You write really negatively about N Philly.
Maybe some redevelopment money would be well spent where the Ex-Reading, ex-Pennsylvania and Broad St lines cross. Temple University is 1-2 stops away, and Temple & Shriners Hospitals are a couple stops in the other direction along Broad St; so a research park, offices, commercial, and residential mixed-use development seems feasible and might spur redevelopment in the surrounding area.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/597/story/493917.html
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
FYI, I just got an e-mail about the 2nd Annual Transportation & Infrastructure Conference in Washington, DC March 11-13 co-hosted by NARP. The scope includes transit as well as Amtrak and HSR. Sorry, I don't have a link.
I just wish I could afford to go; but getting there, registration, and three nights in Washington are too prohibitive. Another form of pay to play that we in Illinois know too well. Even if the Washington tradition of awarding everybody for anything is honored and consumes a lot of time, there are still the values of networking and face time.
As long as there is only one slow train between Pittsburgh and New York, backing between Zoo and 30th Street is more rational than any construction of a loop or N Philadelphia connection.
High speed between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia is a dream that, as far as I know, has not been quantified for cost, ridership, and impacts. After that, is it fair to compare the proportions of investments and trips?
That is a very expensive solution to build a turning loop right in the heart of downtown Philadelphia. Of course it's just tax dollars so let's buiild us a monument to the government. The obvious solution that costs vritually nothing is to ressurect North Philly as the stop and make it totaly inaccessible to the local area. It might take a twenty foot bullet proof fence and a shuttle to 30th street but it could be a readily available transfer point that served the PRR well for nearly fifty years and still exists.
As far as the title of this discussion "Amtraks Future" That is the ultimate definition of an oxymoron in my opinion.
gardendance TomDiehl The best solution to the problem of 30th Street Station's location is to finish what the Pennsy had originally planned. There was supposed to be a turning loop just South of the station, allowing trains from New York to stop at the station, continue forward through the loop, and back to Zoo Interlocking, then head West. No reversing moves required. This thread's Amtrak's future, not necessarily high speed, or electrification. You won't get the full benefit of the turning loop as long as you have to change locomotives, diesel vs electric. I haven't paid attention for a while, but for several years all Amtrak trains west of Philly changed power when they changed direction at 30th St. Others who know better can correct me, but I believe if anything's electric now it's just the Philly-Harrisburg trains, New York-Harrisburg and west still change power and direction at 30th St.
TomDiehl The best solution to the problem of 30th Street Station's location is to finish what the Pennsy had originally planned. There was supposed to be a turning loop just South of the station, allowing trains from New York to stop at the station, continue forward through the loop, and back to Zoo Interlocking, then head West. No reversing moves required.
The best solution to the problem of 30th Street Station's location is to finish what the Pennsy had originally planned. There was supposed to be a turning loop just South of the station, allowing trains from New York to stop at the station, continue forward through the loop, and back to Zoo Interlocking, then head West. No reversing moves required.
This thread's Amtrak's future, not necessarily high speed, or electrification. You won't get the full benefit of the turning loop as long as you have to change locomotives, diesel vs electric. I haven't paid attention for a while, but for several years all Amtrak trains west of Philly changed power when they changed direction at 30th St. Others who know better can correct me, but I believe if anything's electric now it's just the Philly-Harrisburg trains, New York-Harrisburg and west still change power and direction at 30th St.
You say that like it's an absolute that the comments must follow only the thread title. Like that ever happens.
Change of power or not, the Pittsburgh bound Pennsylvanian has to back up from 30th Street to Zoo Interlocking, then run forward toward the West. The loop would eliminate the backing move, which is run under speed restrictions.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Some comments have made about connected and overlapping corridors such as New York - Carolina - Atlanta - New Orleans and Kansas City - Texas; but what about Chicago - Tennessee - Atlanta - Florida? Anyone think there are viable corridor opportunities with tilt equipment to overcome curve restrictions?
HarveyK400 I was suggesting using the suburban line through downtown Philadelphia to a tunnel crossing of the Delaware River to the vicinity of Merchantville as part of a new high-speed route along the New Jersey Turnpike to a point of intersection at the west end of Meadows Yard. Alternatively, build a connection from SEPTA (the ex-Reading) to the NEC where the lines intersect at North Philadelphia (no stop). This continues to use the older, slower ex-Pennsylvania line through New Jersey. My whole point is to get to downtown Philadelphia rather than using 30th Street regardless of it being one of the most beautiful railroad stations.
I was suggesting using the suburban line through downtown Philadelphia to a tunnel crossing of the Delaware River to the vicinity of Merchantville as part of a new high-speed route along the New Jersey Turnpike to a point of intersection at the west end of Meadows Yard.
Alternatively, build a connection from SEPTA (the ex-Reading) to the NEC where the lines intersect at North Philadelphia (no stop). This continues to use the older, slower ex-Pennsylvania line through New Jersey.
My whole point is to get to downtown Philadelphia rather than using 30th Street regardless of it being one of the most beautiful railroad stations.
Center City Phila keeps creeping west toward 30th St with most of the new office construction in the past couple decades located in the mile between City Hall and the Schuylkill. I suspect the convenience to commuter rail at Suburban Sta. and 30th St. and the Market St. Line and Subwy-Surface routes were major factors in this, but I don't discount the effect of Metroliner Service out of 30th St as a part of the pull.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
daveklepper All the fastest and most pretigious PRR NY-Midwest limiteds use the "NY-Pittrsburgh Subway" at Zoo Interlocking, bypasing 30th Street. Philadelphia passengers could board at North Philadelphia or at Paoli.
All the fastest and most pretigious PRR NY-Midwest limiteds use the "NY-Pittrsburgh Subway" at Zoo Interlocking, bypasing 30th Street. Philadelphia passengers could board at North Philadelphia or at Paoli.
Unfortunately, the area of North Philadelphia Station is not the neighborhood that I'd want to get on/off a train nowadays. You can still board at Ardmore or Paoli.
The basic problems in the NEC are the need for new catenary south of New York, where generally the track could take higher speeds, and the problem with the Metro North alignment between New Rochelle and New Haven, where curves sharply limit speeds and track centers don't permit tilting trains to use their tilt.
I haven't seen the numbers; but Spain's AVE network seems to be doing well by the accounts from the Midwest High Speed Rail Assn tour this past week. Their big thing is the percentage of traffic diverted from air. The larger market is auto use for intercity travel. One has to wonder how this would translate for the 200 mph line between New York and Chicago that was proposed by someone. Furthermore, this isn't a "spade-ready" stimulus project that could be completed in a couple of years.
Separate trains would branch from New York and Chicago to reach Pittsburgh, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. Buffalo would have sevice to Chicago through Cleveland with an upgraded or new line from New York to Buffalo. Additional regional services would run between these cities. A few trains could run through via Pittsburgh; but 6-7 hours between New York and Chicago is hardly competitive with air.
Looking at maps, I was struck by a couple opportunities for high speed rail: the New Jersey Turnpike seems to have much broader curves between New York and Philadelphia, and a route through Philadelphia's suburban subway could avoid the reversal of train direction at 30th Street for trains heading west to Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.
I can't say much about stuff outside the NEC, but doesn't Acela have a nearly 100% farebox recovery rate, and didn't they just add $1 to every ticket to fund 20 new coaches to expand each trainset's capacity?
First, I am highly dubious of spending roughly $10 billion for one high speed rail line that won't get a person to a destination 300 miles away any faster than a plane, the airports already are built, and it takes almost as much energy.
Second, I think there is a niche for short and medium distance fast intercity rail pasenger services stringing together a number of small and medium size cities. Air service to these markets is inherently expensive and would consume most airport capacity. A symbiotic relationship between rail and air can be established to feed into major city airports as well as traditional regional travel for business, entertainment, shopping, and social purposes.
Some of the corridors Al proposes seem to be possible if not viable only because HSR would reduce trip time to under the three hour threshold between large cities. In addition, some of the corridors are devoid of small and medium intermediate markets that would make non-HSR service feasible and must rely on an untenable head-to-head competition with airlines.
I'm sorry I don't have time to critique the specific proposals.
passengerfan Sam1 Al California voters approved a bond program to fund HSR irrespective of the fact that California is facing a $40 billion budget deficit. The inability to resolve this budget deficit, according to news reports, has brought California's government to a standstill. How will California's taxpayers service the bonds to be issued for HSR? Amtrak has $3.1 billion of long term debt on its balance sheet. How will it pay for the additional equipment that you advocate, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. is experiencing what some have called the worse financial crisis since 1931? Less than 15 per cent of Amtrak's passengers use the long distance trains. More importantly, less than one per cent of intercity travel in the U.S. is by long distance train. What is the justification for advocating the purchase of new long distance equipment? And how will it be paid for? Sam You asked how we are going to pay for it and the answer is quite simply we are not. Our Great Great Great Grandchildren will be the ones who pay for it just like everything else in this country. The government has not lived within its means in all of my years of existence so far and I don't think I will live long enough to see it happen.
Sam1 Al California voters approved a bond program to fund HSR irrespective of the fact that California is facing a $40 billion budget deficit. The inability to resolve this budget deficit, according to news reports, has brought California's government to a standstill. How will California's taxpayers service the bonds to be issued for HSR? Amtrak has $3.1 billion of long term debt on its balance sheet. How will it pay for the additional equipment that you advocate, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. is experiencing what some have called the worse financial crisis since 1931? Less than 15 per cent of Amtrak's passengers use the long distance trains. More importantly, less than one per cent of intercity travel in the U.S. is by long distance train. What is the justification for advocating the purchase of new long distance equipment? And how will it be paid for?
Al
California voters approved a bond program to fund HSR irrespective of the fact that California is facing a $40 billion budget deficit. The inability to resolve this budget deficit, according to news reports, has brought California's government to a standstill. How will California's taxpayers service the bonds to be issued for HSR?
Amtrak has $3.1 billion of long term debt on its balance sheet. How will it pay for the additional equipment that you advocate, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. is experiencing what some have called the worse financial crisis since 1931?
Less than 15 per cent of Amtrak's passengers use the long distance trains. More importantly, less than one per cent of intercity travel in the U.S. is by long distance train. What is the justification for advocating the purchase of new long distance equipment? And how will it be paid for?
You asked how we are going to pay for it and the answer is quite simply we are not. Our Great Great Great Grandchildren will be the ones who pay for it just like everything else in this country. The government has not lived within its means in all of my years of existence so far and I don't think I will live long enough to see it happen.
Nah, we all pay for rampant deficit spending much sooner than that as inflation.
The total stimulus for ALL transportation projects is going to be in the $200B range. A bunch to do highway and bridge rebuilding, a bunch to to transit and maybe some scraps for Amtrak.
To think that there is $300B available to build out a HSR network is just...
We have a new government coming to power in a couple of weeks and they are looking for job creating projects, I can't think of a better one HSR as I mentioned. You asked how we are going to pay for it and the answer is quite simply we are not. Our Great Great Great Grandchildren will be the ones who pay for it just like everything else in this country. The government has not lived within its means in all of my years of existence so far and I don't think I will live long enough to see it happen. And California is probably the worst state offender of all. For one reason former goverments in California require that all prisoners released from prison enter a parole/probation program even if the served all of there time and for every offense they were locked up for. This created a monster parole/probation department and they are opposed to any other form of release. No other state releases prisoners in this way, where probation/parole in mandatory. And you wonder why California is so far in debt.
You mentioned in this or one of the other columns about gas fired generating plants, they are fine for the states that have adequate gas supplies but many states are not as fortunate as Texas in this regard. I understand that nuclear plants are the most energy efficient even if the most expensive to build initially. The problem has always been where do we store the waste. Now maybe at last Yucca Mountain will at last be the answer.
Al - in - Stockton
It would allow for a gradual change over to electric.
The Bombardier JetTrain locomotive would be a good fit for the Talgo trains. It's basically and Acela locomotive with a gas turbine/genset in the place of the transformer.
Bombardier and Talgo are still foreign-owned manufacturers; and while I'm on the subject, Electro Motive locomotives are assembled in Canada. I suspect EM gets around the domestic content requirement by providing kits to MPI.
I agree that a lightweight, low center-of-gravity locomotive/power car is desirable, even if a 7" underbalance for an F59 is not a significant handicap. The weight transfer to the outer rail is considerable; and it affects wear and accelerates degradation of surface and line which is exacerbated by the weight of a conventional locomotive.
I agree that more equipment is needed. Repairing wrecked cars is a quick fix for capacity; but in most cases they are ill-suited for expanding existing and new services. Additional Acelas could supplant Amfleet and Horizon equipment on secondary NEC and New York - Atlantic Coast services enhancing service with faster schedules; but the replaced equipment would not be ideal for assignment elsewhere. Would it make more sense to get by with existing equipment outside the NEC; or would enhanced service with new tilting, low-floor equipment be more attractive and equitable?
Reliable power depends on meeting recommended servicing schedules. It's hard to judge the P42 record since, if memory serves me, Amtrak is the only operator, and the company has gone through cycles of deferred maintenance. Metra has gotten reasonably reliable service from its F40's for about 40 years.
Direct take-off for head end power is the simplest, lightest, and least expensive arrangement. Even with 8 Superliners, an F40 still has the power of an E7 and has the ability to accelerate such a train to 80 mph. A 4,000 hp locomotive would provide 50% more power for traction and quicker acceleration.
Going to a new twin-engine locomotive for reliability simply adds to the weight (increasing fuel consumption), complexity (possibly 6-wheel radial trucks to reduce axle load), and cost of dual components just to provide reliability through redundancy. A 12-cylinder, 3,000 hp engine would have enough power, even with HEP, to move a train in the event the second engine failed. Using a locomotive/power car at each end adds still more weight, complexity, and cost.
As for HSR for 26 corridors, this represents at least $300 billion. Simply upgrading or implementing those corridors with new equipment would only cost about $3 billion - 100 times less - while expanding the reach and relevance of Amtrak.
HarveyK400 Basically, you're confirming what I already said - there is no active US manufacturer to enjoy the economic stimulus of new railcar orders. We're going around the same circle. The prospect of starting up a company with manufacturing equipment is inherently expensive and has an uncertain future. I also think avoiding patents for things that work is equally foolhardy. The only recent railcars have been Bombardier tri-level and Nippon-Sharyo gallery cars for commuter services. There is serious concern for structural integrity for the former; the latter is less easily accessible; and neither seem to be candidates for tilt suspension. The Midwest and elsewhere could do worse than getting Talgos. They would make additional corridors practical and competitive with driving. 80 mph could be sustained on lines with prevalent 2-degree curves. Even a respectable 65 mph could be achieved with 3-degree curves instead of just 50 mph. This would improve the Chicago-Detroit, proposed Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati, proposed Chicago-Dubuque, possible Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha, Southeast (Wahington, DC-Charlotte-Atlanta), and Fort Worth-San Antonio corridors. Maybe some domestic content could be achieved in the locomotive/power car. The problem is we urgently need expanded safe, energy-efficient and low emission travel alternatives to reach more people and destinations in viable markets in a time at or approaching peak oil. This entails a change in focus from maximizing revenue from each passenger to maximizing use and overall revenue with a resulting lower cost per passenger.
Basically, you're confirming what I already said - there is no active US manufacturer to enjoy the economic stimulus of new railcar orders. We're going around the same circle.
The only recent railcars have been Bombardier tri-level and Nippon-Sharyo gallery cars for commuter services. There is serious concern for structural integrity for the former; the latter is less easily accessible; and neither seem to be candidates for tilt suspension.
The Midwest and elsewhere could do worse than getting Talgos. They would make additional corridors practical and competitive with driving. 80 mph could be sustained on lines with prevalent 2-degree curves. Even a respectable 65 mph could be achieved with 3-degree curves instead of just 50 mph. This would improve the Chicago-Detroit, proposed Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati, proposed Chicago-Dubuque, possible Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha, Southeast (Wahington, DC-Charlotte-Atlanta), and Fort Worth-San Antonio corridors.
Maybe some domestic content could be achieved in the locomotive/power car.
The problem is we urgently need expanded safe, energy-efficient and low emission travel alternatives to reach more people and destinations in viable markets in a time at or approaching peak oil. This entails a change in focus from maximizing revenue from each passenger to maximizing use and overall revenue with a resulting lower cost per passenger.
Another problem that needs to be addressed is the HEP situation that robs so much power from the locomotives when they really need it climbing mountain grades. I see some long distance trains assigned single door baggage cars that are shorter than the standard baggage cars with two. I am not sure if all of the space in the cars is needed for baggage. Why not do like the UP and BNSF have done and put HEP power in the baggage car. That way the locomotives would have all of there power for pulling. If the train requires more than half the baggage car for luggage than add an additional baggage car to the train.
As I see it Amtrak has several problems that need to be addressed if it is ever to become a viable transportation system.
1. They need to double the equipment they already operate and that includes Acela, twenty sets is not enough. Continue Superliners on the western trains but they need changes to make them more reliable and passenger friendly. Modules for A/C assemblies with all major stations having back ups along a trains route and correct the plumbing problems would greatly improve those cars.
2. Invest in more reliable power for the trains. If they are going to be depreciated for forty years than lets build decent power that will last forty years. The same needs to be done with new generation cars.
3. Amtrak (the Government) needs to get on board with states like California that passed a 10 billion bond issue on the November ballot for HSR. And the following cities should definitely look at HSR service within the next twenty year time frame.
A. Miami - Jacksonville
B. Jacksonville - Atlanta
C Jacksonville - New Orleans
D New Orleans - Houston (San Antonio?)
E Houston - Dallas
F Dallas - Kansas City
G San Antonio - Austin - Dallas
H Dallas - Denver
I El Paso - Albuquerque - Denver
J. Denver - Salt Lake City
K Tucson - Phoenix - Los Angeles
L Sacramento - Eugene - Portland
M Portland - Seattle - Vancouver
N Minneapolis - Chicago
O Minneapolis - Kansas City?
P Chicago - Detroit
Q Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City
R Chicago - Des Moines - Omaha
S Chicago - Indianapolis
T Chicago - Cleveland
U Cleveland - Dayton - Cincinnatti
V Washington - Charlotte - Atlanta
W Atlanta - New Orleans or possibly Atlanta - Dallas
X Cincinnatti - Atlanta
Z Memphis - Atlanta
Al in Stockton
Sounds good to me! In fact, if you do it right, you don't even have to provide dorm space for the onboard crew.
Why not go even farther. Have a cleaning "hit squad" jump on the train once or twice at day for 30 minutes during a station stop (fuel stop?) and clean the train. There are a billion maid sevices out there looking for work.
The experts at this are the hotel industry. Why not benchmark against them?
.
Thanks to Wikipedia, I've found some interesting statistics that might bear on priorities and the relevance of Amtrak service to Illinois.
blue streak 1 Phoebe: Well the only builders here ( I hope I am wrong) do not have a standard car that can be built. The closest of any car is the viewliner and I do not know if the plans are still available. Patents should have expired on that design. Builders are Rader, super steel, and Bombardier in this country. Others guys??
Phoebe: Well the only builders here ( I hope I am wrong) do not have a standard car that can be built. The closest of any car is the viewliner and I do not know if the plans are still available. Patents should have expired on that design. Builders are Rader, super steel, and Bombardier in this country. Others guys??
It has always bothered me that the entire long distance crew go from origin to destination. The CN CP and now Via Rail Canda have the right idea. The long distance trains that operated from Toronto/Montreal to Vancouver changed on board crews in either direction at Winnipeg. In this way you seem to always have a fresh crew.
Amtrak could probably save money by changing long distance crews on there long distance trains as follows.
Empire Builder: Seattle/Portland - Havre - Chicago
California Zephyr: Oakland - Grand Junction - Chicago
Southwest Chief: Los Angeles - Albuquerque - Chicago
Sunset Limited: Los Angeles - El Paso- New Orleans
Coast Starlight: Los Angeles - Sacramento - Seattle
By using a system as above the crews would be fresh and in better shape performing there duties. I have noticed on all of the above trains that by the second day of travel the crews seem less likely to even pick up the trash scattered about the car, and most fail miserably at keeping the rest rooms clean. On the first day these things do not seem to bother the crew as much.
The airlines do not carry there crews overnight except on very long distance overseas flight where it is an absolute necessity. I understand that train crews are larger but I for one do not see why Coach attendants can not serve two cars. Two sleeping car attendants should be able to serve three cars between them. If they are only traveling half/way across the country this should not be a problem. I really think the future of Amtrak depends a lot on the on board crews and a tired crew does not perform like they do when fresh on the first day. By changing crews and cutting crew size this alone should increase passenger comfort. Not every door needs to be opened at every station and the single crew member for two coaches could be helped along by the reservation system placing passengers where this would be the most efficient way of handling things. At the final destination and at boarding there could be extra personel to load and unload the train passengers and there baggage. These station personel would only be paid for eight hours and would not travel on the trains. The idea of cutting on board crew sizes if the reservations are handled properly could even extend to most short distance trains as well as the corridor trains. If commuter trains operate with three man crews than Amtrak should be able to drastically cut crew size. Amtrak needs to get there train crew sizes in order if they wish to be competitive with other forms of transportation. If a bus driver can load the passengers luggage, take the ticket, board the passenger and drive the bus and make sure all passengers reach there destination, than Amtrak has to seriously address there labor issues.
All: There is crying need of no mater who or how new cars are manufactured that there be a lot of modular building of the equipment. The use of modular components in the aircraft business along with built in test equipment (BITE) speeds the replacement of faulty components, The same needs to be provided for RR car and engine electrical and electronic components. ( Relays, passenger convience items, even reading light modules, etc.) But also there is the need for A/C units, Plumbing, Holding tanks, water pumps, etc to be modular. A quick unlatch Unplug then plug - latch and go. ex. Seem to remember AOE used off shelf A/C units that they could replace anywhere in the country.
Note: All critical components have ease of access and removal.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.