Rare opportunity to ride the Zephyr on Burlington Rails.........
http://www.irm.org/events/zephyrexcursion.html
Remember viewing the train when it was still in revenue service - too many moons ago to count.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I was struck by the last sentence to the effect that the original Zephyr could run 117 miles and hour. If today we could only achieve 1936 technology long distance trains would command many more riders.
CMStPnP Rare opportunity to ride the Zephyr on Burlington Rails......... http://www.irm.org/events/zephyrexcursion.html
John WR I was struck by the last sentence to the effect that the original Zephyr could run 117 miles and hour. If today we could only achieve 1936 technology long distance trains would command many more riders.
The 117 MPH figure was a brief top speed, it was not a speed that could be maintained over an entire trip. If we could only achieve 1936 technology: no jet aircraft, no computers, no cell phones, etc.
CSSHEGEWISCH John WR I was struck by the last sentence to the effect that the original Zephyr could run 117 miles and hour. If today we could only achieve 1936 technology long distance trains would command many more riders. The 117 MPH figure was a brief top speed, it was not a speed that could be maintained over an entire trip. If we could only achieve 1936 technology: no jet aircraft, no computers, no cell phones, etc.
Also, how much track, even on the Burlington, was safe for such a high speed? I do not remember how fast the Pioneer Zephyr ran during its dawn-to-dusk run from Denver to Chicago, but I do not believe it even approached 100 mph for much of its trip (at that time, the ICC had set no speed restrictions that were based on signaling)..
Johnny
CSSHEGEWISCH ... ... If we could only achieve 1936 technology: no jet aircraft, no computers, no cell phones, etc.
...
If we could only achieve 1936 technology: no jet aircraft, no computers, no cell phones, etc.
Your sarcasm makes the point precisely. In nearly every other area of technology, there has been huge progress in the last 75 years, which has been put into practice in the US.
In railroading, there also has been enormous technical progress -- welded rail, more efficient diesels, etc., etc. But it has not had any apparent effect on passenger railroading (at least in North America).
In the late '30's, the Denver Zephyr regularly made the Chicago-Denver run in about 16 hours. Today, after 75 years of progress, over 18. Between Chicago and the Twin Cities in the late '30's, several railroads had trains running at or under 7 hours. Seventy-five years later, over 8. There are many examples all over the country.
I must agree with what I suspect John was trying to say -- if Amtrak only ran its trains to the time and service standards used several generations ago, it would be carrying many more passengers -- and perhaps even with better financial results. If actually operated to today's worldwide "best standards" ...
Dragoman CSSHEGEWISCH ... ... If we could only achieve 1936 technology: no jet aircraft, no computers, no cell phones, etc. Your sarcasm makes the point precisely. In nearly every other area of technology, there has been huge progress in the last 75 years, which has been put into practice in the US. In railroading, there also has been enormous technical progress -- welded rail, more efficient diesels, etc., etc. But it has not had any apparent effect on passenger railroading (at least in North America). In the late '30's, the Denver Zephyr regularly made the Chicago-Denver run in about 16 hours. Today, after 75 years of progress, over 18. Between Chicago and the Twin Cities in the late '30's, several railroads had trains running at or under 7 hours. Seventy-five years later, over 8. There are many examples all over the country. I must agree with what I suspect John was trying to say -- if Amtrak only ran its trains to the time and service standards used several generations ago, it would be carrying many more passengers -- and perhaps even with better financial results. If actually operated to today's worldwide "best standards" ...
To do what you are stating - the company must own and operate the right of way. Amtrak basically only owns and operates the NEC and on the NEC they have improved over the PRR & NH of the 30's.
Flashback!
Remember, too, back in the 1960s and '70s when a replacement for the great Pennsy GG-1 was being conducted? Turned out that the then railroad technologies of the time could not come up with 1934 design of the GG-1. This country had to go overseas to find a replacement. Today we have the foreign designed and built ACELA.
H--m-m-m-m . . .
Amtrak owns 363 of the 456 miles of the NEC. It rents space on the track that it does not own and leases its track to other operators. Guarantees jobs for the accountants who have to keep track of the use. No pun intended!
Amtrak could reduce the time to run from Chicago to Denver to 8 hours, and it could not compete with the jet airplane. Although it might syphon off some car folks, the transfer would be minimum. People drive because it is cheaper for a family, especially when considering the need for transport at the destination.
Some times I drive to Dallas from my home in Georgetown, TX. And sometimes I take the train. When I drive I can get a hotel room near the outskirts of Dallas for approximately $65 per night. When I take the train, I stay downtown, where getting a hotel for less than $145 per night is a challenge. I could ride public transport to one of the outlying areas and find cheaper accommodations, but I am not keen about riding on DART late at night, which would be a requirement since I oftentimes go to Dallas for a concert. I don't have this issue when I have my car. This is an example of the challenges facing train and bus travelers in many parts of the country.
The future for passenger rail is in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost to expand the highways and airways is prohibitive. The NEC is the best example that I can think of.
Sam1The future for passenger rail is in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost to expand the highways and airways is prohibitive. The NEC is the best example that I can think of.
Santa Barbara to San Diego is a pretty good fit, too. Perhaps Miami-Orlando-Tampa (or Jax). Also, DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte-Atlanta might have a future. Atlanta to DC is probably as long a trip as Denver - Chicago, but this route has huge (and growing) population along the route.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oldyardgoat Flashback! Remember, too, back in the 1960s and '70s when a replacement for the great Pennsy GG-1 was being conducted? Turned out that the then railroad technologies of the time could not come up with 1934 design of the GG-1. This country had to go overseas to find a replacement. Today we have the foreign designed and built ACELA. H--m-m-m-m . . .
The GG1s had their issues, but pulling long trains at 90 mph wasn't one of them. It was really somewhat naive to think you could adapt a 90 mph freight locomotive design to 125 mph without encountering some issues. Turns out, the E60s did finally do a pretty good job of hauling long trains at 95 mph. 125 mph just wasn't to be.
The AEM7's were basically a Swedish ASEA Rc-4. The Rc-4s are still going great guns in Sweden while Amtrak is starting to replace the AEM7s. I'd like to see the justification for the new electrics over doing an AC rebuild of the AEM7s. I wonder if there is one or is it just a case of the Mechanical Dept wanting "new".
It would be interesting to compare the type of service in which the Rc-4's were used in Sweden with the service of the AEM7's in the NEC. The AEM7's are 30+ years old and have been in pretty hard service for most of that time.
BaltACD Dragoman CSSHEGEWISCH ... ... If we could only achieve 1936 technology: no jet aircraft, no computers, no cell phones, etc. Your sarcasm makes the point precisely. In nearly every other area of technology, there has been huge progress in the last 75 years, which has been put into practice in the US. In railroading, there also has been enormous technical progress -- welded rail, more efficient diesels, etc., etc. But it has not had any apparent effect on passenger railroading (at least in North America). In the late '30's, the Denver Zephyr regularly made the Chicago-Denver run in about 16 hours. Today, after 75 years of progress, over 18. Between Chicago and the Twin Cities in the late '30's, several railroads had trains running at or under 7 hours. Seventy-five years later, over 8. There are many examples all over the country. I must agree with what I suspect John was trying to say -- if Amtrak only ran its trains to the time and service standards used several generations ago, it would be carrying many more passengers -- and perhaps even with better financial results. If actually operated to today's worldwide "best standards" ... To do what you are stating - the company must own and operate the right of way. Amtrak basically only owns and operates the NEC and on the NEC they have improved over the PRR & NH of the 30's.
Saw the Zephyr racing thru Downers Grove at full speed. Reminds me of my youth when trains like this were common on the Mendota sub. There was also a similar special train that passed by just before the Zephyr but a coal train blocked our view. Any idea what it was?
It would be nice to have a network of electric-powered trains running up to 110mph on existing track from Chicago to Milwaukee/Madison, St. Louis, Detroit, and Indy/Cincinnatti. The Nebraska Zephyr would be a good design for other corridor service where diesel power is required.
CSSHEGEWISCH It would be interesting to compare the type of service in which the Rc-4's were used in Sweden with the service of the AEM7's in the NEC. The AEM7's are 30+ years old and have been in pretty hard service for most of that time.
There were quite a few cool videos on YouTube. Really neat to see it zip by.
grover5995 Saw the Zephyr racing thru Downers Grove at full speed. Reminds me of my youth when trains like this were common on the Mendota sub. There was also a similar special train that passed by just before the Zephyr but a coal train blocked our view. Any idea what it was?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.