QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic I think the Acela trains were a big mistake, not only for the NEC, but also for just about anybody else trying to promote/establish/justify to voters high speed trains in other parts of the country. --------------- The less sexy alternative would have been to take AEM-7/Amfleet trains, put in the nice Acela interiors with the tables and power plugs for running your laptop computer on the train, and perhaps upgrading some crossovers, switches, and alignments on the bottleneck low-speed segments of the NEC to boost running times. Would the public not ride these trains? Are people that dumb that they flock to ride the Bombardier Acelas because they are new but won't ride the Amfleet cars? Are the folks in California off base for buying double-decker cars based on proven Superliner (and Santa Fe HiLevel) designs and fitting them with tables an power plugs for people to run their laptop computers?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Originally posted by MP57313 Huh? Depreciation expenses do not generate more funds for capital acquisitions. [/quote Well, depends on how well the managers run the business. I have worked for corporations that capture the depreciation charges from each business unit just as if they were a utility bill, like electricity. Those funds are placed in banks, money markets, etc. and become an internal capital fund. I have also worked for companies that do not repleni***he capital funds and must constantly turn to outside lenders for funding, of course at the current interest rates. The later system allows for higher cash flows through the business, which looks good to investors in the short term, but causes lower growth in the long run. Honestly I cannot see how in any sense the Acela can be considered a mistake. For such a large change in technology for both Amtrak and Bombardier there has been few teething problems. If you think that I am off the mark look back at the Metroliners, or United Aircraft Turbotrains. When they were new they were horrible, but after a few years of experience and modifications they became reliable workhorses. (yes I know the Metroliners were still expensive to maintain) The Acela has been accepted by the general public as a viable alternative to aircraft travel. The public is willing to pay a premium for this real (or perceived) benefit. Argue all you want about speed, the builder, Amtrak, teething problems and the like. But the bottom line is that if the general public accepts the technology then it is successful. And the Acela is successful. Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, June 2, 2005 3:21 AM Again, remember to remind politicians that air and highway transportation take gobs of LAND and that the underutilized rail rights of way for the most part already EXIST. Reply BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,277 posts Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 6:53 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by fgrcl Why are german and french governments investing on HSR? Because they have found it to be cheaper and cleaner (per transported person) than highways and air transport. Nobody is asking highways or air traffic control to be profitable (and they are not, they can't). Governments spend billions to keep them running and i've heard of no one asking to make profits to avoid bankrupcy. The first thing to do is think different In as much as the anti-Amtrak crowd seems to flood the letters ot the editor of numerous print media, maybe it is time for those of us who care to start a campagin about all the money that has been spent on Air Traffic Control as well as Air Terminals that has never returned a nickle of profit on the Billions of investment......Just a feeble idea. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 4:25 PM Why are german and french governments investing on HSR? Because they have found it to be cheaper and cleaner (per transported person) than highways and air transport. Nobody is asking highways or air traffic control to be profitable (and they are not, they can't). Governments spend billions to keep them running and i've heard of no one asking to make profits to avoid bankrupcy. The first thing to do is think different Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 10:36 AM Whenever it was that the 1st ISTEA bill was passed, the whole idea was that there was much to be gained by funding connectivity between modes instead of building out each mode independently. A really good idea whose time has come. However: Politics being what it is, the bill wound up a bit short of the goal. Amtrak was inentionally left out (and still is) and many pet projects like rails to trails projects were included, even if they had more to do with recreation than mobility. Not only is there a dearth of strategic planning, the DOT has never really even defined what Amtrak is supposed to be, right now! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 8:43 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD The primary thing to remember about AMTRAK....Accela or not... Congress concieved AMTRAK as being a financial failure at its inception, and Congress is upset that in the near 35 years since AMTRAK's inception it still exists. How could Congress FAIL in constructing a FAILURE. I love it[:D]! Congress and the US DOT can't even do a failure right![:D]. Dave's comments are right on, if a bit blunt. But so are Don Phillips'. The plain fact of the matter is that the Federal DOT -- never mind the States -- does not have, and never has had, a coherent plan for transportation, as opposed to a plan for highways, or a plan for railroads, or a plan for airlines, etc. The EU does have such a plan, and has managed to sell it to the various stakeholders (a remarkable achievement, by the way). There are historical reasons for this. However that may be, the various modes of transportation -- which should, rationally, all be considered together -- operate within the various DOTs in almost complete isolation from each other. Further, advance planning is not one of the functions which is given much weight (lest you think I don't know what I'm talking about, I worked for a State DOT for a little while as an engineer; there were two of us (two, count 'em -- two) involved with advanced planning and transportation strategy -- out of several thousand total employees). Jamie Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 5:06 AM Mineta has no trouble DICTATING Amtrak to save money and not use a contingency fund that was aimed for the troubles Amtrak now has, and thus no more hot meals on 1st Class NE Corridor! But he won't of course get off his duff and do intelligent transportation planning because 1. He hasn't the brains for it, doesn't really understand transportation, and shouldn't have his job in the first place, and 2, Intellgient transportation would run counter to the wishes of the highway-oil-auto lobby. Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 1:28 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark ..... Well, a business uses depreciation to fund its capital projects.... Surely 40 year old coach cars and 50 year old diners should have depreciated enough to fund new equipment. Surely 30 year old Superliner cars should have depreciated enough to fund new equipment.... So don't say run it like a business, it ain't..... Huh? Depreciation expenses do not generate more funds for capital acquisitions. You can make the point that the passenger cars are fully depreciated, and therefore the company is justified in appropriating more funds to be used to buy new equipment. But that assumes the company has the funds, or a method to raise funds for the capital project. As you mention above, Amtrak is not a business...can't issue stock to the public (Amtrak IPO on the NYSE?!?) and it needs a source for those new funds for the new capital equipment. All that's left is borrowing (at what interest rate?!) or Government appropriations... Reply klahm Member sinceDecember 2001 52 posts Posted by klahm on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:47 PM Acela itself wasn't the mistake. It's implementation was. Amtrak's contract with Bombardier/Alstom went far beyond making the basic TGV design FRA-compliant. Too much customization leads to teething problems that could have been lessened by more of an off-the-shelf attitude. Latter might well have been absent due to being drunk from a mail & express dream-binge. Time has shown that Warrington wasn't in touch with reality. The new uniforms, lava-lamp paint jobs, etc. were a ridiculous waste of scarce funds. 80-MPH infrastructure commentary is right on the mark. Whether riding Acela or the European demonstrators, the limits of the ex-PRR "racetrack" were readily apparent. Solvable yet affordable? Perhaps not. Should it be researched? By all means! I've used Acela several times over the past 4 years and found it useful, both as a transportation tool and an environment to get work done that could not occur on cab+wait+plane+wait+cab. Is it worth the fare increase above Metroliner or Regional trains? Usually not, as a half-hour at day's end isn't much different than playing phone-tag in the office at the same time and thereby going home on the next commuter train. Run Acela at its rated speed and that might change. Nevertheless, Acela has a chance to come back and evolve into something reliable and useful, under realistic management and promotion. The Turboliners won't have such a chance. They've degenerated into a political boondoggle; taxpayers should be up in arms over the waste on that one! The key to success of rail in America is integration of transportation systems. I flew from Chicago to Dulles this afternoon, rented a car to cover my biz in Northern Virginia, will return it at BWI on Thursday, to take Amtrak to NY then, and fly home on Friday. The train makes perfect sense for the Baltimore-NY segment and coincidence of BWI air and rail terminals makes it practical. I use NJT frequently between EWR and Madhattan. No intercity trains serve O'Hare or Midway, so one can't leverage the inherent advantages of various modes into a harmonious whole there. This is what's wrong. Let's put the "integrated" into ISTEA! Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:38 PM Amtrak Needs 1200 or 1300 Brand New Cars Now, like 500 New Superliners, 150 New Viewliners Coaches, 50 Viewliners Dining Cars, 50 New Viewliners Lounge Cars, 50 more Viewliners Sleeping Cars, 50 New Baggage Cars, 350 New Northeast Corridor. Plus Amtrak needs to bring back Train 35&36, 25&26, 60&61, and 40&41. Amtrak could bring another 3 to 4 Million People back to Amtrak, if amtrak restore them trains?[2c][:D] Reply BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,277 posts Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:01 PM The primary thing to remember about AMTRAK....Accela or not... Congress concieved AMTRAK as being a financial failure at its inception, and Congress is upset that in the near 35 years since AMTRAK's inception it still exists. How could Congress FAIL in constructing a FAILURE. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 6:52 PM The main problem with Amtrak is a complete total lack of capital expenditures to maintain and upgrade its equipment and right of way.... The woesayers say its not turning a profit..... Us backers say there hasn't been enough capital expenditures....the woesayers say run it as a business..... Well, a business uses depreciation to fund its capital projects.... One thing is for certain, Amtrak is not a business.....its a service..... A service similar to the police and fire departments across America..... Surely 40 year old coach cars and 50 year old diners should have depreciated enough to fund new equipment. Surely 30 year old Superliner cars should have depreciated enough to fund new equipment.... So don't say run it like a business, it ain't..... Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:26 AM Any decent planning would foul up the plans for greater oil profits. I think, again, Bush is basically honest, but like most Americans, he has been brought up on the car culture and his family's invovlement in oil really has blinded his vision. He is going to have to make a choice. Either Iraq will be a quagmire or he has to get tough with the Saudis and that demands a really solid, not face fuel cell, energy policy and that demands a sensible transportation policy. Everyone who agrees with this point of view should do his best to make in known and in the process get decent funding for Amtrak. Regarding most of the complaints about Amtrak posted on this website, I see hope in Amtrak's own reform program toward mitigating or removing them. But they need the money to do it. Mineta seems to delight in making problems for Amtrak. Aren't Cabinet members supposed to solve problems rather than create new ones? Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:20 AM The point of Don Phillip's column in the July Trains is that the Department of Transportaiton is not doing the kind of planning that needs to be done to avoid the likely crisis we will face in the near future. This is not just railroad planning, but overall transportation planning including highway and air. It would be one thing for the DOT, as part of the US Executive Branch, to DICTATE transportation expenditures. However, it seems that there is a tendency to do nothing until things are really bad and then, of course, the cost to the economy in tax dollars and private expenditures can go through the roof. Jay "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 Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:13 AM Might as well jump in... by and large I agree with dd, Glenn and Dave, but a few thoughts or comments (perhaps redundant). First, with regard to rights of way and the like. One must remember that in Europe -- particularly in France and Germany -- the central government has powers which would, bluntly, cause a full-scale revolution in the US, particularly with regard to building things like brand new rail lines and roads. The entire political structure and economic structure is different, and it would be well to a)remember that and b) make no attempt to comment on one vs. the other until one has a very thorough understanding of how both systems operate and think. The bottom line, though, is that it is possible for the French or the Germans to create brand new high speed rail systems 'for the benefit of the people' without necessarily worrying about whether the people want to be benefited. Good? Bad? Let's leave it at different. Second, the major problems with the NEC right of way are in the area between New Haven, CT, and New York., although there are difficult spots, to be sure, in the Boston and Philadelphia areas. One of the major problems is alignment -- but to bring the alignment up to 150 or 200 mph standards would be rather difficult in these areas, not to mention hideously expensive. See Item 1, above. I might add that in these areas even construction of a new lane on an Interstate is very difficult, and building a whole new Interstate now would be politically nearly impossible. Also see Item 1, above. However, alignment is not the only problem: the traffic level on parts of the NEC is extremely high (anyone see the map in the latest Trains?), and mixing a high speed train into sometimes less than 10 minute headway commuters is... difficult. Is the Acela a mistake? No, in my opinion. But it is bedeviled by political problems. Jamie Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:35 AM Poor oversight and prioritization of limited funds along with Not Invented Here syndrome are hallmarks of most government programs and IMO an argument for what's wrong with Amtrak and why it should go away. If there's a real demand for HSR in the NEC, then either privatize or outsource it. I suspect Bush would be a lot more receptive to governemnt help if Haliiburton were running it. Social engineering as part of Amtrak's mission is a mistake as well. It's mission shouild be moving people from point A to B. IF people vote with their feet they'd rather fly or drive, then it should go out of business. Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:12 AM 1. People in the Saudi government knew about 11.09.01 before it happened. Proof? The Saudi Prince flying to New York and openly attempting to bribe then Mayor Gulliani for him to declair that "The Jews did it" with a million dollar check in is hand/ 2. Fuel Cell Hydrogen, no matter what research turns up, will always be less efficient than direct use of electricity including use via batteries. 3. Honda and Toyota have proven USA can have energy independence without expensive research. On the street, easy to maintain, doesn't cost a whole lot, and very practical. So practical that Motive Power and GE (hopefully EMD soon) are applying some of this to locomotives for economic reasons. 4. Eisenhower warned that the military-industrial complex might force defense spending to be excessive. But nobody warned about the highway-auto-oil complex running the country for the benefit of oil profits and the Saudi Royal Family. 5. Jews were welcome in nearly all Muslim countries in 1492, the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Arabs and Jews were friends until the British gave the Wahabees the oil and Mecca in 1915. Then the trouble started. Israel is a democracy and any Christian group can set up a prayer meeting on any public property with the same freedom as in the USA. Hamas is now part of the Palestinian government without backing off from "ethnic cleansing", that its ultimate goal is an Islamic state, and they mean fundamentalist Islam. Can you understand why to me the land use question being swepted under the rug and the problems we face are interrelated? Sorry for the soap box, but it is clear that President Bush wants to preserve his "friendship" with America's real arch enemies, the Saudi monarchy, and seem to be fair in our situation as well. And it just won't work. The last bunch of Palestinian prisoners the USA force Sharon to release included at least one who was caught as a terrrorist in Iraq! The Saudis could stop most of the mayhem in Iraq if they wanted to, but they don't. Hamas gets the money freely as a charity in Saudi Arabia and cooperates with all the other terrorist organizations, Hezbolah (operating legally in Europe thanks to France's Chirac), Islamic Jihad, and Al Quada, with Al Quada now having a branch in Gaza. Saudi oil imports to the USA are paid for with Anmerican lives as well as those of Palestinains and Israelis. Reply gfjwilmde Member sinceNovember 2004 65 posts Posted by gfjwilmde on Monday, May 30, 2005 8:31 PM I recall a conversation with a certain manager(name withheld) I had when I was returning to DC after visiting my mother in New York. Our talk eventually centered on these new train sets that, at the time of our exchange, weren't being built yet. I voiced my concerns, because like some of you, I thought it would have been more prudent to upgrade out existing mainline first before you plunge alot of money into new equipment. I thought why spend millions(maybe billions) of dollars on something that is only going to go 25mph faster than what we are currently running. Even now, there are only a few interlockings that have newer high speed closed frog switches in place. These switches, with concrete ties, allow trains to crossover from track to track at higher speeds(60mph-80mph) than what is currently allowed(30mph-45mph). These improvements have allowed our conventional equipment to operate on better time schedules. I'm fully behind the importance of a higher speed network of trains operating in this country, especially in the Northeastern metropolitan regions where highways and airports are overburdened as it is. Plus, one advantage we(Amtrak) have over those two forms of transportation is that we let you off where you need to be. If not in the center of a cities' business districts, we're very close to them. I truely believe there should have been a greater government oversight of Amtrak, Bombardier and other companies involved in the making and testing of these train sets. The problem now is, there are very few companies in the world that you can aquire a bid to build high speed trains and unfortunately Bombardier just happens to be one of them. Even now, Bombardier is petitioning the FRA's approval for a turbine powered train, with the same style locomotive body that was used on the locomotives(power cars) on the high speed trains. I feel if this gets their approval, then they may as well build the cars the same/similiar so not to deal with a new group of parts vendors, which Amtrak and NeC-MSC are currently having a problem with right now. They can't get parts for even the simplest things like the food trays, so what makes you think they can get spare parts for major things like the disc brake rotors. It's going to be a very legal mess if and when this current situation blows up. One can only imagine. GLENN A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!! A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!!! A T R U E L Y DISGUSTED AND DISGRUNTLED AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the sophisticated hobo Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, May 30, 2005 5:45 PM I recently flew into Las Vegas. While we landed at the airport on time, my jet pulled into its gate 45 minutes late, waiting for another jet to leave. While there is plenty of airspace above America, the simple truth of the matter is that there aren't enough gates available at any given time at any airport. When Amtrak leased the Acela equipment it was promised by the Congress and the administration that the NEC would be refurbished. What a laugh..... The Acela's were originally scheduled to cut an hour off the trip, it ended up being 15 minutes. Amtrak under Mr. Gunn proposed a five year $5 billion plan to upgrade the NEC last year to bring Acela up to speed and make it more competitive with the airline industry. What is $5 billion? Approximatley the price of 10 Boeing 747s or Airbuses A-380s....or 10 Panamax cruise ships..... If the cruise industry can afford to purchase two Panamax cruise ships I wonder what a true HSR rail network, either public or private, could achieve if given the proper capital funding..... Mr. Gunn didn't get the first year funding to improve the NEC infrastructure, and this year the administration don't want to spend the $60 million emergency fund. Obviously, this administration don't want Amtrak to exist......in the NEC or elsewhere. The Senate transportation committee quoted the price of expanding I-95 to absorb Acela's passengers today..... $87 billion...... That's does not include the price of expanding airports and their terminals to absorb Acela's ridership.... One can only come to the conclusion that Acela is cheap in comparison to either highways or airports..... Much cheaper..... If its that way for Acela, its also that way for HSR elsewhere...... Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Sunday, May 29, 2005 9:01 AM Glen I appreciate your input on this subject and apoligize for my first post on this topic. It was more a reflection of my frustration with Secretary Mineta's latest move than anything really to do with the Acelas. There can be not doubt that the both the Bombardier and Amtrak managements in place at the time of the Acela project did a pretty sloppy job. But the trains have been built and there is no going back to the drawing board to do them all over again. Fortunately, there is every appearance that the Amtrak Mechanical Dept is staffed by some very resourceful people. Assuming the money will be there, the Acela's will be back on and will continue to be the top train on the NEC for a long time to come. Jay "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 Reply gfjwilmde Member sinceNovember 2004 65 posts Posted by gfjwilmde on Saturday, May 28, 2005 11:21 PM Ok...let me enlighten some of you on the facts about this ACELA project: (1) ABB had NOTHING to do with designing or building these train sets! (2) The AEM7's which ABB and EMD(Budd built the carbody) built, are still going strong, even as they are being converted from DC propulsion to AC propulsion. (3) These train sets had to meet certain 'crash worthiness' standards, something the X2000(Sweden) and the ICE(Germany) train sets didn't have. The FRA demanded these standards, so in any event, these trains would have had to be built in the US, if not, North America at least. (4) As far as the propulsion system, Alstom was responsible for that. Considering, that this company has been involved in many of the propulsion/electronic systems being used in many of the high speed trains in Europe, I'm suprised that these trains have had many electronic problems that have sidelined them as well. (5) Amtrak's management were looking for financing assistance from whoever was to be the winning bidder of these trainsets. Bombardier(with the backing of the Canadian government) offered to finance much of the project, something the other bidders didn't want to do, given Amtrak's always ongoing money problems. (6) Knorr Brake company(who took over New York Air Brake) is the main responsible party with regard to the air brake system and the brake discs in question. They subcontracted the replacement of the wheels, axles and disc assemblies to a Pennsylvania firm called ORX. If you read certain item on the internet with regard to this issue, you'll find out that this company knew a few years earlier, there were early stress and fatigue problems and didn't report this until now. (7) The incompetency of Amtrak's Quality Assurance(QA) personnel is above all, a major contributing factor in all of this. These idiots didn't know that Bombardier were building these train sets with unskilled, incompetent workers at their Vermont and upstate New York plants. It wasn't until QA personnel from New York City Transit investigated them(Bombardier were building new subway cars for New York), then Amtrak's personnel got on the ball. So there you have it. For those that don't work on these train sets, don't speculate about what could be wrong with them. Just ask me, I'll tell you. That's the problem here. No one asked the people who have to work on this equipment, what would be the best things to put into it and would make it easy for you to work on it. If they would have asked me I would have told them to have a stronger truck frame, better shock absorbers, the correct wheel taper, do away with alot of the electronics(electronics and railroads don't mix) and a bunch of other junk to numurous to mention. JUST ASK ME!! GLENN A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!! A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!!! A T R U E L Y DISGUSTED AND DISGRUNTLED AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the sophisticated hobo Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 28, 2005 4:14 PM ABB is not doing the job for me as a passenger train lover. Bring back the Budd Co. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 28, 2005 12:35 PM Airlines are pretty fast. But when you have seen Newark at Dinner time at the height of the rush and understand that there are airliners stacked in 5 very large areas of the sky just boring circles waiting thier turn to come down. One delay at one airport will ripple thru the system. I have ridden what was high speed in england and between London and Suffolk was pretty good service. Yes we were rolling but did not have to fight the Motorway traffic or invest in the driving to and from London. I was raised in Baltimore. I see that sometimes in storms Amtrack will roll on (For as long as the switches and bridges hold out) while airliners are being deiced or shut down. If it is really bad no one should be out anyways. To get to BWI, hop a plane to Boston will cost you time. Time in getting to the airport, getting on the plane, off the ground working thru the traffic in the sky and repeating the process at Boston. If you can get that same person on true high speed and get him to boston faster than that airline can from BWI for cheaper while also offering a restraunt car etc... then you will remove a airplane from a already choked air system America is built on the private auto. They once enjoyed train travel long ago as a means of getting around. I have heard stories of steam engines pushed to mechanical limits and being truly fast to keep the customers happy. The stories of comfort are legendary. As for those who talk about being able to look out the window, I offer the opinion that at 80 mph you are already looking almost a 1/2 mile into the country side to see any kind of detail, 150+ on up you are only interested in getting to where you are headed. If you did look out the window in the NEC it would be the same old. And you wont have to worry if the airliner will make V2 and generate lift to get into the sky. On take off you either get into the sky or dont. At least on a train you have a clear track and equiptment that "wants" to run at those speeds. On the question of Lawmakers I am pretty sure the "work" in parts or expertise or something that contributes to the project first on the NEC and eventually Nationwide can be found to keep him or her happy. Not all lawmakers will get on board. If we are able to engineer the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge on I-495 in D.C. which everyone agrees is "Failing" and due to fall into the water then we could work on the NEC or other areas in a similar manner. Google High Speed Rail and you will probably find about 14 projects underway in different areas of the United States. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, May 28, 2005 9:50 AM The plane is not really fuel efficient for the commuting between say New York and Washington or Philadelphia to Boston is it? I high-speed line is the best way to go. Cars can only go a certain speed where trains go 100+mph already. Plus if the roads are crummy, why make emergency services folk's job extra difficult when you could take a high-speed line. Winterstorms, heavy rain, etc; it is usually better to stay off the road during thease times and often the planes get grounded so there would be a better chance of the train making it through the weather challenges then the rest. In theory, it should be cheaper to invest in a new 200 mph or more corridor line. I suppose it could take up the room of a 2 lane road (double track) as opposed to a 4-8 lane highway that takes up plenty of room. Amtrak charges money; not enough to pay for itself but enough to at least reduce cost. Does a highway do the same thing; what kind of profits do tolls make? Plus, the rails tend to last longer then road surface so rail maintainance should be minimal for sometime. Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 28, 2005 7:57 AM IMHO the mistake railfans sometimes make is thinking in terms of high speed rail instead of high speed transportation portal to portal. The U.S. generally believes in free markets and in most situations the airplane beat out the train just as the train beat out the stagecoach. A 737 at takeoff speed is already going faster than Acela at top speed. Reply Edit 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by fgrcl Why are german and french governments investing on HSR? Because they have found it to be cheaper and cleaner (per transported person) than highways and air transport. Nobody is asking highways or air traffic control to be profitable (and they are not, they can't). Governments spend billions to keep them running and i've heard of no one asking to make profits to avoid bankrupcy. The first thing to do is think different
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD The primary thing to remember about AMTRAK....Accela or not... Congress concieved AMTRAK as being a financial failure at its inception, and Congress is upset that in the near 35 years since AMTRAK's inception it still exists. How could Congress FAIL in constructing a FAILURE.
QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark ..... Well, a business uses depreciation to fund its capital projects.... Surely 40 year old coach cars and 50 year old diners should have depreciated enough to fund new equipment. Surely 30 year old Superliner cars should have depreciated enough to fund new equipment.... So don't say run it like a business, it ain't.....
"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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.