Sure fire fix for Amtrak..

[Modelcar]

....Yes, that is correct, but someone is going to have to spend money on something...roads and or rails....

QM

[wabash1]

you didnt understand my statement. it seem like you want to get the trucks off the highways. i took it as in the statement that you was mainly suggesting that the city are the places where you dont like them. and that is where you didnt want them. trucks dont bother me. let them run. they need to make a living also but if more people would learn how to drive around them it wouldnt get as congested at rush hour.

but you cant get away from them someone has to bring the trailers to the rail yard for loading and to take the loaded ones to be delivered. there is not a spur going to every building ...

[Anonymous]

A daily Amtrak train is being forced upon the freight railroads? When Amtrak was created back in the early 1970s there were at the end of private service seven trains making daily stops in Dallas, now there is only one.


Furthermore there is a way for the freight companies to increase the number of slots so that Amtrak does not necessarily use up a precious slot: build and maintain faster track. If the railroads could maintain the track for 80 mph service, then the trains could go through any stretch of track twice as fast, and therefore double their capacity. From what I have seen, the railroads have let their track ROT! However, any improvement of any tracks across the country is being paid for with FRA funds, not by private funds alone.

Why should the FRA pay to improve private railroad tracks when the government and the taxpayers of America would be better off building brand new high speed track for Amtrak? Notice that Amtrak does pay to use their tracks, and annually gives a bonus for 90 percent on time dispatching performance. Notice Union Pacific could care less about the bonus.

One of the reasons why Texas DOT is interested in getting into the railroad track business is because when the railroads were built over 100 years ago, most of the main lines ended at the port of Houston. For example, no railroad built a line from Dallas to San Antonio directly, along Texas' major corridor today. As it is the Eagle uses Mo Pac track to Marshall, T&P track to Ft. Worth, Santa Fe track to Temple, MKT track to Austin, and Mo Pac track to San Antonio. Texas DOT rightly concludes that traffic patterns of the 1880s weren't the same as the traffic patterns of today.

If you check out the maps of the TTC, you will see where the state of Texas thinks railroad tracks should be built, and allow any railroad to use them, providing more competition for the freight. Sadly, Burlington Northern Santa Fe does not serve the Austin and San Antonio, whereas the Union Pacific does not serve the panhandles area. Monopolistic ancient right of way won't compete with the modern properly routed TTC. Face it, one of the problems of transportation in the country today is the ancient, poorly routed, rotting monopolistic right of way of the railroads.

Then their are those misinformed people who think the railroads should operate our passenger trains. Like how would Burilington Northern Santa Fe serve Dallas, much less San Antonio and Austin. Like how would Burlington Northern Santa Fe serve Dallas with Houston directly?

[Anonymous]

In other words you are suggesting that high speed trains in America are 500 years away?

The federal government already taxes the railroads. The state governments have sales taxes on Amtrak tickets. Amtrak pays both federal and state fuel taxes. What does Amtrak get? NOT MUCH!

One of the reasons why you prefer to drive your car maybe because it is a cheap. Unlike Europe, most of Amerca's interstates are free. But if you had to pay a $2 toll to go around 100 miles along our interstates plus the cost of gasoline, you probably would not travel far on a turnpike, would you? More than likely you would rather fly or take the train, especially if the train went two to three times as fast as your car. Notice high speed trains have been very successful in Europe because of the tolls on their autobahns, not to mention their price for gasoline is four times what we pay.

If you searched the Texas DOT web site, you will see that without any gas tax hikes, the state is considering placing toll booths on its free interstates, changing them into turnpikes. If you are so opposed to any tax increases, expect tolls in the future to maintain them.

And get this, while what infrastructure we have now might be barely sufficient, do you really expect this infrastructure to be adequate when our populations doubles in the next 50-60 years? I am afraid high speed rail is coming quicker then you think!

[Anonymous]

Who knows a time line? If rail passenger operations are in the best interest of the future public, then that public should build them. This one, exclusive of a small minority, just doesn't want them. Additionally, there is emerging technology to suggest that steel rails will become obsolete, so every rail foot would be a wasted investment from its concept. At Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, a maglev system is being built and tested. When and if that becomes viable, then, by all means, lets do it...but not until! The way we're going, there may not be a need for any transportation in 500 years. But maybe that's a discussion for a theology forum. Have a good day...gdc

[Anonymous]

I must be losing my mind. I thought I answered this post, but it doesn't show up on the list. (Sigh) Just commit me! What I meant was there are too many trucks on the highway. Obviously intermodal means just that, transportation of varying means. After all,large part of intermodal is substituted service. That's why trailers have tires! Once again, have a safe day! I hope this post makes it! gdc

[Anonymous]

Have you seen the pictures of the maglev system? To me it looks awfully familiar to a monorail system, without any rails. Instead of being cheaper, maglev systems will be more expensive. The only advantage of a maglev system is faster speeds. But how fast is fast enough? 120 mph, 150 mph, 180 mph or over 200 mph? We can achieve 120 mph with current Amtrak diesels and rolling stock. We can acheive 150 mph with tilting rolling stock and the Jet train. We can achieve 180 mph with TGV type electrified trains, either with or without tilting rolling stock.

But even with a maglev system we will need to use new right of way. Since the freight railroads see no need to increase the speed of their trains, whatever system we choose will more than likely have to be on dedicated passenger only track. Even the Europeans have realized that operating high speed passenger trains on the same tracks as the slow freight trains is an UNSAFE nightmare for the dispactchers and signalling equipment!

[Anonymous]

I've seen it in person. If you would like to see some pictures, go to http://www.pilotonline.com. That's the Norfolk newspaper website and then go to their archieves. That had several pictures on line a few months ago. They charge $1 for detailed archieve searches, but the pictures should be within the free area.
I think we've talked out the Amtrak subject and we're probably closer to the same page than appears. It's been nice talking with you and I hope to see you around some of the other posts. Hope you have a good day. gdc

[Anonymous]

gdcwcc, sorry if you thought I was being rude to you. My reply was directed to this entire thread. Sick and tired of hearing about fixes for Amtk. from people outside the industry. Seems to me everyone has a opinion but viable solutions.
Been in the rail industry for 26yrs, 11 with Amtk.

[Anonymous]

Thanks. I know everyone has a different opinion. While I prefer the TGV, 180 mph electrified system, I would not be to upset with the 150 mph Jettrain.

However, I do support building new track either way between the cities in the countryside. More than likely we will have to use existing right of way insides the major cities to serve their stations downtown. The main reason I support dedicated passenger track is because the freight railroads will need all of their slots and more before long.

As for the funding, the money is already there in the budget. It is a matter of priority. For example, the Texas DOT spends $60 million each year to upgrade small airports, some 275 small airports are eligible. A small airport that hangars 166 airplanes is getting $2.9 million this year to repave and light the runway, and to expand the tarmack. When one divides these numbers out, each airplane owner is getting a $10,800 subsidy from the state of Texas.

This runway is no more important than my residential street. Surely more people use my residential street on any day than that runway at that small airport. But the state does not pay to repave my residential street.

$60 million over ten years becomes $600 million. Over a ten year period the state could build DART's new light rail line to Carrollton from downtown Dallas.

And yes, small general aviation gets $60 million a year subsidy from the state of Texas, while Amtrak and the railroads gets nothing!

Priority!

I hope I have laid to rubbi***he idea that general aviation is not subsidized.... It is, and more than you think!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wkhey

gdcwcc, sorry if you thought I was being rude to you. My reply was directed to this entire thread. Sick and tired of hearing about fixes for Amtk. from people outside the industry. Seems to me everyone has a opinion but viable solutions.
Been in the rail industry for 26yrs, 11 with Amtk.

Well, sorry for creating a thread that has caused you so much grief.. At the time I started it, I was fresh from being discouraged from even using Amtrak AS A CUSTOMER, and the problems, even to this lowly outsider, seem more political, than administrative.