Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
VerM, 1. Why would rerouting Amtrak from Stevens Pass to Stampede Pass require "another set of equipment it doesn't have." You are using the same equipment. You can also separate the Portland leg at Pasco rather than Spokane. Wouldn't the latter free up equipment? 2. You also state, "Also, the problems the UP is having in Portland have nothing to do with capacity along the "I-5"." It is 134 miles from Vancouver to Tacoma. If it is taking 6.5 hours for this run, that's about 20 miles an hour over water level trackage. Clearly, that slow of a transit time suggests congestion on that line. However, you will note that the real congestion for UP is in the Gorge, and the gist of my point is that the Stampede Pass reroute would free up some capacity on this line for Puget Sound bound/origin UP trains. You do give a reluctant aknowledgement of that point. Perhaps a better example is the one pointed out regarding Cajon Pass, where BNSF is exploring adding trackage while the parallel UP line has extra capacity. 3. You also state, "The Empire Builder, as an example, is a small part of the 45 or so trains a day that move on the Hi-Line across Montana, so one would have to wonder whether it's that big of a deal to get rid of it to BNSF (which, as I said earlier, benefits BNSF by providing crew transportation in all weather where there is no parallel public transportation)." Doesn't the Hi-Line parallel U.S. highway 2? If having Amtrak to provide crew transportation is that much of an asset to BNSF, wouldn't BNSF want Amtrak on it's half dozen or so other lines through Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas? You are mistaking PR for bottom line results. What is really interesting is your opposition to moving the Empire Builder to the I-90 corridor through Montana, which hits most of the population centers in Montana. Wouldn't that increase online ridership? And speaking of Amtrak..... 4. ....you state lastly, "And, let's not forget the original topic of your post: "How to double capacity of U.S. railroads without even building a single mile of new track". Well, if one of the ways was to eliminate some of the trains (Amtrak) so that others can operate, I for one, hardly consider that as exceptionally creative. Unlike you evidently, I believe we need passenger trains." On that last point, you are correct in my stance. I and most people in this nation do not believe we need passenger trains. If Amtrak were to be discontinued tommorrow, it would not register even a blip on the economy or social well being of the nation outside the NEC. Rather, my position is to take the Amtrak funding and instead of the government running passenger trains, offer that money as a subsidy for private rail passenger ventures for maybe 10 years as seed money, with the Amtrak agency responsible for allowing passenger ventures to take over Amtrak's former access rights. That is the only way to see if there is the possiblity of a private rail passenger service being self sustaining over time. As for the original topic of this post, my intent was not to be confrontational, but to parlay ideas and see what others could offer regarding capacity improvements sans new trackage. I notice you have not offered any such suggestions. BTW, regarding your Montana Rail Tours conundrum, one of the stated reasons they have cancelled the 2005 season is that they do not have direct access to air passengers, presumably in Spokane. As you know, the company had to terninate their trains in Sandpoint on the west end of MRL tracks. If they could directly access the Spokane terminal, would they have had a better chance of making it? If so, then wouldn't the concept of open access be of benefit to them? Also, should they be entitled to a portion of Amtrak funds?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag