Bloomberg News reports the CEO Michael Ward of CSX says he cannot serve on the President's rail vision panel. Ward says that passenger trains operating at speeds greater than 90 MPH shouild not run on tracks designed for freight. His lengthy commentary furnishes compelling reasons.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-06/csx-chief-says-he-can-t-be-part-of-obama-high-speed-rail-plan.html
Interesting that he claims CSX cannot run above 90 because of the"curvature and elevation of freight rail" while UP is working with states to do just that.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I think it is GREAT to hear any railroad president tell the plain unvarnished truth. Kudos to Mr Ward!!
Mac
Thanks for the link, so we can review the source ourselves.
Minor fact question: I didn't get that a formal 'panel' was involved, but that Ward was discussing policy and position on the issue - which would be the same, panel or not. That clarified, onto specifics:
I believe UP's project is just the Chicago - St. Louis line, though that's not stated in this article. Also, that terrain is- guess what ? - mostly flat, and farmland. Hence, it is either already - or easier to make into - an alignment suitable for higher speed trains. Most of CSX's inland routes wind along rivers and around mountains in areas that are built-up, and so cannot be easily or cheaply straightened, though I'll concede that those routes on the coastal plain would be more accomodating to HSR.
Therefore, I can understand the 90 MPH limitation. That corresponds to about 6 inches of "super-elevation" ("banking") of the outer rail above the inner rail on a curve, for about a 1-degree curve, which has a radius of approx. 5,730 ft.. To illustrate that dimension another way, to accomplish a full 90-degree turn would require 90 degrees x 100 ft. per degree = 9,000 ft. or about 1.7 miles, plus spirals - practically, 2 miles. A higher speed or sharper curve would require more elevation, which is strongly frowned upon by most practical railroad track engineers, so the 1-degree curve becomes the sharpest acceptable curve for that speed (unless exotic rail passenger vehicle technology such as tilting bodies are used). Unfortunately, there aren't many that gentle 1-degree curves now over long distances, so how, where, and with what money would they be straightened ?
And the easy answer is this: If general freight can supposedly mix with HSR, then how come Amtrak is so very discouraging of any freight on its NorthEast Corridor ? Even late at night when traffic interference is minimized - though the MOW people need the track then too often enough - no less a luminary than Amtrak CEO W. Graham Claytor, Jr. said that the deterioration in the track geometry parameters caused by a single freight train was significant enough that it was measurable . . .
- Paul North.
schlimm http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-06/csx-chief-says-he-can-t-be-part-of-obama-high-speed-rail-plan.html
After re-reading the Bloomberg report I am begining to suspect maybe sloppy reporting. Ward was quoted on 3 items.
1. Saying he that he did not want Amtrak because passenger trains do not make money. Probably no freight carrier makes any money.
2. The superelevation problem is certainly something to be addressed. Maybe the solution is curve reduction although the New York State separate HSR track project is opposed by CSX. Curve reduction could either deviate from the regular tracks or move regular tracks to parallel HSR.
3. The curves in mountainous areas probably would need a completely different ROW. ie reduce curves and increase grades.
PDN makes a vaild point on the UP upgrade. Someone will have to educate us but I know of no curves requiring any superelevation except maybe around Springfield?
Anyway this article needed more questions (such as above) than were in the article. We have no idea aboout the whole interview. What was given would take no more than 7 minutes and that short of an interview seems implausable.
I saw a slightly more detailed version of that interview on another website, which did specifically mention the UP project in Illinois (oh . . . I see now, duh - anybody really wonder why UP is cooperating with that one ??? ) Let me see if I can retrieve it and post a link or something more informative.
Um Paul, Uncle Pete hardly runs any freight traffic on the line. go back and look at the rustbucket thread. To get that rascal out to 110 mph, multiple curves get raised.
Run coal trains on the NE Corridor and it would be down to 79MPH mui pronto. Ward is smart in not rubber stamping the current administration's grandiose plan.
Paul_D_North_Jr I saw a slightly more detailed version of that interview on another website, which did specifically mention the UP project in Illinois (oh . . . I see now, duh - anybody really wonder why UP is cooperating with that one ??? ) Let me see if I can retrieve it and post a link or something more informative. - Paul North.
I don't have any inside info on why UP is cooperating on the Chicago-St. Louis project. I do know, however, that this isn't one of UP's major main lines (the former CE&I line to the east is UP's main Chicago-St. Louis route). In fact, there's very little freight on the Joliet-Springfield segment (the portion of the "Chicago-St. Louis" pasenger route north of Joliet is owned by CN/IC). The traffic is so light on this segment that UP has been running a dummy freight train to keep the track clean enough for the Amtrak trains to reliably activate the signal circuits (see the separate thread on the "rust bucket" train). There's more freight traffic south of Springfield (the traffic from the former CNW St. Louis line swtiches to/from this line at Springfield), but it's still not exactly a hotbed of freight activity.
One factor that may have led UP to cooperate in this is that they may be planning to use the route for some intermodal trains to/from the new Global IV intermodal facility south of Joliet, which would likely benefit from the track upgrades.
Jack 'I haven't forgot the booklet I told you about. Hopefully we get to PCT. Fri. am Give you a buzz then.
Cannonball & sweetie
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
90 MPH is the top passenger speed for FRA Class 5 track. Class 5 also allows a top speed for freight of 80MPH. 110MPH speeds require Class 6 track. I have been told that Class 6 FRA standards mean a big jumb in the both the cost of building and the cost of maintaining the track at that class. Although the regs say that freight could also be hauled at 110MPH on Class 6, there are some added standards on the freight cars that could be used at any speeds above the Class 5 max. The regulation also prohibits moving hazardous materials faster than 80MPH. You can find the regulations here:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=0f7d418dc62c0246babcd08ee130530c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=49:4.1.1.1.8&idno=49#49:4.1.1.1.8.1.5.7
On top of that, I doubt you will find any of the freight railroads interested in putting out the added cost for power and fuel that would go along with running any freight trains over 80MPH.
I was at a UP presentation on the Chicago-St Louis upgrades. Their planners forecast 24 freight trains a day on that line. Between that, and the increase in the frequency passenger trains all to be running at 110MPH, the UP put a total price tag $4.1 billion to upgrade the line to handle all the traffic. Think complete tear down and rebuild with double track, additional long passing sidings, crossovers, necessary signal and grade crossing protection upgrades, concrete ties, whatever else the UP can dream up to gold plate the thing.
I don't recall what the UP expected to be paid by public funds. Most, I am sure.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
PNWRMNM I think it is GREAT to hear any railroad president tell the plain unvarnished truth. Kudos to Mr Ward!! Mac
How is this that the industry was running SEVERAL passenger trains 90 mph and above some 50-60 years ago and now all of a sudden we just CAN'T seem to do that anymore. Thanks to Mr. Ward (and yourself) for setting the industry back by 100-150 years.
Seriously....
Los Angeles Rams Guy PNWRMNM: I think it is GREAT to hear any railroad president tell the plain unvarnished truth. Kudos to Mr Ward!! Mac How is this that the industry was running SEVERAL passenger trains 90 mph and above some 50-60 years ago and now all of a sudden we just CAN'T seem to do that anymore. Thanks to Mr. Ward (and yourself) for setting the industry back by 100-150 years. Seriously.... Rams, Seriously Ward is telling the truth, Amtrak is an unfunded mandate so far as the carriers are concerned it is an ongoing butrden on the freight carriers. Instead of running glorified stagecoaches, wise public policy would eliminate Amtrak except on the NEC, where it does perform a usefull service, and encourage diversion of truck traffic to rail, a reversal of Federal policy since the Feds got involuved in funding road construction, which if I remember correctly started in the decade after 1910. Ward is simply telling the naked emporer that he has no clothes. More importantly Ward is not going to waste his comany's money cooperating with his economic enemy, the US Government in general and Amtrak in particular. For that courage he deserves praise of the highest order and he certainly has mine. On the technical issue of passenger trains operating at higher speeds in the good old days there are several factors to consider. First is the standard of track maintenance. Simply put it costs a lot less to maintain track for 50 or 60 MPH freight trains than for 110 MPH passenger and costs are substantially increased if both types of traffic are carried on the same line. I doubt Ward believes ATK will pay for the additional maintenance required. His duty is to his stockholders, not Obama. Secondly back back in the day there was not much running over 90 MPH and it was only on long stretches of straight track. The HrSR advocates envision running 90 MPH or better over long stretches of existing roadbed. This is a pipedream in itself. As a practical matter 90 MPH or better will require a lot of line relocation to get curves something on the order of not over 1 degree or so. Your average freight line almost anywhere has lots of curves over 1 degree, so you are talking about moving a lot of dirt, and in urban areas displacing a lot of people. Oh no, say the advocates, just bank the curves more and use tilt trains. Tilt trains are relatively harmless, complex and expensive, but harmless. Increasing superelevation on curves cuases problems and can be pushed only so far. The carriers have spent the past few decaces reducing curve elevation. If elevation is increased to the maximum allowed for a fast passenger train at say 100 MPH the passenger train will overload the high rail in routine service. The freight train at say 60 MPH will overload the low rail. Since the freight train is heavier, it tends to litterally squash the head of the rail flat. In addition the freight trains' excessive load on the low rail is much more in absolute terms than the passenger trains' overload on the high rail. The freight overload tends to drive to low rail into the ballast, which increases the superelevation. The curve has to be tamped and lined to fix the excessive elevation. Not all freight trains will go merilly around the curve at 60 MPH, the slower they go the worse the low rail issues become. Superelevation tips the equipment. If a freight is stopped on this curve the excess superelevation increases the probablility of a string line derailment in which the draft forces tip the train off the rail to the inside. This happens often enough that there is a special term for it "string line derailment". Freight carriers have been removing excess superelevation that they put in for their own passenger trains. One territory that I have personal knowledge of is Stevens Pass in the State of Washington. At the end of the Great Northern era maximum freight train speed was 25 MPH on the 2.2% grade. Today it is 20 MPH on technically much better track. Why? Because speed up the hill is in the 10 -15 MPH range. I am 99% sure the curves have been flattened to be balanced at about 15 MPH. Upward trains overload the low rail a bit and down trains overload the high rail a bit so crosslevel is maintained much longer than it curves were elevated for 25 MPH. If curves were elevated to balance at 25 MPH all the overload would be on the low rail and the degree of overload would be higher than is the case today, and more surfacing effort, read money, would be required to prevent excess superelevation and string line derailments. Seriously. Mac McCulloch
PNWRMNM: I think it is GREAT to hear any railroad president tell the plain unvarnished truth. Kudos to Mr Ward!! Mac
Rams,
Seriously Ward is telling the truth, Amtrak is an unfunded mandate so far as the carriers are concerned it is an ongoing butrden on the freight carriers. Instead of running glorified stagecoaches, wise public policy would eliminate Amtrak except on the NEC, where it does perform a usefull service, and encourage diversion of truck traffic to rail, a reversal of Federal policy since the Feds got involuved in funding road construction, which if I remember correctly started in the decade after 1910.
Ward is simply telling the naked emporer that he has no clothes. More importantly Ward is not going to waste his comany's money cooperating with his economic enemy, the US Government in general and Amtrak in particular. For that courage he deserves praise of the highest order and he certainly has mine.
On the technical issue of passenger trains operating at higher speeds in the good old days there are several factors to consider. First is the standard of track maintenance. Simply put it costs a lot less to maintain track for 50 or 60 MPH freight trains than for 110 MPH passenger and costs are substantially increased if both types of traffic are carried on the same line. I doubt Ward believes ATK will pay for the additional maintenance required. His duty is to his stockholders, not Obama.
Secondly back back in the day there was not much running over 90 MPH and it was only on long stretches of straight track. The HrSR advocates envision running 90 MPH or better over long stretches of existing roadbed. This is a pipedream in itself. As a practical matter 90 MPH or better will require a lot of line relocation to get curves something on the order of not over 1 degree or so. Your average freight line almost anywhere has lots of curves over 1 degree, so you are talking about moving a lot of dirt, and in urban areas displacing a lot of people.
Oh no, say the advocates, just bank the curves more and use tilt trains. Tilt trains are relatively harmless, complex and expensive, but harmless. Increasing superelevation on curves cuases problems and can be pushed only so far.
The carriers have spent the past few decaces reducing curve elevation. If elevation is increased to the maximum allowed for a fast passenger train at say 100 MPH the passenger train will overload the high rail in routine service. The freight train at say 60 MPH will overload the low rail. Since the freight train is heavier, it tends to litterally squash the head of the rail flat. In addition the freight trains' excessive load on the low rail is much more in absolute terms than the passenger trains' overload on the high rail. The freight overload tends to drive to low rail into the ballast, which increases the superelevation. The curve has to be tamped and lined to fix the excessive elevation.
Not all freight trains will go merilly around the curve at 60 MPH, the slower they go the worse the low rail issues become. Superelevation tips the equipment. If a freight is stopped on this curve the excess superelevation increases the probablility of a string line derailment in which the draft forces tip the train off the rail to the inside. This happens often enough that there is a special term for it "string line derailment".
Freight carriers have been removing excess superelevation that they put in for their own passenger trains. One territory that I have personal knowledge of is Stevens Pass in the State of Washington. At the end of the Great Northern era maximum freight train speed was 25 MPH on the 2.2% grade. Today it is 20 MPH on technically much better track. Why? Because speed up the hill is in the 10 -15 MPH range. I am 99% sure the curves have been flattened to be balanced at about 15 MPH. Upward trains overload the low rail a bit and down trains overload the high rail a bit so crosslevel is maintained much longer than it curves were elevated for 25 MPH. If curves were elevated to balance at 25 MPH all the overload would be on the low rail and the degree of overload would be higher than is the case today, and more surfacing effort, read money, would be required to prevent excess superelevation and string line derailments.
Seriously.
Mac McCulloch
Ahh - but it depends on where that was done. Think about it - problem is, where that was allowed then by the geography and resulting track alignment does not necessarily correspond to where the passenger demand is and busy routes are today. Some examples:
Still do in the NorthEast Corridor; don't know about the ex-MILW line from CHI to the Twin Cities; doubt if it's still done on the former IC's Panama Limted route; and some former lines to Florida are gone now. Portions of the former CB&Q, NYC, PRR, ATSF - could be close to that now or soon.
I have to say this article left me wanting. Mr. Ward went into a lot more detail when I interviewed him in early May last year. Part of the interview ran in the August 2010 issue, with the balance running on the website. Here's the link:
http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20Reference/Freight%20Railroads/2010/07/More%20of%20the%20TRAINS%20interview%20with%20CSXs%20Michael%20J%20Ward.aspx
Compare Bloomberg's characterization of his views to what he told me:
... In a way, I think the American public doesn't really understand rail transportation very well, and part of that is with the creation of Amtrak as a separate company, people think Amtrak should make money because it's a company. There's not a mass transit system in the world that makes money. It's a means that the government chooses as a form of mobility to its citizens to provide a service. Similar to, when you build highways or ports or airports. It's something the government is providing for its citizenry and its mobility. High speed rail needs to be viewed in the same vein.
... Our position at CSX is, except for rare exceptions, higher speed trains, 90 mph is probably the maximum that you could achieve and mix it with freight movements. Even then, you need to guarantee either Class 4 or Class 5 maintenance standards…. If you think about it, the difference between 79 and 90 is only 11 mph, and for the amount of time you can reach that maximum speed, you may only be talking about taking a couple of minutes off a trip. I think the public would much rather know there's a reliable schedule that they will get there. I think it'd be better if we wanted to make some investments in that, rather than getting fixated on what's the maximum speed that can be obtained somewhere during the course of the route
For the most part, what Mr. Ward is saying here is completely non-controversial. He's neither endorsing nor rebuking the Obama high speed rail plan, but rather taking a fairly agnostic view. I know it doesn't make for a sexy head like "CSX Chief Says He ‘Can’t Be Part of’ Obama High-Speed Rail Plan," but I think it provides a lot more insight into what Mr. Ward truly thinks of the matter.
Best,
Two other notes on this story. Note how the reporter sets up this paragraph:
If CSX were to advocate for high-speed rail, he said, “it’s then ‘why aren’t you donating part of your infrastructure to that?’ which I can’t do and be true to my obligation to my shareholders.”
TRAINS readers should be able to spot the problem here from a mile away. Of course CSX isn't going to "advocate" for high speed rail, nor is any other freight railroad. As Ward says, they're in the business of moving freight and providing for their shareholders. Ward saying he won't advocate high speed rail and saying he's opposed to high speed rail are two different questions. They're somewhat blurred all throughout this article.
The second point: I believe, and perhaps others can verify, that UP agreed to 110 mph running between Chicago and St. Louis a decade or more ago. What I've heard is that, without that commitment, UP's current management wouldn't be so giving in terms of 110 mph top speeds. Additionally, as has been pointed out, this isn't a tremendously busy freight route. Same goes for Kalamazoo-Detroit and Watertown-Madison, Wis., the other places where 110 was planned for freight lines. (Note CP was going to hold Hiawathas to 90 on its main line had the Wisconsin HSR project gone forward). Is there a precedent for an agreement to 110 on a major main line like the Water Level Route? If there is, I'm not aware of it.
All these points make me question whether the reporter is a) not very knowledgeable about railroads, b) trying to set this up as a conflict between CSX and the Obama administration to make for a more catchy story, or c) perhaps a little of both. Either way, as I said in my last post, this story didn't strike me as a particularly good piece of journalism.
I doubt that Mr. Ward’s reluctance has anything to do with the sharpness of curves or the speed of the trains. I think what he is signaling, but unwilling to say is the railroad industry’s wariness of entering into a private/public partnership with the federal government. HSR boosters have indicated that freight railroads already go to all the places that HSR wants to go. So there is a presumption that the freight railroads should play nice and share their corridors for the greater public good.
Amtrak was the castor oil that the private railroads had to swallow in order to get out from under their money pit passenger trains. The HSR partnership would be like Amtrak on steroids.
We like to talk about how NIMBYS are thwarting HSR. It won’t be long before we see that the biggest NIMBYS against HSR will be the freight railroads.
Andy Cummings I have to say this article left me wanting. Mr. Ward went into a lot more detail when I interviewed him in early May last year. Part of the interview ran in the August 2010 issue, with the balance running on the website. Here's the link: http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20Reference/Freight%20Railroads/2010/07/More%20of%20the%20TRAINS%20interview%20with%20CSXs%20Michael%20J%20Ward.aspx [remainder snipped]
[remainder snipped]
Andy, thanks for that additional information from your interview, and your insights as a journalist. There are nuances and subtleties here to which 'regular' reporters and the public and likely blind and deaf.
This whole thing is a conversation about upstate NY. While great portions of CSX are have alignments totally unsuitable for 110 mph, CP169 - Buffalo does. The CSX published position is that anything >90 mph requires separate track more than 30 feet from the freight track. Mr. Ward seems to insinuate that 110 mph needs a whole new ROW. The NYC ROW in NY was four tracks wide. The two mains that are left are on one side. You could put down a new track 30 feet away and still be within the foot print of the previous 4 track main. Connect that track up to the existing two 79 mph tracks every 20 miles or so to allow for meets.
110 mph is achieved within CSX's criteria. Existing mains used only for meets between passenger trains - so, even with increased number of trains, there would be fewer Amtrak train miles on the existing mains. Voila. Problem solved.
CSX must know this, but the pot is being stirred for other purposes....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Certainly that route's a good 'poster child' for the debate . . . How far is it from CP 169 to Buffalo, anyway ? And I thought the HSR proposal up there was only from Chili Jct. to the west for 20 or 30 miles, not all the way to Buffalo ?
I could also see CSX raising the same concerns about its routes further west across Ohio and Indiana; and esp. down south from Washington, D.C. to Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC; the coastal routes to Florida; the now-aborted HSR from Orlando to Tampa, even though it was supposed to use the I-4 ROW; and from Florida west to New Orleans - all are potential HSR routes, though with varying qualifications for same.
Paul_D_North_Jr Certainly that route's a good 'poster child' for the debate . . . How far is it from CP 169 to Buffalo, anyway ? And I thought the HSR proposal up there was only from Chili Jct. to the west for 20 or 30 miles, not all the way to Buffalo ? I could also see CSX raising the same concerns about its routes further west across Ohio and Indiana; and esp. down south from Washington, D.C. to Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC; the coastal routes to Florida; the now-aborted HSR from Orlando to Tampa, even though it was supposed to use the I-4 ROW; and from Florida west to New Orleans - all are potential HSR routes, though with varying qualifications for same. - Paul North.
About 270 miles. My recollection was that NY was looking for the whole route, but only got a 10 or 20 mile "demo" portion.
I wonder if Ward is just trying to lower the expectations of the optimistic uninformed. Except for the old NYC, there isn't room to the side 30 feet away to just plop down a track on most CSX routes. Big chunks of the the old L&N aren't aligned for 79 mph, much less 90 or 110. Maybe that's the point he's making.
Hard to tell....
Paul_D_North_Jr and esp. down south from Washington, D.C. to Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC; - Paul North.
and esp. down south from Washington, D.C. to Richmond, VA and Raleigh, NC;
The SEHSR corridor for Petersburg to Raleigh is not currently in use. In fact, they have to put a rather long bridge back.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
If we are going to have HSR, lets have HSR....90 & 110 MPH are not HSR, higher than today's speeds YES. HSR? NO!
You are not going to have HSR on rights of way that were laid out by surveyors on horseback in the 19th Century that were designing a right of way for minimum grade with minimal regard for speed. HSR is about speed with minimal regard to grade.
A HSR route will be about service to it's customers which will mean persistent service from 5AM to Midnight leaving the Midnight to 5 AM period for maintenance activities and no time for the movement of freight. HSR and freight cannot operate on the same rights of way...nobody, not the HSR operators nor the freight carriers want the liability that would result from a catastrophic wreck between the competing purposes in today's litigious society.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Andy Cummings Two other notes on this story. Note how the reporter sets up this paragraph: If CSX were to advocate for high-speed rail, he said, “it’s then ‘why aren’t you donating part of your infrastructure to that?’ which I can’t do and be true to my obligation to my shareholders.” TRAINS readers should be able to spot the problem here from a mile away. Of course CSX isn't going to "advocate" for high speed rail, nor is any other freight railroad. As Ward says, they're in the business of moving freight and providing for their shareholders. Ward saying he won't advocate high speed rail and saying he's opposed to high speed rail are two different questions. They're somewhat blurred all throughout this article.
I don’t see what you mean when you suggest that the reporter set up this paragraph (I added emphasis in blue). When I read it, I assume that except for the words, “he said,” the entire three lines were said by Mr. Ward. It does seem rather awkwardly written because it is quoted as spoken, and spontaneous speaking is sometimes rather cryptic in its word structure.
When I read the three lines, this is how I interpret him:
He is saying that he is not advocating for HSR because if he were advocating for HSR, then it would follow that he should be willing to donate part of his infrastructure to HSR. He is not willing to do that because he uses his infrastructure to make money and passenger trains don’t make money.
I can only think of three reasons why people oppose HSR and/or refrain from advocating HSR:
1) They oppose the public spending for it.
2) They don’t want trains running next to their house or on their hiking corridors.
3) They run a private freight railroad, and don’t want to reduce its profitability by sharing their infrastructure with a government-run passenger operation.
I speculate that Mr. Ward is not opposed to HSR for reasons #1 and #2, but is opposed to HSR for reason #3 to the extent that it pertains to his railroad.
Extreme High-Speed Trains have to be operated on newly constructed elevated right-of-ways. They have to be either light rail or Mag-Lev. There can be no grade crossings. The new paths for high speed passenger trains have to be as straight as possible.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Bucyrus [snipped] 3) They run a private freight railroad, and don’t want to reduce its profitability by sharing their infrastructure with a government-run passenger operation.
A) Passenger operation pays fees to the host railroad that include all the broadly-defined variable costs (including a reasonable Return On the Investment) incurred by the host from the passenger train, plus an amount equal to or gr'eater than the lost profits from the displaced freight traffic - if any, because that scenario doesn't occur unless the line is at or near capacity;
B) And if not, then the passenger trains should still be covering all of their broadly-defined costs, plus some further contribution to the bottom line - so where's the harm ?, because the railroad is now better off anyway;
C) And/ or, the passenger railroad makes capital improvements to or for the host private freight railroad that are of such usefulness and value - to the freight railroad - as to be at least a partial offset to the potential lost profits, with additional fees to make up the balance.
Paul_D_North_Jr Thanks for the link, so we can review the source ourselves. Minor fact question: I didn't get that a formal 'panel' was involved, but that Ward was discussing policy and position on the issue - which would be the same, panel or not. That clarified, onto specifics: I believe UP's project is just the Chicago - St. Louis line, though that's not stated in this article. Also, that terrain is- guess what ? - mostly flat, and farmland. Hence, it is either already - or easier to make into - an alignment suitable for higher speed trains. Most of CSX's inland routes wind along rivers and around mountains in areas that are built-up, and so cannot be easily or cheaply straightened, though I'll concede that those routes on the coastal plain would be more accomodating to HSR. Therefore, I can understand the 90 MPH limitation. That corresponds to about 6 inches of "super-elevation" ("banking") of the outer rail above the inner rail on a curve, for about a 1-degree curve, which has a radius of approx. 5,730 ft.. To illustrate that dimension another way, to accomplish a full 90-degree turn would require 90 degrees x 100 ft. per degree = 9,000 ft. or about 1.7 miles, plus spirals - practically, 2 miles. A higher speed or sharper curve would require more elevation, which is strongly frowned upon by most practical railroad track engineers, so the 1-degree curve becomes the sharpest acceptable curve for that speed (unless exotic rail passenger vehicle technology such as tilting bodies are used). Unfortunately, there aren't many that gentle 1-degree curves now over long distances, so how, where, and with what money would they be straightened ? And the easy answer is this: If general freight can supposedly mix with HSR, then how come Amtrak is so very discouraging of any freight on its NorthEast Corridor ? Even late at night when traffic interference is minimized - though the MOW people need the track then too often enough - no less a luminary than Amtrak CEO W. Graham Claytor, Jr. said that the deterioration in the track geometry parameters caused by a single freight train was significant enough that it was measurable . . . - Paul North.
The bloomsburg article seemed to specifically sight out the proposed Albany - Buffalo route, the old NYC Water Level route. I admit I am not expert on the route, but is it not mostly flat or flatter than many other routes in the east? Not to mention, it used to be a Quad-tracked mainline, now reduced to two, so is room for more tracks really an issue?
As far as the statement about the NEC. I mean it sounds like the passenger trains would do a lot less damage to the rail than the freights? No brainer statement by me I know, but Ward seems to be more concerned about operation concerns rather than engineering concerns.
It would be nice to see a study of one Northeast Regional or Acela train has on track after they have run over it.
Paul_D_North_Jr Bucyrus: [snipped] 3) They run a private freight railroad, and don’t want to reduce its profitability by sharing their infrastructure with a government-run passenger operation. There's an unstated presumption here - that the government-run passenger operation will in fact reduce the profitability of the host private freight railroad. Certainly that's been the vast majority of the US experience for the last 80 years or so - but it's not an immutable law of physics. It need not be so in at least 3 variations that I can think of: A) Passenger operation pays fees to the host railroad that include all the broadly-defined variable costs (including a reasonable Return On the Investment) incurred by the host from the passenger train, plus an amount equal to or gr'eater than the lost profits from the displaced freight traffic - if any, because that scenario doesn't occur unless the line is at or near capacity; B) And if not, then the passenger trains should still be covering all of their broadly-defined costs, plus some further contribution to the bottom line - so where's the harm ?, because the railroad is now better off anyway; C) And/ or, the passenger railroad makes capital improvements to or for the host private freight railroad that are of such usefulness and value - to the freight railroad - as to be at least a partial offset to the potential lost profits, with additional fees to make up the balance. - Paul North.
Bucyrus: [snipped] 3) They run a private freight railroad, and don’t want to reduce its profitability by sharing their infrastructure with a government-run passenger operation.
I agree that it is not an immutable law of physics that HSR will reduce the profitability of the private host railroad. My only point was that some heads of private railroads might expect that to be a result of hosting HSR, and if they do, that would be a reason for them to oppose hosting HSR.
I also agree that if all of the cost imposed on the host railroad by HSR were reimbursed by the government, there would be no reason for the private railroads to object to HSR. But with the scale and cost complexities of infrastructure reworking needed to shoehorn HSR onto the private railroad corridors, I can understand the private railroads worrying about the cost sharing agreement with the government, and the strings that might be attached to it. It goes back to not letting the camel get his nose under the tent.
I refer back to this article, which describes HSR opposition by NS, UP, and CSX.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703305004575504180006530598.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs
The government has already demonstrated the reckless abandon they can muster when it comes to throwing bailout and stimulus money around without any accounting of where it went or what it accomplished. It is clear that the government likes to throw cash around and call for the recipients to dance to the tune. And if the recipients can’t exactly say how much cash got thrown, they lose say in how much dancing is enough.
Even John Gray of the AAR refers to taking money from the government for hosting HSR as “selling your soul.”
Mr. Ward must have as his major concern the profitability of the railroad and the level of service to its customers . If I had been in his position, I would have simply said: "What you are proposing is not my job, and some of your efforts may even just possibly conflict with my job, so I have to decline your offer because it conflcts with my job." And I would have left it that , The nitty gritty need not be stated. That way I don't appear anti-passenger and still preserve my and the railroad's independence.
Never thought I would find myself in agreement with Michael Ward, but he is winning me over. [ I am trying to be a political, and not push a personal political agenda here.]
My guess at what he [Michael Ward} has not said, but intimates, is ;"The Federal Government, could not take over a Cat House in Nevada, and make it pay. How in the world can anyone expect those same Bureaucrats, and Politicians to make HSR work in a real world; juxtaposed along side a for-profit carrier?"
We should all realize once the elephant has his trunk in the tent, the fertilizer machine will not be far behind.
Bucyrus —
What I'm proposing is that Mr. Ward is neither in favor of, nor opposed to, high speed rail, contrary to what said article's headline proposes. I base this on the quotes I referenced above in the interview I conducted with him last year. I'm proposing this reporter is making the claim primarily that Mr. Ward won't "advocate" for high speed rail, then acts as if that's the same as Mr. Ward opposing high speed rail. I'm saying those are two different things, and there's a subtle bait-and-switch that occurs in this piece between those two things.
I believe if you read the Bloomberg article carefully, you won't see where Mr. Ward proposes that he won't allow passenger trains on his railroad under the Obama HSR program. He doesn't. Rather, he says passenger trains operating faster than 90 mph can't realistically be made to work with freight trains on a busy route. New York DOT is pushing a plan for 110, and that's where the real conflict is, as best I can tell.
As to the opinion of the greater railroad industry, I suspect their attitude is symbolized by the high-profile deals they struck with Washington (BNSF), Illinois (UP), and North Carolina (NS). Under these deals, the railroads were careful to make sure they retained their ability to move freight trains. That meant up-front money to pay for capacity enhancements and ongoing money to cover operations costs. Once their freight capacity is protected, the railroads showed a great willingness to work with the states under the Obama HSR program. Admittedly, CSX has signed no such deals, which leaves open the possibility that Mr. Ward does in fact oppose the program wholesale. But I don't see the evidence of that in the Bloomberg article. And I believe what he told me last year points toward a more agnostic position.
That's my theory, and I could be wrong. I certainly don't claim to speak for Mr. Ward. And I respect your opinion to the contrary. Just sayin'.
Bucyrus Andy Cummings: Two other notes on this story. Note how the reporter sets up this paragraph: If CSX were to advocate for high-speed rail, he said, “it’s then ‘why aren’t you donating part of your infrastructure to that?’ which I can’t do and be true to my obligation to my shareholders.” TRAINS readers should be able to spot the problem here from a mile away. Of course CSX isn't going to "advocate" for high speed rail, nor is any other freight railroad. As Ward says, they're in the business of moving freight and providing for their shareholders. Ward saying he won't advocate high speed rail and saying he's opposed to high speed rail are two different questions. They're somewhat blurred all throughout this article. I don’t see what you mean when you suggest that the reporter set up this paragraph (I added emphasis in blue). When I read it, I assume that except for the words, “he said,” the entire three lines were said by Mr. Ward. It does seem rather awkwardly written because it is quoted as spoken, and spontaneous speaking is sometimes rather cryptic in its word structure. When I read the three lines, this is how I interpret him: He is saying that he is not advocating for HSR because if he were advocating for HSR, then it would follow that he should be willing to donate part of his infrastructure to HSR. He is not willing to do that because he uses his infrastructure to make money and passenger trains don’t make money. I can only think of three reasons why people oppose HSR and/or refrain from advocating HSR: 1) They oppose the public spending for it. 2) They don’t want trains running next to their house or on their hiking corridors. 3) They run a private freight railroad, and don’t want to reduce its profitability by sharing their infrastructure with a government-run passenger operation. I speculate that Mr. Ward is not opposed to HSR for reasons #1 and #2, but is opposed to HSR for reason #3 to the extent that it pertains to his railroad.
Andy Cummings: Two other notes on this story. Note how the reporter sets up this paragraph: If CSX were to advocate for high-speed rail, he said, “it’s then ‘why aren’t you donating part of your infrastructure to that?’ which I can’t do and be true to my obligation to my shareholders.” TRAINS readers should be able to spot the problem here from a mile away. Of course CSX isn't going to "advocate" for high speed rail, nor is any other freight railroad. As Ward says, they're in the business of moving freight and providing for their shareholders. Ward saying he won't advocate high speed rail and saying he's opposed to high speed rail are two different questions. They're somewhat blurred all throughout this article.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.