I should clarify: those 29 passengers on the train cut represented 100 other rides per week. Some who used this train as a back up abandoned their other trains because they were not able to be assured of service when they needed it; it was taken away so they went away.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
oltmanndIt would be a good spot to try those long, movable frog turnouts. UP has some 60 mph jobs out there somewhere getting pounded by freight trains and Amtrak has few, too. But none getting used like this. The passenger train could hit the 110 mph at 79 and return at 79 mph.
Exactly what I expect for this "test track".
blue streak 1oltmanndblownout cylinder And if the Tampa-Orlando run does something along the line of proving a stated desire then at least we have something. As for how short that run is, it's a little different from the 11 mile 'shoo-fly' .....The 11 mile shoo-fly isn't expected to produce any real benefits for the passengers. It's goal is to see and understand what happens when you integrate a high speed passenger track into a high traffic, double track freight railroad. You do this so, before you go and spend a half a billion on a couple hundred miles of third track in NY, you'll have some reasonable idea that some unforeseen problem won't jump up and bite you you know where. There are always unforeseen problems that become obvious - once you see them! Just ask Austin TX or WMATA... Don: You hit the nail on the head about Austin and WMATA. Now this 11 mile third track:. If a 110 MPH MSR train is following a 60 MPH 10,000 ft freight on the freight's yellow blocks.--- 1. Once the end of the freight clears the CP the MSR will get a diverging clear and depending on the crossover speed can accelerate onto the HSR track and overtake the freight . If I calculate correctly the MSR can overtake by the far end of this 11 mile segment without the freight train slowing except through 1 2 mile block. That of course is if some unforseen problems do not rear up. Spacing of the blocks will be very important and above my pay grade. Also a head to head meet will show any problems there.
oltmanndblownout cylinder And if the Tampa-Orlando run does something along the line of proving a stated desire then at least we have something. As for how short that run is, it's a little different from the 11 mile 'shoo-fly' .....The 11 mile shoo-fly isn't expected to produce any real benefits for the passengers. It's goal is to see and understand what happens when you integrate a high speed passenger track into a high traffic, double track freight railroad. You do this so, before you go and spend a half a billion on a couple hundred miles of third track in NY, you'll have some reasonable idea that some unforeseen problem won't jump up and bite you you know where. There are always unforeseen problems that become obvious - once you see them! Just ask Austin TX or WMATA...
blownout cylinder And if the Tampa-Orlando run does something along the line of proving a stated desire then at least we have something. As for how short that run is, it's a little different from the 11 mile 'shoo-fly' .....
Don: You hit the nail on the head about Austin and WMATA. Now this 11 mile third track:. If a 110 MPH MSR train is following a 60 MPH 10,000 ft freight on the freight's yellow blocks.---
1. Once the end of the freight clears the CP the MSR will get a diverging clear and depending on the crossover speed can accelerate onto the HSR track and overtake the freight . If I calculate correctly the MSR can overtake by the far end of this 11 mile segment without the freight train slowing except through 1 2 mile block. That of course is if some unforseen problems do not rear up. Spacing of the blocks will be very important and above my pay grade.
Also a head to head meet will show any problems there.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
HarveyK400 Sorry, I missed the shoo-fly reference. If this is a high speed bypass, it could save road delay and safety costs with crossing elimination as well as rail time and operating cost that would be beneficial within a reasonable time frame. Actually, adding a third track seems quite reasonable. Given the NEC has a history of operating mixed traffic on multiple tracks, I don't see what is such an issue when operating below those speeds across New York. Furthermore, wasn't that route formerly four-tracked?
Sorry, I missed the shoo-fly reference. If this is a high speed bypass, it could save road delay and safety costs with crossing elimination as well as rail time and operating cost that would be beneficial within a reasonable time frame.
Actually, adding a third track seems quite reasonable. Given the NEC has a history of operating mixed traffic on multiple tracks, I don't see what is such an issue when operating below those speeds across New York. Furthermore, wasn't that route formerly four-tracked?
blue streak 1 henry6 I am going to say this over in the Transit pages, too, but it might seem pertinent here. Yesterday I heard a statistic that when a train handling 29 people daily was cut the effect was over 100 lost passengers because of other trains loosing patronage. In other words, as often pound away, passenger rail, be it commuter or long distance, is not running trains but providing a service. The bean counters pull everything apart penny by penny not realizing that in providing a service the sum of 100 pennies is often more than a dollar! Henry6: Correct the best example of this is the contrary example of the Lynchburg service and its ridership above projections. We do not know if ridership was only projected LYH - WAS but it is obvious that many are going farther. Ticket information can give the Amtrak destionation including connections. What needs to be done is to have someone survey the passengers on board and find where and how they are going get to there final destination. I'll volunteer to do it for 2 weeks.
henry6 I am going to say this over in the Transit pages, too, but it might seem pertinent here. Yesterday I heard a statistic that when a train handling 29 people daily was cut the effect was over 100 lost passengers because of other trains loosing patronage. In other words, as often pound away, passenger rail, be it commuter or long distance, is not running trains but providing a service. The bean counters pull everything apart penny by penny not realizing that in providing a service the sum of 100 pennies is often more than a dollar!
I am going to say this over in the Transit pages, too, but it might seem pertinent here. Yesterday I heard a statistic that when a train handling 29 people daily was cut the effect was over 100 lost passengers because of other trains loosing patronage. In other words, as often pound away, passenger rail, be it commuter or long distance, is not running trains but providing a service. The bean counters pull everything apart penny by penny not realizing that in providing a service the sum of 100 pennies is often more than a dollar!
Henry6: Correct the best example of this is the contrary example of the Lynchburg service and its ridership above projections. We do not know if ridership was only projected LYH - WAS but it is obvious that many are going farther. Ticket information can give the Amtrak destionation including connections. What needs to be done is to have someone survey the passengers on board and find where and how they are going get to there final destination. I'll volunteer to do it for 2 weeks.
And not only their final destination but also their return trip plans plus ask how often the make the trip.
DMUinCTSorry, you just eliminated France, Japan, Korea, etc. They all "creep" out of the major cities on existing Right Of Ways before comming up to full speed in the open country. The Northeast Corridor has little open country.
Sorry, you just eliminated France, Japan, Korea, etc. They all "creep" out of the major cities on existing Right Of Ways before comming up to full speed in the open country.
The Northeast Corridor has little open country.
You ever ride an ICE from Frankfurt to Munich or anyone of several other routes in Germany ? Many cities, closely packed, one after another. Not terribly different than much of the NEC.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmannd The Harrisburg Line is a good example of an incremental investment that turned "OK" into "pretty good". A $110+M chopped about 30 minutes out of a 2 hour trip, allowed more round trips and increased ridership.
The Harrisburg Line is a good example of an incremental investment that turned "OK" into "pretty good". A $110+M chopped about 30 minutes out of a 2 hour trip, allowed more round trips and increased ridership.
Don: you bring up a very good point. I can remember when the ridership on HAR - Phl was around 25 - 30,000 passengers per month now it is over 100k?
HarveyK400No realistic HSR can do any better than creep out of Chicago, Los Angeles, or elsewhere, even if serious development had begun back in 1971.
Similarly, the Amtrak routes out of Chicago use the former four-track NS (former NYC); and a third track is to be restored to Porter, IN. The South of the Lake proposals would involve longer routes, and while up to 110 mph might be possible in order eliminate a restrictive turnout and curve at Porter for Michigan trains, the broader curves of the NS between East Chicago and Burns Harbor would allow true high speed with minimal grade separation, and the additional tracks afford operational flexibility and greater capacity.
DMUinCTSorry, you just eliminated France, Japan, Korea, etc. Thay all "creep" out of the major cities on existing Right Of Ways before comming up to full speed in the open country. The Northeast Corridor has little open country.
Sorry, you just eliminated France, Japan, Korea, etc. Thay all "creep" out of the major cities on existing Right Of Ways before comming up to full speed in the open country. The Northeast Corridor has little open country.
I couldn't agree more about the NEC. And an extension to Richmond is bridled with the same restraints akin to New York - Providence.
No realistic HSR can do any better than creep out of Chicago, Los Angeles, or elsewhere, even if serious development had begun back in 1971.
Paul Milenkovic Some medium speed lines would be good, too. which is the point Messrs. Boardman, Oltmann, and others have been making all along. This business of "if it is not 160 MPH end-to-end, it is not 'true' HSR." If it meets a public need, who cares?
Some medium speed lines would be good, too.
which is the point Messrs. Boardman, Oltmann, and others have been making all along.
This business of "if it is not 160 MPH end-to-end, it is not 'true' HSR." If it meets a public need, who cares?
That is where the confusion reigns. We seem to have forgotten the consumer here. S/he may not give a hoot about how fast the ding thing goes as long as they can get to where they want to go.The only survey that I came across --the one that the province of Alberta done--seemed to be more interested in just point A to point B travel. Not how fast am I going?
I really would like to see someone come up with a survey that demonstrated a serious desire on the part of the rail passenger for high speed service. And if the Tampa-Orlando run does something along the line of proving a stated desire then at least we have something. As for how short that run is, it's a little different from the 11 mile 'shoo-fly' .....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
schlimm oltmannd I'm not sure that if we have the money to turn something that is now "pretty good" into something great, that we wouldn't get more bang for our buck elsewhere in the country where we can turn "nothing" or "almost nothing" into "good". Part of me agrees on that. The NEC has been a colossal money hole and we still don't have a real high speed line after 40 years, which is pretty pathetic. Buying equipment capable of running at 160 and running at a much lower speed seems a bit silly too. But I think we need to prove we can build and run a true high speed line somewhere, in the NEC or Florida or California. Some medium speed lines would be good, too.
oltmannd I'm not sure that if we have the money to turn something that is now "pretty good" into something great, that we wouldn't get more bang for our buck elsewhere in the country where we can turn "nothing" or "almost nothing" into "good".
Part of me agrees on that. The NEC has been a colossal money hole and we still don't have a real high speed line after 40 years, which is pretty pathetic. Buying equipment capable of running at 160 and running at a much lower speed seems a bit silly too. But I think we need to prove we can build and run a true high speed line somewhere, in the NEC or Florida or California. Some medium speed lines would be good, too.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Paul Milenkovicschlimm The NEC has been a colossal money hole By which standards, those of Cato or Heritage? and we still don't have a real high speed line after 40 years, which is pretty pathetic. So, is a 60% market share relative to 40% airline share also "pretty pathetic"? Buying equipment capable of running at 160 and running at a much lower speed seems a bit silly too. Agreed, but you need to take into account that But I think we need to prove we can build and run a true high speed line somewhere this kind of thinking is behind designing rolling stock to operate at speeds the track or catenary will never support -- the thinking that we have some kind of need to "prove" something besides getting a functioning transportation system with a large number of departures and the majority market share. Some medium speed lines would be good, too. which is the point Messrs. Boardman, Oltmann, and others have been making all along. This business of "if it is not 160 MPH end-to-end, it is not 'true' HSR." If it meets a public need, who cares?
schlimm The NEC has been a colossal money hole
The NEC has been a colossal money hole
By which standards, those of Cato or Heritage?
and we still don't have a real high speed line after 40 years, which is pretty pathetic.
So, is a 60% market share relative to 40% airline share also "pretty pathetic"?
Buying equipment capable of running at 160 and running at a much lower speed seems a bit silly too.
Agreed, but you need to take into account that
But I think we need to prove we can build and run a true high speed line somewhere
this kind of thinking is behind designing rolling stock to operate at speeds the track or catenary will never support -- the thinking that we have some kind of need to "prove" something besides getting a functioning transportation system with a large number of departures and the majority market share.
I'm very interested in seeing what happens in IL, Wisc, OH, and NC - all places where "nothing" to "barely OK" have a chance to become "pretty decent". FL scares me - a lot of money for a very short trip - if they don't follow it up with Orlando to Miami soon after, there may be lots of "I told you sos". I'll be surprised if there isn't much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Calif before a shovel full of dirt gets move - but I hope I'm wrong.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
schlimm It is certainly better than anything else we have but until almost of the line allows for speeds of 160, it will not be true HSR.
It is certainly better than anything else we have but until almost of the line allows for speeds of 160, it will not be true HSR.
Grade Crossings, in the NEC ???
Basically, Grade Crossings are long gone from New Haven to Washington. ( there may be a few "private crossings" ) Someone correct me, but I seem to remember the last one was in Maryland and was closed before the Acela entered service. Your also good from Boston to Westerly Rhode Island. Between Westerly and New Haven a few grade crossings exist plus private crossings for beach front access.
The Right Of Way is near perfect except for a large number of defective Cement Ties that now must be replaced. Some switches are designed for 90mph and have moving "frogs". It's the bridges and the Catenary that produce "slow orders" in the NEC. The bridge over the Thames River in New London has been replaced and work has begun on the Niantic Bridge replacement. Several more are on the list down the line. Improving the Catenary south of New York is in the planning stage.
schlimm I wonder where we would be today if the NEC had really moved forward incrementally over its 40 year history to being a HSR instead of gaining about a 5 mph average speed. It would have been a real model to show us the benefits of HSR and its application in other corridors of city pairs.
I sometimes wonder about the NEC. For example, how much of the NEC is still putting up with level crossings? What is the current condition of the roadbeds therein? The problem that has existed for all that time is/was the one about deferral of maintainence. This deferral has ended up costing more in some ways simply by piling up the list of things needed done.
But we also need a new set of brains when it comes to HSR around here. Don't throw money at projects that are just waiting to fail. Put the $$$ on projects because they are more plausible. No pork barrelling....
A great example --- The Northeast Corridor NEC
" we've increased our share of the AIR/RAIL market between New York and Washington from 50 persent to 61 persent; New York and Boston from 39 persent to 50 persent; "
Joseph Boardman in the February issue of "Amtrak Ink"
blownout cylinderCMStPnPI cannot see how the GAO can analyze high speed rail in this country as to costs vs benefits when we don't currently have an existing HSR demo anywhere as a viable alternative to air, bus or auto. Not enough evidence.try to get workable city pairs going---the one in FL may actually work for example---and incrementally work it up.
CMStPnPI cannot see how the GAO can analyze high speed rail in this country as to costs vs benefits when we don't currently have an existing HSR demo anywhere as a viable alternative to air, bus or auto. Not enough evidence.
try to get workable city pairs going---the one in FL may actually work for example---and incrementally work it up.
Again, some interesting perspectives. I wonder where we would be today if the NEC had really moved forward incrementally over its 40 year history to being a HSR instead of gaining about a 5 mph average speed. It would have been a real model to show us the benefits of HSR and its application in other corridors of city pairs. The FLA project may be the one that tests out or confirms the benefits. But let's be sure that incrementalism doesn't become an excuse for never really moving forward.
CMStPnPI cannot see how the GAO can analyze high speed rail in this country as to costs vs benefits when we don't currently have an existing HSR demo anywhere as a viable alternative to air, bus or auto. By the same token we really do not know if it will be successful either. So this spending of the stimulus funds is a gamble of sorts. I will agree with that but I cannot agree at this point in time that spending in the area of High Speed Rail is wasteful. Not enough evidence.
If the experience in the EU is anything to go on there may be pockets where it can be "wasteful" and other pockets where it may be successful. There is a little matter of recessionary pressures and odd doings in terms of accounting procedures that will have an influence at the present moment but I do think that there may be some building towards HSR.
Me? I'd rather try to get workable city pairs going---the one in FL may actually work for example---and incrementally work it up.
schlimmCMStPnP: Interesting comment! I've sorts thought all those auditing figures give you is a picture of past performance, which doesn't seem very useful when you're trying to go in a new direction. Could you help get me/us a little more up to speed on how to avoid mere retrospective snapshots? What are some of the current techniques used for future planning that carry some weight?.
Well my experience in Corporate America today and in the last 10-12 years is projects have a financial component but the Finance end of the project is more one of where does the money come from (project funding) vs how much money will the project return. So for example, right now the firm I am working for is spending millions of dollars on new sales performance monitoring software. No software was in place before. The project was the initiative of the CEO. The firm brings in between $1-2 Billion in gross revenue. An IRR, audit, or detailed projected costs savings was never formally done and if it was I never saw it. Basically the CEO stating....."I want this software, I used it at past employers and it will be a huge benefit for the sales force". That was that.
Similarly when I worked for GM which was still a large manufacturer when I worked for them. They would also go by "gut feel" of the Executive in charge in most cases. Sure they do Market Research which in their case is quite extensive but rarely do they look at costs of the projects before startup. Usually it is "gut feel" of the Executive in charge. Back when I was working for them (1991-1994) they were too large to stop everything and do a financial analysis of each project. Just way too many projects and not enough Financial Employees to do that. In fact, they were so large they had a fulltime team from the IRS at HQ, they negotiated their taxes with the IRS. It wasn't necessarily an assessment as it is for smaller firms. It was too impractical because the company was too large. So GM had to go on trust and how an Executives past projects did.
I worked for the DoD once upon a time as well as a contractor (1994-1995). Likewise, their projects started with an "objective". Rarely was the objective looking at costs vs revenues. It was a increased productivity objective or infrastructure expansion typically. They would look at the Financial aspect as to where they would get the money from (what budget or request). Then they would write a request for proposal and look at the bids. That was that.
DoD does not use GAO, they use their own internal audit agency which I think is superior to GAO. Congress uses GAO to attack the Pentagons spending sometimes. IMO, thats wrong because the GAO Accountants are totally clueless as to the specific costs or features that are needed for Defense, in a lot of cases they are analyzing costs from the perspective as if a civilian alternative is just as good. DoD's internal auditing team I think is superior (Defense Audit Agency) because many of them are uniformed Officers or have that background and they understand the Defense specifics better.
Thus, the basis for my earlier comments that GAO doesn't know rail operations / costs and is probably just guessing themselves with their reports. I understand where Sam1 is comming from and I agree with some of the past posts. Government can be very wasteful with taxpayer money. GAO warns that waste might happen or that a project might not attain it's objectives but I think their opinion needs to be placed in perspective.
I cannot see how the GAO can analyze high speed rail in this country as to costs vs benefits when we don't currently have an existing HSR demo anywhere as a viable alternative to air, bus or auto. By the same token we really do not know if it will be successful either. So this spending of the stimulus funds is a gamble of sorts. I will agree with that but I cannot agree at this point in time that spending in the area of High Speed Rail is wasteful. Not enough evidence.
CMStPnPMost projects today do not have an IRR projection done even. So thats why I am confused as to why your quoting all this auditing stuff as if it would mean anything to any future project. It's just not how projects are evaluated anymore,
CMStPnP: Interesting comment! I've sorts thought all those auditing figures give you is a picture of past performance, which doesn't seem very useful when you're trying to go in a new direction. Could you help get me/us a little more up to speed on how to avoid mere retrospective snapshots? What are some of the current techniques used for future planning that carry some weight?.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.