Sure fire fix for Amtrak..

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wkhey

gdcwcc, sorry if you thought I was being rude to you. My reply was directed to this entire thread. Sick and tired of hearing about fixes for Amtk. from people outside the industry. Seems to me everyone has a opinion but viable solutions.
Been in the rail industry for 26yrs, 11 with Amtk.

Well, sorry for creating a thread that has caused you so much grief.. At the time I started it, I was fresh from being discouraged from even using Amtrak AS A CUSTOMER, and the problems, even to this lowly outsider, seem more political, than administrative.

[Anonymous]

Thanks. I know everyone has a different opinion. While I prefer the TGV, 180 mph electrified system, I would not be to upset with the 150 mph Jettrain.

However, I do support building new track either way between the cities in the countryside. More than likely we will have to use existing right of way insides the major cities to serve their stations downtown. The main reason I support dedicated passenger track is because the freight railroads will need all of their slots and more before long.

As for the funding, the money is already there in the budget. It is a matter of priority. For example, the Texas DOT spends $60 million each year to upgrade small airports, some 275 small airports are eligible. A small airport that hangars 166 airplanes is getting $2.9 million this year to repave and light the runway, and to expand the tarmack. When one divides these numbers out, each airplane owner is getting a $10,800 subsidy from the state of Texas.

This runway is no more important than my residential street. Surely more people use my residential street on any day than that runway at that small airport. But the state does not pay to repave my residential street.

$60 million over ten years becomes $600 million. Over a ten year period the state could build DART's new light rail line to Carrollton from downtown Dallas.

And yes, small general aviation gets $60 million a year subsidy from the state of Texas, while Amtrak and the railroads gets nothing!

Priority!

I hope I have laid to rubbi***he idea that general aviation is not subsidized.... It is, and more than you think!

[Anonymous]

gdcwcc, sorry if you thought I was being rude to you. My reply was directed to this entire thread. Sick and tired of hearing about fixes for Amtk. from people outside the industry. Seems to me everyone has a opinion but viable solutions.
Been in the rail industry for 26yrs, 11 with Amtk.

[Anonymous]

I've seen it in person. If you would like to see some pictures, go to http://www.pilotonline.com. That's the Norfolk newspaper website and then go to their archieves. That had several pictures on line a few months ago. They charge $1 for detailed archieve searches, but the pictures should be within the free area.
I think we've talked out the Amtrak subject and we're probably closer to the same page than appears. It's been nice talking with you and I hope to see you around some of the other posts. Hope you have a good day. gdc

[Anonymous]

Have you seen the pictures of the maglev system? To me it looks awfully familiar to a monorail system, without any rails. Instead of being cheaper, maglev systems will be more expensive. The only advantage of a maglev system is faster speeds. But how fast is fast enough? 120 mph, 150 mph, 180 mph or over 200 mph? We can achieve 120 mph with current Amtrak diesels and rolling stock. We can acheive 150 mph with tilting rolling stock and the Jet train. We can achieve 180 mph with TGV type electrified trains, either with or without tilting rolling stock.

But even with a maglev system we will need to use new right of way. Since the freight railroads see no need to increase the speed of their trains, whatever system we choose will more than likely have to be on dedicated passenger only track. Even the Europeans have realized that operating high speed passenger trains on the same tracks as the slow freight trains is an UNSAFE nightmare for the dispactchers and signalling equipment!

[Anonymous]

I must be losing my mind. I thought I answered this post, but it doesn't show up on the list. (Sigh) Just commit me! What I meant was there are too many trucks on the highway. Obviously intermodal means just that, transportation of varying means. After all,large part of intermodal is substituted service. That's why trailers have tires! Once again, have a safe day! I hope this post makes it! gdc

[Anonymous]

Who knows a time line? If rail passenger operations are in the best interest of the future public, then that public should build them. This one, exclusive of a small minority, just doesn't want them. Additionally, there is emerging technology to suggest that steel rails will become obsolete, so every rail foot would be a wasted investment from its concept. At Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, a maglev system is being built and tested. When and if that becomes viable, then, by all means, lets do it...but not until! The way we're going, there may not be a need for any transportation in 500 years. But maybe that's a discussion for a theology forum. Have a good day...gdc

[Anonymous]

In other words you are suggesting that high speed trains in America are 500 years away?

The federal government already taxes the railroads. The state governments have sales taxes on Amtrak tickets. Amtrak pays both federal and state fuel taxes. What does Amtrak get? NOT MUCH!

One of the reasons why you prefer to drive your car maybe because it is a cheap. Unlike Europe, most of Amerca's interstates are free. But if you had to pay a $2 toll to go around 100 miles along our interstates plus the cost of gasoline, you probably would not travel far on a turnpike, would you? More than likely you would rather fly or take the train, especially if the train went two to three times as fast as your car. Notice high speed trains have been very successful in Europe because of the tolls on their autobahns, not to mention their price for gasoline is four times what we pay.

If you searched the Texas DOT web site, you will see that without any gas tax hikes, the state is considering placing toll booths on its free interstates, changing them into turnpikes. If you are so opposed to any tax increases, expect tolls in the future to maintain them.

And get this, while what infrastructure we have now might be barely sufficient, do you really expect this infrastructure to be adequate when our populations doubles in the next 50-60 years? I am afraid high speed rail is coming quicker then you think!

[Anonymous]

A daily Amtrak train is being forced upon the freight railroads? When Amtrak was created back in the early 1970s there were at the end of private service seven trains making daily stops in Dallas, now there is only one.


Furthermore there is a way for the freight companies to increase the number of slots so that Amtrak does not necessarily use up a precious slot: build and maintain faster track. If the railroads could maintain the track for 80 mph service, then the trains could go through any stretch of track twice as fast, and therefore double their capacity. From what I have seen, the railroads have let their track ROT! However, any improvement of any tracks across the country is being paid for with FRA funds, not by private funds alone.

Why should the FRA pay to improve private railroad tracks when the government and the taxpayers of America would be better off building brand new high speed track for Amtrak? Notice that Amtrak does pay to use their tracks, and annually gives a bonus for 90 percent on time dispatching performance. Notice Union Pacific could care less about the bonus.

One of the reasons why Texas DOT is interested in getting into the railroad track business is because when the railroads were built over 100 years ago, most of the main lines ended at the port of Houston. For example, no railroad built a line from Dallas to San Antonio directly, along Texas' major corridor today. As it is the Eagle uses Mo Pac track to Marshall, T&P track to Ft. Worth, Santa Fe track to Temple, MKT track to Austin, and Mo Pac track to San Antonio. Texas DOT rightly concludes that traffic patterns of the 1880s weren't the same as the traffic patterns of today.

If you check out the maps of the TTC, you will see where the state of Texas thinks railroad tracks should be built, and allow any railroad to use them, providing more competition for the freight. Sadly, Burlington Northern Santa Fe does not serve the Austin and San Antonio, whereas the Union Pacific does not serve the panhandles area. Monopolistic ancient right of way won't compete with the modern properly routed TTC. Face it, one of the problems of transportation in the country today is the ancient, poorly routed, rotting monopolistic right of way of the railroads.

Then their are those misinformed people who think the railroads should operate our passenger trains. Like how would Burilington Northern Santa Fe serve Dallas, much less San Antonio and Austin. Like how would Burlington Northern Santa Fe serve Dallas with Houston directly?

[wabash1]

you didnt understand my statement. it seem like you want to get the trucks off the highways. i took it as in the statement that you was mainly suggesting that the city are the places where you dont like them. and that is where you didnt want them. trucks dont bother me. let them run. they need to make a living also but if more people would learn how to drive around them it wouldnt get as congested at rush hour.

but you cant get away from them someone has to bring the trailers to the rail yard for loading and to take the loaded ones to be delivered. there is not a spur going to every building ...

[Modelcar]

....Yes, that is correct, but someone is going to have to spend money on something...roads and or rails....

QM

[Anonymous]

We can only speculate on what we will need in the future. Taxing for high-speed, dedicated passenger rail now would be like a surcharge placed on Columbus's voyages to fund stealth technology.

[Anonymous]

All of a sudden a generalized conversation has gotten specific. Maybe what's wrong with the Texas Eagle is that it doesn't fly either at track speed or 30 m.p.h.less. I'm sorry that you've had such a disappointing experience with Amtrak and there are probably a multitude of reasons why those things happen. But ask yourself what you would do if the host railroad was yours as a sole propriety. Where are you going to put your emphasis if an Amtrak train were forced on you? If you answer honestly, then maybe you'll think twice before blaming the carriers.
It has been our experience that the power companies prefer to own their own equipment. The cars are dedicated and the linehaul rates are cheaper. They can also lease them to others, or sell them...their discretion. Have a safe day...gdc

[Anonymous]

Yes, we many of us disagree. However, the Texas Department of Transportation has 50 year plan for this new century, putting all of our infrastructure needs on the docket. We are facing more gridlock, not just on the highways and at the airports, but also on railroad tracks. While many will place their head in the sand and ignore the problems, it is becoming obvious that all forms of transportation will be needed and funded. At least the state of Texas has recognized that railroads built by private companies with different goals for their mainlines in the 19th century, don't necessarily fulfill the roles and needs of the 21st century.

[Anonymous]

Yes, we do love our cars today. Yet, the EPA is putting pressure on the states to clean up the air in many cities, just about every city of over 500,000 in population and their states will soon lose federal highway funding because no one is doing anything to meet the air standards. And why? We love our big cars.

However, the state of California passed, and other states are soon to follow, gasoline mileage of at least 28 mph average (city-highway). Which means it won't be long before we won't be able to buy compacts, the only thing that will meet the requirement is a sub-compact! More than likely the car companies will put out glorified golf carts to meet California's legislation.

The question remains though, will you enjoy driving a glorified golf cart across the country? I doubt it!

[Anonymous]

It ain't that difficult. It is a matter of priority, and wanting to do it. But the time will come when instead of being a want, it will be a need!

[Anonymous]

As I stated before the railroads are near capacity already. Obviously you have never sat in an Amtrak sleeper compartment on the Texas Eagle and waited two hours for seven Union Pacific freight trains in North Little Rock, Arkansas. And the train was on time, in its window, when it arrived in North Little Rock in the middle of hundreds of miles of double track on the former Missouri Pacific main line!
This has happened to me both times when I rode the Eagle to Chicago to see my grandchildren.

And yes, Texas Utilities, the largest electric/gas utility in Texas had to switch railroads from Union Pacific to Burlington Northern Santa Fe because Union Pacific could not deliever coal from the Powder River region ON TIME! Keep in mind TXU had to buy their own coal cars, because neither railroad could afford any! And if the railroads cannot afford to buy coal cars for a large utility that will depend on them for the next three decades or more, something is wrong with the railroads. And anyone who rides Amtrak knows what is wrong: THE TRACKS ARE SO POOR THE TRAIN GOES TOO SLOW! Averaging less than 30 mph in Texas! No wonder the Eagle cannot attract in Texas passenger traffic!

[Anonymous]

As I stated before the railroads are near capacity already. Obviously you have never sat in an Amtrak sleeper compartment on the Texas Eagle and waited two hours for seven Union Pacific freight trains in North Little Rock, Arkansas. And the train was on time, in its window, when it arrived in North Little Rock in the middle of hundreds of miles of double track on the former Missouri Pacific main line!
This has happened to me both times when I rode the Eagle to Chicago to see my grandchildren.

And yes, Texas Utilities, the largest electric/gas utility in Texas had to switch railroads from Union Pacific to Burlington Northern Santa Fe because Union Pacific could not deliever coal from the Powder River region ON TIME! Keep in mind TXU had to buy their own coal cars, because neither railroad could afford any! And if the railroads cannot afford to buy coal cars for a large utility that will depend on them for the next three decades or more, something is wrong with the railroads. And anyone who rides Amtrak knows what is wrong: THE TRACKS ARE SO POOR THE TRAIN GOES TOO SLOW! Averaging less than 30 mph in Texas! No wonder the Eagle cannot attract in Texas passenger traffic!

[Anonymous]

"If the to be can figure how to do it. And pay for it". Now there's the rub, is it not?

[Anonymous]

"J", obviously, getting rid of trucks in their entirety would be devastating to our national interests. After all, NS revived the Roadrailer concept. But, there just too many of them on the interstate system and all of us would be better served, including you, if more were moving intermodal. More rail jobs of all kinds, better profitability for the rails and much less congested highway(s). gdc

[Modelcar]

....I like traveling in my auto as much as anyone. Interstates are a fine way to move from point A to point B as long as it is not over run with traffic and yes a high percentage of that traffic is trucks. We all surely agree trucks are here to stay and do a valuable service. Fact is even now...in metropolitan areas it is not fun or at times even safe to travel on our interstate system. We cannot continue to build interstates hundreds of feet wide to accommodate our increasing truck and passenge traffic which will continue to increase as time passes. So development of rail freight and passenger traffic can serve to help our crunch...If the powers to be can figure how to do it. And pay for it.

QM

[wabash1]

in about every post i read you have this idea to get the trucks off the highway and get rid of the trucks. it seams like you want to do away with trucks, never see one again anywhere, in the citty or on the highway is this true.

[Anonymous]

No one has all the answers, my friend, and the solutions in rail-based passenger transport has not evolved in the minds of people (read customers and a source of revenue and/or justification). Within that thought there are a plethera of solutions, much too many to list here, besides, in this forum, many already have had their day in the sun. We still disagree, but it's regrettable that your last post had an element of rudeness. Just because someone does not share your thoughts, doesn't make them right or wrong. I was in the rail industry 35 years, how about you? gdc

[Anonymous]

Yada,yada,yada, blah,blah blah. All the answers but no viable solutions.

[Anonymous]

Rail service failures are due to a multitude of conditions, not just gridlock. In fact, now that there is a downturn in the economy, there is much more rail capacity than before. The real reason much higher rail freight is difficult is that shippers feel a greater schedule adherence with trucks than with rails. The need for passenger rail on dedicated rights of way or a more conventional approach is several generations away if at all. Now is not the time to inflict that cost on anyone! We all love our cars. I guess we can agree to disagree...that's what this forum is about methinks. Have a good day! gdc

[Anonymous]

You know as well as I do that our railroad traffic is near capacity already. There ain't no way we are going to get the trucks off the interstates and on the railroads when Union Pacific cannot guarantee a on-time weekly delivery of coal to a TXU power plant in Texas!

Therefore, there will be more and more freight on the interstates! There is a reason why the state of Texas Department of Transporation has embraced the Trans Texas Corridors of turnpikes, freight, commuter, and high speed passenger rail, not to mention power lines, fiber optic lines, and pipelines.

I suggest you read about the Trans Texas Corridors at this website:
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/ttc/ttc_home.htm

Not only are our railroads and highways at capacity, many of our major airports are too!
For short hops of up to 600-900 miles, a limited high speed train is cheaper than building more larger airports and more airport terminals and gates. My 4,000 mile parralegram with a sla***hrough the middle from Chicago to Atlanta is not pie in the sky dreams. Actually it is a bare minimum! WE ARE FACING GRIDLOCK IN 20 YEARS! Instead of cutting the DOT budget, we should be increasing DOT's budget!

[Anonymous]

Y'know, this all looks doable on paper, but until the American ideal of our own cars is replaced and transportation at whatever destination is developed, these ideas are pie-in-the-sky musings, I'm afraid. Before that kind of $$$ can be diverted from high profile lobbys (auto mfgs, airlines and trucks), a complete mindset metamorphasis must occur. I wouldn't bet a dime on it at 10,000 to 1. Similar subjects to this have come up in these posts before, and as before, I'm no fan of Amtrak. It's need and subsequently, its service are the only things more despicable than the airlines. Outside of the corridors, I believe Amtrak has no place. The NEC, west coast and a few others merit improvement, but that's all. The $$$ would be better spent getting trucks off the interstate system and on rails. Everyone would be safer.

[Anonymous]

Fair question. Of course any high speed rail network would not be built overnight, more than likely it would follow the example of the interstate highway system and take a few decades to finish. If we took a couple of billion dollars from the airports and highways that DOT is already spending: $4 billion a year over 20 years would total $80 billion.

With this $80 billion, we could build 4,000 miles of a designated passenger only double tracked electrified high speed rail network. While we would have to electrify some existing track in the cities , when we hit the countryside we could build on new right of way.

The Texas Trans Texas Corridors, a fifty year plan by the Texas DOT, set the price of new double tracked electrified high speed rail at $20 million per mile at FY2000 dollars. These numbers are not cooked.

4,000 miles would connect the northeast corridor already built to Miami and to Chicago, and build a line to Texas from Chicago and from Atlanta, not to mention a line from Chicago to Atlanta. None of these legs of a parralegram would be more than 900 miles in length.

If a train could average 150 mph including stops, 900 miles could be done in 6 hours. If a train only averaged 120 mph, the same 900 miles would take less than 8 hours.

States that would be included would be Massachusettes, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Deleware, Maryland, DC, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

Just about everybody living east of the Mississippi River would be living within a couple of hours drive to a high speed rail line, whether by bus, car, or even a slow local train that individual states might fund. There would be no need to have sleepers unless Amtrak wanted to run trains at night. There would be no need to have two lines going down the eastern seaboard, or for that matter from the northeast corridor to the midwest. Well, at least from the start. That might change as we expand the system at a later date.

Obviously, this would be the starter plan, but I would support expanding the system to Minneapolis and Denver from Chicago, possibly a short line from Toledo to Detroit, and from Toronto and Montreal to New York City, not to mention eventually extending from Texas to Mexico City. I would even support possibly one transcontinental line to LA from Denver that went south to Alberuerque and then west along I-25 and I-40. Notice that these extras don't add up to 4,000 miles, and could be constructed in a second 20 year plan.

If people want to ride a train through the 37 tunnels west of Denver, they can ride the slow ski train already in operation. Why should Amtrak operate a transcontinental there when a local already exists?

Connecting the four largest popluation centers: NY (NE corridor), Chicago (Midwest), Dallas/Houston(Texas), and Atlanta/Orlando/Miami(Georgia/Florida) should be the initial starter network. I would support an Oakland to Los Angeles high speed train too.

One thing is for certain, taking a couple of billion dollars away from airport and highways won't affect traffic or airports much in the long run.

[Modelcar]

.....Amtrak service and equipment is no doubt on par with the funding that is provided for it to provide that service. In view of how the government is now structured I hesitate to look forward to the kind of funding it will now receive. And curing the problems with new and better ideas and equipment is now really going to be questionable. Lets hope for a miracle that somehow Mr. Gunn can work the almost impossible.

QM