Amtrak funding

[Anonymous]

$20 million per mile seems very expensive, although if that includes new land purchase and blasting holes in mountains, then it seems reasonable. What about via Cheyenne?.

Obviously, new, twin-track High-Speed Lines would be a long-term goal. Wherever they are built, they should be planned properly. The fiasco over our West Coast Main Line from London to Glasgow is meaning that there is no guarantee that we will get 140 mph trains running. The current final estimate is close to £13 billion (about $27 billion).

But certainly, the 'easy' bits between Chicago and Denver could be upgraded for both passenger and freight fairly quickly and cheaply.

Jason..

[Anonymous]

Jason,

Could you tell me what are the operational limitations of the high speed trains like the talgos? I am interested in maximum permissable grade and curvature for the track.

One fellow proposed to build an Eastern US system including a direct line from Chicago to Atlanta. I believe it would be too difficult to get an HSR line over the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Thanks - Ed

[Anonymous]

RAISING THE PRICE OF TICKETS WILL ONLY CAUSE RIDERSHIP TO GO DOWN AND DEFEAT THE PURPOSE. THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO "FULLY" COMMIT TO A PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM AND FUND THE MONEY NEEDED. THIS MONEY SHOULD GO TO DEVELOPE HI SPEED RAIL AND OTHER SYSTEMS TO INCREASE RELIABILITY AND RIDERSHIP.

[Anonymous]

Patriot,

Why should the government put more money into Amtrak than the riders are willing to pay? This is the definition of waste.

Before the federal government puts large amounts of money into a passenger rail system, I would like to see some states do it instead. I think the NEC states, for example, should get together and fund that portion of Amtrak in the NEC states. Other regions of the country should do likewise, if they think it is worthwhile. Other regions should not be burdened with Amtrak if they don't want Amtrak.

Ed

[Anonymous]

True, IF you provide no extra service. Example: USPS stamp hike. But if this is a higher ticket which pays for a higher speed train? That is an increase in service, and thus justifies an increase in ticket costs.

As for the government "fully committing to a passenger rail system and fund the money needed"?

A- they'll never "committ" (Congress) because rail is the least used mode, and without significant investment, will remain so. In other words, a paradox- sorry, not enough riders- but without more money, no riders!- sorry, no riders, etc...

B- The ammount of money needed is an endless boondoggle. Everyone will want the prok train to stop in their district.

The best option is to develope higher speed systems- not HSR, but faster than today- such as Talgo sets pulled by turbo or diesel power, as an interim step, to set up the appropriate corridors and grow them.

As for funding, it should come from those who benefit- the states whose transportation system is enhanced, and the rider who gets a new mode. Fed funds should only be dispensed for capital projects, like in all other modes, and probably the funds for this should be collected in the same manner as in other modes as well, through fuel tax on the mode.

Best, Alexander

[Anonymous]

Roy:

Looks like you'll break my record- 167 posts, but no more- since it saw no recent activity, it's dropped of the forum list. This post is #155, so only 12 more to tie me!

E.

[Anonymous]

And I was more worried about Pennsylvania. I am willing to admit the Atlanta area isn't flat. Yet, the railroads built lines to Atlanta from every direction. A line can be built although it might take a few tunnels. If Italy can build a high speed rail line from Florence to Rome, the whole entire route mountainous, we can get through the itty bitty Blue Ridge Mountains too. These mountains are hills compared to the Rockies. And I did not say a straight line, either. The mileage I quoted came from a Rand McNally road atlas. In its fine print these miles were not necessarily the shortest, but the most used, following interstate highways. Why are you so negative? Nothing ever got built without positive thoughts.....

[Anonymous]

Don't feel like the lone ranger, a lot of people don't. Yet, none of them have ridden the TGV and ICE. I have a feeling you might change your mind if you rode the high speed train between Florence and Rome. A lot of winding track and tunnels, but the speed is fast.....

Information from Oliver Keating:
All high speed lines are fenced off. Indeed in the UK all railway lines are fenced off anyway, however on continental Europe many railway lines are easy to get onto. High speed lines are fenced off for obvious reasons, to eliminate the risk of any animal or people wandering onto the railway line. Note: Germany is the exception to this, high speed lines in Germany are surprisingly unfenced.

Foundations for high speed lines are much deeper than conventional railways. Usually a layer of concrete and tarmac is put down (like a road) and then the ballast is put on top. This is to try and stop movements in the ground from affecting the alignment of the railway.

The wide spacing between the lines is important because when two trains pass each other the speed difference can be as much as 600km/h or 370mph. If the two trains are too close together this causes at first a burst of air pressure when they first pass and then a drop in pressure during the coaches. Although this isn't enough to pu***he trains off the track, repeated stress on the windows may cause fatigue and mean they break eventually. So for safety reasons two tracks in each direction are placed further apart than on normal lines.

Gentle curves are key in what high speed lines are about. Tight curves on TGV lines have a radius of about 3 miles or 5 km. This is large but at speeds near 200mph can be felt. Curves are also banked up a lot more than on conventional lines. This is because slow trains will not run on them and it is extremely rare for a TGV to come to a stop because of a signal. This is noticeable when travelling on TGVs by watching the horizon and seeing it change (just like when on an aircraft). Since the degree of banking is calculated to exactly balance centrifugal forces at running speed the TGV you can detect no changes on the forces on you.

Perhaps surprisingly greater gradients are allowed on high speed lines than conventional railways. There are two key reasons for this, first of all modern high speed trains are extremely powerful, TGVs generate as much as 12,000hp, steam engines were no where near as powerful (about 1,000hp) in the era when conventional railways were built. The second reason is that the faster a train travels the less it will slow down for the same rise in height. This is because as it is going fast it takes less time to climb the hill and so gravity has less time to act to slow the train down.

Generally speaking engineers try and avoid tunnels on high speed lines. This is because when a train enters a tunnel at speed it causes large pressure changes. This can be painful and harmful to passengers ear drums. A solution was thought to be to pressure seal trains as with the TGV Reseau, however with very high speed trains (300km/h or 186mph) the pressure changes can be so large it can shatter the windows, particularly when two trains pass in opposite directions in a tunnel with a closing speed of 600km/h or 372mph in a confined space. However German and Italian high speed lines include tunnels but they have subsequent speed restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Similar to the Empire corridor in New York state? Amtrak usually runs over 100 mph on it in places, yet, with the new heat restrictions emplaced by CSX, Amtrak can only go 50 mph on hot days.

While I might agree this would be cheaper, spending $59 billion instead of $120 billion in the long run, you don't gain enough.

If we are going to built it, we might as well as build it at the state of the art.....

[Anonymous]

I don't have figures for the Talgos to hand, so, at present, can't answer that.

BR, like Amtrak, had to work with limited budgets. It was limited to how many trains it could order. If too many people were travelling, it would put the price up rather than buy or ;ease additional coaches.

During the privatisation of BR, there were NO new trains ordered for about 18 months. If Amtrak IS privatised, or broken up, then, in order tomake the assets more attractive to new owners, the current equipment fleet will need to be repaired (i.e. I am thinking of the 100 or so pieces of kit at the repair shows). Just by getting these back into services you do the following:

Increase passenger carrying capacity

Allow units that have not been serviced for long periods to come in for checks

Have a few spare sets for failures

If, however, the equipment is not repaired, and, gradually upgraded/replaced, you get the situation we have in the UK where there was a sudden rush of orders for trains, some of which are late coming into services and still have faults.

How much do you think it costs to run a railroad? There are 365.25 days in the year; you will need a minimum of a $1 million per day to run a transcontinental railroad. That is $365.25 million a year. Tocover for accidents and other problems, you need another $1 million a day. That takes it to $730.5 million. Finally, to introduce upgrades, you would need another $1 million a day
which gives $1095.75 million.

Therefore, the $1.2 billion is NOT a vast sum to ask for is it, considering that you are the richest country in the world?

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Building a system, as you put it, will, I beleive, put the system out of reach. Rome wasn't built in a day. Start medium speed (90+) on existing tracks- no additional infrastructure required.

Then, gradually improve track structure to bring speeds up to 120+. Increase frequency.

Then add new row in strategic corridors- perhaps California, Texas, and Chicago radiating corridors, and increase speeds here to 150+ etc... etc... implement it slowly, but starting with tilting sets on the freight roads to build up demand.

In other words, gradually ween the public away from freeway and airline travel... slip it in their subconsious, make it part of the daily scene. Then slowly turn up the volume. The interstate highway system wasn't built in a year or a decade either. And it wasn't all built where it is now. I agree, don't sink money in bad engineering, but don't sink it in overbuilt systems either- build slowly, turn the knob gently.

And if you think that turning Amtrak over to the states won't work? Well, why not try both methods then, and if the states want to run trains- Maine, anyone?- then let them too. As long as operations are coordinated under some form of umbrella, to keep the safety up to par.

[Anonymous]

Jason:

You wrote:
Therefore, the $1.2 billion is NOT a vast sum to ask for is it, considering that you are the richest country in the world?  

Well, you asked!
A. Just because we can, ought we? as in, 1, would it be used, since most people think Amtrak allready is a plane flying too low, and people still like to drive their cars, hence the love affair with Route 66, the 50s, and SUVs, and as in, 2, we can afford to buy a car for everyone too I'll bet, or pay for free phone service, or perhaps even free college education. But we didn't become the richest nation by spending government money.

B. 1.2 billion isn't vast to Congress, no. They eat that for breakfast. But if Amtrak gets this sum, what will happen? Another program will have to be cut by $1.2b- anyone who follows Congress knows that ain't going to happen- or Congress will have to raise another $1.2 billion out of the populace. at appx 250 million people that's an average of $20 per person, man woman and child- so another $60 per household on average. Another $60 per house that isn't getting spent in the economy.

Plus you need to factor in how many people will use the system based on these costs, ie what is being bought for $1.2b? What capacity?

And you're leaving out capital costs, which would be enormous- I know some have used $200 billion or therabouts. That's nothing like it. This would be the most expensive Civil Engineering project since the interstates were built- so try adding some zeros, it could become the worlds first Trillion dollar project.

Maybe we should corner someone at Bechtel and see what they say about cost estimates.

Best, Alexander

[Anonymous]

Just a consideration.What do you plan to do when trying to reach inner city centers? Where do you propose to put these lines? Reaching city centers will be very expensive.The 20 MILE long Alameda Corrior,which linked the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach cost 2.4 billion dollars.It was a joint venture between the RR's (UP BNSF)The ports and the communities.Funding came from bond issues,loans,and grants.It cost so much because it had to be built in a densely populated area.
Just something to consider while planning your high speed inter-city rail network. Keith

[Anonymous]

That is why you have to start now and improve the network gradually. Develop a 'wish list' if you like. This should include long-term strategic proposals - high-speed lines of +150 mph. These will take several years to come to fruiion. In the meantime, find a few 'quick wins' by removing grade crossing, capacity enhancements by remodelling stations, adding extra passing loops. These, built at points around the network can help smooth out the traffic flow.

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Don,

I am not trying to be negative. I am trying to be realistic. My questions regarding the operation limits of the train and the crossing of the Blue Ridge are intended to help determine if your construction cost estimate is reasonably accurate. As you mentioned, crossing the Blue Ridge may require a few tunnels. This would cost much and reduce the opportunity for providing stations for passengers. This would reduce the appeal for the system.

I'll concede the fact that crossing the Blue Ridge is easier than crossing the Rockies. But while it is probably possible to find an alignment through the Blue Ridge, I think it would be very expensive. How that stacks up against Italy, I have no idea.

To demonstrate how positive I am about railroads including passenger rail, I would support diverting money from airports toward rail construction if the budget would be held constant. But I am steadfastly against raising taxes to fund passenger rail construction because there is no evidence that it could ever pay for itself.

I would ask more questions concerning the specifics of your proposal but I don't want to appear even more negative than I have been already. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Jason,

I don't think the problem with Amtrak is inadequate capacity right now. It appears to be inadequate demand. If the Amtrak problem is going to be solved, it will have to be solved by first increasing demand but spending less than the new demand generates in revenue.

If Amtrak can start generating more revenue than expenses, the problem will no longer exist. Then they can invest in any improvements they think best. I'd like to see a passenger rail system in the US but I don't want public funds to be provided unless they are going to be paid back. Right now, Amtrak can not make any such promise.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Keith:

If you mean HSR, as in, TRUE HSR, then, yeah, that is a major problem! Dear me I don't know, and it'll be a no win situation for whoever decides.

Hopefully the routes could make use of existing row which are below capacity, and could be rebuilt as dedicated HSR track. Another option is to run them in freeway corridors, which might work, but since the track would have to be elevated, it could get spendy real fast.

For the intial "Higher" speed rail- (MSR=Medium Speed Rail???) the exisitin track and terminals could be used. After all, many locations handled way more trains than they do today.

But there is another example of civic shortsightedness for you. In Portland, the Union Station yard got pared down to 5 tracks, and the remaining area, rather than being kept open for future service expansions, was built over for a low cost housing project. Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!!!

Best,
Alexander

[Anonymous]

Have you ridden Amtak lately? The Texas Eagle is down to two coaches and one sleeper on the days it does not switch with the Sunset Limited in San Antonio. If you do not plan a month in advance, either the coach or the sleeper is sold out. On the days the Texas Eagle switches with the Sunset Limited, add one coach and one sleeper(they are the ones switched). While one of the coaches might not be full, both sleepers are!

As Senator Phil Gramm says, the government subsidises a coach ticket to Los Angeles on the Sunset Limited to the tune of the price Amtrak charges. In other words we could fly people to LA at the same price Amtrak price plus the subsidy.

But if the trains ran fast, Amtrak could double its fares to match the airline fares, and not have to be subsidized so much......I am of the opinion Amtrak would operate in the black, but will still need a subsidy for maintenance and capital expenses.

I would love to see Amtrak generate more revenue than expenses. But that won't happen with slow trains running on slow freight track at the mercy of railroad dispatchers. If Amtrak were put up for sale today, no one would purchase it. Like a house, it is hard to sell an old house that is falling apart, one must spruce up the house first. Amtrak is running old equipment on old track compared to the Europeans.....

[Anonymous]

This is much the same approach that we will soon be forced to face in road construction- capacity only goes so far. Why can't it be beaten in their brains that flow is more important than capacity? After all, smoother flow allows faster speeds.

But with an increase in speed, terminals will also have to be redesigned, including freight terminals. It's no good to have a speedway with more trains than exits.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Don:

I think there's a big problem brewing here. Regardless of the outcome you desire for Amtrak- fully government, partial private, fully private, whatever- the system that needs to be built to make a functional system is something that cannot be done in one sweeping move. It'll take years- decades- to build. It may have to be preceeded by years or even a decade of ridership building programs as well, to prepare the ground.

But what are we being forced to do? We are being held up to produce a solution in less than, what? 90 days? How long before th cash runs out again, and we relive June, but twice as bad?

Someone is going to have to figure out what to do short term- what to do immediately, to keep the system flowing and improve the service without breaking the budget.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

While I am not familiar with the whole country, in the Dallas/Fort Worth area a lot of lines have been abandoned. Our local light rail company, DART, built a double electrified line on new track next to Union Station on real estate the railroads unloaded along UP's double main line. Of course, we won't be so lucky everywhere.

High speed trains don't get to their top speed until they get to the suburbs and beyond. Therefore, electrifying an existing line with new track to the stations could reach a crusing speed of 50-70 mph, similar to a light rail commuter train. I would rather prefer keeping the passenger trains off freight track. A new line could be built next to freight track along its right of way designated for passsenger trains only.

[Anonymous]

Well, one step at a time. They could use freight tracks in the interim, at medium speeds- say for the first two or three years, so operations can start well before construction is finished on the new lines into town.

Might be a bigger problem in how to interface with cutting through medium and small towns; look at how much fuss Auburn WA put on when BNSF reopened Stampede!

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Negative Ed:

I cede the thrown. Congrats, you are a bigger troublemaker than me!

"The Big E" (Alexander )
Neither Guru nor Goof... but perhaps somewhere in between.

[Anonymous]

I agree, it will take 20 years or more to build a high speed rail network. Nevertheless we should be planning, engineering, and finding a source of funding it now....not 20 years in the future....

As for today, we could eliminate all of the long distance runs Amtrak operates, keeping only those planned earmarked for high speed rail. And as you suggest, upgrade the track that the then new Amtrak would be operating on say to 80-100 mph. The P-42s can run that fast, they pull the Lakeshore Limited on the Empire Corridor 100+ mph today.

But I wouldn't bother doing the latter until we have done the former.

[Anonymous]

The so called NIMBY effect. It is a strong force. However, airports are being expanded, freeways are being built, and power plants and their power lines are being built, nevertheless....In Dallas, the cities of Irving and Grapevine attempted to kill a runway; they lost, and get this, another runway is in the works. In Dallas, many attempted to kill the one cent sales tax in many of the suburbs, but DART and light rail won. Funny, it turns out that the light rail commuter trains are quieter than city buses...

[Anonymous]

I'm not an engineer. I am an ignorant consultant. However, one must have dreams to accomplish anything.

Yes, tunnels will cost more than $20 million a mile. How much more, I haven't a clue. Twice as much, three times as much. For how long a distance, 1 mile, 5 miles? I will admit, I don't know.

But I do know if we are to ever have a modern passsenger rail system the envy of the world, we must start as soon as possible. Keeping what we have now will be a toy in 30 years. Define the plan, engineer the plan, cross all of the t"s and dot all of the i"s, find a funding mechanism, and then do it!
You are rightly worried about tax increases. I hate tax increases too. Yet, the federal government recently passed an $80 billion farm subsidy package, most of it going to large agri-businesses and not to the poor farmers.

The feds spent $7 billion last year and will again this year funding city buses and light rail systems. Buses!

The DOT budget this year is $ 60 billion, yet, Amtrak receives from it a subsidy of $600 million. Chump change. Highways got $33 billion, airports $11 billion. Can't we take a couple of billion from each, and fund Amtrak $4 billion a year?

Are freeways and airports going to solve our transportation problems 20 years hence? Keep in mind the air space is full in a lot of major cities. Keep in mind California's legislation, soon to be copied by other liberal states, allowing us the use of a golf cart as an automobile in ten years time....

Yes, there is the proper density in the northeast corridor today to support high speed rail. Yet, there will be much more density along the east coast, all the way to Florida, in the midwest , and the eastern half of Texas. California is expected to grow too, where, I haven't a clue with its lack of water and electricity.

I do know that Texas has increased its population from 12 million in 1970 to 20 million in 2000. Texas is expecting to grow another 10-15 million in the next 30 years. The Dallas metropolitan area and the Houston metropolitan area are expecting to grow at least a million each in the next census, from 5 million to 6 million. Probably both are looking at 8-9 million each in 30 years. The Bay Area metropolitan area today is 8 million.

Now is the time to start planning. I might have a vision, but I will never say I have all of the answers to all of the details......But I will dare to ask this, why hasn't Amtrak put in a local between Dallas and Houston?

[Anonymous]

I will answer that question before you do. Why hasn't Amtrak put in a local between Dallas and Houston? Simply, my dear Dr. Watson, the track is slow! A Greyhound bus on the truck laden I-45 can beat any train on that slow track.........

[Anonymous]

Ah, well, as for planning in advance, you bet! Heck, take a peek at how long most of these highway projects took to build, from first concept through all the amazing red tape... etc....

It could take a decade on the planning stages alone- heck, we're undergoing a commuter rail project in Washington County, and it started back in 95 or so. Only now do we have FRA approval, and now funding is stalling it. It is estimated for construction to begin in 2003 or 4 with opening in 05, and even that isn't likely in my view. And that's for a piddly 15 mile commuter rail project!

So we need a master plan for what we're building towards, AND an interim plan to rachet up slowly towards that goal.

Later, Alexander

[Anonymous]

Yeah, well, Auburn WA didn't get their way either. Last I saw, BNSF is running trains over the hump and straight through town. But at issue here is that in building longer corridors, more of these cities will be effected, and in highly populated locations like Texas and California, they've got a lot of house seats.

It may be, however, much as you piont out, more an issue of engineering than of impossibility.

Alexander

[RudyRockvilleMD]

The whole idea of high speed rail is to provide railroad travel times which are competitive with flying on a portal-to-portal basis in certain well populated corridors. So starting a"high speed rail system" with a top speed of only 90mph + just won't cut it.

You need to start with a system where the top speed is 150 mph, and build from that. Right now the Acela Express only averages 66 mph between Boston and New York, and the trains can only travel at 150 mph for 18 miles.