Deggesty But, for pleasure traveling, rail is for me
I'm with you. It was and is the more enjoyable way to travel.
Johnny - I think your 3 sses are in the pix....
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
BaltACD Firelock76 BaltACD Convicted One Firelock76 I thought that I once read that Amtrak was never expected to succeed? That it was just an elaborate stall tactic designed to unburden the freight carriers, and then fade into oblivion slowly enough that people wouldn't see passenger rail being eliminated. That was the political thought that created Amtrak. It certainly was, but 40-plus years later Amtrak's still here. The question is, do "they" want to get serious about it, or not? a recurring political thought that continues throughout Congress - "just die already!" The fact that Amtrak has survived and is about to celebrate the 45th anniversary of its creation is a testament to the dedication and persistance of all Amtrak employees from the Board Room to the car cleaners and everyone else involved. This is Congress' vision of passenger transportation!
Firelock76 BaltACD Convicted One Firelock76 I thought that I once read that Amtrak was never expected to succeed? That it was just an elaborate stall tactic designed to unburden the freight carriers, and then fade into oblivion slowly enough that people wouldn't see passenger rail being eliminated. That was the political thought that created Amtrak. It certainly was, but 40-plus years later Amtrak's still here. The question is, do "they" want to get serious about it, or not?
BaltACD Convicted One Firelock76 I thought that I once read that Amtrak was never expected to succeed? That it was just an elaborate stall tactic designed to unburden the freight carriers, and then fade into oblivion slowly enough that people wouldn't see passenger rail being eliminated. That was the political thought that created Amtrak.
Convicted One Firelock76 I thought that I once read that Amtrak was never expected to succeed? That it was just an elaborate stall tactic designed to unburden the freight carriers, and then fade into oblivion slowly enough that people wouldn't see passenger rail being eliminated.
Firelock76
I thought that I once read that Amtrak was never expected to succeed? That it was just an elaborate stall tactic designed to unburden the freight carriers, and then fade into oblivion slowly enough that people wouldn't see passenger rail being eliminated.
That was the political thought that created Amtrak.
It certainly was, but 40-plus years later Amtrak's still here.
The question is, do "they" want to get serious about it, or not?
a recurring political thought that continues throughout Congress - "just die already!"
The fact that Amtrak has survived and is about to celebrate the 45th anniversary of its creation is a testament to the dedication and persistance of all Amtrak employees from the Board Room to the car cleaners and everyone else involved.
This is Congress' vision of passenger transportation!
Seriously, the people who thought that rail passenger service would die did NOT know the feeling that millions of Americans have for traveling by rail.
I have said that "If I have to be there yesterday, I'll fly." And, there are other times when it is necessary to fly because of time constraints. But, for pleasure traveling, rail is for me (and it was for my wife) the way to go. I can never duplicate going from Birmingham to New Orleans in 1951 on the day train from Chattanooga--standing at the rear and watching the semaphore blades on one side of the track go up and go down in the other side as we passed from block to block, but there is still excitement, wonder, and pleasure as the train goes on its way. Even if you do not meet a fellow traveler who loves rail travel (as my wife and I met), there can be much pleasure in letting the engineer and conductor move you from place to place.
(And, I am glad that I re-read the above before posting it; among other errors, I had three esses in a row in a word that needed only two.)
Johnny
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Firelock76Until Amtrak can get to where they're supposed to be when they're supposed to be there there'll never be any serious public interest in rail travel.
Paul's right, we don't need high-speed rail or higher-speed rail, what's needed is RELIABLE rail. Remember the phrase "There on the advertised"?
Until Amtrak can get to where they're supposed to be when they're supposed to be there there'll never be any serious public interest in rail travel.
And refer to the thread about freight trains getting priority over passenger for part of the problem.
My thoughts every time I hear about HSR:
I think there is too much emphasis on ultimate speed. There should be more emphasis on frequency of service, rather than ultimate speed. A 100 mph train every 20 or 30 minutes would be more useful than four 200 mph trains a day.
Think about air travel--they want you there two hours before departure. It may take an hour or so to get to the airport. Your flight may take just an hour, but it has taken up most of your day.
What we really need is an integrated transportation system, rather than the attitude of competing modes of transportation. All train stations should also be bus stations, and airports should also be hubs for bus or train service. You should be able to buy a ticket for your entire trip and check your luggage in at a small town bus station, ride 50 miles, transfer to a train, ride 100 miles to a regional airport for your cross-country trip, and your luggage should be transferred the whole way. Anyway that's my travel utopia.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Jack R.What are your thoughts regarding a national high speed train.
If it's really such a grand idea, let the folks who intend to control the farebox, pay for it (all). Expecting the public to build it, and then have to pay to ride it, while some well placed third party collects fares and pays themself(ves) a salary, just strikes me as a bad deal.
As noted, society has decentralized. This is a problem even for local transit projects. Back in the day, everyone worked "downtown" and transit systems ran like spokes on a wheel from downtown. It might take a transfer downtown, but you could get anywhere.
Nowadays everyone lives everywhere, and works someplace else.
Another roadblock, if you will, is getting downtown. Odds are you're going to have to go underground - and that gets really expensive, really fast. Nobody is going to let you tear down their skyscraper, and I'm not sure that ripping down block after block of houses is going to sell well either.
There's no denying that HSR has benefits - the question is whether society will regard those benefits highly enough to offset any negatives, real or perceived.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Jack R.Amtrak does what it can, but it is getting very old and quite frankly, antiquated.
Jack R.The technology utilized would be the very latest in rail technology. Safety being at the top of the list.
Jack R.but there are many just like him who just need that one alternative to flying or buses and cars.
Jack R. I project that speeds in excess of 400 mph, possibly greater will become the norm for such a system.
Jack R.A typical Acela with two locomotives and seven cars in between can carry a great deal more in passenger traffic versus any aircraft in the commercial aviation industry.
No one wants to fund fast trains because the return on their investment isn't there. No one wants to even think about what they would have to do to get from Chicago to LA on a fast train or even Chicago to Denver. Short corridors in the east might work out. X country, isn't even considered.
As long as we have aircraft that can get you to your destination in just a few hours, no matter the inconvenience or $$$, they will still be the only game in town for 90% of the business/traveling public.
Going to the moon didn't involve moving thru massive amounts of humans and their possessions.
My thoughts on HSR....
NorthWest Jack R. Nothing is impossible. As I stated in my opening OP. We went to the moon and trust me, many upon many more people thought that it was impossible. Perhaps, but there are things that don't make economic or operational sense. With our scarce resources, we only have money to do the essential. Building corridors where there are no economic reasons for their existence is a bad plan. I'm not against HSR, and actually support it in markets where it makes sense and doesn't wreck the US freight rail system. Nationwide networks don't make sense at this time.
Jack R. Nothing is impossible. As I stated in my opening OP. We went to the moon and trust me, many upon many more people thought that it was impossible.
Perhaps, but there are things that don't make economic or operational sense. With our scarce resources, we only have money to do the essential. Building corridors where there are no economic reasons for their existence is a bad plan.
I'm not against HSR, and actually support it in markets where it makes sense and doesn't wreck the US freight rail system. Nationwide networks don't make sense at this time.
As a country, we must either evolve or be left behind. While it is true that we have made some rather incredible advances in technology, overall, our infrastructure is severely lagging. This includes, but is not limited to, our passenger railroad system. Amtrak does what it can, but it is getting very old and quite frankly, antiquated.
The market, in my opinion, could not be more ready for a project of this magnitude. The benefits of such a system far outweigh the negative aspects. Such a project would require a great deal of thought, in terms of where exactly the line will run. Of course, it would be a multi rail system. East, West and a line for servicing and repair of both track and train sets. The technology utilized would be the very latest in rail technology. Safety being at the top of the list.
Not everyone can fly. Just as many cannot drive across country. Many already travel by Amtrak, but even their fastest train is between 4 to 5 days depending on routing, track and the trains locomotives. Just to many unknowns with Amtrak. I spoke with one passenger on a regional just last year. He said he cannot drive and he is deathly afraid to fly. He said he was on his way to Los Angeles for a funeral and that he hoped he would make it on time. Of course, he is but one person, but there are many just like him who just need that one alternative to flying or buses and cars.
I believe the timing is right. We need jobs in this country. Each state the HSR system passes thru, would benefit from job growth, as well as increased infrastructure. Train sets, looking at the specifics here, are far more smoother, faster and efficient versus traditional train set ups with standard type couplers. Train sets, depending on number of cars and the set up of those cars, could carry far more passengers than a commercial jet. I project that speeds in excess of 400 mph, possibly greater will become the norm for such a system.
I know a few things about aviation. Been in it, through it, around it, for decades. One thing I will tell you is that no airline is going to utilize a jumbo jet, like the 747, fill it to capacity and fly it from NYC to LAX. Larger commercial jets are almost exclusively utilized for overseas travel. Few exceptions of course, but in general, airlines use 757's and mid sized airbus aircraft for coast to coast non stop flights. Smaller, 737's are also used as well, but they cannot carry the passenger loads of a fully operational HSR train set. I cite the Acela as an example of that. A typical Acela with two locomotives and seven cars in between can carry a great deal more in passenger traffic versus any aircraft in the commercial aviation industry.
These are just my thoughts on HSR.
Jack R.The arguments against HSR in here are understandable and each of you has cited pretty much the same basic arguments. Money, Land, viability, airline competition etc. However, consider this, regarding airliner vs HSR. The commercial jet lands in LAX. You then must take additional transportation from LAX to say downtown LA. A HSR would literally drop you off in downtown LA and perhaps much closer to your final destination point. Trains are far more efficient people movers vs commercial jets. Even the largest commercial jets may seat between 250 and 350 people and usually not on domestic flights. Only international. Yet, trains can seat 500 and up depending on the number of cars utlized. Couple that with speed and I believe that addresses the alternative choice for crossing our country.
Because Americans have decentralized since the dawn of the automobile, coming straight into downtown is less of a concern that it was. A large percentage of the population probably wants to go elsewhere in the metropolitan area, so a downtown terminus while convenient is not essential. Transit to airports is an easy solution.
A note from a plane enthusiast- airlines are more efficient when they fly more flights with smaller planes than larger planes on fewer flights. They can offer more choices and destinations that way. Consequently, point-to-point routings are more common than before deregulation where hub-and-spoke models were more common. Even with HSR there are corridors where HSR is not practical due to geography and other factors, so smaller planes still fill a market role. There's room for everyone.
Jack R.Nothing is impossible. As I stated in my opening OP. We went to the moon and trust me, many upon many more people thought that it was impossible.
What about all the money our country literally gives away to countries that just end up using that money to fund wars that kill millions. Surely, we could take that money and put it to good use.
Aviation, as in commercial flights, have far too many restrictions and these days many uncertainties. Flying involves greater risk, though those risk are statistically lower versus driving an automobile. A high speed train could be constructed in different regions of the country. Then they could be linked up together at some point in the future.
The TGV is capable of speeds in excess of 350 mph. The record was higher, but the fact is, that was simply a test of that train sets capabilities regarding physical speed. The French are very adept at high speed trains.
The arguments against HSR in here are understandable and each of you has cited pretty much the same basic arguments. Money, Land, viability, airline competition etc. However, consider this, regarding airliner vs HSR. The commercial jet lands in LAX. You then must take additional transportation from LAX to say downtown LA. A HSR would literally drop you off in downtown LA and perhaps much closer to your final destination point. Trains are far more efficient people movers vs commercial jets. Even the largest commercial jets may seat between 250 and 350 people and usually not on domestic flights. Only international. Yet, trains can seat 500 and up depending on the number of cars utlized. Couple that with speed and I believe that addresses the alternative choice for crossing our country.
NorthWest HSR is most efficient in corridors between 300 and 500 miles long. Air travel is more efficient past that point. I think we may eventually see HSR in many corridors that warrant it, but a national network is impossible with current population densities in much of the US.
HSR is most efficient in corridors between 300 and 500 miles long. Air travel is more efficient past that point. I think we may eventually see HSR in many corridors that warrant it, but a national network is impossible with current population densities in much of the US.
Nothing is impossible.
As I stated in my opening OP. We went to the moon and trust me, many upon many more people thought that it was impossible.
Just FYI: Figure 3,000 miles +/- NY - LA via CHI, at $100 Million per route-mile (2 tracks, electrified, probabaly enough to cover some big bridges, etc.) = $300 Billion. That's 'only' about $900 per man, woman, and child in the US for 1 year.
"Your Millions May Vary" . . .
As I recall, the annual US Federal Budget is on the order of 4 to 5 times that much.
- Paul North.
BaltACDEast of and along the Mississippi River city pairs most all fall within these 'limits'. How you link them together and what the traffic level between them is the question that needs to be answered prior to putting shovels in the ground.
Much of the effective answer is going to involve either buses or regional-size light/heavy 'accommodation trains' (with reasonable end-to-end speed but scheduled only to be 'the trolley that meets all the trains) for whatever route the actual HSR line would follow.
Even today, we have a problem with some major potential traffic centers being on the 'wrong side' of the river from a route with more individual sources. The recent discussion of St. Louis being served by an Amtrak City of New Orleans is a particularly interesting example. The concern is further amplified by the almost inevitable fact that any 'new' true HSR line running in this corridor will be steering clear of many of the logical 'end destinations' for the service, and something very effective that makes end-to-end time reduction 'worth' the much higher cost to build and maintain HSR is going to have to be assured.
In my opinion, that's going to involve a great many specially-configured buses. (I am sorely tempted to put the 'Infinibus' parody here, as the idea I had in mind is distressingly similar in a couple of only slightly different senses!)
These would run at high speed in dedicated areas, and at permissible or safe road speed otherwise; they would also be inherently capable of things like quick multiple-hotel pickup and dropoff (a la the post-1926 B&O New York service) and, while not a one-seat high-speed ride, constitute a two-seat fully climate-controlled ride, with access to amenities, nearly end to end. They are also, even at multiples of Prevost pricing, orders of magnitude cheaper than HrSR lines from all the 'bypassed' regions to the high-speed backbone ... and they have all the 'alternative uses' GM touted for its buses as streetcar replacements...
East of and along the Mississippi River city pairs most all fall within these 'limits'. How you link them together and what the traffic level between them is the question that needs to be answered prior to putting shovels in the ground.
Exactly. Even between CHI-NYP with a sustained speed of 125 mph (really good), the trip would take 7 hours +. Overnight would have to be slower (and very expensive), even on a new, very straight, dedicated RoW to be tolerable. The cost would be enormous and it still would not really compete with air, only roads and would be too expensive for most of those travelers..
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CSSHEGEWISCHConsider that the best rail time between Chicago and Los Angeles was 39.5 hours and between Chicago and New York was 15.5 hours, and these times were considered exceptional.
Be careful with this argument. In the 19th Century, Weed was proposing 10-hour or quicker service from New York to Chicago -- on narrow gauge. Were a dedicated track or route provided either on NYC or PRR, devoid of weird convolutions and slow orders Ithink Zoo, Portal/Gateway improvement and the Baltimore tunnels as examples) some very positive decreases in time can be made.
Now, the 'deeper' discussion involves the need for sleeper service on almost any HSR train that involves extended journey time or a link between destination pairs that occurs 'at night'. I have seen conflicting information on just how fast permitted speed on "LGV" track structure can be and still permit easy sleep; many of the transmitted forces at high speed, while of course not dangerous, are still more 'alarming' to normal human perceptions than shocks from slower-speed sources that might be stronger but with different time and force characteristics. (I suspect schlimm can provide us with direct studies into these phenomena.)
A California Zephyr-style solution (where the daylight portions are "HSR" speed and the nighttime parts are slower while people are presumably sleeping) is of course possible. But that's unlikely to win approval for the trillions of dollars needed to provide full HSR track structure, with the required absolute separation from any slower traffic where high speeds are required, and the likely optimization to high ruling grades with the high civil and maintenance expense of limited horizontal and vertical curves -- whether or not a top-down class 9 track structure that is structurally 'freight-compatible' is utilized.
And then we get into electrification rather than gas-turbine power... including the infrastructure that provides that type and level of power, intermittently and with largely unpredictable high peaking loads, to the actual railroad electrification equipment. Look for large amounts of energy storage and recovery at appropriate added cost and only 'socialist' justification for non-riders.
Something that hasn't been discussed (in part because my three previous attempts to discuss it were 'kicked out' through problems with Kalmbach's interface, and the fourth was rejected for some reason without being saved) is how the passengers get to and from this purported high-speed network Jack is envisioning. Many of the arguments that applied in the 'Super C' discussion can be extended here: even in a world that has access to autonomous vehicles and Uber service and a vastly reduced 'need' to pay for and support personal automobiles, there still needs to be some network of intermediate-high-speed 'feeder' rail (or proper bus where rail is unjustifiable) in areas of high congestion or more than nominal physical 'spread'. All those have schedule considerations to make their actual 'point to point speed' high rather than just their nominal acceleration and suspension capabilities -- and this has historically been a very large reason why people drive instead of taking any 'scheduled' form of mass transportation. (As a pointed example, my father rode the Metroliner as a child, being dropped off by his father at Penn Station very close to train time. The train ran at over 100 mph a significant part of the way, with the limited stops then prescribed. Imagine the surprise to find, on the platform ... his father waiting, complete with the Washington hosts he had picked up in Silver Spring along the way, then driven to the station, found parking, etc. (He does not remember how long they had been waiting on the platform for the train to arrive!)
In my opinion, the scheduling and 'frequency' issues are much more a showstopper than the enabling-infrastructure costs -- amazingly large as those are. We have just been discussing the problem with 'take rate' for the Pearson airport connection, a much more limited and slower version of Government-supported "high speed" (in terms of point-to-point elapsed time, compared to the alternatives) connection. By the time ticket prices reflect the required frequency of HSR trains, even with the shorter turn time and better utilization that HSR promises to leverage, I suspect the business model will reflect RCA's experience with helical-scan VCR. (Or were you expecting a socialist government to pay for it all including the ticket subsidies? )
I am a practical idealist. Let us see how All Aboard Florida, Texas High Speed, and California work out. I would say that if two out of these three work out OK, we can next expect New York State to get serious about New York - Albany - Buffalo, and Pennsylvania finally doing something to improve Harrisburg Pittsburgh, with not much required to bring Harrisburg - Phily up to NEC "higher speed" standards. Once NY - Buffalo gets high speed corridor service, then Ohio and Indiana may opt for the concept to be extended to Chicago incrementally, ditto Washington - Florida and Washington - Atlanta.
In the Nixon and Carter years, did you ever expect the NEC Boston electrification? Also, it looks like New Haven - Springfield may be electrified soon. Obama had other problems that were more important at this time, but some future President may take up this challange.
CSSHEGEWISCH A relatively high-speed train cannot realistically compete with commercial aviation at distances much over 400 miles. Consider that the best rail time between Chicago and Los Angeles was 39.5 hours and between Chicago and New York was 15.5 hours, and these times were considered exceptional. Even spending a lot of bucks to trim these times by a third would still not be competitive with commercial airliners. Long-distance high-speed rail is economically unrealistic.
A relatively high-speed train cannot realistically compete with commercial aviation at distances much over 400 miles. Consider that the best rail time between Chicago and Los Angeles was 39.5 hours and between Chicago and New York was 15.5 hours, and these times were considered exceptional. Even spending a lot of bucks to trim these times by a third would still not be competitive with commercial airliners. Long-distance high-speed rail is economically unrealistic.
+1
The application for HSR in the US is problematic. The European model is probably the best - building rural HSR links on high density routes and keeping the expensive-to-replace, mixed service, existing urban ROW. In the US this is complicated by the need to comply with train structural strength requirements that come from mixing with US freight traffic.
There are likely corridors and hubs in the US that could benefit from HSR, but a national network would be a huge waste of money.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Virtually impossible from a practical standpoint - acquiring the real estate being a major challenge. And there will be a lot of push back from folks with a variety of agendas - it might endanger the paisley newt!
I don't think we've got the national will to construct a facility of that magnitude. It'd be a lot of money, and that money has to come from somewhere. I seriously doubt that private money could be found - no one wants to back something that would be a guaranteed money loser.
A certain amount of high speed rail might work - mostly in areas with population. But that's where you'll get a lot of real estate pushback. Getting HSR in place in "flyover country" will be a hard sell.
That said - I agree that it would be nice, as would most rail aficianados. You just have to convince the general populace that it's in their best interests. See California HSR for examples.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.