gardendance,
I was not refering to NYCTA and WMATA, but to Amtrak's future between New York and Washington.
Most systems using regenerative braking such as in New York and Washington seem to be DC. I'm not sure about the Acelas; but the "Toasters" are aptly named for their dynamic braking converting momentum (energy) to heat which is given off. Regenenerative braking would seem to be more complicated with AC power.
The idea behind dynamic braking is to reduce the heating of the wheels and the wear and maintenance of friction brake shoes and pads, wheels, and rotors.
Can someone explain it or set me straight?
HarveyK400 wrote:... between New York and Washington... but this consumes a lot of energy and loses more without regenerative braking, battery, or fly-wheel energy conservation
... between New York and Washington... but this consumes a lot of energy and loses more without regenerative braking, battery, or fly-wheel energy conservation
I thought New York and Washington already had regenerative braking. Are you implying that they don't, or do you mean that some new installation with lots of braking will lose lots of energy unless they include some sort of regenerative, etc... system?
passengerfan wrote:To get there I will probably take ... the Hound to Winnipeg
To get there I will probably take ... the Hound to Winnipeg
I'm sorry, what railroad runs a train called the Hound? :)
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Samantha wrote: passengerfan wrote: Paul Milenkovic wrote: One of the things I was getting at was that there are places where water, sewer, electricity, gas, garbage, and transet are private enterprises and other places where they are municipal operations. So today, do we hold anybody's feet to the fire or just accept medocrity in performance while paying the bill. Should we do the same for Amtrak?BUt I do like what you said about marketing, etc. concerning Amtrak. In effect somebody has to say to Congress to S--T or get off the track!OK, two questions:Where is a municipal electric company operated where fees from customers make up 50 cents on the dollar of cost?Second question follows. If we are to approach passenger train advocacy as a marketing campaign for a product, essentially selling the product of a national passenger train network to the non-railfan non-advocate taxpayer, how are we getting off on the right foot in this campaign using a four-letter word, even if it has some of the letters blanked out? Are you saying that there is overwhelming support for trains among the public at large but that their elected representatives are obstructing on account of influence from "special interests." If the ambivalence of Congress (remember, we are on the path to get Lautenberg-Lott, not everything we think we want, but a major increment in Amtrak capital spending, but an increment that needs to be spent judiciously to have a good effect) reflects general attitudes of their constituents (and the lifeblood of any member of Congress is "constituent services" and bringing in Federal benefits to specific districts), are you scolding the non-railfan non-advocate taxpaying public for not sharing your perspective on the social benefits of trains? And as such, is such scolding, which is a mode of advocacy I see in many advocacy newsletters, advancing the cause, the cause being one of persuading the "customer" (the taxpaying public) that tax money spent on Amtrak is a something they want?That is exactly what is happening here in California at the present time. The tax paying public seem willing to spend 9.9 billion on HSR. All early indications and polls show that the car driving fanatics in California will pass the Bond measure in November with 60 to 65% of the vote. I never thought I would live to see the day. The price of Gasoline and the clogged freeways finally seems to have opened the door to the purse strings of the taxpayers. The proposed California HSR system will operate at speeds of 200 to 220 mph and will be electrified modeled after the French system. It sure will make the NE corridor pale in comparison with its top speed of 150 mph achieved for a brief 8 miles south of Boston. This will speed passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours and from Sacramento to Los Angeles in under 2:45 hours. Present Amtrak schedule on Coast Starlight takes over 9 hours. Al - in - StocktonLos Angles to San Francisco in less than three hours sounds pretty good. But spending $10 billion to pull it off doesn't sound so good, especially when one considers that he can fly from LAX to San Francisco and back in 3 hours (approximately 1.5 hours each way) for $146. And this is the fare that is being quoted for the middle of October, after the airlines make their capacity cutbacks in a move to return to profitability.
passengerfan wrote: Paul Milenkovic wrote: One of the things I was getting at was that there are places where water, sewer, electricity, gas, garbage, and transet are private enterprises and other places where they are municipal operations. So today, do we hold anybody's feet to the fire or just accept medocrity in performance while paying the bill. Should we do the same for Amtrak?BUt I do like what you said about marketing, etc. concerning Amtrak. In effect somebody has to say to Congress to S--T or get off the track!OK, two questions:Where is a municipal electric company operated where fees from customers make up 50 cents on the dollar of cost?Second question follows. If we are to approach passenger train advocacy as a marketing campaign for a product, essentially selling the product of a national passenger train network to the non-railfan non-advocate taxpayer, how are we getting off on the right foot in this campaign using a four-letter word, even if it has some of the letters blanked out? Are you saying that there is overwhelming support for trains among the public at large but that their elected representatives are obstructing on account of influence from "special interests." If the ambivalence of Congress (remember, we are on the path to get Lautenberg-Lott, not everything we think we want, but a major increment in Amtrak capital spending, but an increment that needs to be spent judiciously to have a good effect) reflects general attitudes of their constituents (and the lifeblood of any member of Congress is "constituent services" and bringing in Federal benefits to specific districts), are you scolding the non-railfan non-advocate taxpaying public for not sharing your perspective on the social benefits of trains? And as such, is such scolding, which is a mode of advocacy I see in many advocacy newsletters, advancing the cause, the cause being one of persuading the "customer" (the taxpaying public) that tax money spent on Amtrak is a something they want?That is exactly what is happening here in California at the present time. The tax paying public seem willing to spend 9.9 billion on HSR. All early indications and polls show that the car driving fanatics in California will pass the Bond measure in November with 60 to 65% of the vote. I never thought I would live to see the day. The price of Gasoline and the clogged freeways finally seems to have opened the door to the purse strings of the taxpayers. The proposed California HSR system will operate at speeds of 200 to 220 mph and will be electrified modeled after the French system. It sure will make the NE corridor pale in comparison with its top speed of 150 mph achieved for a brief 8 miles south of Boston. This will speed passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours and from Sacramento to Los Angeles in under 2:45 hours. Present Amtrak schedule on Coast Starlight takes over 9 hours. Al - in - Stockton
Paul Milenkovic wrote: One of the things I was getting at was that there are places where water, sewer, electricity, gas, garbage, and transet are private enterprises and other places where they are municipal operations. So today, do we hold anybody's feet to the fire or just accept medocrity in performance while paying the bill. Should we do the same for Amtrak?BUt I do like what you said about marketing, etc. concerning Amtrak. In effect somebody has to say to Congress to S--T or get off the track!OK, two questions:Where is a municipal electric company operated where fees from customers make up 50 cents on the dollar of cost?Second question follows. If we are to approach passenger train advocacy as a marketing campaign for a product, essentially selling the product of a national passenger train network to the non-railfan non-advocate taxpayer, how are we getting off on the right foot in this campaign using a four-letter word, even if it has some of the letters blanked out? Are you saying that there is overwhelming support for trains among the public at large but that their elected representatives are obstructing on account of influence from "special interests." If the ambivalence of Congress (remember, we are on the path to get Lautenberg-Lott, not everything we think we want, but a major increment in Amtrak capital spending, but an increment that needs to be spent judiciously to have a good effect) reflects general attitudes of their constituents (and the lifeblood of any member of Congress is "constituent services" and bringing in Federal benefits to specific districts), are you scolding the non-railfan non-advocate taxpaying public for not sharing your perspective on the social benefits of trains? And as such, is such scolding, which is a mode of advocacy I see in many advocacy newsletters, advancing the cause, the cause being one of persuading the "customer" (the taxpaying public) that tax money spent on Amtrak is a something they want?
One of the things I was getting at was that there are places where water, sewer, electricity, gas, garbage, and transet are private enterprises and other places where they are municipal operations. So today, do we hold anybody's feet to the fire or just accept medocrity in performance while paying the bill. Should we do the same for Amtrak?BUt I do like what you said about marketing, etc. concerning Amtrak. In effect somebody has to say to Congress to S--T or get off the track!
One of the things I was getting at was that there are places where water, sewer, electricity, gas, garbage, and transet are private enterprises and other places where they are municipal operations. So today, do we hold anybody's feet to the fire or just accept medocrity in performance while paying the bill. Should we do the same for Amtrak?
BUt I do like what you said about marketing, etc. concerning Amtrak. In effect somebody has to say to Congress to S--T or get off the track!
OK, two questions:
Where is a municipal electric company operated where fees from customers make up 50 cents on the dollar of cost?
Second question follows. If we are to approach passenger train advocacy as a marketing campaign for a product, essentially selling the product of a national passenger train network to the non-railfan non-advocate taxpayer, how are we getting off on the right foot in this campaign using a four-letter word, even if it has some of the letters blanked out? Are you saying that there is overwhelming support for trains among the public at large but that their elected representatives are obstructing on account of influence from "special interests." If the ambivalence of Congress (remember, we are on the path to get Lautenberg-Lott, not everything we think we want, but a major increment in Amtrak capital spending, but an increment that needs to be spent judiciously to have a good effect) reflects general attitudes of their constituents (and the lifeblood of any member of Congress is "constituent services" and bringing in Federal benefits to specific districts), are you scolding the non-railfan non-advocate taxpaying public for not sharing your perspective on the social benefits of trains? And as such, is such scolding, which is a mode of advocacy I see in many advocacy newsletters, advancing the cause, the cause being one of persuading the "customer" (the taxpaying public) that tax money spent on Amtrak is a something they want?
That is exactly what is happening here in California at the present time. The tax paying public seem willing to spend 9.9 billion on HSR. All early indications and polls show that the car driving fanatics in California will pass the Bond measure in November with 60 to 65% of the vote. I never thought I would live to see the day. The price of Gasoline and the clogged freeways finally seems to have opened the door to the purse strings of the taxpayers.
The proposed California HSR system will operate at speeds of 200 to 220 mph and will be electrified modeled after the French system. It sure will make the NE corridor pale in comparison with its top speed of 150 mph achieved for a brief 8 miles south of Boston. This will speed passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours and from Sacramento to Los Angeles in under 2:45 hours. Present Amtrak schedule on Coast Starlight takes over 9 hours.
Al - in - Stockton
Los Angles to San Francisco in less than three hours sounds pretty good. But spending $10 billion to pull it off doesn't sound so good, especially when one considers that he can fly from LAX to San Francisco and back in 3 hours (approximately 1.5 hours each way) for $146. And this is the fare that is being quoted for the middle of October, after the airlines make their capacity cutbacks in a move to return to profitability.
But then you would still have the drive to and from the airport in each case but the time is downtown to downtown on the proposed HSR. The HSR is at a minumum six years away and who knows what the airfare will be then. Not to mention what cab fares in LA and SF will be, and for that matter what will the fare be on the HSR. I would think with fuel prices continuing to escalate that the rail when and if it gets built might be a real bargain.
Personally I enjoy taking the Coast Starlight at its leisurely pace down the Coast Line to LA from Oakland. And you certainly cannot beat Pacific Parlor Car for the journey. I am a frequent rider of Amtrak and was saving my pennies for a ride on the GrandLuxe in a couple of years, so will now have to travel to Alaska once again or maybe it is time to try Rocky Mountain Railtours. More years than I care to remember I rode the CN to Churchill and back from Winnipeg and think this is another trip I need to take again. Of course Via Rail is the operator today and I realize that a trip to Churchill is not going to be a trip on the Canadian or Ocean but I think I need to go again. To get there I will probably take the Coast Starlight to Seattle and Empire Builder from there to Fargo and the Hound to Winnipeg. Returning I will probably take the Hound from Winnipeg to the Fargo and the Empire Builder East to Chicago and California Zephyr home. I am not a frequent flyer or any other kind of flyer except when I go overseas. If I could take a fast ship across the Pacific to Japan I would be perfectly happy. I don't care for the products produced by Boeing or Airbus even though my dad worked for Boeing in the Commercial Airplane Division for 38 years before retiring many years ago. I personally witnessed the first flight of the Boeing 707 (367-80)from the Boeing Field in Renton. Even my dad did not have any personal love affair with aviation and preferred trains.
I understand we will never return to the way things were in the 1960's or earlier but Amtrak is all we have and I for one will continue to support it.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: If the high price of gas chokes of Highway Trust Fund revenue, why is anyone in the train advocacy community upset about that? It means less spending on roads, and if gas is expensive, people drive less and we don't need new roads, and besides, new roads is not the best policy because if gas is costly we should not be emphasizing driving.
But what has been proposed by some is to requistion monies earmarked for Amtrak other rail mass transit purposes to the highway fund instead. Therefore, there will be the same amount of money for roads and highways but less for Amtrak and commuter rail.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
No rail transport to fall back on, so the economy takes a bigger hit due to curtailed spending as well. Eggs in one basket, et cetera...
The current high price of gas is resulting in a curtailment of driving estimated at 4 percent.
The Vision Report proposes spending close to half a trillion dollars on a rail network that would boost intercity train from .1 percent to 1 percent of total passenger miles.
If the high price of gas chokes of Highway Trust Fund revenue, why is anyone in the train advocacy community upset about that? It means less spending on roads, and if gas is expensive, people drive less and we don't need new roads, and besides, new roads is not the best policy because if gas is costly we should not be emphasizing driving. Besides, Amtrak never got any money from anywhere but General Revenue and the fare box, and the high price of gas is sending some money Amtrak's way in the form of Lautenberg-Lott, although a lot of people are angry that it isn't enough to do HSR and others want to spread that money around and get new sleeping cars.
The WisARP Newsletter is making hay out of that 4 percent drop in driving, suggesting it is some kind of crisis that those 4 percent of passenger miles taken out of cars represent people stranded without any way to get where they are going in the absence of a train alternative.
That 4 percent represents people deciding to take vacations closer to home, deciding to share the ride with a friend or take the local bus or rail transit, watching Netflix at home instead of driving out to the multiplex, and so on. The idea that intercity rail can or is even needed to plug that hole is a misunderstanding. It is only rolling back driving back to 2004, and we seemed to get by back in those days.
Besides, the economy is claimed to have grown at a 3 percent rate last quarter, so whatever economic pain seems to be in specific sectors (home loans, new auto purchases) rather than cascading through the economy in the style of the Great Depression.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
JT22CW wrote: oltmannd wrote: daveklepper wrote:May I respectfully point out that Amtrak was on a way to excellence when they fired David Gunn? But I would give the present management some breathing space before complaining.Gunn could have gotten Amtrak back into the shape it was in under Claytor. Maybe even a bit better. Don't know if that qualifies as "excellence" though. It does qualify as "responsible", though. Downs and Warrington were not helpful.Kummant seems to be a pretty sharp guy. I'm hoping he's working behind the scenes to improve things. I think there's more in what he doesn't say publically than what he does say.If Kummant were as "sharp" as you claim, he wouldn't go out in public and make hyperbole-filled statements about what it would take financially to raise speeds of the Acela Express on the NEC to triple-digit average speeds, never mind within 10 mph of triple digits. No, you don't need to spend $31 million per mile for a 2'30" NYP-WAS run (90-mph average speed), and you don't need to build a 200-mph corridor and/or "spend $50 billion" to upgrade the NEC to permit a 2-hour NYP-WAS journey (an average speed of 112.5 mph, something that's well within the capabilities of tilt trains in Europe).Also, it seems like the "trust fund" idea is a broken one that is utterly driving-dependent (note that the funds therein were in "jeopardy" due to people cutting back on driving thanks to gasoline prices finally reaching European levels for the first time in history)…unless of course they start raising fuel taxes to compensate, but that would cause more driving to be curtailed; quite the Catch-22, eh? No rail transport to fall back on, so the economy takes a bigger hit due to curtailed spending as well. Eggs in one basket, et cetera…
oltmannd wrote: daveklepper wrote:May I respectfully point out that Amtrak was on a way to excellence when they fired David Gunn? But I would give the present management some breathing space before complaining.Gunn could have gotten Amtrak back into the shape it was in under Claytor. Maybe even a bit better. Don't know if that qualifies as "excellence" though. It does qualify as "responsible", though. Downs and Warrington were not helpful.Kummant seems to be a pretty sharp guy. I'm hoping he's working behind the scenes to improve things. I think there's more in what he doesn't say publically than what he does say.
daveklepper wrote:May I respectfully point out that Amtrak was on a way to excellence when they fired David Gunn? But I would give the present management some breathing space before complaining.
But I would give the present management some breathing space before complaining.
Kummant seems to be a pretty sharp guy. I'm hoping he's working behind the scenes to improve things. I think there's more in what he doesn't say publically than what he does say.
Also, it seems like the "trust fund" idea is a broken one that is utterly driving-dependent (note that the funds therein were in "jeopardy" due to people cutting back on driving thanks to gasoline prices finally reaching European levels for the first time in history)…unless of course they start raising fuel taxes to compensate, but that would cause more driving to be curtailed; quite the Catch-22, eh? No rail transport to fall back on, so the economy takes a bigger hit due to curtailed spending as well. Eggs in one basket, et cetera…
OK, track-chartless one, show us how!
"And there's always a place for the angry young man With his fist in the air and his head in the sand He's never been able to learn from mistakes He can't understand why his heart always breaks His honor is pure, and his courage as well He's fair and he's true, and he's boring as hell And he'll go to his grave as an angry old man."
P.S. The price of gasoline is inelastic, so raising the fed gas tax would:
a) increase revenue
b) decrease revenue
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
henry6 wrote:The fact that there are billions of bits and bytes on this and other forums debating back and forth Amtrak specifically, and transportation modes in general, and how they should be paid for, shows what a disarray our society's approach to these needs is. Read the October TRAINS and you'll see that our transportation infrastructure...rail, road, air, water; freight, passenger...is in need of a great influx of money over the next 25 to 50 years. And this is money that niether private enterprise nor public governments have enough of to do unless they partner up. With all parties coming to the money trough it becomes very important that there is a close study and understanding of what each mode offers to the future. Without trying to sound political, I would suggest that capitalism and socialism arguements will have to be put aside while the two sides hammer out the needs of thier own existances. We try to do that today, but with too much arguing and fear of the other's philosphy. That simply has to stop and each side get the best it can out of what has to be done. If not, niether side will be here by the middle of the Century.
This is as old as the Whig vs Democrats in the mid 1800s. The Whigs were pro-"internal improvments" meaning they liked gov't helping to fund transportation into the frontier. The Democrats were anti. Don't expect much different now. The western expansion of RRs occurred only after the northern brach of the Whigs took a new name and took hold of the gov't. (actually, the Democrats, many of them, anyway, went away for a while....)
daveklepper wrote: May I respectfully point out that Amtrak was on a way to excellence when they fired David Gunn?But I would give the present management some breathing space before complaining.
May I respectfully point out that Amtrak was on a way to excellence when they fired David Gunn?
Gunn could have gotten Amtrak back into the shape it was in under Claytor. Maybe even a bit better. Don't know if that qualifies as "excellence" though. It does qualify as "responsible", though. Downs and Warrington were not helpful.
The taxpayers, when polled, tend to be supporting of "more trains" or "more spending on trains" but they:
1. Generally don't know what trains we already have
2. Don't know how poor the economic performance of Amtrak is
3. Are generally aware the Europe and Japan have "good trains"
4. Aren't asked where the money would come from or asked to chose between spending priorities.
So, of course they are "for" trains!
The point is, when the time to get serious about actually spending tax money occurs, and it may be right now, how do you "sell it"?
First of all, you have to quiet the critics. That means means making Amtrak work better - at a minimum.
Second, you have to have some plans that get people's attention. Restoring the Sunset to FL? zzzzz! Connecting the Salt Lake City "dot" to the Portland "dot" or the LA "dot". ZZZZZZZ! High speed rail from LA to SF? 3 hour trip times! Now, you have Californians attention! Whether they really want to spent $10B on it is an open question, but at least you woke everyone up. Would they even have gotten this far if CA had never done Amtrak-California? Probably not.
Did you notice that Johnny Isakson, a card-carrying conservative and John Kerry, a card carrying liberal, who rarely agree on anything just floated the idea of a Birmingham to Boston HSR route connecting the big cities along the route? The gov't would pay for constuction and a for-profit company would run it.
Of course, this is self-promoting. That's what politicians do. But notice it wasn't about getting Amtrak more money for some new sleepers. That news might not even make Trains Newswire!
henry6 wrote: One of the things I was getting at was that there are places where water, sewer, electricity, gas, garbage, and transet are private enterprises and other places where they are municipal operations. So today, do we hold anybody's feet to the fire or just accept medocrity in performance while paying the bill. Should we do the same for Amtrak?BUt I do like what you said about marketing, etc. concerning Amtrak. In effect somebody has to say to Congress to S--T or get off the track!
Agree! I want more. I want better. For what we're paying for Amtrak, we should be getting more. Shame on Conrgress for not holding their feet to the fire. Shame on NARP et.al. for fighting the wrong battle!
Shame on me for not doing more than blather on here....
First, I've said before, one of the main perceptions about Amtrak is that it has to be a for profit venture because it was born out of the private enterprise sector of our society; i.e. since a private, for profit industry ran passenger trains, then it must be a for profit proposition. Second, a term we don't hear much of anymore is public utiilty. A service such as phone, electricity, water, sewer, bus, and rail services were considered a public utility and could be either privately owned and operated or municipally owned and operated.
Second, a term we don't hear much of anymore is public utiilty. A service such as phone, electricity, water, sewer, bus, and rail services were considered a public utility and could be either privately owned and operated or municipally owned and operated.
The talking point of rail advocacy that "Amtrak was never intended to make a profit and will never make a profit" cuts both ways. In one way it is saying, "You want passenger trains, stop complaining about the subsidies and come up with the cash." On the flip side it is suggesting to many people, "Forget this, Amtrak will never break even, so let's can the whole thing." That Amtrak along with other passenger services in other parts of the world require subsidies is an established fact, but do we really want to stress the hopelessness of weening Amtrak from subsidies? Might be a path to losing the whole thing.
If our talking point is going to be "public utility", last I heard, my local electric company makes a profit. Oh, yes, the electric company benefits handsomly from governmental policy. It is granted a monopoly and rate making authority within that monopoly to cover its costs plus a certain percentage profit, it is permitted to put pollution into the air so it can produce electricity from low-cost fuels such as coal, it is granted certain powers of land use confiscation under certain circumstances to locate their transmission lines, the nuclear part of the power utility industry is a spin-off of the billions of dollars spent by the Navy on nuclear subs and ships. But apart from these forms of indirect subsidy, the electric company receives no direct subsidy, let alone have anything close to Amtrak's operating ratio.
In the scheme of things, railroad passenger trains have proven, with Amtrak along with all of those other places in the world, to be a high-cost way of generating passenger miles, the cost of fuel being only a small part of the cost. It turns out that automobiles are also a high cost way of generating passenger miles, and even with todays high gas costs, the cost of gas is probably (still) a minority share of the total cost of ownership and operation. At least for long distances, the low cost way of generating passenger miles, perhaps suprisingly, are the airlines. Fuel is a larger share of their total cost compared to the other modes, not because they are that much different in their fuel efficiency compared with autos and Amtrak, but because they are otherwise more cost effective.
A colleague in our local advocacy group wrote in our newsletter that the costs of Amtrak operations and operating an auto being nearly the same, the high rates of subsidy of Amtrak didn't much matter because the subsidy was just a different way of paying for costs which needed to be payed one way or the other. You could argue that people only account for out-of-pocket gas costs when making a decision between car and either transit or short distance or Amtrak for long, and subsidizing Amtrak to the level of where the fares are comparable to out-of-pocket car costs is a requirement to have any kind of surface-transportation alternative to cars, for all of the reasons that an alternative is required. But you have airlines, which for long-distances and low load factor in a car (one or two people), are much lower cost than either cars or Amtrak, even with the increased price of fuel. Amtrak uses fuel that has gone up in price too, but as discussed earlier or on another thread, Amtrak the reduction in subsidy that could have taken place owing to increased ridership, owing to high fuel cost of other modes, has been taken up by increased fuel cost for Amtrak.
The automobile offers the flexibility of route, destination, and time of travel, a feature that people are willing to pay a lot for, here and in Europe and everywhere else people become wealthy enough to afford cars.
I am willing to stipulate that the train has its own mode-unique set of advantages, and owing to how especially auto travel is paid for -- people are willing to incur one-time expenses for the car and have lower per-mile out-of-pocket costs -- the train will require subsidy and maybe even high rates of subsidy. But is so doing, one has to go to the taxpayer, and one has to make the case to the taxpayer to part with the subsidy money, just like the auto makers have to close the deal on getting you to part with 25,000 dollars to purchase a new car. And in so doing, the case for spending this money on the train enters the general political arena and a cogent, general and political case has to be made to support the train. This case has to be made to the non passenger-train advocate non railfan public.
A case has to be made that either 1) Amtrak can be operated at lower rates of subsidy if it is given some "capital seed money" or 2) that trains are so overwhelmingly advantageous that they justify the high rates of subsidy that Amtrak requires. A lot of the advantages of trains are apparent to the advocacy community but not apparent to the general public.
My position is that we need more in the way of a marketing campaign, or perhaps even a public relations campaign that goes beyond the usual carping about the subsidy going to other modes and the Concrete Conspiracy or how the Europeans are so much smarter to have trains that we don't have. A lot of the anger about the state of affairs with respect to trains that gets expressed "in the community and among friends", here, in advocacy group board meetings, leaks out into our public face to the greater political arena where the money will come from, and it could work against us. We need to regard the taxpayer as a "customer", and if we are mad at the customer for not doing what we want (voting in ways that support trains), well, you see where this leads.
Two points. First, I've said before, one of the main perceptions about Amtrak is that it has to be a for profit venture because it was born out of the private enterprise sector of our society; i.e. since a private, for profit industry ran passenger trains, then it must be a for profit proposition.
Second, a term we don't hear much of anymore is public utiilty. A service such as phone, electricity, water, sewer, bus, and rail services were considered a public utility and could be either privately owned and operated or municipally owned and operated. But they were chartered or othewise held responsible for the quality of service. Some still exists today except seemingly for transportation, especially rail passenger service. I don't believe, even if it is mentioned in the legislation creating Amtrak, or mumbled by someone along the way, that this public utility aspect of a rail passenger service is discussed or seriously applied. We have gotten to the point where we can choose electric suppliers, telephone suppliers, tv signal suppliers, so the monopolistic aspect is all but forgotten when thinking public utility. But with fewer and fewer railroads, especially for longer distances, we do not have such choice. So if railroads, frieght or passenger, are not held to thier charter responsiblity, are they still considered a public utility? And as such, what should we, as both the general public and as taxpers, expect?
The legislated mandate was 3 hours. Forget that the incremental HP is only worth nanoseconds in running time....
My poppa told me about "government specsmanship." He was involved in development of the roller test stand for the Pueblo, Colorado facility and contributed the design for the power coupling -- essentially a gigantic CV joint that works on the same principle as the front wheel drive power train in your car.
Some committee met and said, "OK, what is the most heavy axle loading for a locomotive or a high-capacity freight car we can imagine for the future: 50 tons." "What is the fastest anyone will ever operate a high-speed passenger train: 300 MPH." "OK, what is the highest adhesion level that can be achieved with a locomotive: 30 percent," Actually, there are locomotives that beat that, but that was the thinking back in the early 1970s.
So you multiply 50 tons by 30 percent and convert to HP at 300 MPH and you come up with 24000 HP. Per axle. The foolishness of this is that a 300 MPH train is not going to have a 50 ton axle loading and be able to produce 30 percent adhesion at speed. But the powers that be wrote the spec that the roller test stand be able to transmit 24000 HP per axle. And V Milenkovic invented a one-of-a-kind CV joint that could transmit 24000 HP. It had its own hydraulic power supply to pressurize the hydrostatic bearings -- essentially space-age journal bearings -- the thing would crush any kind of ball or roller bearings.
oltmannd wrote: passengerfan wrote: Acelas certainly successful and operates with a fixed consist. They have power at both ends which I feel is to expensive. Without looking I believe they are are a total of seven units. Additional cars could be added to Acela or for that matter Talgo but Acela does not share trucks so it would be easier. No plans for growth were taken into account when Acela was built for future growth. For a system that brags about 150 mph running it is a pitifully short stretch just south of Boston where the train achieves that speed. Classic case of tail wagging the dog. On Jeopardy, it would read like this:Existing ROW, electrified, 3 hr run time:"Alex, what is 6 cars, 12,000 HP with tilt?"The legislated mandate was 3 hours. Forget that the incremental HP is only worth nanoseconds in running time....
passengerfan wrote: Acelas certainly successful and operates with a fixed consist. They have power at both ends which I feel is to expensive. Without looking I believe they are are a total of seven units. Additional cars could be added to Acela or for that matter Talgo but Acela does not share trucks so it would be easier. No plans for growth were taken into account when Acela was built for future growth. For a system that brags about 150 mph running it is a pitifully short stretch just south of Boston where the train achieves that speed.
Acelas certainly successful and operates with a fixed consist. They have power at both ends which I feel is to expensive. Without looking I believe they are are a total of seven units. Additional cars could be added to Acela or for that matter Talgo but Acela does not share trucks so it would be easier. No plans for growth were taken into account when Acela was built for future growth. For a system that brags about 150 mph running it is a pitifully short stretch just south of Boston where the train achieves that speed.
Classic case of tail wagging the dog. On Jeopardy, it would read like this:
Existing ROW, electrified, 3 hr run time:
"Alex, what is 6 cars, 12,000 HP with tilt?"
And never mind that the full tilt capability can't be used because Acela was built to wide.
Acelas certainly successful and operates with a fixed consist. They have power at both ends which I feel is to expensive. Without looking I believe they are are a total of seven units. Additional cars could be added to Acela or for that matter Talgo but Acela does not share trucks so it would be easier. No plans for growth were taken into account when Acela was built for future growth. For a system that brags about 150 mph running it is a pitifully short stretch just south of Boston where the train achieves that speed. Where as the proposed California HSR system will be built to operate at 200 and 220 mph, and that is not for just short streatches. Once again the California system will have power at each end and a fixed consist of twelve cars. The California system will carry passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in less than three hours including stops. Sacramento - Los Angeles will operate just a little faster in two and a half hours.
One of the other proposals on the table for California was Mag-Lev and that would have operated Los Angeles - San Francisco in two hours and Los Angeles - Sacramento in 1 hour forty five minutes. Mag Lev would have been more expensive but was not limited to the old ten foot wide that the other HSR was. One proposal made the Mag-Lev twenty feet wide and the cars two decks that carried trucks on the lower level and passengers on the upper level with the main valley route extended north to Redding. This would have taken much of the truck traffic off the I-5 corridor in California. Trucks would only be loaded and unloaded at end points Los Angeles and Redding or Sacramento if the route was not built all of the way through. To me this route made the most sense and the Mag-Lev was far superior to conventional HSR. Either proposal will employee about 170,000 people during construction.
HarveyK400 wrote: The problem of states rights and home rule is most evident in commerce and interstate travel raised by the example of rail corridors through South Carolina. While numerous intercity corridors are interstate in nature, many are intrastate by the chance of state boundaries. I contend that significant population rather than comparatively empty land is served by intercity corridors and deserves federal funding. Why should intra-state and interstate corridors be treated discriminately to avoid any federal obligation? Why should an interstate corridor be subject to the whim of an individual state?Now fair questions may be to what level federal involvement should extend.Should corridors leading to only one major city be included?Should population and distance criteria determine elegibility for federal funding; and if so, what?
The problem of states rights and home rule is most evident in commerce and interstate travel raised by the example of rail corridors through South Carolina. While numerous intercity corridors are interstate in nature, many are intrastate by the chance of state boundaries. I contend that significant population rather than comparatively empty land is served by intercity corridors and deserves federal funding.
Now fair questions may be to what level federal involvement should extend.
As far as I'm concerned, the only criteria should be overall cost/benefit, including soft benefits and costs.
Obviosly, projected ridership/revenue and capital and operating costs go in, as these are the hard numbers.
But, it means corridors where congestion relief and/or air quality improvements would be greatest would have an edge over similar routes with lesser improvments. I'd even include the economic development potential as part of the benefits as transportation is generally the grease the lubricates the wheels of commerce.
passengerfan wrote: I too have ridden Talgo and like the trains but I have a problem with Talgo and that is their fixed consists. The earliest streamliners were fixed consists as well and that is why they are no longer used. I was rather surprized at Amtrak trying the Talgo's in the first place. The fixed consists disappeared from the RRs for a long period of time until the UA Turbo's came along and in the US they did not last long. There is not a one size fits all for Amtraks next generation of cars but we need to be looking capacity. The freaight RRs are not going to be happy adding additional passenger trains to certain routes so the bets answer is more cars with higher capacity per car and longer Amtrak trains. Al - in - Stockton
I too have ridden Talgo and like the trains but I have a problem with Talgo and that is their fixed consists. The earliest streamliners were fixed consists as well and that is why they are no longer used. I was rather surprized at Amtrak trying the Talgo's in the first place. The fixed consists disappeared from the RRs for a long period of time until the UA Turbo's came along and in the US they did not last long. There is not a one size fits all for Amtraks next generation of cars but we need to be looking capacity.
The freaight RRs are not going to be happy adding additional passenger trains to certain routes so the bets answer is more cars with higher capacity per car and longer Amtrak trains.
Well, if Amtrak were nimble enough to try to add and drop cars during the day at end points on corridors or en route on the LD trains, I'd agree with you. But, they haven't been able to, wanted to, or been able to afford to do that for years.
But, Amtrak is essentially an fixed consist RR right now.
And, they did OK with those Turboliners in New York (7 Rohr plus one modernized "French" train set) for roughly 20 years until they got to rusty to go on.
Going with lighter weight equipment mitigates some of the cost of poor load factor "off-peak"/"off-lane" service.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.