blue streak 1 Oltmannd: That was fairly much a proposal I made several years ago to AMTRAK but was put down for 1. No first class service to NRL. 2 Cost too much (I have my doubts). Actually during the mail contract the cars were turned on the shorter distance to the belt line wye (don't know if the wye tracks are useable now).Also cars were stored there because the pocket was still used at Atlantic Steel (now gone).
Oltmannd: That was fairly much a proposal I made several years ago to AMTRAK but was put down for 1. No first class service to NRL. 2 Cost too much (I have my doubts). Actually during the mail contract the cars were turned on the shorter distance to the belt line wye (don't know if the wye tracks are useable now).Also cars were stored there because the pocket was still used at Atlantic Steel (now gone).
I don't know about the wye at the Belt line, either, but Howells would be simple.
I, too, would have a hard time believing that it "costs too much". Lack of first class service to NOL? Compared to the cost to own and operate four sleepers and two diners? Gee, what a deal breaker!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Bombardier has said they're interested. Good enough?
Bombardier has said they're interested. Good enough?
No. bombardier has very little experience with high horsepower electric propulsion required. I have no doubt that several companies would line up to receive federal funds to produce something and someone will have to provide the equipment. The political landscape really needs to be considered in whether this has any chance of occuring. The magnitude of this is such that private companies can not make this happen. It will require separate right of way obtained through eminent domain. The real estate alone is worth a fortune. Private companies are hanging on by their finger nails and no one could obtain the kind of financing this will take (and it isn't available). When push comes to shove do you really think the government (insert most hated political party here) will pony up the billions (probably trillions) or give it to people to retain their homes? Every day there is a new proposal for some grand puiblic works project but there isn't any money unless the feds just print it and distribute it which appears to be what is intended for the three trillion in projects already suggested.. That will lead to run away inflation within five years and the economists I have talked to think as early as seven months from now. Rather than mention the President in the 70's we had 20% inflation and 20% interest rates. Do you have any idea of what that would do to the cost? I am in total agreement that the only entity that could pull this off is the federal government but now is not the time because of the banking, housing, unemployment, earmarks, lack of financial acumen on the [part of politicians and a host of other reasons. This one will never get Congressional approval particularly since there are only three states that will benefit from it unless it is loaded with more pork which the public has had enough of in my opinion.
Your political rant not withstanding, Bombardier Transportation, the world’s largest company in the rail equipment manufacturing and servicing industry, and the people who built the Acela, will be thrilled to know that they are not qualified to build our high speed trains.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Add the ICE-3, the AVE-S102, and othe passenger and freight locomotives. Obviously not the most informed on rail issues which could affect his or her credibility on other issues that are brought up.
Ouch. Also bidding for the HSL trains over here (but we'll probabley side with Alstom in the end). Besides one way around that is for the evil centralised Govt to designate a corridor; sort the planning out and then "back the project" with bonds; at the same time leaving the private firm to resource the trains, set the fares and run the timetable for a concession of say 99 years....
That way you get a corridor and the trains. The govt supplies the infrastructure and Private enterprise does what (occasionally) it is supposed to.
Do you really think that a politician would vote to give any work to a Canadian firm with the state of the US economy? I said that the government would have to finance this and there will be all kinds of people trying to get a piece of the action but you still have to come back to the fact which no one is disputing that nobody has the money. The feds don't have it, the banks don't have it, the wealth producers don't have it and the Chinese said they aren't buying any more of our debt nor is anyone else. So the money doesn't exist and there is no way to generate it. If you are logical the only possible conclusions you can draw are either it won't happen or the eight billion dollars proposed is a payback. Take your choice.
Oh, brother!
Ever hear of "Buy American"? What do you think we've been doing the past 30 years with any transit project using Federal money?
The $8B will come from the federal general fund, not project specific bonds. Maybe you are confused about this. ...or maybe I'm wasting perfectly good electrons.
Since there really aren't any American companies available, most purchases are from a foreign company that agrees to assemble them in the US. Our light rail, for example, was built by Siemens, a German company in a factory in California.
On the other hand if they want to just get updated versions of what they have now, I think GE makes the P42s.
Have you seen this turbine electric from Bombardier?
HarveyK400 I have no idea why it could possibly cost $313 billion for HSR between Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio unless Halliburton gets a no-bid contract from the Governor. By comparison, California is estimating just $40 billion for a 700 mile long HSR, 220 mph network. The Southeast Corridor may be a tad more between Washington and Jacksonville for the 220 mph corridor alternative. There aren't that many other full HSR corridors close to implementation. Illinois and Wisconsin are looking at improvements for 90-110 mph services that would take only half a billion each. So maybe the the first phase may be around $100 billion - just a guess.
I have no idea why it could possibly cost $313 billion for HSR between Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio unless Halliburton gets a no-bid contract from the Governor. By comparison, California is estimating just $40 billion for a 700 mile long HSR, 220 mph network. The Southeast Corridor may be a tad more between Washington and Jacksonville for the 220 mph corridor alternative. There aren't that many other full HSR corridors close to implementation. Illinois and Wisconsin are looking at improvements for 90-110 mph services that would take only half a billion each. So maybe the the first phase may be around $100 billion - just a guess.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) released recently a report of its audit of many of the proposed high speed rail projects in the U.S. The GAO is considered by many of its users to be one of the best audit organizations in the country, primarily because of its objectivity.
Amongst the projects that it reviewed is the status of high speed rail in Texas. It found that as of March 2009 Texas has taken no further action to establish a high speed rail system since the failed Texas TGV proposal. However, a grassroots organization of local elected officials and others is pursuing high speed rail in the Texas Triangle. However, the Texas Legislature has not sanction any high speed rail for the Lone Star State.
The Texas TGV, which was first proposed in 1982, would have provided high speed rail between Dallas/Fort Worth, including DFW Airport, to Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. Service was to have commenced between DFW and Houston in 1998, with service to Austin and San Antonio beginning in 1999.
The project failed because the proponents could not raise the required private capital, and the legislature refused to fund the project, although it authorized the formation of the Texas High Speed Rail Authority (THSRA). The THSRA issued requests for proposals. Two of three applicants met the criteria. Texas TGV Corporation (Morrison Knudsen, Bombardier, Alstom, Credit Lyonnais, Banque IndoSuez, Merrill Lynch as well as several others) was granted the franchise.
Southwest Airlines filed suit to block the project, but the Texas courts dismissed its lawsuit. Contrary to popular belief, Southwest Airlines was not the major reason the project fell over. The project never got beyond the environmental impact study phase because it could not convince potential lenders that the project would be successful.
The estimated cost of the project was $4 billion, with a projected ridership of 11.3 to 18 million by 2015. Since 1982 the CPI has increased 120.5 per cent, which means the $4 billion would be equal to $8.82 billion today. A better inflation indicator would be the construction cost deflator, which would be somewhat different than the CPI, but it is more difficult to get. Accordingly, I think the CPI is a good tool to make my point. It appears that $313 billion to build HSR in Texas, if that is what the DOT person said, even after allowing for an extension of the line to Little Rock and Tulsa, is not well founded.
A more realistic estimate would be that for the California High Speed project, which the GAO found to be between $32.8 and $33.6 billion in mid 2008. The $40 to $45 billion being tossed around by others does not appear to be based on realistic estimates.
No, I would love to; but I heard about them. There also was a thread some months back that went into recuperated gas turbine power.
I agree $313 billion is way off way off. Conversely, your inflation-adjusted $8.8 billion may be a little light; but certainly a lot closer.
Could it be that $313 million is an estimate for 90-110mph services?
Sam1 The estimated cost of the project was $4 billion, with a projected ridership of 11.3 to 18 million by 2015. Since 1982 the CPI has increased 120.5 per cent, which means the $4 billion would be equal to $8.82 billion today. A better inflation indicator would be the construction cost deflator, which would be somewhat different than the CPI, but it is more difficult to get. Accordingly, I think the CPI is a good tool to make my point. It appears that $313 billion to build HSR in Texas, if that is what the DOT person said, even after allowing for an extension of the line to Little Rock and Tulsa, is not well founded. As of mid 2008, according to the GAO, the properly supported estimate for the California High Speed project was between $32.8 and $33.6 billion. The cost to develop high speed rail in the Texas Triangle, excluding extension of lines to Little Rock and Tulsa, would probably be more in line with these numbers.
As of mid 2008, according to the GAO, the properly supported estimate for the California High Speed project was between $32.8 and $33.6 billion. The cost to develop high speed rail in the Texas Triangle, excluding extension of lines to Little Rock and Tulsa, would probably be more in line with these numbers.
I take it you mean 31.3 billion not 313 billion for the Texas system?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
oltmannd Up until a few years ago, Amtrak short turned a couple of coaches at Atlanta, running 5 north of Atlanta and 3 south. Same number of coaches used as running 4 all the way thru, but NS switch crew costs probably killed that. No reason you couldn't drop the sleepers at Atlanta, too. It's a day train south of Atlanta.
Up until a few years ago, Amtrak short turned a couple of coaches at Atlanta, running 5 north of Atlanta and 3 south. Same number of coaches used as running 4 all the way thru, but NS switch crew costs probably killed that. No reason you couldn't drop the sleepers at Atlanta, too. It's a day train south of Atlanta.
Oltmannd; After mowing the back 40 the last couple of nights have an idea of why all the (deadheading) extra equipment. New Orleans and Hialeah (Miami) are maintenance locations. In fact the stimulus package has upgrades to both facilities. At New Orleans the City trains have a scheduled 22hr layover, the Sunset either 19 hrs, or almost 3 days layover (quite a waste of equipment but may use City cars on Friday departures ); the Cresent 12 hrs. However I've observed several Cresent coaches and 1 sleeeper laying over at New Orleans over the daytime. So it appears that New Orleans is a rather large level 1 maintenance location. The same can be said about Miami as 6 - 10 cars are parked there except during the holiday rushes. In fact Miami may be a level 2 Maintenance area.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.