Trains.com

$11 billion later, high speed rail in US drags along

15291 views
66 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, August 18, 2014 9:31 PM

Where is this number coming from about $11B spent which was actually $10.6 ?  This poster understands that only $2.0 B + had actually been spent ?.  All the rest has not been assigned  ?  Anyone know ?

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, August 18, 2014 1:48 PM

Paul Milenkovic
Whether a small amount of money in the Federal scheme of things, a mere 11 billion dollars, was spent effectively is the subject of this thread.  The idea is that if 'we" could have an impact with the 11 billion dollars, that could lead to other grants, larger grants in the future.

Precisely!!   Buying even more new baggage cars is not spending in an effective manner.  Improving RoWs so that trains can achieve higher average speeds in corridors is effective.   Too ad that didn't work out better in WI.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Monday, August 18, 2014 1:03 PM

schlimm

Sam1
On the way home I noticed as I drove through Nebraska and Iowa billboards touting the cancer research programs at their state universities. Similar research is conducted at MD Anderson in Houston. I got to wondering. How well are these research programs coordinated?  And how effective are they? 

You only need to see the huge improvements in cancer survival rates over the last 30 years or so to know the answer.

You are right.  Public money can be spent effectively.  And the U.S. has the highest per capita health care spending among our trading partners, benefiting not only ourselves but other in the world as well.

And to the extent that there is "waste" in government spending, healthcare, in many people's minds, is a higher priority for the money saved by eliminating such waste than many other things.  That is why I believe that the money spent on trains needs to be spent effectively,. 

Whether a small amount of money in the Federal scheme of things, a mere 11 billion dollars, was spent effectively is the subject of this thread.  The idea is that if 'we" could have an impact with the 11 billion dollars, that could lead to other grants, larger grants in the future.

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Saturday, August 16, 2014 8:53 AM

Sam1
On the way home I noticed as I drove through Nebraska and Iowa billboards touting the cancer research programs at their state universities. Similar research is conducted at MD Anderson in Houston. I got to wondering. How well are these research programs coordinated?  And how effective are they? 

You only need to see the huge improvements in cancer survival rates over the last 30 years or so to know the answer.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Saturday, August 16, 2014 7:50 AM

CMStPnP
CSSHEGEWISCH
This explains why I'm glad I don't live in Texas.
To each their own. I get along with LEO's so well because a good portion of them are Veterans of the current conflicts and they are stepping up a second time to protect us all from others wanting to commit violence. It's a huge sacrifice most of them are making.......deserving my respect.

 
Kind of a stretch, Milwaukee. I suspect most of them, like most of us, are simply trying to make a living -- in this case, employing such skills as they may have learned in the military.
  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Saturday, August 16, 2014 5:16 AM
CSSHEGEWISCH
This explains why I'm glad I don't live in Texas.
To each their own. I get along with LEO's so well because a good portion of them are Veterans of the current conflicts and they are stepping up a second time to protect us all from others wanting to commit violence. It's a huge sacrifice most of them are making.......deserving my respect.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 15, 2014 12:28 PM

schlimm

Sam1
The best and brightest business executives are motivated to generate a return for their stakeholders. It is a passion with them. It was a passion with me. I never met a top business executive or entrepreneur who would work for an organization that consistently loses money.  Which makes me wonder? What kind of an executive or senior manager goes to work for an Amtrak?   Getting up every morning knowing that you are with a loser cannot be very motivating.  

In health and most research in physics and the other sciences as well as medicine, the best and brightest work for not-for-profits organizations and non-profit universities.  The lack of striving for a profit doesn't seem to be a barrier there to high motivation.

Research is not a commercial enterprise, although it may have commercial implications down the road. Amtrak is a commercial enterprise that competes with airlines and bus companies.

I have read over the years a number of reports that question the efficacy of some pure research. A couple of years ago I visited the Golden Spike Tower at UP's North Platte Yard. On the way home I noticed as I drove through Nebraska and Iowa billboards touting the cancer research programs at their state universities. Similar research is conducted at MD Anderson in Houston. I got to wondering. How well are these research programs coordinated?  And how effective are they? 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 15, 2014 12:23 PM

schlimm

OK, you didn't miss the point but seem to be muddying them.

Sam1

1. People who want to refute this notion claim that the carriers are only able to make money because they don't pay for the infrastructure that they use. That's not true. Whether they pay their fair share is arguable. My point is that the taxes paid by the airport vendors, as well as the support providers, probably offset any so-called subsidies for the airlines.  Moreover, the airlines, as well as bus companies and cruise ship lines, don't receive direct cash subsidies from anyone. Only passenger rail requires a direct cash subsidy.

2. The bottom line (profit) is a score card for a commercial activity. It helps drive efficiency.  Without it there is little incentive to be at the top of your game. If it is not important, why did the Japanese and French work so diligently to turn a profit on their high speed lines and, subsequently, spin them off into market based companies?

1.  When people say the airlines don't pay for infrastructure, they mean they do not come close to paying fully for the costs of the portion they use.  What collateral components pay in taxes is a red herring.

2. Those privatized HSR networks do not pay to cover the infrastructure costs, so they turn a profit on operations.  But in the NEC, the model of what Amtrak should be, operating expenses are more than covered.  As far as I can see, infrastructure should be built and maintained by a quasi-government agency.  Operations should be contracted out to bidding operators.  Some services will require subsidies to operate, probably from states and federal sources.

Oh, muddying them!  Another put down!  If people disagree with you, it is because they don't understand or they are muddying the issue. What a wonderful way to promote discussion, which is the objective of these forums.

Having the government build infrastructure is fine.  But the users should pay for it.  Historically, this has been the case.  The government recovered the cost of the transcontinental railroads, as an example, from the users. And until 2007 it recovered the cost of the Interstate Highway System from the users. Since 2007 it has required an infusion of funds from the general fund because the politicians have refused to raise the user fees (fuel taxes, etc.) to cover the cost of maintaining and expanding the system.  

Where are the support numbers for your points 1 and 2?  Many people make the claim, but few if any have come up with good numbers.  Here is one of the reasons.

To determine the source of the revenues for each of the nation's 547 airports served by commercial air, one would have to first pull the financials for each of them. I have looked at all the financial reports for the airports in Texas. None of them set out in the financials the source of their revenues, i.e. commercial air carriers, air taxis, general aviation, military operations, etc.  The reporting authority has the information, but it does not, as a rule, publish it in the annual financial report.

To get the information one would have to ask for the revenue sub-ledgers for each airport, which in Texas would require exercising an Open Records Request, and go through each one of them. Once that task was completed, the next step would be to match the expenses (operational and capital) to each revenue source. And so forth and so forth.  It would be a daunting task.  This is why I have seen little if any hard evidence to support the notion that the air carriers don't pay their fair share of the aviation infrastructure that they use.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, August 15, 2014 9:58 AM

Sam1
The best and brightest business executives are motivated to generate a return for their stakeholders. It is a passion with them. It was a passion with me. I never met a top business executive or entrepreneur who would work for an organization that consistently loses money.  Which makes me wonder? What kind of an executive or senior manager goes to work for an Amtrak?   Getting up every morning knowing that you are with a loser cannot be very motivating.  

In health and most research in physics and the other sciences as well as medicine, the best and brightest work for not-for-profits organizations and non-profit universities.  The lack of striving for a profit doesn't seem to be a barrier there to high motivation.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, August 15, 2014 9:53 AM

OK, you didn't miss the point but seem to be muddying them.

Sam1

1. People who want to refute this notion claim that the carriers are only able to make money because they don't pay for the infrastructure that they use. That's not true. Whether they pay their fair share is arguable. My point is that the taxes paid by the airport vendors, as well as the support providers, probably offset any so-called subsidies for the airlines.  Moreover, the airlines, as well as bus companies and cruise ship lines, don't receive direct cash subsidies from anyone. Only passenger rail requires a direct cash subsidy.

2. The bottom line (profit) is a score card for a commercial activity. It helps drive efficiency.  Without it there is little incentive to be at the top of your game. If it is not important, why did the Japanese and French work so diligently to turn a profit on their high speed lines and, subsequently, spin them off into market based companies?

1.  When people say the airlines don't pay for infrastructure, they mean they do not come close to paying fully for the costs of the portion they use.  What collateral components pay in taxes is a red herring.

2. Those privatized HSR networks do not pay to cover the infrastructure costs, so they turn a profit on operations.  But in the NEC, the model of what Amtrak should be, operating expenses are more than covered.  As far as I can see, infrastructure should be built and maintained by a quasi-government agency.  Operations should be contracted out to bidding operators.  Some services will require subsidies to operate, probably from states and federal sources.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 15, 2014 9:21 AM

oltmannd

Sam1
The nation's large airports, as an example, are economic engines that generate millions of dollars of tax revenues, i.e. terminal vendors, parking concessionaires, taxi franchisees, etc. They flow to the national, state, and local treasures, and they probably cover most if not all of the monies that flow from the general  fund to the airports. 

You are using the "sports stadium" argument.  You're missing the bigger point. 

The economic development around airports that is just support for the airport is no better than a wash.  If you didn't have the airport, the effort could go into something else in the local economy.

What the airport or highway or rail line does is that is a plus is economic development beyond the existing local economy.  It is the thing a region needs (among other things) to attact business to locate - factories and offices, to allow conventions to occur, to improve tourism, etc.  Stuff that brings money and commerce in from outside.

It's why one shouldn't get so hung up on profit and loss for transportation facilities.  The focus should be on cost/benefit for the region.

Telling someone that he is missing the point or implying that he has not read whatever he should have read - you did not do the latter - is a put down. I don't understand people who feel compelled to denigrate other people because they disagree with their point of view. You can make your point without putting people down. 

Without commercial aviation, as well as its support services, there would be no need for the large airports and the support activities.  Aviation drives the need.

I have never said that the infrastructure should make a profit.  It doesn't.  It should cover its costs from the users. Hopefully, the users are making a profit.  That is the key question. 

The point that I was addressing is that no commercial activity makes money hauling passenger. That's not true. Just take a look at the current financials for the nation's airlines, bus companies, cruise ship lines, van services, taxi companies, etc.  The margins are very thin, to say the least, but to say that they don't make money is incorrect.

People who want to refute this notion claim that the carriers are only able to make money because they don't pay for the infrastructure that they use. That's not true. Whether they pay their fair share is arguable.

Users of the airways, highways, and waterways have one advantage that the railroads don't have. They are used by many different users and, therefore, the fixed costs can be spread over many users as opposed to a few.   

The taxes paid by the airport vendors, as well as the support providers, probably offset any so-called subsidies for the airlines. Moreover, the airlines, as well as bus companies and cruise ship lines, don't receive direct cash subsidies from anyone. Only passenger rail requires a direct cash subsidy.

The bottom line (profit) is a score card for a commercial activity. It helps drive efficiency. Without it there is little incentive to be at the top of your game. If it is not important, why did the Japanese and French work so diligently to turn a profit on their high speed lines and, subsequently, privatize them?

If the market does not determine the cost/benefit of an activity, i.e. people decide in an arms length transaction what is worth paying for, the decision is driven by politics. And that tends go produce some wild distortions.

The best and brightest business executives are motivated to generate a return for their stakeholders. It is a passion with them. It was a passion with me. I never met a top business executive or entrepreneur who would work for an organization that consistently loses money.  Which makes me wonder? What kind of an executive or senior manager goes to work for an Amtrak?   Getting up every morning knowing that you are with a loser cannot be very motivating.  

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, August 15, 2014 9:16 AM

oltmannd

You are using the "sports stadium" argument.  You're missing the bigger point. 

The economic development around airports that is just support for the airport is no better than a wash.  If you didn't have the airport, the effort could go into something else in the local economy.

What the airport or highway or rail line does is that is a plus is economic development beyond the existing local economy.  It is the thing a region needs (among other things) to attact business to locate - factories and offices, to allow conventions to occur, to improve tourism, etc.  Stuff that brings money and commerce in from outside.

It's why one shouldn't get so hung up on profit and loss for transportation facilities.  The focus should be on cost/benefit for the region.

+1

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, August 15, 2014 9:13 AM

Sam1
Someone can, of course, claim that this is not a fair comparison because of the amenities and different classes of service offered by Amtrak, e.g. lounge cars, dinning cars, sleeping cars, etc. But it certainly suggests that Amtrak's ground based, short haul competitors, have a better handle on their labor costs.  

I'm sure some folks will do just that.   What it shows me is that one of the reasons the LD trains are particularly high on expenses.  Namely, they are too labor intensive with "lounge cars, dining cars, sleeping cars" which do not generate sufficient offsetting revenue the way business and first class fares on airlines do.

I seem to recall a thread in which the wages of Amtrak operating personnel were seen to be higher than those of the freight railroads.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, August 15, 2014 7:55 AM

Sam1
The nation's large airports, as an example, are economic engines that generate millions of dollars of tax revenues, i.e. terminal vendors, parking concessionaires, taxi franchisees, etc. They flow to the national, state, and local treasures, and they probably cover most if not all of the monies that flow from the general  fund to the airports. 

You are using the "sports stadium" argument.  You're missing the bigger point. 

The economic development around airports that is just support for the airport is no better than a wash.  If you didn't have the airport, the effort could go into something else in the local economy.

What the airport or highway or rail line does is that is a plus is economic development beyond the existing local economy.  It is the thing a region needs (among other things) to attact business to locate - factories and offices, to allow conventions to occur, to improve tourism, etc.  Stuff that brings money and commerce in from outside.

It's why one shouldn't get so hung up on profit and loss for transportation facilities.  The focus should be on cost/benefit for the region.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, August 15, 2014 6:57 AM

CMStPnP
3. Texas Rangers. Kill a cop in Texas and the Rangers are after you and they usually always get their fugitive. No other state has them.

 5. Texas is a Law and Order state along with respect your LEO state. If you break the law habitually or disrespect an officer in uniform your typically going to do time behind bars. Really that's how it should be everywhere but some states would rather side with the habitual criminal and their rights.

This explains why I'm glad I don't live in Texas.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:25 PM

schlimm

Sam1
Amtrak's OPEBS expense is the present value of its actuarial obligations for post retirement benefits. Unlike a public entity, which can, as the article explains, pay as you go, Amtrak is required to fund a percentage of the obligation in the current period. Part of it requires a cash outlay. 

Between that and direct labor, Amtrak is in a difficult position.   I don't really want to open a can of worm, but some of those expenses are higher than other transportation industies

It is not a can of worms.  You may remember that a year or so ago I showed a comparison of Amtrak's labor costs, as a percentage of its expenses and revenues. against Southwest Airlines, First Group (Greyhound) and Stagecoach (Megabus).  

Amtrak's staff expenses were approximately 50 per cent of expenses and nearly 70 per cent of revenues.  For First Group they were 46 per cent of expenses but only 43 per cent of revenues. For Stagecoach they were 42 per cent of operating costs and 41 per cent of revenues. Southwest Airlines had considerably lower ratios than Amtrak, but I took it out of the comparison because it does not really compete with Amtrak in most markets.

Someone can, of course, claim that this is not a fair comparison because of the amenities and different classes of service offered by Amtrak, e.g. lounge cars, dinning cars, sleeping cars, etc. But it certainly suggests that Amtrak's ground based, short haul competitors, have a better handle on their labor costs.  

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:14 PM

schlimm

I doubt if it is possible to run a passenger service at a profit, if all infrastructure costs are included, by rail, in the air or with buses.

I would be happy if intercity passenger rail broke even.

If  Amtrak could dump the long distance trains, and fob off the subsidies associated with the State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains to the states, which it is doing, it would be able to generate an operating profit.  If it could keep its capital expenditures at below the current depreciation expense, which means capital improvements could not exceed current depreciation, it probably could reach a break even point - cover all of its costs - in time. This is basically what the Japanese and French have done with the two high speed lines that cover all of their costs.   

If an airline or intercity bus company does not cover all of its expenses and generate a return for the shareholders, it goes out of business. The business graveyard is full of failed bus companies and airlines. 

One can argue that buses, airlines, and cruise lines - I am throwing cruise lines in since I have recently become hooked on cruising - don't pay their fair share of the common infrastructure that they use. It is a difficult argument to prove.   

The nation's large airports, as an example, are economic engines that generate millions of dollars of tax revenues, i.e. terminal vendors, parking concessionaires, taxi franchisees, etc. They flow to the national, state, and local treasures, and they probably cover most if not all of the monies that flow from the general  fund to the airports. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, August 14, 2014 9:44 PM

Sam1
Amtrak's OPEBS expense is the present value of its actuarial obligations for post retirement benefits. Unlike a public entity, which can, as the article explains, pay as you go, Amtrak is required to fund a percentage of the obligation in the current period. Part of it requires a cash outlay. 

Between that and direct labor, Amtrak is in a difficult position.   I don't really want to open a can of worm, but some of those expenses are higher than other transportation industies

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 14, 2014 9:40 PM

CMStPnP
Incentives are not the whole package that convinces companies to move to Texas, put this in your pipe and smoke it: 1. Houses on a square footage basis are probably 40-50% cheaper in Texas than most Northern states. 2. City Hall works for the most part in Texas. You can actually call City Hall down here in Texas and actually get immediate response or action to your concerns. Unlike the Northern states where response is based on income level and how much you contributed to past political campaigns. 3. Texas Rangers. Kill a cop in Texas and the Rangers are after you and they usually always get their fugitive. No other state has them. 4. Government does not try to become an unwanted partner in the running of small business. Texas attempts to simplify small business formation as well as regulation in an attempt to increase employment.....and it works. 5. Texas is a Law and Order state along with respect your LEO state. If you break the law habitually or disrespect an officer in uniform your typically going to do time behind bars. Really that's how it should be everywhere but some states would rather side with the habitual criminal and their rights.

Yep!

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 14, 2014 9:37 PM

Overmod

schlimm
OPEBS = ?   

Other Post-Employment Benefits.  Things like retiree health costs.

Read down to "The ABCs of OPEBS" in this article. 

This is a good article.  It does a pretty good job of explaining OPEBS in the public sector.  

Amtrak's is a capital stock corporation and, therefore, unlike a public entity, i.e. government, school district, state university system, follows GAAP accounting rules as opposed to government accounting standards. 

Amtrak's OPEBS expense is the present value of its actuarial obligations for post retirement benefits. Part of it represents an accrued expense and part of it represents a cash outlay.  If I remember correctly, the unions took Amtrak to court to force it to fund adequately the OPEBS. They won. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, August 14, 2014 9:31 PM

Overmod

schlimm
OPEBS = ?   

Other Post-Employment Benefits.  Things like retiree health costs.

Read down to "The ABCs of OPEBS" in this article.

Thank you.  I dislike and strive to avoid jargon and acronyms, though my profession has more than most.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Thursday, August 14, 2014 9:13 PM
Incentives are not the whole package that convinces companies to move to Texas, put this in your pipe and smoke it: 1. Houses on a square footage basis are probably 40-50% cheaper in Texas than most Northern states. 2. City Hall works for the most part in Texas. You can actually call City Hall down here in Texas and actually get immediate response or action to your concerns. Unlike the Northern states where response is based on income level and how much you contributed to past political campaigns. 3. Texas Rangers. Kill a cop in Texas and the Rangers are after you and they usually always get their fugitive. No other state has them. 4. Government does not try to become an unwanted partner in the running of small business. Texas attempts to simplify small business formation as well as regulation in an attempt to increase employment.....and it works. 5. Texas is a Law and Order state along with respect your LEO state. If you break the law habitually or disrespect an officer in uniform your typically going to do time behind bars. Really that's how it should be everywhere but some states would rather side with the habitual criminal and their rights.
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, August 14, 2014 9:04 PM

schlimm
OPEBS = ?   

Other Post-Employment Benefits.  Things like retiree health costs.

Read down to "The ABCs of OPEBS" in this article.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:43 PM

I doubt if it is possible to run a passenger service at a profit, if all infrastructure costs are included, by rail, in the air or with buses.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:40 PM

OPEBS = ?   

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 14, 2014 6:12 PM

BaltACD

I read the NY Times article and the Time article.  The Times article, in many respects, was over the top, but the Time article also makes some statements that are as shallow as many of those in the Times.

At the risk of pulling a statement out of context, here is a quote from the Time article that appears to support my contention, i.e. that the Administration tried to spread the investment monies over too many projects: 

"It’s also true that the Administration’s spread-it-thin strategy, featuring incremental improvements in 32 states, is hard to justify in a vacuum. You need to walk before you can run, but it doesn’t make much sense to upgrade trains from slow speeds to semi-slow speeds if they’re never going to be able to compete with cars or planes."

Walking before running is desirable. But having too many walkers is not a good strategy. As noted in a previous post, successful businesses focus on doing a few things really well as opposed to trying to be all things to all people. 

"But in any case, Amtrak’s fare-box recovery ratio is above 80%. That’s also pretty darn good."  

If Amtrak were a business, which it is, a fare-box recovery ratio of 80 per cent or thereabouts would eventually put it out of business. If the Norfolk Southern only recovered 80 per cent of its expenses through its pricing mechanism, how long does one believe it would stay in business?  However, the 80 per cent fare-box recovery ratio for Amtrak is not correct.  

In FY13 Amtrak recovered 86 per cent of its fully allocated operating expenses from the fare-box.  However, after adding OPEBS, depreciation, and interest expenses, the recovery ration dropped to approximately 57 per cent.    

All too often passenger rail proponents focus on the so-called above the rail expenses, which is not a correct accounting term, and ignore the fixed costs as if somehow they don't count. Unfortunately, given the level of understanding most people have of accounting and finance, it is not hard to understand how they get away with it.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, August 14, 2014 4:31 PM

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:35 AM

Not so, checked the railbank map a rail proponant in CT sent, and the grades and curves are not that severe.  Where did you get your information?   About 35% of the route is operated by various short lines for freight service today.   But admittadly, a lot of grading and general upgrading would be essential, but still a lot less expensive than an all-new route.   My  friend agrees.  But you would be right in that a lot of earth would have to be moved, still a lot less than an all-new route.

The Long Island route could be justified if there were other economic reasons for twin freight and passenger tunnels at the east end of the island.   That would be the major cost.  The Greenpoint RoW of LIRR is easy to improve, a lot easier than either Metro North or NY&NE, and besides, with NY&NE, you still have to contend either with Metro North or the old Maybrook line and then either reactivate the Putnam with huge construction issues or four-track the Harlem Division and then figure out how to get to Penn from there.    But then there is the idea of bypassing NY completely for Boston or Boston and Profidence to Philly and south traffic by reactivating the Poughkeepsie Bridge.  All these solutions do have new problems.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 1:00 PM

daveklepper
A faster route between New Haven and Boston or Providence is largely rail-banked by Connecticut, and it is the route of the famous "White Train" through Willimantic

.

You mean 'shorter'.  IIRC for any conceivable form of modern HSR that route will only be 'faster' with so many very heavy civil grade and curve abatements as to make the Long Island route look like a positive bargain.  I believe we have discussed this on the forum in some detail.

Even if substantial grades are permitted as 'momentum grades' (I recall seeing up to 8 to 10% discussed in SNCF track analyses in the mid-'70s) there is no possible way the necessary vertical curve transitions can be arranged between the ridges on the ex-NY&NE.  So 'without a jar or roll or antic' has a sterner meaning even for medium-speed HSR on that route, let alone 220mph peak.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy