Amtrak funding

[Anonymous]

I think it is time that America Puts more Money into High Speed Rail.   Traffic Jams cost American's $68 BILLION in Productivity, let alone not including Pollution, lost family time, Vehicle Matience etc. 

[Anonymous]

Well, someone who knows what they are talking about!

[Anonymous]

Alexander lives in the Portland area. I am willing to bet that Alexander will agree that the Cascades trainsets look lighter than Superliner cars.....

[Anonymous]

Yes. Amtrak could also use TGV electric engines and cars which are 40 percent lighter than American diesels and cars. Think not of today, but of tomorrow. From the TGV website:

Although some people might suspect that a train's weight would affect fuel consumption as much as its shape would, weight actually has little influence on that aspect of the operation of high speed trains, But a heavy train stresses the tracks more than a lighter one does and consequently increases maintenance costs. Therefore, to protect the tracks, fast trains need to weigh as little as possible. We have crafted cars from lighter material than has been incorporated into conventional trains. Use of such materials in the passenger cars has made it possible to produce double decker vehicles that weigh no more than the single deck high speed trains, even though they boast seats for 45 percent more passengers. Thanks to aerodynamic styling, they also run as fast as their one level counterparts and consume less energy. The mortors directly responsible for turning the driving wheels, the traction motors, have been lightened too without sacrificing power. Motors on the faster next generation TGVs will be 40 percent lighter than the latest TGV motors. These weight reductions have been achieved by design changes as well as by using lighter materials. On a seat per seat basis, the TGVs are among the lightest trains in the world. We have put a lot of work into the seats as well. To save a few kilograms per seat, those in the next generaton TGVs will be made of carbon fibers, magnesium and composites.

[Anonymous]

Don,
Light rail wasn't built to accomodate heavy rail eguipment.So if AMTK were to use light rail tracks they would need light equipment themselves.Also AMTK would have to give up the idea of AMTK express and postal delivery.Some of the AMTK express cars weight 130 tons a piece loaded. Doesn't mean it can't be done,just have to buy new equipment or use roadrailers exclusively. Keith

[Anonymous]

Quite frankly, we don't have much choice in the matter. Building more freeways won't cut down on car emissions much, and just about every city and state are looking at losing their federal highway funding. Airports are dirtier than highways, so that won't be the answer either. Trains, both innercity and intercity, don't pollute anywhere near as much as cars and jets, so here lies the answer, something anyone serious about the issue understands already. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

So since every large state is going to lose its federal funding for highways, we might as well as build high speed rail instead....

[Anonymous]

Since most of the large cities are building light rail systems, surely Amtrak could purchase right of way along their electrified standard gauge tracks and travel at light rail speeds into the city. These light rail lines do have an end of track, and it is here where Amtrak should start building high speed rail through the countryside. For example, DART has built light rail all the way out to Loop 12 in southern Dallas with plans to extend this to the LBJ freeway loop soon. All Amtrak would have to build is to the LBJ loop, where it could connect onto the DART light rail line....

If not light rail, Amtrak could connect in the outer reaches of a city to an already existing commuter rail line or freight line, they all go to the central city's stations. In many cases the track right of way have already been abandoned. Of course, Amtrak would have to electrify the line if Amtrak chooses electric engines, but would not have to if it decides to keep its Genesis and Talgos.
Let's not make mountains out of molehills. I am not suggesting that we build high speed rail lines through cities. The trains would have to slow down on the freight, commuter, or light rail lines because of signals, both road crossings and train.

[Anonymous]

Alexander; I totally agree! Might start sooner than we think.Can you picture the notheast without some form of inter-city rail? 15 yrs ago would you have thought your own Portland-Seattle train service would have grown into what it is today? Their are many more such corridors just waiting for the right time and person to come along and get it started.I really don't care who the person or corporation is, even if it turns out to be AMTK.
Lets get by Sept.before we think about Oct.I am totally convinced AMTK will get what it needs to not only grow but, finally get what it needs to plan for the future.Keith

[Anonymous]

Keith:

Wouldn't be surprised if we do get there, someday. After all, whatever becoems of Amtrak, I doubt that the passenger train is really "dead". It may be about to undergo a rough -- and I mean ROUGH -- change, but I'll bet we will still have passenger trains operating, say, 5 or 10 years from now, much less further out.

The big question is how to accompli***he transition, how to change Amtrak to operate in the new environment, and how to build that new track environment.

Freeway building started in, what? 1946? 49? And the Eisenhauer plan went in in the early 50s. But the bulk of construction didn't take place for another ten years, with significant gaps still being filled in the 60s and 70s. Even today, there are segments uncompleted, or cancelled.

So building the same scale project, for rail, may take just as long.

Now hold onto your hat, this October is going to be a bumpy, poltically and emotionally charged ride!

(And I'll be I'll be seeing you again then!)

See ya around,

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Don,I think any time you'd want to reach any big, inner city the costs would be about the same.Unless you want the stations located outside of town like the airports.Keith

[Anonymous]

Alexander,Now this, makes sense to me.Still think the costs would be astronomical,but if it was done one step at a time it might work,learning as they go.Don't know how receptive the frieght RR's would be but they've been forced into sharing tracks before.
Now if we could just convince the feds to give a project like this the money it would take we'd be in buisness.Just give us some the money allocated to other modes of transportation.
Keith

[Anonymous]

Alexander,Thanks but I already work for them,have since 1976. But I'll be watching for when you take over for Matt Rose. Thanks,Keith

[Anonymous]

The Alemeda corridor is not quite the typical grade level track, is it? A major highway throughfare was rebuilt, instead of having a divided highway, it is now undivided and with fewer lanes. The tracks were built in an open tunnel, a lot of digging was done.

A better example considering costs might be the double tracking of the San Bernadino corridor, similar to what DART has done in Dallas....more in the neighborhood of $20 million a mile.....

[Anonymous]

Yeash, what's wrong over there? Here, when we contract things out, we get higher quality and lower costs, not the opposite. Now, there are a few keys to that -- for one, the ability to fire the contractor post haste if they don't perform, and two, no one contractor for all things -- that's a monopoly, and that only encourages waste and corruption.

Likewise, Railtrack's main problem wasn't it's concept, but that it was a private firm. It should have been publicly owned. After all, would you want a private firm owning the surface streets? Heck no!

As for the freight mixed versus freight only, mixed can work, but only if there are sufficient sidings for meets and passes, and only if they can operate at certain speeds. Our High Speed routes stateside dating from the 40s and 50s were triple and even quadruple track to accomodate the varying speeds.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Consider the situation here in the UK: freight and passenger often use the same lines. With the increased schedules of Virgin trains, the freight operators (mainly EWS) are worried that they will have too few paths. Cases are trying to be made for re-opening lines to act as freight-only routes.

Also, Virgin Trains has just received £106 million from the Strategic Rail Authority (a government-created body) for the failure of Railtrack (a private company) to up-grade the West Coast MainLine in time.

Who would be responsible for maintainence? Here, Railtrack contracted out everything, with resulting higher costs and poorer workmanship.

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Keith:

Yeah, I know, AAR isn't so thrilled with private contractors either. I think that they might be able to work it out so that the crews are provided by the host road tho -- Amtrak was that way at first.

Think of it this way. Maersk, for example, owns it's own container cars, loads them iteslf, etc... and then has BNSF and NS or CSX or whoever haul them. So why not a private company, owning a passenger consist, and paying these same roads to haul it?

Now whether that pencils out is another story, but logistically it could work.

As for the first part, yes, I am "OK" with the gov. buying row, building track, etc... and then letting private companies buy trains and run over them. As long as those private companies pay something back, somehow, for the privilidge -- an electric system can't have a gas tax, so maybe a slot fee instead? A mileage fee? Something like that -- It could, again, work from a logistics standpoint.

In the meanwhile, it could host Amtrak, and other government related carriers. And I would allow states to operate their own trains over it, if they so wish, and anyone else, as long as they meet safety requirements and can pay for the slot.

Think of it like the Alameda Corridor, writ large. Yep, I know that'll cost a fortune, but look at the AC -- it will pay for itself! I was shocked! What a great model!

But I have no problem at all with spending capital dollars -- the fed build highways and airports, why not rail lines? Just as long as the trains are either operationally unsubsidized, or the ops subsidy is based on actual ridership and the decision to do so is made at a level as far from DC as possible.

Oh, and I don't necessarily need a profit. Just to cover costs, just not to run at such a loss as to hemorage -- and if a profit can be exacted, all the better, then we can attract some private investment, and get more trains, competition, maybe better service. Or at least, more frequent service.

[Anonymous]

Keith:

I will remember your offer when I am Chairman of BNSF+CN+NS....

;-)

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Alexander, About as clear as it takes to get through the mud between my ears.Sorry just got called.
We will agree to dis-agree.The costs involved are insurmountable for any private company to run a cost effective passenger rail network.Just my humble opinion.
If you do come up with a plan and it works let me know as I'd like to come work for you as a humble engineer.25yrs experience, 11 on Amtk.
My best to you also,Keith

[Anonymous]

To bad the railraods have to pay for and maintain their own rights of way.Pay taxes on that land also.Are you saying its alright for the gov. to pay for and build new passenger lines?If so it will cost trillions.(It cost 2.4 billion dollars alone for a 20 mile streach linkimg the ports of L.A. and Long Beach.)Then have some private company operate over those lines?Also do you really think the frieght roads are going to let some fly by night private outfit come onto their lines and operate passenger trains?
Well good luck with your idea of running passenger trains at a profit any way you want to do.

[Anonymous]

Operational, or Capital money?

On Operational, all surface vehicular traffic, except city bus lines. On rail, all freight roads. On sea, almost all sea carriers.

On Capital: all freight railroads. All other modes, air, sea, land, utilize capital financing from tax dollars.

This is always an important decision. I have absolutely no problem with government money going to, say, concrete ties, welded rail, signals, new r-o-w, yards, terminals, etc..... if those facilities host public tranportation of some kind.

I DO have a problem with paying for the trains that operrate over it. If that is desireable is one thing, but that is a decision that ought to be made by the communities involved, not in some Senate subcommittee. They will, naturally, choose routes for the wrong reasons.

[Anonymous]

Ed:

Well it was fun agree and occasionally disagreeing with you. See you around, maybe.

Love to discuss with you further but I am not sure how to get an email address to you without posting it for the whole web to see.

Later,

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Keith:

Well, we have more to disagree on then, and more to agree on too! But I will leave aside the first and give you the second.

I do agree with you -- and apparently mister Gunn -- that a "National" system, if we wi***o keep it, would require subsidies, as the long distance trains cannot attract enough riders, nor operate with the right equipment, to cover their costs. I do *not* believe that all long distance routes require subsidy, only that we cannot at this time, in the way we operate, and what we operate with, do it without subsidy.

I am about as clear as mud tonight, aren't I?

I still think that even so, there would be no harm to try a few semi-private or fully privatized trains in addition to what Amtrak would run. Heck, the goal is to get trains running, not to keep Amtrak going, the two are not necessarily the same thing.

But I digress. If you want a national system, today, subsidies are required. 'll close there, on a point of agreement between us.

Best -- Alexander

[Anonymous]

Ed,These guys are just being realistic about things.Name one truly national transportation system that is run without goverment money.Air,land ,sea.

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

Forget about it. These guys don't want to consider that a passenger rail system can exist without government money keeping it up. I am going to put my effort toward something that may do some good. Good Luck - Ed

[Anonymous]

Mr.Alexander, I respect your opinions but I disagree with the fact that a true national rail passenger system can be run without subsidies.Maybe small bits and pieces can be run at a profit but not a true national system.Amtrak was so caught up with trying to become a cost effective system they forgot how to run a railraod.Now that we have a man at the helm with a proven track,ouch,record and has shown he knows how to turn troubled systems around, it will be interesting to see how he does.I argee that G.Warrington was not the man for the job as his record proves.Its up to Mr.Gunn to clean up the mess Warrington left behind.
Another quote from Mr.Gunn; "Its sort of like a old fire horse,when they ring the alarm,you come running.I have a certain loyalty to this industry.They did need somebody and they needed them fast".
What he did for the NYC subway system speaks for itself.After all he really didn't need to take this job as he was enjoying his retirement but he saw the need and responded.So far I like what I see.
The hard decisions that have to be made will anger alot of people but hard decisions and a no-nonsense approach are whats needed.
I'm sure I won't agree with all he does and will criticize some of his policys but at least we have a man that speaks his mind and isn't affraid to step on some toes to get the job done.
And no Alexander I don't care to go back to a monarchy as the small dose I've gotten from King George....Bush, is enough to turn anyone away form it.
The gist of the matter is if we want a true national system or not.And yes its going to be hard to please everyone esspecialy the ones who make the decisions,Mr.And Mrs.Pork Spender. Keith

[Anonymous]

And yet, privatization HAS worked in other fields. Why dismiss it, without even trying? Can't we try both routes, and see which works? After all, Gunn is wrong -- perhaps he thinks the Amtrak model can work, but it never has!

Before you write me about the inefficiencies of Congress, let me say this -- I agree! They never got off their butts and made a decision about this!

But here is the secret -- Congress has always been that way, since day nought. So that had to be accomodated in any evaluation of the Amtrak model. So long as Amtrak requires Congressional approval for funding, and so long as it is subject to Congressional whims for such things as, "I want a train for my district" style pork, Amtrak will not work.

I do not agree that because "Every other nation" etc... etc... I DO agree that Amtrak, as it lays now, and as Gunn would have it, would always require operating subsidies. But that no passenger system can exist without subisidies, because no other nation does, is like going back in time and suggestiong that we needed a monarch, because no other nation in 1776 ruled without some despot at the reigns. "Everyone else does it" is NOT a reason to do anything, ever.

Likewise I do not agree that privatization or the ARC reforms are an avoidance. They are an honest attempt at a solution that is appropriate for the 21st century USA, not FDR's America.

Lastly, I DO agree with Mister Gunn's last qoute. Realism, dedication, intiative, loyalty, and not just wishing it so, is the key to success.

I find more and more that Mister Gunn and I disagree on many things, but agree on others. What I do find refreshing is that, despite these disagreements, Gunn is a straightforward guy. He beleives what he says and he is very, very honest. Just read his comments in the Washington Post today re Acela. And so, despite our disagreements, I respect Gunn, in a way that I never respected Warrington.

And so, I am merely being honest with you.

Best, Alexander

[Anonymous]

We could do something similar -- cut the CZ back to Denver-Oakland, and make the SW Chief, if justified, also a Denver based train. Then serve Denver with a Talgo type system, perhaps, to Chicago, or to KC.

Talgos are reliable, a key element of them. And in the short run, a great cost effective way to go. Oh, and another reason they work -- as you outlined, FREQUENCY! We run 3 daily runs PDX-SEATAC. Three!

Freed up Superliners could be used on other routes, to increase frequency until they, too, can go Talgo or better.

Stage three would be TGV as you would prefer. Did you note Gunn's comments today? "No more Acelas!" He wants "European" equipment next time, because they are more reliable. Want to bet who'll get the contract?

As traffic warrants, corridors could be increased to TGV standards, probably by new construction rather than upgrading the freight routes further. The displaced Talgos could then be put on other routes to expand the system, slowly, until the little nets start to bump into each other. By that time, I'd bet the success of this system would pull in quite a lot of riders.

And that is the trick -- incremental growth, "rooting" corridors in high population city pairs first, gradual expansion; multi-layered financing; and last, but most importantly -- buy only what works!

There may be short term debt, but the system can grow out of that debt, just as the Transcons eventually did.

[Anonymous]

Bleh. I hate toll roads. They keep trying to sell them up here, with very little success.

I'll bet I know why they are doing that. Since the country is largely poor, it's hard to run the roads on property taxes or on income taxes. So they are putting tolls in, trying to gain cash off US tourists and off NAFTA traffic from US owned businesses to the US border. Bet they are doing pretty good, too. No wonder they prefer shipping by rail to the US -- no tolls!

[Anonymous]

Except for Denver, Coloardo Springs, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, and Tucson, and Alburqueque there isn't much population in the Mountain Time Zone. It seems a waste of Amtrak's funds to provide them with 4 transcontinentals. I still think we are better off just servicing Denver from Chicago. From Denver people can take the ski train, and/or a tourist bus to see the Rockies. That is, if they don't want to drive....

Amtrak should prune these lines, and use their equipment to provide twice daily services instead of the single daily service east of Texas, Denver, Kansas City, and Minneapolis.....And I still believe, we need to move to high speed rail as swiftly as possible.

That doesn't necessarily mean 186 mph TGV Thalys. It could mean Talgos and Genesis engines on much improved tracks. If we could get the tracks up to at least 120 mph, much like the northeast corridor, it would be a huge improvement.

Maybe I am dreaming about 186 mph, but 120 mph probably could be built along current right of ways, with an investment of building new bridges, for half the price of dedicated TGV lines.

Instead of averaging 150 mph, we would probably end up averaging 100 mph, considering the stops. Thus, a 6 hour train ride to Atlanta and Chicago will become a 9 hour train ride.

But I still dream about having trains that are the envy of the world, and that is TGV Thalys.