have already voted to delay critical portions of it by several years.
> 
> If Americans could ever love light rail or streetcars (again) it would be so much more efficient economically and environmentally.


Virgin Trains USA (ex Brightline) have some exciting Florida projects in train - I hope we see Tampa (TrainReview) and of course their mainline - It'll be interesting but a higher speed network up the Florida Coast would be amazing!


----------



## M-NL

I'm not used to diesel passenger locomotives, so I have a question regarding the power numbers:
The 'regular' Siemens Charger SC-44 has 4400hp, while these new ALC-42 'only' have 4200hp (and the Brightline SCB-40 'just' 4000hp).
The electric motors have a maximum rating of 3900hp combined, so the ALC-42 has 300hp 'left' for HEP, even though the ALC-42 is said to have increased HEP. Or does the extra HEP limit traction power?
Why is the ALC-42 engine derated to 4200hp in the first place? Is that because the ALC-42 is going to be used for longer periods of time and in more extreme conditions? Or is there some other reason?
And the thing is again heavy. It will put tremendous forces on the tracks when is races down them at 125 mph.


----------



## mgk920

These trains operate on the same tracks that handle 15.000t unit coal trains, 3 km+ long double stacked intermodal containers and other heavy freight, so the track can handle it.

Mike


----------



## M-NL

Can they handle it? Track for heavy trains and for fast trains are constructed different (and I'm not talking about curve radius and super elevation here). There is a reason for that.


----------



## Polak_w_Kanadzie

I think in N.Am. they have different view on it. In Europe there is so much passenger railways it's just more convenient to build separate railway corridors for typical cargo service. Even the suburban lines have their separate tracks from intercity tracks, and H-S also have their own. In N.Am. the majority of railways are the cargo ones so they just don't bother of dividing the infrastructure.


----------



## GojiMet86

Memma said:


> Virgin Trains USA (ex Brightline) have some exciting Florida projects in train - I hope we see Tampa (TrainReview) and of course their mainline - It'll be interesting but a higher speed network up the Florida Coast would be amazing!



Funny you say that, because two days ago Brightline and Virgin decided to end their partnership:



> “We will no longer use the Virgin brand following our parent’s termination of its licensing agreement with Virgin Enterprises Limited (together with its affiliates, “Virgin”),” Brightline said in its monthly operations report. “We will change our name to Brightline Trains LLC following the expiration of the applicable notice period for name changes under the senior loan agreement. Virgin has no remaining affiliation with us, or parent or its affiliate.”











High-Speed Rail Startup Brightline Ends Alliance With Richard Branson’s Virgin


The sole U.S. private passenger rail service is terminating its licensing deal with Virgin and plans to operate under the Brightline name.




www.forbes.com


----------



## zaphod

I found a picture of the interior of the new coaches. It looks like you get more space than an airplane cabin and the option to have a single seat to yourself is an option which is nice.


Source: Siemens website





Venture Trainsets | Rolling Stock | Siemens Mobility USA







www.mobility.siemens.com


----------



## M-NL

That's the business class coach. The economy class will have 2+2 seating:








Only the most cramped commuter train will come close to standard economy airline seating. 

What surprises me more is this:








I know it's just a sample configuration, but it has a cab car at one end, instead of locos on both ends. One ACS-64 would be sufficient, but would a single Charger locomotive be enough to give a 6 car train reasonable performance?


----------



## Robi_damian

Heya, has anyone ever stumbled upon annual ridership figures for passengers in the USA from the 1950s and 1960s. Am curious to see how fast passenger numbers declined and what was the tempo. Most sources just vaguely refer to trends but not raw numbers between 1945 and 1971.


----------



## mgk920

Robi_damian said:


> Heya, has anyone ever stumbled upon annual ridership figures for passengers in the USA from the 1950s and 1960s. Am curious to see how fast passenger numbers declined and what was the tempo. Most sources just vaguely refer to trends but not raw numbers between 1945 and 1971.


I would start that in 1946, this due to the wildly inflated numbers from WWII troop movements. USA railroads carried an insane amount of men and materiel for the War.

Mike


----------



## Nacre

I don't have annual numbers, but even in the 1950's railroad passenger numbers were already dramatically declining due to the new interstate highway system and passenger aircraft.

Suburbanization began in the USA around 1900 with streetcar suburbs as railroad companies like the Los Angeles Railway realized that they could make lots of money by developing property around a tram line. But after they sold all of the houses in a development they had little incentive to continue operating a loss-making public transportation network. And even if a public authority took over operations they didn't want to operate a tram network when they would lose less money operating buses.

It is important for people to understand that the decline of the American passenger rail network is more of an urban planning failure than a transportation failure. When we chose suburbanization over densification it doomed passenger rail in this country to a severe decline.


----------



## M-NL

Nacre said:


> I don't have annual numbers, but even in the 1950's railroad passenger numbers were already dramatically declining due to the new interstate highway system and passenger aircraft.


Cars were relatively cheap as was gas. The overal travel time by train wasn't significantly shorter then by car. Who can blame the passengers for choosing the car?


Nacre said:


> It is important for people to understand that the decline of the American passenger rail network is more of an urban planning failure than a transportation failure.


That makes sense. There is nothing stopping you from having great public transport in a suburbanised area. Take the Netherlands as an example. The city of Almere was actually designed as a suburbanised area of Amsterdam. It has great public transport and connections to Amsterdam (and the rest of the northern Randstad). In fact the entire Randstad area has good public transportation. But in the USA the automotive industry was bigger then the railroad industry by the 50's, so they may have had a say in the matter as well.


----------



## ArtManDoo

Nacre said:


> I don't have annual numbers, but even in the 1950's railroad passenger numbers were already dramatically declining due to the new interstate highway system and passenger aircraft.
> 
> Suburbanization began in the USA around 1900 with streetcar suburbs as railroad companies like the Los Angeles Railway realized that they could make lots of money by developing property around a tram line. But after they sold all of the houses in a development they had little incentive to continue operating a loss-making public transportation network. And even if a public authority took over operations they didn't want to operate a tram network when they would lose less money operating buses.
> 
> It is important for people to understand that the decline of the American passenger rail network is more of an urban planning failure than a transportation failure. When we chose suburbanization over densification it doomed passenger rail in this country to a severe decline.


Probably what is missed here is still the cost. Bus infrastructure cost is probably not shown. Thus the investment for tram probably is much more profitable but it is for most cases just ignored. If someone takes into account the subsidy on bus infrastructure, the cost of all the traffic lanes, signs, traffic lights, parking/stabling facilities, shelters, recycle or dump of old materials, the cost is crazy huge. The same for cars bu usually the cost is hidden behind the curtains for some reasons. Actually it is probably similar in several parts of the world. Maybe only Japan is one of a bit better in reflecting the cost of car/bus infrastructure.


----------



## TM_Germany

A segment of the one in Florida is already operational, it's called Brightline. However, that segment is not high speed yet. None of the others have started construcion, but I guess the Texas one is closest.


----------



## davide84

cuartango said:


> What are the current HSR projecs being built in the country? I have heard of the one at California (moving very slowly though), are there any others?


Also check this thread for updates on the topic:








UNITED STATES | High Speed Rail


Brightline reveals more details about Vegas-to-LA high-speed rail line Not the biggest fan of the design and colors, however, I'm excited for all HSR developments in the country.




www.skyscrapercity.com


----------



## hkskyline

* Train operator Amtrak to pay $2.25 million to settle discrimination claims *
_Excerpt_
Dec 2, 2020

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amtrak, the U.S. passenger railroad, will pay $2.25 million to resolve civil claims by the Justice Department that it discriminated against passengers with disabilities, and agreed to fix up train stations that failed to accommodate wheelchair-bound passengers and others with limited mobility.

The Justice Department said on Wednesday Amtrak had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to upgrade its stations to accommodate passengers, even though the railroad was given 20 years to do so since the law's 1990s passage.

Amtrak was meant to have implemented the appropriate changes by July 26, 2010, the department added.

More : Train operator Amtrak to pay $2.25 million to settle discrimination claims


----------



## GojiMet86

Fears emerge over fate of Gateway following Cuomo-inspired report


The public and private discord that has ensued over the report’s release underscores the deep anxiety over the project’s future.




www.politico.com









> *Fears emerge over fate of Gateway following Cuomo-inspired report*
> By DANIELLE MUOIO and SAMANTHA MALDONADO 12/12/2020 07:00 AM EST
> 
> NEW YORK — It was almost two years into President Donald Trump’s term when Gov. Andrew Cuomo descended beneath the Hudson River to tour the decrepit rail tunnels that connect New York and New Jersey.
> 
> In a video he would later send to the White House, Cuomo made one plea: fund the Gateway project, a $13 billion proposal to build a new crossing under the river and repair the existing tunnels, which were severely damaged by Superstorm Sandy.
> 
> “It is probably the critical infrastructure issue facing not just New York and New Jersey, but literally the entire Northeast,” Cuomo said in the video, which did nothing to remove Trump’s blockade of the project.
> 
> Two years later, just as Gateway’s prospects are buoyed by the election of “Amtrak” Joe Biden, Cuomo is the one accused of jeopardizing the endeavor after pushing a new report that calls into question a fundamental justification for the project: whether building a new tunnel is even necessary, or if a patch-up job for existing tunnels will suffice.
> 
> The public and private discord that has ensued over the report’s release underscores the deep anxiety over the project’s future and has renewed fears the existing tunnels are nearing catastrophic failure. A shutdown would halt travel on the Northeast Corridor, the busiest passenger railway in the nation.
> 
> The report prompted backlash from Amtrak and New Jersey Transit, which share the crossing, as well as New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy and Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). They said the report’s recommendations weren’t feasible for the scale of the repairs required and have called for the project to proceed as planned. Some officials close to the project believe the report’s release may be an effort to delay, if not kill, the more costly plan to build a brand new tunnel, freeing up money for other ventures at a time when the pandemic has decimated state coffers. They warn the report could act as a poison pill, undermining the official justification and making it more difficult to get federal funding.
> 
> People directly involved in the planning for Gateway were so opposed to the report’s release they worked behind the scenes in an unsuccessful attempt to bury it.
> 
> “Because there wasn’t what I would call buy-in to the efficacy of this report, most of us were reluctant to release it,” Jerry Zaro, New Jersey’s representative on the Gateway Program Development Corp., said in an interview. “When you release a questionable report, or a report that still needs further vetting or study, it could take on a life of its own and … create false hopes.”.........


----------



## urbanflight

GojiMet86 said:


> Fears emerge over fate of Gateway following Cuomo-inspired report
> 
> 
> The public and private discord that has ensued over the report’s release underscores the deep anxiety over the project’s future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com


I guess things are changing for the better.

*Pete Buttigieg to visit Hudson River tunnel as Schumer pushes for Gateway project*



> Pete Buttigieg, President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for transportation secretary, has agreed to tour the crumbling Hudson River rail tunnels, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday as he renewed his push for a stalled project to build a new connection.
> 
> Gov. Cuomo tours the North River Rail Tunnel that connects New Jersey and New York on Dec. 19, 2018. (Kevin P. Coughlin/Office of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo/)
> 
> Schumer is a big backer of the estimated $11.3 billion Gateway project, which would include a new rail tunnel between New York and New Jersey. He, Gov. Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy say it’s needed to replace the existing rail connection, which is more than a century old, though critics argue it’s an unnecessary boondoggle and the old tunnels can be fixed.
> 
> Progress on the Gateway project came to a standstill under President Trump, whose administration downgraded the tunnels on its list of priorities.
> 
> Schumer voiced optimism that Biden and Buttigieg would bring the undertaking to fruition.
> 
> “As a former mayor, Pete will bring to the role a wealth of experience in policies that make much needed improvements to our country’s infrastructure, rebuilding local communities and creating economic opportunity,” Schumer said in a statement.


----------



## urbanflight

Now that it has become truly official (election certification & Senate majority). I guess it can finally be share.

Hopefully he would give priority to investments in railway and public transit over archaic highways and cars. 🇺🇸🚅🚇🚊🚌

*Joe Biden picks Pete Buttigieg to be transportation secretary*








Joe Biden picks Pete Buttigieg to be transportation secretary


Joe Biden will nominate Pete Buttigieg to be his transportation secretary, the president-elect said in a statement on Tuesday, elevating the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate to a top post in the federal government.




edition.cnn.com






__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1339603392872804352

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341032856928346114

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1340700129859350528


----------



## M-NL

> we should lead the way on infrastructure.


The interesting thing here is that unfortunately roads, airports and harbours are also infrastructure. And they are mostly governement owned and in variable state of repair. The railways are mostly private owned, making improvement a lot harder.
The best way to give all modes of transport an equal chance, would be to nationalise the majority of the rail infrastructure and then charge a usage fee to the users (essentially what Europe does). We all know that is never going to happen.


----------



## davide84

Someone started doing just that. The article is from 2012, does anybody knows how is it going after 8 years?





__





Michigan DOT completes NS rail line buy - Railway Age


In time for the holiday season, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (NS) have finalized a $140 million agreement for MDOT to acquire ownership of 135 miles of NS right-of-way in the Wolverine State.




www.railwayage.com


----------



## TM_Germany

Several states have done that recently, North Coralina and Virginia iirc.


----------



## GojiMet86

Biden to take train to Washington for inauguration, moving forward to 'not be deterred' by violence or virus


Joe Biden will begin his new journey as the 46th President of the United States in a familiar way: riding Amtrak from Wilmington to Washington.




www.cnn.com








> *Biden to take train to Washington for inauguration, moving forward to 'not be deterred' by violence or virus*
> 
> By Jeff Zeleny, Senior Washington Correspondent
> 
> Updated 1:55 PM ET, Fri January 8, 2021
> 
> Wilmington, Delaware (CNN)Joe Biden will begin his new journey as the 46th President of the United States in a familiar way: riding Amtrak from Wilmington to Washington.
> 
> A day before he is sworn into office, Biden is planning to make his way to the nation's capital on a family train trip that will be part of the festivities leading up to the inauguration on January 20, people familiar with the plans tell CNN.
> While plans for the inauguration were shaken this week by the violent attack on the Capitol, along with unrelenting complications from the coronavirus pandemic, Biden and top advisers have instructed their team to keep moving forward, without being deterred by the steep challenges.
> "He was elected during a pandemic. He will be inaugurated during one," a Biden ally said. "We will have a safe and historic inauguration and not be deterred."
> Yet it will be anything but normal, given President Donald Trump's refusal to attend the inauguration ceremony. Neither the Biden transition or inaugural teams have commented on Trump's decision to stay away, but two people close to the planning say they are relieved to finally know his intentions, without having a last-minute surprise appearance.
> With 12 days remaining until the inauguration, planning for the event is urgently underway.........


----------



## rheintram

Great report about the new Penn Station train hall:


----------



## hkskyline

* Unions: Passenger rails need better security, no-ride list *
_Excerpt_ 
Jan 14, 2021

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Two major railroad workers unions have asked the Department of Homeland Security to beef up security on Amtrak and other passenger lines, including by creating a no-ride list akin to the no-fly list that prevents people identified as risks from boarding planes.

The unions said Wednesday that tougher security measures are needed in light of last week’s riot at the U.S. Capitol because people who took part in the insurrection and were subsequently placed on the no-fly list may turn to rail travel instead. The Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers — Transportation Division, or SMART-TD, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen unions also urged federal regulators to add more security at train stations to screen passengers before they board.

“Even as of this hour, the only real requirement for a person to board a train is simply to have a ticket; nothing more, nothing less. There is no screening process. There is no TSA. And there are no significant statutes or regulations to penalize those willing to interfere with a train’s crew or to do harm on a train, especially not when compared to the airline industry,” the unions’ presidents, Jeremy Ferguson and Dennis Pierce, said in a joint statement, referring to the Transportation Security Administration.

More : Unions: Passenger rails need better security, no-ride list


----------



## Barciur

Well, if we go this route, rail travel will definitely lose one of its advantages here.

What next, shall we do the same for Megabus or Greyhound? No-board list for buses?


----------



## Stuu

Crazy. Trains are far too socialist for your average insurrectionist


----------



## diz

Congratulations on becoming #46 to Amtrak's #1 commuter!


----------



## japanese001

*Honolulu Rail Transit












*


----------



## mgk920

Of all of the USA cities that I have considered to be ideally situated for having a true heavy rail transit system, but did not have one, Honolulu was at the top of my list. Very linear and densely developed due to physical limitations on space, I'm a bit surprised that one wasn't set up years earlier.

Mike


----------



## Nacre

They also have lots of tourists who may not want to bother with renting a car, and temporary military personnel at Pearl Harbor.


----------



## mgk920

Also, has there been any thought given to a potential future line being developed in the I-H2 corridor?

Mike


----------



## hkskyline

*U.S. passenger railroad Amtrak restoring service on long distance routes *
_Excerpt_
Mar 10, 2021

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. passenger railroad Amtrak will restore daily service to 12 long distance routes starting in May after Congress on Wednesday gave final approval to $1.7 billion in additional emergency funding.

Amtrak says passenger demand still remains down by about 73% nationwide versus pre COVID-19 levels as millions of Americans avoid business travel, work at home or skip leisure trips.

Amtrak will also recall more than 1,200 furloughed employees.

More : U.S. passenger railroad Amtrak restoring service on long distance routes


----------



## mgk920

Six axle freight locomotives in North America (railroads in Canada, Mexico and the USA freely interchange with each other) are often ballasted to upwards of 200t.

Mike


----------



## M-NL

TER200 said:


> Using a lighter loco won't make the rest of the train lighter.


Well it will make the train as a whole lighter and any weight you don't need to move saves energy.
But what's more important: On a normal road one heavy truck will do more damage to the road surface then ten times that weight in normal passenger cars. Something similar applies to trains and wear will increase with speed and weight.


mgk920 said:


> Six axle freight locomotives in North America (railroads in Canada, Mexico and the USA freely interchange with each other) are often ballasted to upwards of 200t.


For the ES44AH I found a weight of 196t and 900kN of tractive effort. That requires a coefficient of adhesion of almost 0.47. That's really high (Europe usually draws the line at 0.4). Doesn't this make these locomotives really prone to wheel slip at low speeds, under all but the most optimal conditions? Because all that theoretical tractive effort is nice, but when a railroad decides to send you up a mountain with 5 instead of 6 locos, that's going to be really fun.


----------



## TER200

M-NL said:


> Well it will make the train as a whole lighter and any weight you don't need to move saves energy.


This also applies to european railways then. A standard railway coach weighs about 50 tonnes either side of the ocean.


----------



## M-NL

TER200 said:


> This also applies to european railways then. A standard railway coach weighs about 50 tonnes either side of the ocean.


Of course it does. In a lot of European countries locomotive drawn trains are replaced by multiple units just for that reason (if they weren't already using them in the first place). They are just more efficient. The only downside of multiple units is that they come in fixed lengths, which may impede your ability to optimise train length.


----------



## mgk920

M-NL said:


> For the ES44AH I found a weight of 196t and 900kN of tractive effort. That requires a coefficient of adhesion of almost 0.47. That's really high (Europe usually draws the line at 0.4). Doesn't this make these locomotives really prone to wheel slip at low speeds, under all but the most optimal conditions? Because all that theoretical tractive effort is nice, but when a railroad decides to send you up a mountain with 5 instead of 6 locos, that's going to be really fun.


Modern locomotives have traction control systems that are able to maintain power at the edge of losing traction, the most efficient level of transferring tractive power to the rail, by reducing power as needed and at the levels needed to each individual axle to prevent slipping.

North American freight carrier BNSF has acquired a bunch of locomotives in recent years that have three axle trucks/bogies where the center axle is unpowered in an 'A-1-A' arrangement. On those locomotives, when there is a demand for more tractive power, they will /reduce the weight/ on the unpowered center axles to put more weight on the powered outer axles to improve traction.

Mike


----------



## M-NL

mgk920 said:


> Modern locomotives have traction control systems that are able to maintain power at the edge of losing traction, the most efficient level of transferring tractive power to the rail, by reducing power as needed and at the levels needed to each individual axle to prevent slipping.


Actually, you have the most traction when the wheel is slipping a little. This produces a high pitch sound, so you usually want to avoid this. But you can use it to your advantage, because it cleans the rail surface and also gives you a little extra time to react before you completely lose traction. In German this is called Superschlupf and is for instance used on the German class 101. 
In the end you have to realise that you can't beat physics. The coefficient of friction between a steel wheel and a rail can rise up to 0.7, but also drop to as low as 0.05. If that last one happens to you, your loco will only be able to deliver 98kN out of the 900kN it could, before the wheels start slipping. Is that enough to even get or to keep your train moving? In Europe the nearest facility that can provide extra traction if needed is often nearby, in the USA it almost never is. I've seen plenty of clips of North Americans freight trains not being able to get up a slope. In Europe that rarely happens.


mgk920 said:


> North American freight carrier BNSF has acquired a bunch of locomotives in recent years that have three axle trucks/bogies where the center axle is unpowered in an 'A-1-A' arrangement. On those locomotives, when there is a demand for more tractive power, they will /reduce the weight/ on the unpowered center axles to put more weight on the powered outer axles to improve traction.


These A1A-A1A are a good testament to modern technology as they have the same tractive effort as the older Co-Co locos with DC motors they're meant to replace. But I always wondered about that. Are these locos ballasted to the same weight as regular Co-Co's or lighter? Do they exceed the regular max axle load when used or just load up to the max axle load?


----------



## TER200

M-NL said:


> Do they exceed the regular max axle load when used or just load up to the max axle load?


Maybe the maximum axle load is different according to the line ?
I know the old french series A1A-A1A could change the axle load of the trailing axle in order to always maximize the load on the powered axles (between about 20 ant 23 T).


----------



## Paolo1979

Hi everyone! I'm used to celebrate the thousands of messages with a photo.
Here is my *5000th







*


----------



## Lw25

I wonder, regarding old Acelas, that will be retired in 2022. Amtrak in past was converting old rolling stock for different use (Budd cab cars, F40 cabbages). Those cars are 20-30 years younger than Amfleet. Old LRC cars, which are of similiar design (but those have different couplers) are still in use in Canada without their power cars. Maybe they could convert those to regional use on high platforms, by limiting speed to 125 mph, disabling tilting, preserving maybe one power car as a cab car on one end and adding new (Amtrak have an order for Siemens cars for use on state contracts) or refurbished car on other end (or both) with AAR coupler and Acela cars middle couplers that would allow coupling to locomotives. Scrapping of 20 years old cars while nearly 50 years old stock is still in use would be a waste. Amtrak is creative and I think they would find a nice way of doing that.


----------



## M-NL

Repurpose, and if necessary rearrange, them for Keystone Expresses?


----------



## Lw25

M-NL said:


> Repurpose, and if necessary rearrange, them for Keystone Expresses?


For example.


----------



## Barciur

No, they will not be, as mentioned earlier. They are very expensive to maintain and they are in worse shape than the 45 year olf Amfleets - which are also in the process of being replaced, by the way. So Amtrak will be getting a lot of new rolling stock. But old Acelas will not be renovated because the cost to do so and ongoing maintenance far outweighs the cost of getting new coaches, which Amtrak is pursuing.

Also, as far as I know, most of them are not owned by Amtrak/USDOT but are leased, so they will just be returned. Which makes it even cheaper to dispose of rather than try to do something with them.


----------



## Lw25

Thanks for explanation.


----------



## M-NL

You actually see this very often in countries where labour is expensive. What you also see is that once the decision to replace is made, maintenance is reduced even more, causing even more break downs, which are then used as a confirmation that replacement was a good decision.
They might as well scrap them. They are built so specific for the NEC, making them pretty much unusable anywhere else. Where else could they be used?


----------



## Barciur

They could only be used on the Keystone corridor and nowhere else. But that is a 100% state-supported route, and no way would Pennsylvania pay extra for those consists. And even then, not everywwhere on the Keystone line are there high level platforms, so that limits the stops. So it would not be ideal.


----------



## Lw25

I was reading this thread for a long time but probably missed it. I know Amtrak is going to replace Amfleet but what they are looking for then? Siemens cars? Or maybe something like intercity version of commuter bilevels, which are lower than Silverliners and use tunels in NEC already.


----------



## Barciur

It is most likely going to be Siemens, since that is what has been running on Brightline in Florida and on state-supported routes (California) as well with locos: ACS-64 here in the east and Siemens Chargers for diesel. As far as I know, nothing is totally set in stone yet, at this point Amtrak released a Request for Proposal in 2019, so at this point it is speculation whether it will be Siemens or not. We'll be sure to post something if we get more news. I'm sure COVID stalled a lot of this, but it will happen.


----------



## Tower Dude

At the last Next Generation Equipment Committee meeting in February, George Hull an Amtrak VP indicated that the Amfleet Replacement order may be mixed between unpowered train sets, EMUs, DMUs, or Dual mode with either (both?) pantograph or third rail. So there is a great lack of clarity as to what Amtrak intends to do.


----------



## Barciur

Amtrak Announces Siemens as Preferred Bidder for New Equipment - Amtrak Media


After a competitive procurement launched in January of 2019, Amtrak has identified California-based Siemens Mobility Inc. (Siemens) as the preferred bidder to manufacture a new fleet of 83 Intercity Trainsets (ICTs), which will provide dual power in many instances and modern rail amenities to...




media.amtrak.com







> WASHINGTON – After a competitive procurement launched in January of 2019, Amtrak has identified California-based Siemens Mobility Inc. (Siemens) as the preferred bidder to manufacture a new fleet of 83 Intercity Trainsets (ICTs), which will provide dual power in many instances and modern rail amenities to better serve all Amtrak customers. The ICTs will operate on the Northeast Corridor, _Palmetto_ and various state-supported routes and will replace the current Amfleet I, Metroliner cab and _Cascades_ service fleets. Accompanying the contract to manufacture the trainsets will be a long-term service agreement for technical support, spares and material supply.
> 
> 
> “This new state-of-the-art equipment will not only provide Amtrak customers with an enjoyable and efficient travel experience, it will also enable us to improve safety, increase passenger capacity and reduce carbon emissions,” said Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn.
> 
> 
> Amtrak has targeted summer 2021 for contract execution and notice to proceed and will spend the time between now and then continuing negotiations with Siemens for this generational procurement.


----------



## TER200

Dual power ? So Siemens will build it's first dual-power trains ? Or it means trains with either an ACS-64 or a Charger ?


----------



## Tower Dude

TER200 said:


> Dual power ? So Siemens will build it's first dual-power trains ? Or it means trains with either an ACS-64 or a Charger ?


That's a question I have been asking as well because Siemens could, in theory, build every type of locomotive or powertrain in question and Amtrak is, as usual, vague as hell.


----------



## M-NL

In a modern diesel electric locomotive the only parts missing to make it an electric are the transformer, the pantograph(s) and some switchgear. All the rest is already there. The Vectron family in Europe already has a dual model version with 2,4 MW electric and 2 MW diesel power rating, packed in a 90t locomotive. I have no doubt they could produce a 4400hp version of that.

And it is not even a novel concept in the USA and Canada, the similar spec Bombardier ALP-45DP has been in service since 2011. And they seem to be a succes, because they're currently building 25 more of them.


----------



## mgk920

M-NL said:


> In a modern diesel electric locomotive the only parts missing to make it an electric are the transformer, the pantograph(s) and some switchgear. All the rest is already there. The Vectron family in Europe already has a dual model version with 2,4 MW electric and 2 MW diesel power rating, packed in a 90t locomotive. I have no doubt they could produce a 4400hp version of that.
> 
> And it is not even a novel concept in the USA and Canada, the similar spec Bombardier ALP-45DP has been in service since 2011. And they seem to be a succes, because they're currently building 25 more of them.


There were dual powered diesel and third rail electric locomotives used on passenger routes in the northeastern USA from the 1940s into at least the late 1960s, particularly on the New Haven ('New York, New Haven and Hartford'), too.

Since they used the much lower voltage DC power that the traction motors already used straight from the third rails, they didn't need power transformers and were thus very simple.

Mike


----------



## M-NL

Read up on that and it seems there still are two models using 750VDC, the GE P32AC-DM and the EMD DM30AC. Especially the EMD is a real heavyweight a 136t. And the power to weight ratio is exactly the main challenge for a dual mode locomotive. The new rolling stock order didn't make it clear where they were intending to use the dual power feature, so I just assumed overhead lines.


----------



## [email protected]




----------



## OakRidge




----------



## hkskyline

*America's Amtrak moment could finally be here *
CNN _Excerpt_ 
May 1, 2021

Created in 1971 from the creaking remains of the classic US railroads that helped build modern America, Amtrak has often lived a precarious existence.

Subject to the whims of politicians in Washington D.C. and constantly under pressure from the well-funded and hugely influential oil, automotive and airline industry lobbies, the national passenger rail operator has been threatened with oblivion on several occasions.

But as it celebrates a 50th anniversary that few would have been brave enough to predict, there are signs that Amtrak's moment may finally have arrived.

The United States remains firmly wedded to the automobile and the sheer size of the nation means that air travel is often the only option for long-distance journeys.

Yet dotted across the country are numerous routes where population density and distances make rail a viable option -- and a social necessity.

More : America's Amtrak moment could finally be here


----------



## hkskyline

* Amtrak restores service on routes following COVID cutbacks *
May 25, 2021
_Excerpt_ 

SEATTLE (AP) — In another hopeful sign that the travel industry is bouncing back in Washington state after pandemic-induced lows last year, Amtrak says it will restore daily service on 12 long distance routes across the country, including two that run through Seattle.

Starting Monday, both the Empire Builder — Chicago to Seattle/Portland — and Coast Starlight — Seattle to Los Angeles — routes will resume daily service, giving passengers on the West Coast more travel options, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported.

The routes had previously only been operating three times a week due to low ridership during the pandemic.

More : Amtrak restores service on routes following COVID cutbacks


----------



## hkskyline

* NYC Rail Tunnel Takes Key Step Toward U.S. Cash After Trump Snub *
May 27, 2021
Bloomberg _Excerpt_ 

Amtrak’s proposed $11.6 billion passenger-rail tunnel between New York and New Jersey has received long-delayed environmental clearance from U.S. officials, according to people familiar with the action. The decision -- the project’s biggest step forward in years -- is crucial to start the next phase of work and secure billions of federal dollars for what’s considered one of the most vital U.S. infrastructure needs.

The Federal Railroad and Federal Transit administrations plan to release a final environmental impact statement on Friday, the people said. Gateway Program Development Corp., which is overseeing the project, then can acquire real estate and start advanced design and pre-construction work.

Progress on those tasks will increase Gateway’s chances of securing half the total cost from President Joe Biden’s administration, which is pledging hundreds of billions of dollars to major infrastructure nationwide after former President Donald Trump opposed Gateway. New York and New Jersey officials have called the new tunnel crucial for the U.S. economy because the existing one cannot handle growing capacity and needs to be shut for major repairs. That tunnel is key to the Northeast Corridor, the nation’s busiest passenger-rail route, servicing a region from Boston to Washington that contributes 20% of U.S. gross domestic product.

More : NYC Rail Tunnel Takes Key Step Toward U.S. Cash After Trump Snub


----------



## JohnDee

Needs hsr on the NEC. If anywhere in America needs real hsr, it’s there. No question, it’s the densest area of the continent and a hsr will never fail to be used, no fear of underutilization, that’s for sure. Have you seen how busy the slow ass Acela? Can you even begin to imagine how used a real hsr line would be? I can. Forget Texas, Florida, etc. all those places are low density and plane states. The NEC is the only place that is similar to a euro corridor.


----------



## Woonsocket54

A tunnel is being built in Middlebury, Vermont for the extension of Amtrak "Ethan Allen Express" service from Rutland to Burlington, expected to go into service some time next year.


















Middlebury bridge and rail project nears the finish line


Construction on the Middlebury Bridge and Rail Project is nearly done, with a projected completion date of Aug. 17. Grading and landscaping for new parks is still ahead.



vtdigger.org


----------



## WillBuild

That might make for a nice escape from New York City.

For the very patient, of course. It currently takes five and a half hour to Rutland. Does anyone know how long it will take to Burlington?

(This is coming from someone who took the 11 hour train to Montreal, and much longer train trips. So not being sarcastic. At all.)


----------



## Woonsocket54

My guess would be about 1.5 hours from Rutland to Burlington, so maybe seven hours overall from NYC.


----------



## davide84

Which service is planned? I understand that now there is one single northbound train and a southbound one... sounds a bit strange to me for an extension project.


----------



## Woonsocket54

That one round-trip train will be extended to Burlington. There will be no additional daily trains. Thus, it will be one daily train from NYC to downtown Burlington and one daily train from downtown Burlington to NYC. 

Note that there is also the Vermonter train, which goes from Saint Albans, Vermont (not far from the Canadian border) to Washington, DC via NYC. That train, however, does not serve downtown Burlington, instead calling at Essex Junction in the eastern suburbs of Burlington. That train takes almost nine hours to get from Essex Junction to NYC. Thus, the extension of the "Ethan Allen Express" to Burlington could save folks about two hours in travel time.

By the way, passenger trains have not operated in Vermont since 2020.03.26 due to the pandemic. They will resume 2021.07.19.


----------



## davide84

I am positively surprised. In Europe lines with fewer than 4-5 round trips would likely operate on a loss and end up being replaced with buses, surely not extended...


----------



## Woonsocket54

The railway station in Sanderson, Texas (one of the least-used passenger stations in the country) reopened following a nearly 3 million USD upgrade on 2021.05.27.












Ribbon-cutting Held for New Amtrak Facility in Sanderson, Texas – Great American Stations


----------



## davide84

3 million USD for a shelter used three times a week, and Americans complain about CAHSR.

I'm surprised again 🙂


----------



## robbo2k

Sanderson 2011 a very nice train station in Europe would be rebuilt. I do not know what cost USD 3 million for a piece of platform there


----------



## Woonsocket54

Americans love love love being fleeced!

It's the official national fetish.


----------



## GojiMet86

Amtrak to Transform Rail Travel with $7.3 Billion Investment in State-of-the-Art Equipment - Amtrak Media


WASHINGTON – Amtrak is contracting with California-based Siemens Mobility Inc. to manufacture a new fleet of up to 83 multi-powered modern trains that will be leveraged for state and northeast services, with further options for up to 130 additional trains to support Amtrak growth plans. The new...




media.amtrak.com








*AMTRAK TO TRANSFORM RAIL TRAVEL WITH $7.3 BILLION INVESTMENT IN STATE-OF-THE-ART EQUIPMENT*

Railroad to contract with Siemens Mobility as new equipment vendor










WASHINGTON – Amtrak is contracting with California-based Siemens Mobility Inc.to manufacture a new fleet of up to 83 multi-powered modern trains that will be leveraged for state and northeast services, with further options for up to 130 additional trains to support Amtrak growth plans. The new fleet will offer modern rail amenities that better serve Amtrak customers.

“These new trains will reshape the future of rail travel by replacing our aging 40-to-50-year old fleet with state-of-the-art, American-made equipment,” said Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn. “This investment is essential to preserving and growing our Northeast Regional and state-supported services and will allow our customers to travel comfortably and safely, while deeply reducing criteria pollutants.”

The new equipment will operate on the Northeast Corridor, long distance Palmetto and various state-supported routes that will replace Amtrak-owned Amfleet, Metroliner, and state-owned equipment on certain routes throughout the country. In addition to the Northeast Regional, other routes will include the Adirondack, Carolinian, Cascades, Downeaster, Empire Service, Ethan Allen Express, Keystone Service, Maple Leaf, New Haven/Springfield Service (Amtrak Hartford Line and Valley Flyer), Pennsylvanian, Vermonter and Virginia Services.

“Amtrak’s procurement of new rolling stock is historic. These state-of-the-art trainsets will allow Amtrak to operate and provide services more safely, efficiently, and reliably,” said FRA Deputy Administrator Amit Bose. “More importantly, doing so will give riders the modern passenger rail accommodations, amenities and comforts they want and deserve.”.........


----------



## Lw25

Wow, that is very, very nice deal. Can't wait to see them. But on the other hand... what about all ACS-64 Amtrak own?


----------



## WillBuild

According to the Washington Post, these are Siemens Venture. The same train cars that are already in use by Brightline and have been ordered by CalTrans, four Midwestern states and Canada's VIA.

Part of me will miss sinking into those deep old seats on the Northeast Regional. But they are admittedly due for an upgrade. These do look fine.


----------



## Lw25

WillBuild said:


> According to the Washington Post, these are Siemens Venture. The same train cars that are already in use by Brightline and have been ordered by CalTrans, four Midwestern states and Canada's VIA.
> 
> Part of me will miss sinking into those deep old seats on the Northeast Regional. But they are admittedly due for an upgrade. These do look fine.


Amtrak own note sounds like they are ordering DEMUs, so... not really?


----------



## BoulderGrad

Lw25 said:


> Amtrak own note sounds like they are ordering DEMUs, so... not really?


This order is replacing the oldest cars/locomotives in the fleet and represents 40% of their current rolling stock. There will still be plenty for the ACS-64's to pull.


----------



## zaphod

I think it will be really interesting to see what "dual mode" and "hybrid" means for the Amtrak order

Like are we getting combined charger and venture trainsets where the locomotive has a pantograph? Or are these going to be dual mode like those Genesis diesel-third rail combination locomotives they have around NYC?


----------



## Stuu

It sounds as if they will be push pull trainsets with a locomotive at one end. Siemens sell locos in Europe with electric and diesel power, so I would imagine that is what they will be providing here


----------



## Lw25

zaphod said:


> I think it will be really interesting to see what "dual mode" and "hybrid" means for the Amtrak order
> 
> Like are we getting combined charger and venture trainsets where the locomotive has a pantograph? Or are these going to be dual mode like those Genesis diesel-third rail combination locomotives they have around NYC?


My guess would be dual mode for most units (both diesel and electric) with some units for Empire Connection being also AC/DC. I wonder if they would buy one kind of hybrid (multi-system) or multi-system for East Coast and 25kV AC only for West. I wonder if they are going to do like in some unpowered sets already in Amtrak service, with only one cab and open gangway on the other. That would be resonable and convinient. In normal operation sets could be coupled by gangway end and in some trains they could couple Viewliners and other stock in the middle.


Stuu said:


> It sounds as if they will be push pull trainsets with a locomotive at one end. Siemens sell locos in Europe with electric and diesel power, so I would imagine that is what they will be providing here


Siemens do sell both diesel and electric locomotives in USA. Amtrak uses both of them. US rolling stock is much heavier than european one with ACS-64 being 10-12t heavier than Vectron (85t MS AC, 87 MS with AC and DC). I don't think you could fit diesel engine in there and last mile APU is not enough for long diesel routes of USA. With MU it is very simple however, because you have a lot more space undercarriage for basically everything and could have more than 4 powered axles.


----------



## Stuu

I meant they already sell a Vectron with dual power, the loading guage and axle weight in the US make it easier to fit an even more powerful diesel engine, if needed.


----------



## M-NL

You could also go the Renfe S-730 route and use separate power cars (in this case an SC-44/ALC42 derivative with a separate transformer/pantograph car could also work).
But there a several bi-mode trains in Europe that could be used as inspiration, such as the British class 800/801, the French Coradia Régiolis bi-mode or a FLIRT bi-mode. But EMUs are maybe a bit to high tech for the USA.


----------



## hkskyline

*Touting new trains, Amtrak CEO foresees riders heading back *
July 13, 2021
_Excerpt_

DETROIT (AP) — Amtrak is betting big on a return of ridership.

The nation’s passenger railroad wants to replace its nearly half-century-old fleet with state-of-the-art trains that can operate on electricity or diesel fuel. It plans to spend $7.3 billion to buy 83 trains made by Siemens, with options to buy more if ridership increases. Funding must still be approved by Congress, but William Flynn, Amtrak’s CEO, says he’s confident it will happen.

If it doesn’t, then Amtrak will finance the trains and repay its debt with money from state train services and passenger fares.

More : Touting new trains, Amtrak CEO foresees riders heading back


----------



## boss-ton

zaphod said:


> I think it will be really interesting to see what "dual mode" and "hybrid" means for the Amtrak order
> 
> Like are we getting combined charger and venture trainsets where the locomotive has a pantograph? Or are these going to be dual mode like those Genesis diesel-third rail combination locomotives they have around NYC?


Theyre going to be 3rd rail, heres the documentation:
http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Docum...ilroad Siemens NGEC 2021 - Final.pdf


----------



## StreetWarrior

Hi. I randomly looked travel routes via train from Miami to Western United States and something does not make any sense.

Why there are no direct link from Miami to Los Angeles and why rometorio.com shows only way is through Chicago?


----------



## robbo2k

Railroad Jacksonville -New Orleans never rebuilding after Cathrina.


Amtrak page find "FAST" Train From Miami to Los Angeles only 95h50m... via Two Transfer in New York and Chicago.  Good railway


----------



## Dale

Noticed the infrastructure bill contains $66 Billion for passenger rail. Would all of that go to Amtrak ?


----------



## M-NL

StreetWarrior said:


> Hi. I randomly looked travel routes via train from Miami to Western United States and something does not make any sense.
> 
> Why there are no direct link from Miami to Los Angeles and why rometorio.com shows only way is through Chicago?
> View attachment 1852843


Apart from the missing stretch of track, a travel planner also considers travel time. Many routes are only served a few times a week and thus probably don't connect well.


----------



## rakcancer

History of Penn Station in NYC:


----------



## hkskyline

* Renovations Of Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station Expected To Begin Next Year * 
Sep 15, 2021

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — A deal has been finalized on the renovation of Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station. Amtrak has reached a lease and development agreement with Plenary Infrastructure Philadelphia.

They will refurbish and improve the building, finance the improvements and maintain the station.

Amtrak says the project will improve the customer experience while balancing the station’s historic character.

Work on the renovations will start next year and is expected to be complete by 2025.

More : Renovations Of Philadelphia's 30th Street Station Expected To Begin Next Year


----------



## cuartango

^^ Really nice station. I would improve the pedestrian access from near streets, which seems not good.


----------



## zaphod

Don't know if this was posted, but last year the White Pass & Yukon Route, which operates tourist passenger service on the historic 3' gauge line between Skagway, Alaska and Carcross, Yukon(Canada), picked up 6 new NRE E-3000E3B locomotives. Apparently some of them were intended for Australia at one point. These would be the first new narrow gauge locomotives in North America I think since the early 1980s when the US Gypsum mine railroad in Plaster City, California modernized its equipment.


----------



## geogregor




----------



## zaphod

The Senate refusing to do anything for s going to hold up a lot of things. It’s incredibly disappointing.


----------



## Fan Railer

The worlds largest operating steam locomotive, Union Pacific Big Boy #4014, on tour this past summer:


----------



## cuartango

^^ A real beauty


----------



## Fan Railer

Pacing the 4014 back to Cheyenne from Denver.


----------



## CornelM

Amtrak Trains on Northeast Corridor


----------



## 437.001

One of the USA's biggest railway problems.

The tunnel under the river Hudson between New York Penn Station, and Secaucus (New Jersey).
It is over 100 years old, and it is starting to crumble.
The problem is that precisely that tunnel is the biggest railway bottleneck in the USA. 😶
And fixing that is not going to be cheap at all.


----------



## Shenkey

It will cost more than Gotthard Base Tunnel, ridiculous. If NY wants to build anything in the future it has to get costs under control.


----------



## GojiMet86

Amtrak is looking to bring back some of their Bombardier-Alstom HHP-8 into service, but not in the way you may think.

They will act as non-functional control units (similar to cab cars) for the diesel Ethan Allen Express, which is being extended to Burlington, Vermont.

Some of them are in Washington DC already for testing, but with their pantographs removed.

Not my photo:


----------



## glksc

*North Florida officials push for research into $2 billion rail restoration*










> The project would involve repairing Amtrack’s New Orleans-to-Orlando Gulf Coast Rail.
> 
> Board members of the Capital Region Transportation Planning Agency passed a motion Tuesday asking North Florida’s four regional planning councils to research a potential $2 billion rail restoration project.
> 
> The project would involve repairing Amtrack’s New Orleans-to-Orlando Gulf Coast Rail for passenger and cargo use.
> The line has been inactive since 2005 after it was damaged in Hurricane Katrina, according to the Florida Department of Transportation.
> 
> The CRTPA oversees transportation planning within Florida’s Capital Region. The board consists of 11 elected officials from the city of Tallahassee, as well as Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon and Wakulla counties.
> 
> The planning councils are being asked to produce cost and other economic studies to build support for the project, said Leon County Commissioner and *new board chair Kristin Dozier*, who made the motion. She added that asking for those studies would help inform other municipalities about the line, as government officials from cities and counties not on the CRTPA are on those regional planning councils.


----------



## M-NL

GojiMet86 said:


> Amtrak is looking to bring back some of their Bombardier-Alstom HHP-8 into service, but not in the way you may think.
> 
> They will act as non-functional control units (similar to cab cars) for the diesel Ethan Allen Express, which is being extended to Burlington, Vermont.
> 
> Some of them are in Washington DC already for testing, but with their pantographs removed.


How about the engine room and the motors? Are they (partially?) stripped as well?
Is the multiple operation control cable to the rest of the train the same for diesel and electric? In Europe they often differ, sometimes even per train type.


----------



## prageethSL

*Plans for high-speed rail between Dallas and Fort Worth, with a stop in Arlington, move forward*

Transportation planners have studied more than 40 possible routes and numerous technologies to bring high-speed transportation to the region, said Dan Lamers, the agency’s senior program manager.

*They have narrowed the list of technologies to two possibilities: traditional high-speed rail and hyperloop. Traditional high-speed trains, already used in Europe and Asia, travel roughly 200 mph.*

Hyperloop, an emerging technology popularized by Elon Musk, sends a pod hurtling through a low-friction tube at speeds up to 600 mph.
“Our plan allows us to carry forward one tried-and-true technology and one emerging technology,” Lamers said. “We want to keep both options on the table.”

Planners determined the most direct, least disruptive route for connecting Dallas and Fort Worth would be along Interstate 30, with a stop in Arlington.
Eventually, the Dallas-to-Fort Worth route would seek to connect to both local transportation and statewide systems, such as the Dallas-to-Houston high-speed rail being developed by Texas Central, and DFW International Airport.


----------



## GojiMet86

M-NL said:


> How about the engine room and the motors? Are they (partially?) stripped as well?
> Is the multiple operation control cable to the rest of the train the same for diesel and electric? In Europe they often differ, sometimes even per train type.


No clue, I haven't read any details yet.


Amtrak has also wrapped 662 with an advertisement for Train Sim World 2 (photo by Andre Barry):


----------



## BoulderGrad

*MDOT wants to transform Detroit's 'cramped' Amtrak station into $57M hub with retail, more*










MDOT wants to transform Detroit's 'cramped' Amtrak station into $57M hub with retail, more


Detroit's almost 30-year-old Amtrak station was never meant to be permanent, but it might finally get the upgrade that advocates say is needed.



www.freep.com


----------



## wgerman

https://news.yahoo.com/amtrak-names-longtime-executive-ceo-203653280.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall



Amtrak gets a new CEO...........On the railroad forums not many like him since he apparently wants to do away with Long Distance trains and apparently used to work in Congress as aide. Yeah.


----------



## glksc

*Amtrak Plan to Replace Dozens of Aging Trains: Cost $7.3B*








> DETROIT (AP) — Amtrak plans to spend $7.3 billion to replace 83 passenger trains, some nearly a half-century old, though much of the funding must still be approved by Congress.
> 
> Amtrak said Wednesday that under the contract with German manufacturer Siemens AG, some of the trains will be hybrids, able to operate on diesel fuel and electricity where wires are available. The new trains will replace Amfleet, Metroliner and state-owned equipment starting in 2024.
> 
> The trains will be built at a U.S. factory in Sacramento, California.
> The new trains will have more comfortable seating, better ventilation systems, individual power outlets and USB ports, onboard WiFi, and panoramic windows. Amtrak CEO William Flynn says they'll pollute far less than the older trains when operating in diesel mode.
> 
> The trains will go to lines in New York, New England, California, the Northwest, Virginia and elsewhere. The railroad has an option to buy 130 additional trains from Siemens.
> Siemens says the first delivery will be in 2024 to the Cascades line in the northwest, with the rest continuing through 2030. Manufacturing will start in 2023.
> The contract will include equipment and a long-term parts supply and service agreement, the statement says.
> 
> In an interview, Flynn said the trains will be capable of traveling up to 125 mph (201 kilometers per hour), and they will be able to shift from electric mode to diesel without current delays due to switching engines. Trains often are limited to 90 mph (145 kilometers per hour) by track conditions, he said.
> 
> Amtrak says money will come from about $200 million already approved by Congress, as well as future funding that has to be approved. “We expect that we will have annual funding for our portion of the train sets," he said. "If there should be a moment in time when that money isn’t specifically available, we have the ability to finance the units as well,” Flynn said. That money would be repaid by states with trains, and passenger fares, he said.


----------



## Nacre

wgerman said:


> http://"] https://news.yahoo.com/am...ecutive-ceo-203653280.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
> Amtrak gets a new CEO...........On the railroad forums not many like him since he apparently wants to do away with Long Distance trains and apparently used to work in Congress as aide. Yeah.


The irony here is that those portions of the country that most need Amtrak (places without a major metro area) are the places that need more public subsidy, yet are also vehemently opposed to government subsidies for any transit mode other than aircraft and cars.

Right now Amtrak's high recovery rate routes in the Mid Atlantic, California, and the Pacific Northwest have to bail out the long distance routes through states like Alabama, Tennessee, Iowa and North Dakota. Cutting the long distance services would benefit the "coastal elites" and screw over people living in the heartland. Eliminating a long distance route with low farebox recovery ratio is not merely the loss of a cross-continental vacation opportunity for rail fans. It is much more importantly an economic loss for small American towns like Wisconsin Dells.


----------



## brewerfan386

Nacre said:


> The irony here is that those portions of the country that most need Amtrak (places without a major metro area) are the places that need more public subsidy, yet are also vehemently opposed to government subsidies for any transit mode other than aircraft and cars.
> 
> Right now Amtrak's high recovery rate routes in the Mid Atlantic, California, and the Pacific Northwest have to bail out the long distance routes through states like Alabama, Tennessee, Iowa and North Dakota. Cutting the long distance services would benefit the "coastal elites" and screw over people living in the heartland. Eliminating a long distance route with low farebox recovery ratio is not merely the loss of a cross-continental vacation opportunity for rail fans. It is much more importantly an economic loss for small American towns like* Wisconsin Dells*.


Nitpick: The Wis Dells would most likely be of the least impacted small towns if service was discontinued, given its status as a popular tourist destination. Plus, Amtrak is actually adding frequency on the route between CHI-MKE-MSP...


----------



## Nacre

brewerfan386 said:


> Nitpick: The Wis Dells would most likely be of the least impacted small towns if service was discontinued, given its status as a popular tourist destination. Plus, Amtrak is actually adding frequency on the route between CHI-MKE-MSP...


My point was that Wisconsin Dells is a small town tourist destination with at least some of their guests from those three big cities visiting by train. I didn't realize that they would get increased service with the changes, though. Well, you can substitute other cities served by the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, et al.


----------



## SiMclaren

Nacre said:


> The irony here is that those portions of the country that most need Amtrak (places without a major metro area) are the places that need more public subsidy, yet are also vehemently opposed to government subsidies for any transit mode other than aircraft and cars.
> 
> Right now Amtrak's high recovery rate routes in the Mid Atlantic, California, and the Pacific Northwest have to bail out the long distance routes through states like Alabama, Tennessee, Iowa and North Dakota. Cutting the long distance services would benefit the "coastal elites" and screw over people living in the heartland. Eliminating a long distance route with low farebox recovery ratio is not merely the loss of a cross-continental vacation opportunity for rail fans. It is much more importantly an economic loss for small American towns like Wisconsin Dells.


Regional rail and long distance rail are completely different universes. The type of trains, frequency, operation, routes, network design, etc, they don't match. One of the many reasons why some countries invest so much in high speed lines, is to remove the long distance trains of the regional lines.
For example, in the European thread there was this argument on where the Milan-Barcelona service could go:



K_ said:


> They were able to run Milan - Marseilles in the past. The sane way to do this is of course just let the international train take over the path of a domestic service, and allow domestic passengers. The way everyone but France and Spain does this...





TER200 said:


> Through Nice and Marseille ? This is panfully slow and almost a guarantee to get a huge delay. Two things you don't want on a "high speed" long distance train.
> *If it is integrated in the regional Nice-Marseille train offer, you'd likely have an overcrowded train on this part of the line, or need to add unnecessary the capacity on the whole route.*


The Nice-Marseille region just made a new contract for operating their local trains, independent from the long distance service offerings, which is operated on the remaining paths.

Now, in Europe and Japan where trains are popular and average more than 150 mph, they consider completely nonviable the operation of routes with more than 5-6-7 hours. Why Amtrak, which hasn't even captured smaller markets, should have longer journeys than Europe/Asia?

One could argue in favor of subsidies when something is useful to many people who can't afford it, but what is the point in subsidies to carry air?



wgerman said:


> Amtrak gets a new CEO...........On the railroad forums not many like him since he apparently wants to do away with Long Distance trains and apparently used to work in Congress as aide. Yeah.


In Japan, train enthusiasts criticize JR Central for being a "boring" company, prioritizing efficiency, reliability and capacity over fancy looking trains and special tourist services.

Enthusiasts are very often the largest adversaries when trying to improve things.


----------



## K_

SiMclaren said:


> Now, in Europe and Japan where trains are popular and average more than 150 mph, they consider completely nonviable the operation of routes with more than 5-6-7 hours.


Actually there are quite a few routes in Europe that have runs of much longer than 7 hours. There is a two hourly service on Zurich - Vienna ( about 8 hours) with one train extended to Budapest, and another to Bratislava. There are also several daily trains from Zurich to Berlin and Hamburg. Germany is full of long distance services that have run times of 10 hours or more even.

The point I have always made (and that I was making in the part you quoted) is that such services are viable if you do not make them solely about the endpoints. Hence integrating them in local and regional services. That is how Germany does it. 

In the US the NEC for example is not just about connecting Boston with New York and Philadelphia. It is also about all the places in between. If you only concentrate on the big cities you miss the point of railway.


----------



## Nacre

The problem is that the geography of North America is even less suitable for high speed rail. High speed rail works in Europe and East Asia because of high population densities that are centralized. The areas of North America we are talking about have very low population density and the major population centers are located far apart.

*Population Density*
Japan: 347/sq km
Germany: 237/sq km
USA: 41/sq km (excluding Alaska)

But it's even worse because the European population is centralized, while the populations of North America are located on the coasts of the continent (if the Great Lakes can be called a coast) and are far away.

Germany's high speed rail network connected with the French high speed rail network, which connects to the Spanish and Italian high speed rail networks (and London). Meanwhile the USA could build a high speed rail network for California and the Mid-Atlantic, but there would be no rail connection between them if we abolish all the long distance routes.

As we say in America, it is comparing apples to oranges. Rail in North America cannot work the same way it does in Europe because the geography is radically different.


----------



## Shenkey

That is no excuse to not make at least something work.

Russia has high speed rail and look at the density there.


----------



## Nacre

Russia does not have high speed rail all over the country. It has a single line between Moscow and St Petersburg. To serve the rest of the country and connect Moscow to Paris RZD operates long distance trains.

That is essentially what I want for the USA. 


High speed rail can work well in small corridors of high population density like Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington or Los Angeles-San Francisco.
Night trains are optimal for connecting separate corridors at medium distance like Chicago-New York or Seattle-San Francisco.
Long distance trains can connect corridors that are far apart like Los Angeles and Chicago. But these will not be commercially competitive as long as jet fuel in North America is as cheap as $1/liter.


----------



## K_

Nacre said:


> The problem is that the geography of North America is even less suitable for high speed rail. High speed rail works in Europe and East Asia because of high population densities that are centralized. The areas of North America we are talking about have very low population density and the major population centers are located far apart.
> 
> *Population Density*
> Japan: 347/sq km
> Germany: 237/sq km
> USA: 41/sq km (excluding Alaska)
> 
> But it's even worse because the European population is centralized, while the populations of North America are located on the coasts of the continent (if the Great Lakes can be called a coast) and are far away.


The European population is not centralised. We have different population clusters as well. Within those clusters you have good railway service. And the US could have good railway service in its population clusters as well, if they remembered how to run trains. 

New England has the population density to support a good railway network. But have someone competent run it.


----------



## Riley1066

Very nice presentation of Hudson Line improvement projects:








Empire State Passengers Association
Pairing these improvements with the two new Metro North stations at West 125th and West 62nd Street and the whole corridor becomes vastly more convenient.








Probably the last step of this would be double tracking the last section of the Empire Tunnel:


----------



## TER200

Does this sound like "let's remove more trains from the gigantic Grand Central and send them to the super-congested Penn Station" ?


----------



## Riley1066

TER200 said:


> Does this sound like "let's remove more trains from the gigantic Grand Central and send them to the super-congested Penn Station" ?


Well, some of the LIRR traffic will be relocating to East Side Access, theoretically freeing up some space at Penn for a few Metro North trains.


----------



## K_

Riley1066 said:


> Well, some of the LIRR traffic will be relocating to East Side Access, theoretically freeing up some space at Penn for a few Metro North trains.


I never understood why east side access didnt just run LIRR in to Grand Central. That station is vastly underused at the moment.


----------



## Riley1066

K_ said:


> I never understood why east side access didnt just run LIRR in to Grand Central. That station is vastly underused at the moment.


Part of it is that there was already a tunnel section under the East river that could be used for the project and also because it would be quite difficult to funnel LIRR trains to the Metro North feeder tracks in the Bronx and upper Manhattan.

Costs were probably a wash for either project.


----------



## GojiMet86

Amtrak is interested in providing service from Detroit to Toronto via the Detroit River Tunnel.









New train route proposed between Detroit and Toronto


Amtrak has announced support for the Canadian Pacific railway's combination with the Kansas City Southern railway, which adds a route from Detroit to Toronto.




www.wxyz.com





*Detroit to Toronto by train plan gets boost with Amtrak agreement*​Eric D. Lawrence​Detroit Free Press​​​A mega freight railroad merger appears to put a Detroit-to-Toronto passenger rail connection closer to reality.​​Amtrak, which provides much of the passenger rail service in the United States, said it has gotten a commitment of cooperation for its own expansion plans from Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, which has a $25 billion acquisition deal with Kansas City Southern.​​Amtrak said its plans include adding passenger rail service through the Detroit River Tunnel connecting Detroit and the cities of Windsor and Toronto in Ontario through VIA Rail Canada. Connecting Toronto via Detroit with Chicago and its many connections could go a long way toward improving service for U.S. rail passengers, who currently deal with a rail network that leaves many cities without direct connections.​​Amtrak was one of the beneficiaries of last year's big infrastructure package pushed by the Biden administration, which directed $66 billion toward passenger rail.​​It wasn't immediately clear how quickly a rail connection between Detroit and Toronto could be established. If it happens, it wouldn't be the only good news for rail passengers in Detroit being envisioned. The Michigan Department of Transportation is looking to build a new Amtrak and bus station in Detroit's New Center area, adding a $10 million federal grant to offset the estimated $57 million cost.​​The railroad tie-up, which still needs approval from the U.S. Surface Transportation Board, would create a rail network connecting the U.S, Canada and Mexico. The Wall Street Journal noted in March that "if approved by regulators, the deal would unite the two smallest of the seven major North American freight carriers, linking factories and ports in Mexico, farms and plants in the Midwestern U.S. and Canada’s ocean ports and energy resources."​​Amtrak has agreed to support the railroad merger before the Surface Transportation Board, calling Canadian Pacific an excellent host railroad for passenger rail service. Amtrak noted that Canadian Pacific "consistently" receives an "A" grade on Amtrak's annual host railroad report card, "recognizing its industry-leading on-time performance record." Passenger and freight rail often share the same tracks, and that is frequently blamed for many of the service delays experienced by Amtrak passengers.​​“We welcome CP’s commitment to our efforts with states and others to expand Amtrak service and are pleased to have reached an agreement formalizing CP’s support of Amtrak expansion in the Midwest and the South," Amtrak President Stephen Gardner said in a news release. “Given CP’s consistent record as an Amtrak host, we support CP’s proposal to expand its network. This is exactly what Congress and the Administration are seeking: Amtrak and the freight railroads working together to benefit freight customers, Amtrak passengers, our state/regional partners and the general public.”​​Amtrak's Midwest expansion plans, which Canadian Pacific will cooperate on, also include increased frequency between Chicago and Milwaukee and extending service from Milwaukee to St. Paul, Minnesota, "to create a second round-trip on the Twin Cities-Milwaukee-Chicago corridor."​​The agreement could also help Amtrak connect New Orleans to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and allow it to "study the potential for Amtrak service between Meridian, Mississippi, and Dallas."​​Keith Creel, Canadian Pacific president and CEO, said in the release that the deal with Kansas City Southern would have no adverse effect on intercity passenger rail service and that the railroad is "pleased to continue to support Amtrak and its infrastructure projects to provide capacity needed to accommodate additional service.”​


----------



## BoulderGrad

^^Put a new station at Michigan Central and complete the revitalization of a former architectural gem. It's right at the mouth of the tunnel.


----------



## Riley1066

BoulderGrad said:


> ^^Put a new station at Michigan Central and complete the revitalization of a former architectural gem. It's right at the mouth of the tunnel.
> 
> View attachment 2622996


Connecting this to the existing VIA station in Windsor would be a challenge and a half ... an interesting challenge and a half but still.


----------



## hkskyline

*Amtrak CEO Says $75 Billion Growth Plan Relies on State Support *
Bloomberg _Excerpt_
Jan 12, 2022 

Amtrak’s new expansion plan that requires a $75 billion federal government investment over fifteen years relies on state partnerships to add intercity service, minimizing the risk of taxpayers being on the hook for large additional subsidies, the railroad’s top official said.

The expansion plan was unveiled after Congress passed a $550 billion infrastructure bill that includes $66 billion for passenger rail improvements that be split between Amtrak and the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration. It calls for adding 39 new routes that Amtrak officials said would bring service to 160 new communities. 

More : Bloomberg - Are you a robot?


----------



## GojiMet86

For the last couple of years, there has been an interest in sending Amtrak from Penn Station to the Pittsfield station in Massachusetts to serve the Berkshires.

The proposed seasonal weekends-only Berkshire Flyer will run from NYC to Pittsfield. It is an extension on one weekend Empire Service from NYC that currently terminates in Albany.

Pittsfield is already served by trains running from Boston to Albany and points west, but not by trains directly from New York City.









UPDATE: CSX, Amtrak Close to Terms on Pan Am Deal


As part of the deal, CSX will permit the operation of a new train, the Berkshire Flyer, this summer.




railfan.com











​*UPDATE: CSX, Amtrak Close to Terms on Pan Am Deal*​Updated: January 13, 7 p.m. EST​​By Justin Franz​​WASHINGTON — CSX Transportation and Amtrak are close to an agreement about the freight railroad’s acquisition of New England’s Pan Am Railways. On Wednesday, the two railroads filed briefs with the U.S. Surface Transportation Board on what it would take for Amtrak to support the acquisition of the New England railroad.​​However, late in the day, Amtrak officials said it was still too early to say if they would support CSX’s plans and that there were still some sticking points.​​“We are pleased that CSX has agreed to accept six of the seven conditions Amtrak requested to ensure that performance and expansion of Amtrak service are not harmed if the Surface Transportation Board approves CSX’s proposed acquisition of Pan Am Railways,” Amtrak officials said late Thursday.​​Amtrak had previously opposed the CSX-Pan Am deal but now has gotten some concessions from the freight operators. Among them is a promise to prioritize Amtrak trains when dispatching; cooperate with potential service expansions on the former Boston & Albany between Worcester, Mass., and Albany, N.Y.; and upgrade the current Downeaster route in Maine with positive train control.​​But perhaps the most visible part of the agreement was that CSX will permit the operation of a new train, the Berkshire Flyer, this summer. The train will run from New York City to Pittsfield, Mass., on weekends. Before service can begin, however, a 1,000-foot siding will need to be constructed in Pittsfield. The Berkshire Flyer to Pittsfield has long been in the works but an agreement on running it between CSX and Amtrak remained elusive — until now.​​Amtrak officials said they were still reviewing the details of the Berkshire Flyer plan.​​Amtrak is not the only railroad to be warming to the idea of a CSX-Pan Am takeover. Last week, Vermont Rail System announced it supported the deal after getting a trackage rights agreement. The only major entities that have still not supported the deal are the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Canadian Pacific Railway.​​This article was posted on: January 13, 2022​


----------



## robbo2k

I Buy shares on polish auction site allegro.pl (polish equivalent of ebay)


The *Baltimore and Ohio Railroad* (reporting marks *B&O*, *BO*) was the first common carrier railroad and the oldest railroad in the United States, with its first section opening in 1830.

Mr. Edwin sold the company's shares a ONE WEEK before Black Thursday 1929. 










I wonder if Mr. Edwin Weisl, the holder of these shares, is the man with the president of the United States Lyndon B. Johnson (1966) 









The *Wall Street Crash of 1929*, also known as the *Great Crash*, was a major American stock market crash that occurred in the autumn of 1929. It started in September and ended late in October, when share prices on the New York Stock Exchange collapsed.

It was the most devastating stock market crash in the history of the United States, when taking into consideration the full extent and duration of its aftereffects.[1] The Great Crash is mostly associated with October 24, 1929, called _Black Thursday_, the day of the largest sell-off of shares in U.S. history,[2][3] and October 29, 1929, called _Black Tuesday_, when investors traded some 16 million shares on the New York Stock Exchange in a single day.[4] The crash, which followed the London Stock Exchange's crash of September, signaled the beginning of the Great Depression.


----------



## GojiMet86

The government of Nigeria has purchased two Talgo trainsets that were built, but never used for an Amtrak Wisconsin service. CBS58 of Milwaukee says they will be used on the Red Line.









Talgo’s Wisconsin Trains Find Home In… Nigeria


Intended for high-speed Midwest line, they'll be used on metro line in Lagos.




urbanmilwaukee.com





*Talgo’s Wisconsin Trains Find Home In… Nigeria*​Intended for high-speed Midwest line, they'll be used on metro line in Lagos.​By Jeramey Jannene - Jan 18th, 2022 07:01 am​​





​After more than a decade and a twisted legal saga, Talgo has found a buyer for its trainsets originally built for a high-speed rail line between Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison and the Twin Cities.​​The Spanish train manufacturer will sell the two Milwaukee-made trains to the Nigerian government.​​In 2010, Governor-elect Scott Walker refused a $823 million federal grant to build the high-speed Hiawatha extension, but the state was still on the hook to pay for the trainsets ordered by Governor Jim Doyle. Rather than invest in a maintenance facility to put them into use on the existing line, Walker and the Republican-controlled Wisconsin Legislature had the state default on the contract.​​Wisconsin ultimately settled with Talgo, a move that cost the state $59 million and allowed the manufacturer to maintain ownership of the equipment.​​Talgo’s USA CEO Antonio Perez told Urban Milwaukee in 2019 that he was seeking to sell the trainsets to Oregon and Washington or a coalition of Gulf Coast states. But those deals never came to fruition, nor did a rumored lease to a California agency or to Michigan. Amtrak, meanwhile, ordered new equipment that is expected to enter service in phases starting in 2024.​​But Talgo didn’t give up. In addition to its international business, it has landed two major rehabilitation contracts in the United States. It is restoring subway and commuter rail equipment from California at its Milwaukee plant in Century City.​​Now it’s selling the trainsets to a new Nigerian rail line serving the Lagos metro area. The 23-mile, 11-station line is the first in a city of 27 million.​​The Governor of Lagos State, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, will join Perez and Acting Mayor Cavalier Johnson in Milwaukee on Tuesday.​​According to a press release, the new line is expected to open in late 2022 with a capacity of 500,000 passengers per day. The Hiawatha Service between Milwaukee and Chicago, with seven daily roundtrips, has never served more than 883,000 passengers in an entire year.​​The two Series 8 trainsets Talgo will sell are 14-car trainsets with capacity for up to 420 seated passengers. It is unclear how the trainsets will be modified for use in Nigeria.​​Talgo made two additional Series 8 trainsets in Milwaukee for use on the Amtrak Cascades Service between Oregon, Washington and Vancouver, CA. Those trainsets remain in service.​


----------



## Clery

K_ said:


> The point I have always made (and that I was making in the part you quoted) is that such services are viable if you do not make them solely about the endpoints. Hence integrating them in local and regional services. That is how Germany does it.


This works in Germany because it is a densely populated country, yet as @Nacre answered:



Nacre said:


> The problem is that the geography of North America is even less suitable for high speed rail. High speed rail works in Europe and East Asia because of high population densities that are centralized. The areas of North America we are talking about have very low population density and the major population centers are located far apart.
> 
> *Population Density*
> Japan: 347/sq km
> Germany: 237/sq km
> USA: 41/sq km (excluding Alaska)


However, I disagree with the conclusion that it makes it unsuitable for high speed rail. It's only that Germany and Japan are the wrong models. As I've already told earlier in this thread, there's a population density similar as Spain in a triangle between Chicago, Boston and Miami, hence why HSR should rather be operated like in Spain. That means direct connections from a big metro area to another big metro area. That applies even more in the US considering how the population is concentrated in larger metro areas.

That is actually how Texas Central plans to do it from Dallas to Houston and I believe its business model is spot on.


----------



## robbo2k

A recipe for the success of high-speed rail. 
1) Find two cities 300-600km away with very heavy air traffic 
2) run high-speed rail between them.

SFO-LAX
DFW-IAH
Washington-Charlotte - Atlanta
New York/Washington - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Chicago/Detroit.


----------



## dyonisien

I would add one condition :
3) use stations well served by public transport (local rail, metro, bus) to optimize passenger diffusion.
Then, according to the average speed and to the city populations, distances up to 1000 km are perfectly at reach.


----------



## Coccodrillo

> Wisconsin ultimately settled with Talgo, a move that cost the state $59 million and allowed the manufacturer to maintain ownership of the equipment.


So Wisconsin paid 59 million, which reasonably is about the cost of these two sets alone (without maintenance), to close the affair without obtaining nothing in exchange? That seems just an excuse for local politicians to say they did something different from their political opponents. That reminds me some European wastes of money.

And the waste continues: whatever will pay for these sets and their transfer to Nigeria, I bet they will end up abandoned and vandalized in some yard. They are quite unconventional intercity trains, not suburban trains, and there will be only two of them in Nigeria. The fate of small series of costly and non-standard rolling stock is always the same: being abandoned somewhere after little or no use.


----------



## Clery

dyonisien said:


> I would add one condition :
> 3) use stations well served by public transport (local rail, metro, bus) to optimize passenger diffusion.
> Then, according to the average speed and to the city populations, distances up to 1000 km are perfectly at reach.


Either that or car rentals and taxis for heavily car-addict cities.


----------



## Nacre

The real solution is to tax fuel the cost to clean up the pollution it generates. That would instantly drive people away from anti-social transit options and towards pro-social transit modalities. Of course that would also mean the end of budget travel and cheap global trade, which people would hate and would lose politicians lots of votes. So it won't happen.

Other than that, there's no realistic way for trains to outcompete aircraft across North America. If aircraft are both cheaper and faster then only dedicated rail fans and environmentalists (like me) will choose to take the train.


----------



## JMBasquiat

*



Empire Builder Charges Out of Chicago

Click to expand...

*


> *The Empire Builder, Amtrak’s iconic long-distance train, traces its roots to the Great Northern Railway, which inaugurated service on June 10, 1929. The 21st century version of the train now operates with state-of-the-art diesel-electric power: Amtrak’s 4,200-hp ALC-42, built by Siemens Mobility in Sacramento and powered with a Cummins QSK95 Tier 4-compliant prime-mover built in in Seymour, Ind.
> 
> The ALC-42 entered revenue service on Feb. 8, hauling the Empire Builder westbound from Chicago to Seattle from Union Station with locomotives 301 and 302 on the point. These units, in attractive Amtrak heritage liveries, are among the first of 75 being delivered through 2024. *











Empire Builder Charges Out of Chicago - Railway Age


The Empire Builder, Amtrak’s iconic long-distance train, traces its roots to the Great Northern Railway, which inaugurated service on June 10, 1929. The 21st century version of the train now operates with state-of-the-art diesel-electric power:




www.railwayage.com


----------



## [email protected]




----------



## JMBasquiat




----------



## JMBasquiat

Siemens Venture coaches have entered service for Amtrak Midwest. The Amtrak _Lincoln Service _connecting Chicago and St. Louis is the first Amtrak service to use them. They're currently traveling at 90mph but this will increase to 110mph in 12-18 months.









First look: Siemens Venture coaches debut for Amtrak (updated) - Trains


CHICAGO — “Give yourself a big round of applause,” conductor Erik Newsom enthusiastically announced over the public address system of Amtrak train No. 303 as it left Chicago for St. Louis on Tuesday morning. “You’re the very first to ride Amtrak’s new Midwest cars!” Clapping followed, but that...




www.trains.com








































A video review: 






Sources: Amtrak launches new passenger cars in the Midwest - The Points Guy and Amtrak Midwest's Siemens Venture coaches enter service - Runway Girl


----------



## Riley1066

I like the Amfleet seats better I think.


----------



## JMBasquiat

> *Amtrak BRAND NEW Viewliner II Roomette from New York to Chicago!*


----------



## Riley1066

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524837583011860490


----------



## hkskyline

Chicago Departure by Dan Grudzielanek, on Flickr


----------



## Miguel UltraNB05

hkskyline said:


> Chicago Departure by Dan Grudzielanek, on Flickr


The new generation 🤩🤩🤩 What's locomotive name?

"The future is here"


----------



## TM_Germany

Miguel UltraNB05 said:


> The new generation 🤩🤩🤩 What's locomotive name?
> 
> "The future is here"


It's a Siemens Charger. It is bound to be the most common passenger locomotive in NA.


----------



## M-NL

Are there currently any other models for sale on the NA market? (and not paper launches, but models that have actually been built?) It seems that since Tier 4 became mandatory all the competition has stopped producing passenger locos.


----------



## spazzmonkey64

M-NL said:


> Are there currently any other models for sale on the NA market? (and not paper launches, but models that have actually been built?) It seems that since Tier 4 became mandatory all the competition has stopped producing passenger locos.


 Actually there is, its the EMD F125 currently mainly used by Metrolink in southern California. It came out a bit before the siemens charger came out.


----------



## Miguel UltraNB05

TM_Germany said:


> It's a Siemens Charger. It is bound to be the most common passenger locomotive in NA.


Thanks


spazzmonkey64 said:


> Actually there is, its the EMD F125 currently mainly used by Metrolink in southern California. It came out a bit before the siemens charger came out.
> View attachment 3269848


Wow


----------



## Miguel UltraNB05




----------



## MK Tom

spazzmonkey64 said:


> Actually there is, its the EMD F125 currently mainly used by Metrolink in southern California. It came out a bit before the siemens charger came out.
> View attachment 3269848


OK I like that. Probably my second favorite recent US loco design, behind the MPI MPXpress.


----------



## M-NL

spazzmonkey64 said:


> Actually there is, its the EMD F125 currently mainly used by Metrolink in southern California. It came out a bit before the siemens charger came out.


Turns out there are three tier 4 compliant models available in total:
EMD F125, number sold: 40 (all owned by Metrolink)
MPI MPXpress MP54AC, number sold: 26 (to be built for GO Transit, because they initially intended to convert some of their 67 MP40PH-3Cs, but changed order to new builds later)
Siemens Charger (several variants), number sold: 366

How does certification work in NA? Once certified can they be used only on the routes of the operator or can they be operated anywhere? Are the Canadian GO Transit locos allowed to run in the USA and vice versa?


----------



## BladeRunner2030




----------



## Nacre

The flipside of this is the percentage of freight moved by rail in various countries.

USA: 28%
Europe: 12%
Japan: <1%

Sabotaging the freight rail industry to boost passenger trains (as in Japan) would have drawbacks as well. Ideally we would find ways to better serve both passengers and cargo like adding more passing loops and using better signaling.


----------



## ckang

Amtrak is proposing a passenger train service between Phoenix and Tuscon in Arizona. One of their conditions is that the state govt pass a bill that makes sure that the passenger train gets priority over freight trains, before they would commit to operating the service.


----------



## PippO.SkaiO

Nacre said:


> The flipside of this is the percentage of freight moved by rail in various countries.
> 
> USA: 28%
> Europe: 12%
> Japan: <1%
> 
> Sabotaging the freight rail industry to boost passenger trains (as in Japan) would have drawbacks as well. Ideally we would find ways to better serve both passengers and cargo like adding more passing loops and using better signaling.


In Austria freight moved by rail is more than 30%, in Switzerland more than 40%: two countries the best passenger rail services in Europe.
It's not freight vs passenger as you write.

PS: Europe isn't a country


----------



## dyonisien

Nacre said:


> [...] freight moved by rail in various countries.
> 
> USA: 28%
> Europe: 12%
> Japan: <1%
> 
> Sabotaging the freight rail industry to boost passenger trains (as in Japan) would have drawbacks as well. Ideally we would find ways to better serve both passengers and cargo like adding more passing loops and using better signaling.


The transport policies in different zones are indeed a crucial factor, but there are also important other ones. Geography cannot be forgotten, the USA being roughly a rather massive rectangle, while most places are not that far from a port in Europe and closer in Japan (just have a look at maps). Neither can the existence of a strong network of waterways in the North (to the North Sea). Levels of (remaining) industrialization around the Alps play also a role : Switzerland and Austria build new long tunnels through the Alps to _cope with_ North-South traffic (to or from the still industrialized Germany and Austria), while from Spain/Portugal to the North (through vastly de-industrialized France) rail transport has to cope with a change of gauge at the border, which has long ago favored road transport (the bulk of cargoes being fruits and vegetables).
For Europe you can add the diversity of transport policies and the growing industrial "deserts" in many places, with the disappearance of many branch lines, which means that for any (with luck) new industry the _default_ transport will be road. 
For all those reasons the 12% figure for Europe is a mean value of extreme figures. The situations of e.g. Switzerland, Germany at one end and France or Portugal at the other are quite different.


----------



## Nacre

PippO.SkaiO said:


> In Austria freight moved by rail is more than 30%, in Switzerland more than 40%: two countries the best passenger rail services in Europe.
> It's not freight vs passenger as you write.


I know . . .

"Ideally we would find ways to better serve both passengers and cargo like adding more passing loops and using better signaling."

My point is that our rail network is built to handle freight, with passenger services being an afterthought. The attitude of many Amtrak enthusiasts is that freight trains should be delayed by passenger trains instead of passengers being delayed for freight. But our real goal should be to eliminate or at least reduce the delays for BOTH freight and passengers.



PippO.SkaiO said:


> PS: Europe isn't a country


Scusa. Substitute "parts of the world" for "countries".


----------



## M-NL

Nacre said:


> My point is that our rail network is built to handle freight, with passenger services being an afterthought. The attitude of many Amtrak enthusiasts is that freight trains should be delayed by passenger trains instead of passengers being delayed for freight. But our real goal should be to eliminate or at least reduce the delays for BOTH freight and passengers.


It didn't use to be that way. All rail networks are optimised for their use. In the USA that is often freight, in Europe more often passengers.
AFAIK Germany still prioritises passenger trains over freight. In the Netherlands the train that uses its assigned path gets priority, regardless if its a passenger or freight train. But because it doesn't make sense to run a heavy freight in front of an intercity train, neither does it make sense to run a local train in front of a heavy freight, thus they try to avoid that. Trains are sometimes asked to give up their path because it makes sense.
Another major factor is that all main corridors in the Netherlands are at least double track. If you combine large section of single track with a not so strict timetable, that's a recipe for long delays.


----------



## Nacre

M-NL said:


> Another major factor is that all main corridors in the Netherlands are at least double track. If you combine large section of single track with a not so strict timetable, that's a recipe for long delays.


Yes. And it's at this point where we note that Amtrak's routes are mostly single track.


----------



## M-NL

Who knows, if the volume of freight keeps growing, a lot of double tracking may be needed, which, as a side benefit, will improve long distance passenger services. That is, if long distance trains still exist by then.


----------



## PippO.SkaiO

Nacre said:


> Yes. And it's at this point where we note that Amtrak's routes are mostly single track.


Just listened to a podcast which illuminated me about how US private railways destroyed their own infrastructure (interesting part starting at 1h 08m). The example of replacing a section of double track with single track just to have a crossover with 2 fewer switches to maintain in Thurmond, West Virginia, was mind blowing. Funny also the part about freight trains too long for siding tracks by design so they can't yeld to passenger trains.


----------



## M-NL

PippO.SkaiO said:


> The example of replacing a section of double track with single track just to have a crossover with 2 fewer switches to maintain in Thurmond, West Virginia, was mind blowing.


The exact same process, removing switches and siding tracks, has taken place in the Netherlands and Germany (and likely other countries) as well, but in this case by the national government supervised infrastructure managers. The consequence is also exactly the same: no options to use the left track if the right one becomes blocked and no options to set a train aside to let another one pass. But hey, at least maintenance has gotten cheaper...


----------



## davide84

Same trend in Italy, with the removal of passing loops or extra station tracks. Main lines are all double-track, though, so it's not a problem unless there are delays, in which case the "slim network" concept prevents a quick solution and amplifies traffic perturbation.

Usually in Europe operators don't run trains longer than the available passing loops. And just to make things simpler, there is an ongoing effort across the EU to standardize both the maximum train length and the availability of adequate passing loops along the main freight corridors; timetables are then regularly adjusted depending on state of infrastructure and planned/wished services.

I am not sure I understand all the fuzz around the "Precision Scheduled Railroading", it looks a bit like the companies in North America just decided to take something that elsewhere is standard since decades and give it a big name. And according to the podcast linked above they are implementing just part of the original concept, the part where they save on staff shifts...


----------



## TM_Germany

Yes, it sounds a bit like a store brand "Elektronik vor Beton" aka Swiss model. Of course, cutting too much infrastructure is harmful, e.g. Germany has learned this lesson the hard way and is now re-installing a lot of switches etc. However in principle it's not a bad thing to optimize operations instead of having underused infrastructure. I see the main problem as the optimization purposefully going against the interests of passenger rail, since the freight railroads don't like them on their tracks. I think this can be changed through regulation, though.


----------



## PippO.SkaiO

davide84 said:


> they are implementing just part of the original concept, the part where they save on staff shifts...


Funny also the example about crews cost cutting:

They had 2 trains per direction which are short enough to use existing passing loops and make the entire trip under 24h. Total 4 crew to pay for a single day
To cut costs they merged same direction trains. Now they have a 2x long train which can't use sidings but hey: you need only 2 crews!
One of the two big trains have to yeld somewhere and waits almost all day for the other train to free the single track. The shift of the crew of the waiting train ends and another crew must take over to destination.
From the POV of an observer this is awful but for shareholders this is gold: you moved the same number of wagons paying only 3 crews and without spending any money on infrastructure. Too bad half of the goods arrived one day later and your infrastructure's utilization is so abysmal, rigid and unpredictable to prevent any meaningful just-in time or passenger service. If they invested to lengthen the sidings they can run the same two big trains with only two crews and have a better utilization of infrastructure but investors hate the words "capital costs".


----------



## davide84

PippO.SkaiO said:


> If they invested to lengthen the sidings they can run the same two big trains with only two crews and have a better utilization of infrastructure but investors hate the words "capital costs".


Yes.
If they invested in infrastructure instead of paying the third crew, they would also increase the capacity of the line with a net benefit for the entire system (read: Amtrak).
However there must be both vision and pressure to get there.
We have similar situations in Europe as well, of course. What usually happens is that either freight companies complain to the infrastructure company, or passengers protest with local authorities. In both cases the public sector has to step in and provide political motivation, and often money, to find a solution. Solutions are rarely easy, but decade after decade things change.

I am quite convinced that the model "private services on public network" helps to achieve this type of strategic vision.
On this topic, I finally found the reference I quoted a few post ago, about State of Michigan buying rail tracks:








Details emerging on MDOT purchase of train track from Kalamazoo to Dearborn


$196.5 million for the upgrade comes from federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds; $150 million of federal funding for the acquisition requires a 20 match from the state, which will come from the Comprehensive Transportation Funds (CTF) used for transit, intercity bus and rail and...




www.mlive.com




the declared goal there was exactly to improve BOTH freight and passenger traffic.


----------



## M-NL

davide84 said:


> I am not sure I understand all the fuzz around the "Precision Scheduled Railroading", it looks a bit like the companies in North America just decided to take something that elsewhere is standard since decades and give it a big name.


"Precision Scheduled Railroading" is exactly what you think it is: running freight trains on a timetable.
Same thing with all the fuzz around "Positive Train Control". Meanwhile us over in Europe think, "So until recently all those passenger trains and heavy freight trains with all kinds of dangerous goods circulated the majority of the network without any train control system at all?!?"


----------



## mgk920

"I am quite convinced that the model "private services on public network" helps to achieve this type of strategic vision."

This is precisely how the bus companies, trucking companies, airlines and so forth all now operate. Someday in the (foreseeable?) future, North American railroads will be so converted. Yes, it will be EXPENSIVE WRT pvblic treasure, but it will also usher in a new 'golden age' of railroading.

Mike


----------



## Nacre

Unfortunately political ideology is a major obstacle. People are OK with massive public subsidy and government ownership of roads and airports, but not railroad track. I don't want to derail the thread with that topic, but I think it's *very* unlikely that the government will raise taxes or take on more debt from China to buy out the railroad companies.


----------



## M-NL

Railroads are funny in that aspect. The actual track is only valuable if maintained well or if the land it is on is expensive. Unmaintained track in the middle of nowhere is worth nothing, in fact it's more a liability then an asset. Most track is not on valuable land and railroad maintenance is very very expensive. So railroad companies turning over track to the government for free and then only paying a usage fee, could actually be better of. And think of the many sections of parallel track of different railroads.


----------



## robbo2k

Double track line? It is not an American absurdity of two single-track lines with two owners.

on the CAHSR route between Fresno and Bakefield we have two railway lines going side by side one UP the other BNSF

In Kansas City, we already have the complete absurdity of BNSF, UP, KSC, NS, CP


----------



## PippO.SkaiO

Nacre said:


> I think it's *very* unlikely that the government will raise taxes or take on more debt from China to buy out the railroad companies.


Cost of borrowing money is going up so it will be harder for private railways to refinance in the future. They can't merge forever to save the profitability after decades of cost-cutting on infrastructure so time will come for some crisis like the one of american car industry. Then nationalizationis likely, with or without public support: Privatizing profits and socializing losses.


> In such times of political and economic crisis, policymakers of all ideological persuasions in the United States have never been hesitant to use one of the most powerful tools at their disposal: nationalization of private enterprises and assets. This included the Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who nationalized railroads, and the telephone, telegraph, and radio industries (among others), and the Republican Ronald Reagan, who nationalized a major national bank; the Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, who nationalized dozens of mining and manufacturing facilities, and the Republican George W. Bush, who nationalized airport security and various major financial institutions; the Democrat Barack Obama, who nationalized auto manufacturers, and the Republican Richard Nixon, who nationalized all passenger rail service.
> 
> *History of Nationalization in the US* – Thomas M. Hanna


----------



## BoulderGrad

ShibaInu said:


> ^what would be the average speed?


----------



## Stuu

ShibaInu said:


> ^what would be the average speed?


85mph for the new route, it's 170 miles and will take two hours, which means there must be some much slower segments


----------



## BoulderGrad

Stuu said:


> 85mph for the new route, it's 170 miles and will take two hours, which means there must be some much slower segments


Overall average speed takes dwell time at stops into account. So, yes, there are some slower segments. Usually where the train is completely stationary.


----------



## doc7austin

Riding between Flagstaff, Arizona and Las Vegas, New Mexico on the Seligman Subdivision, Gallup Subdivision, NMRX Railroad, and Glorieta Subdivision. All mentioned Subdivisions are part of the BNSF Southern Transcon.







Enjoy!


----------



## Stuu

BoulderGrad said:


> Overall average speed takes dwell time at stops into account. So, yes, there are some slower segments. Usually where the train is completely stationary.


Thanks for the sarcasm... It only stops twice, so I didn't think it could just be that. However, looking at the schedule for the existing segment the train stops for 12 minutes at Ford Lauderdale, so maybe it is just the stops if they are going to be that sort of length


----------



## JMBasquiat

> The 75th St. CIP includes four projects advanced as a singular project due to their logistical and environmental similarities. The four parts are the Forest Hill Flyover (P3), 71st Street Grade Separation (GS19), Rock Island Connection (P2), and Belt Junction and 80th Street Junction Replacements (EW2). (See “Project Status” section for details.)
> 
> In order to enhance safety, accessibility, and mobility, the 75th St. CIP will untangle railroad tracks from local and state roads while removing and replacing many viaducts in the congested area. The corridor lies along two passenger and four freight rail lines that daily affect 90 freight trains, 30 Metra trains, and two Amtrak trains.








Chicago’s 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project Introduces New Generation to Transportation Careers While Untangling Congested Railroad Tracks and Roads - Dixie Contractor


The high school also uses grant money to support community outreach programs. Two Saturdays each month during the school year and a couple times during the summer, the school invites any student in the 60620 zip code to STEM-focused programs.




www.acppubs.com


----------



## BoulderGrad

Stuu said:


> Thanks for the sarcasm... It only stops twice, so I didn't think it could just be that. However, looking at the schedule for the existing segment the train stops for 12 minutes at Ford Lauderdale, so maybe it is just the stops if they are going to be that sort of length


They are adding a few infill stops beyond just Orlando. There will be new stations at Aventura, Boca Raton, Fort Pierce, and Cocoa Beach.


----------



## Miguel UltraNB05




----------



## MK Tom

doc7austin said:


> Riding between Flagstaff, Arizona and Las Vegas, New Mexico on the Seligman Subdivision, Gallup Subdivision, NMRX Railroad, and Glorieta Subdivision. All mentioned Subdivisions are part of the BNSF Southern Transcon.


Vegas has changed state since I visited a couple months ago!

In all seriousness, videos like this make me want to build an Amtrak sleeper journey into my next US trip.


----------



## mgk920

MK Tom said:


> Vegas has changed state since I visited a couple months ago!
> 
> In all seriousness, videos like this make me want to build an Amtrak sleeper journey into my next US trip.


Always check that your FREE trip to Las Vegas! is to Las Vegas, N*V* and not to Las Vegas, N*M*. Las Vegas,NM is a sleepy desert city of about 15K, located along I-25 about an hour or so northeast of Albuquerque.

Mike


----------



## Nacre

MK Tom said:


> In all seriousness, videos like this make me want to build an Amtrak sleeper journey into my next US trip.


If you do, go with the "roomette" instead of the more expensive "bedroom". I've never yet been on a trip with someone who actually enjoyed having a toilet in the cabin instead of down the hall . . .



BoulderGrad said:


> Overall average speed takes dwell time at stops into account. So, yes, there are some slower segments. Usually where the train is completely stationary.


Are these driven by technical issues or for passenger handling? I've similarly never been able to understand if the 5-10 minute "smoking stops" on Amtrak are due to needs of smokers or for train operations.


----------



## Miguel UltraNB05

R211 with open gangway, finally! :O
(R211T)


----------



## robbo2k

Brightline West Timetable 23train per day every 45 minutes


----------



## davide84

Every 45' is a bit weird*, but at least there is a regular pattern. And 23 tpd is a lot, I like the plan!

*the idea of a regular timetable is to keep the minute of departure fixed, for ease of use by travellers and ease of planning by railroad people (you plan one hour and then duplicate the pattern).
In Europe they would achieve the same number of tpd with 1 train per hour, plus another train in the middle but not every hour, e.g. 5:47, 6:47, 7:07, 7:47, 8:07, 8:47...
I guess with a dedicated line for only one type of service you don't need to be this strict.


----------



## robbo2k

Remember that this is a partly single-track line, they probably have to match the passing loops.

Looking at the timetable the other way, the trains will surely meet in Hesperia 

Direct vegas 
arr 7:41 dep 7:43


----------



## davide84

Ah, right, that would make sense. In the model I described, passing loops must be adapted to allow for the strictly regular timetable.


----------



## JMBasquiat

Chicago









Union Station revamp wins regional support in the race for federal dollars


Regional mayors are getting behind Chicago's bid for big federal bucks to upgrade the key rail hub. Plus: Pritzker pours billions into the state's rainy day fund, a state panel gives the OK for a huge hospital merger, and more.




www.chicagobusiness.com


----------



## Miguel UltraNB05

Gangway


----------



## GojiMet86

The new Amtrak Airo


----------



## Barciur

Nacre said:


> If you do, go with the "roomette" instead of the more expensive "bedroom". I've never yet been on a trip with someone who actually enjoyed having a toilet in the cabin instead of down the hall . . .


The bedroom has a separate bathroom inside - a toilet and a shower. Not what the viewliners have in the room. I think the superliner bedroom is very convenient to have a private bathroom in the room.


----------

