Sam1Assuming an average TGV speed of 158 mph, it would take 17 hours to go from New York to San Francisco. It takes less than six hours to fly. Why would a business person spend 17 hours on a train from New York to San Francisco when she could fly there in less than six hours? I know very few business persons who would do so or could afford to take the time to do so.
Assuming an average TGV speed of 158 mph, it would take 17 hours to go from New York to San Francisco. It takes less than six hours to fly. Why would a business person spend 17 hours on a train from New York to San Francisco when she could fly there in less than six hours? I know very few business persons who would do so or could afford to take the time to do so.
I knew a man who traveled from St. Louis to Chicago and back again once a week for medical treatment. With early purchase and his senior discount, the ticket was less than twenty dollars. This was significantly cheaper than driving and he hated flying. A major price advantage would help sell high speed rail to the public.
I fear the distances are too great here in the States.
James
How do you propose to pay for a national high speed rail system, especially given the severe budget deficit and debt problems facing the United States?
In 2007 the President of Amtrak told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Sub-Committee that it would cost approximately $25 million a mile to construct a high speed rail line, comparable to the TGV, in open country, excluding the real estate acquisition cost.
It is approximately 2,700 miles from New York to San Francisco. Thus, at $25 million per mile, it would cost approximately $67.5 billion to construct a high speed line from the Big Apple to the Athens on the Bay, excluding the cost of the real estate, plus the incremental costs of constructing the line through densely populated areas as well over or through the mountains. When these costs are added to the total cost of the project, admittedly no one knows what they would be' it would probably cost in excess of $100 billion. And this would be for just one line.
In 2007 the average federal subsidy for an Amtrak passenger was $53.48. By comparison the average federal subsidy for an airline passenger was $4.30, whilst the average federal subsidy for a motorist was $169.12. However, when shown on a passenger mile basis, which is the relevant basis for comparison, the Amtrak federal subsidy was 24.45 cents per mile, whilst the airline federal subsidy was .49 cents per mile and the motorist's federal subsidy was .0138 cents per mile. In other words, while the federal subsidy to carry an Amtrak passenger one mile was nearly 25 cents, the subsidy was approximately one half of a cent to move an airline passenger the same distance and less than two tenths of a cent to move a motorist one mile.
These of course are not the only subsidies received by the various forms of passenger transport in the U.S. All of them, to a greater or lesser extent, receive some form of subsidy from state and local authorities. Including Amtrak!
Given the significant subsidies required by Amtrak, for all segments of its operations, it is difficult to imagine a high speed rail system that could be built or operated without massive federal and state subsidies.
oltmannd At 40 or 50 cents per mile - typical Acela fare, coast to coast would cost you $1000-- for a coach seat. Add another $300 or so if you want to sleep. I can fly coast to coast in 6 hours for $150. I don't think you'd get many takers...
At 40 or 50 cents per mile - typical Acela fare, coast to coast would cost you $1000-- for a coach seat. Add another $300 or so if you want to sleep.
I can fly coast to coast in 6 hours for $150.
I don't think you'd get many takers...
But most significant are the aesthetic aspects of trains versus planes. You can't see our beautiful landscape from an airplane, can't move around when you please (one can barely squirm to maintain circulation in a coach seat) , and railroads have the capability to offer much better food service.
Oh, but it's easy to sleep on a plane -- especially if the pilot custs off the air supply. I was on a a delayed flight once in another country where everyone aboard passed out for five hours. No complaints from the passengers!
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
With the passage of the HSR initiative in California, the time has come--with a new administration to take office in 70 days--to initiate a US national plan for a continental HSR network that will connect major cities. In practical terms, this will take about 25-30 years to achieve. I recommend steel-wheel rather than maglev, for cost and practical reasons. An HSR trainset costs about $32 million from a supplier like Bombardier, and this is far less expensive than a jetliner. Center-city to center-city, no transit from airports (airports can be rehabbed, gradually, for mixed-use developments, with their own amenities).
With HSR, we can move coast-to-coast in about 16 hours, with all the amenities of a hotel on wheels.
JJS
Sad irony is that the dollars Amtrak and NY used to sue each other over those Turboliners and track improvements in upstate New York could have been used to pay for the non-Turboliner service that these budget cuts are killing.
Still, 20 minutes saved is 20 minutes saved.
Amtrak has a "non-electric high-speed rail" project that has been studied but can only be described as dead-on-arrival.
Site note: the two New York high-speed train projects (Turboliner-based and conventional) are *not* this project. This was to be a new diesel with Acela-like technology.
Right now there is a very short window for any kind of infrastructure construction in the north going in 2009. To get land acquisition, engineering drawings, constructions bids, contracts let, utilities moved will be almost impossible in 2009. So for any of us to expect construction to start in 2009 may be premature. Any clearing of land may be able to be completed in the next (2009-2010) winter but turning dirt probably will not happen. Now here in the south land clearing is usually more difficult but construction can go year around. Another impediment is the acquiring of tunnel boring machines (TBMs). That is a specialized industry and unless some TBMs that are scheduled to complete their jobs can be used there may be a real delay. (ex THE - trans hudson tunnel). I do not know of any other rail tunnels planned. Remember the rail building may have to compete with the other infrastructure plans contemplated.
up here in new england youve got operators like csx and pan am Guilford -B&M who run their operations like slum lords and wait for the tax payers to do the work they should be doing anyway. i'm all for investment in high speed rail...you bet..its one of the things we need to get our industrial base kickstarted.
NS finally came to an agree w/panamto invest in upgrades in track bet. rotterdam ny and ayer mass. because they got fed up w/pan am slow transit time bad track,etc.....do the world a favor and take that rr (pan am)away from the robber baron mellon.....
I started a new thread about using trains for defense...
We can really acomplish something here if we share this information with our elected officials, and encourage them to support high-speed rail. And low speed rail. Any speed would do... indeed, a recurring point here is that Amtrak's damaged cars need to be repaired, so even just lifting our trains out of the ditch would be a forward motion!
Gentlemen : If you think our disagreements are out of sight just imagine the arguments when a bunch of politicians get together and design something by "committee".
HarveyK400 oltmannd The Albany- NY express would be the 13th round trip on the route. It would get the running time down close to 2 hours where most trains run 2:20 to 2:30 now over the 141 miles. Not a huge deal if it gets done or not, I think. Most of the other corridor studies are not in the "ready to build" state. The farthest along is the SEHR corridor, perhaps, with NC leading the way. The others are really nothing more than feasability studies with none of the hard engineering or capacity planning work done. Did you omit Saint Louis - Chicago because it is in progress, lacking only the installation of cab signals after a mis-adventure with PTC for 110 mph service? You are correct about the need for capacity planning and engineering before a spade hits the ground. Stations also need to be planned and engineered; and existing stations may need to be improved or relocated for parking, transit coordination, access to downtown, and meeting local economic development goals. Stations typically are locally developed on independent timetables which can affect service implementation. The Dubuque and Iowa City-Quad Cities Corridors completed capacity evaluations taking into account the railroads' requirements for the respective alternatives as well as proposed schedules. Parallel interests in extended Metra and new Rockford commuter services need to be reconciled for the Dubuque Corridor that will affect signaling and require more passing tracks than originally anticipated. The wild card for the UP alternative for the Dubuque Corridor is the outlook for the Chrysler auto assembly plant in Belvidere and the only major source of freight traffic. The major implication would be public ownership to a connection to the Canadian National in Rockford. My preference would be for a connection around Central Avenue west of the Rockford downtown area. Some Rockford people would be satisfied with a single station on the east side at Alpine Road where a connection also is practical. With a downtown station, an east side station at Perryville Road may be a better choice. I am unaware of any recent capacity analysis for the Milwaukee - Chicago Corridor. Some analysis may have been made underlying the regional long-range plan proposals for a third track and extended service to Wadsworth. The Canadian Pacific is pressing Metra and Amtrak for capacity improvements just to maintain freight service in the face of expanding passenger service, let alone allow for growth. In addition, peak period Metra Milwaukee North service limits capacity for Amtrak; and any expansion in reverse-commuting would eliminate the ability for Amtrak to run around Metra trains. This would jeopardize Hiawathas #330 and #339, the only trains that carry an appreciable load of about 350 passengers; but this pales in comparison with the 500-1,400 passengers on the Metra trains. Where difficulties may be avoided with passing sidings, adding a main track involves considerable engineering for earthworks and drainage, station reconstruction, bridge construction and reconstruction, new railroad and crossing signals, road crossings, and additional crossovers before bids are solicited. Work also may need to be phased in because of particularly complex work in an area. One question that transcends state initiatives is new equipment, due in part to a shortage of equipment for expanded service. A sizable part of the fleet is out of service for repairs; but many of these cars are 30 years old. Just how long would repairs, rebuilding, and retrofitting extend life and at what cost? Outside the NEC, low level platforms, minimal frequencies, and small markets define the range of services to be accommodated. I have no idea where even the Midwest states are on equipment beside having the Compact agreements. Even 110 mph is difficult to sustain with existing curvature without tilt suspension. 90 mph would be the best sustainable speed with Horizon equipment, and possibly 100 mph with a waiver for Amfleet and the few outside swing hanger-equipped Heritage cars that still may be on the property. Many current routes such as Detroit - Chicago would benefit substantially and be more competitive with tilt-equipped trains, even if 110 mph is not attainable. Furthermore, an increase of only 11 mph to 90 mph was difficult to justify with the cost of cab signals. The positive outcome from the Chatsworth tragedy would be PTC.
oltmannd The Albany- NY express would be the 13th round trip on the route. It would get the running time down close to 2 hours where most trains run 2:20 to 2:30 now over the 141 miles. Not a huge deal if it gets done or not, I think. Most of the other corridor studies are not in the "ready to build" state. The farthest along is the SEHR corridor, perhaps, with NC leading the way. The others are really nothing more than feasability studies with none of the hard engineering or capacity planning work done.
The Albany- NY express would be the 13th round trip on the route. It would get the running time down close to 2 hours where most trains run 2:20 to 2:30 now over the 141 miles. Not a huge deal if it gets done or not, I think.
Most of the other corridor studies are not in the "ready to build" state. The farthest along is the SEHR corridor, perhaps, with NC leading the way. The others are really nothing more than feasability studies with none of the hard engineering or capacity planning work done.
Did you omit Saint Louis - Chicago because it is in progress, lacking only the installation of cab signals after a mis-adventure with PTC for 110 mph service?
You are correct about the need for capacity planning and engineering before a spade hits the ground. Stations also need to be planned and engineered; and existing stations may need to be improved or relocated for parking, transit coordination, access to downtown, and meeting local economic development goals. Stations typically are locally developed on independent timetables which can affect service implementation.
The Dubuque and Iowa City-Quad Cities Corridors completed capacity evaluations taking into account the railroads' requirements for the respective alternatives as well as proposed schedules. Parallel interests in extended Metra and new Rockford commuter services need to be reconciled for the Dubuque Corridor that will affect signaling and require more passing tracks than originally anticipated.
The wild card for the UP alternative for the Dubuque Corridor is the outlook for the Chrysler auto assembly plant in Belvidere and the only major source of freight traffic. The major implication would be public ownership to a connection to the Canadian National in Rockford.
My preference would be for a connection around Central Avenue west of the Rockford downtown area. Some Rockford people would be satisfied with a single station on the east side at Alpine Road where a connection also is practical. With a downtown station, an east side station at Perryville Road may be a better choice.
I am unaware of any recent capacity analysis for the Milwaukee - Chicago Corridor. Some analysis may have been made underlying the regional long-range plan proposals for a third track and extended service to Wadsworth. The Canadian Pacific is pressing Metra and Amtrak for capacity improvements just to maintain freight service in the face of expanding passenger service, let alone allow for growth. In addition, peak period Metra Milwaukee North service limits capacity for Amtrak; and any expansion in reverse-commuting would eliminate the ability for Amtrak to run around Metra trains. This would jeopardize Hiawathas #330 and #339, the only trains that carry an appreciable load of about 350 passengers; but this pales in comparison with the 500-1,400 passengers on the Metra trains.
Where difficulties may be avoided with passing sidings, adding a main track involves considerable engineering for earthworks and drainage, station reconstruction, bridge construction and reconstruction, new railroad and crossing signals, road crossings, and additional crossovers before bids are solicited. Work also may need to be phased in because of particularly complex work in an area.
A sizable part of the fleet is out of service for repairs; but many of these cars are 30 years old. Just how long would repairs, rebuilding, and retrofitting extend life and at what cost?
Outside the NEC, low level platforms, minimal frequencies, and small markets define the range of services to be accommodated. I have no idea where even the Midwest states are on equipment beside having the Compact agreements.
Even 110 mph is difficult to sustain with existing curvature without tilt suspension. 90 mph would be the best sustainable speed with Horizon equipment, and possibly 100 mph with a waiver for Amfleet and the few outside swing hanger-equipped Heritage cars that still may be on the property. Many current routes such as Detroit - Chicago would benefit substantially and be more competitive with tilt-equipped trains, even if 110 mph is not attainable.
Furthermore, an increase of only 11 mph to 90 mph was difficult to justify with the cost of cab signals. The positive outcome from the Chatsworth tragedy would be PTC.
I left out the Chicago -StL and Milwaukee routes because they are already running, albiet at 79mph. They aren't "new", but are upgradable.
NC really has a "psuedo-corridor". They've cobbled together some LD routes (Carolinian, Crescent) with some of their own money (Piedmont) to get more than once a day service in the state. They've also spent $$ on the NCRR (thru NS) to upgrade the route some. The whole SEHR is about connecting NC and VA to the NEC. That's somewhat "new". I was also thinking about CCC in Ohio and other "new" routes.
The post that caught my attention, which prompted my response, is this: "America needs to maintain at least a core network for evacuation and troop transport, in the event natural or military conditions prevent airplanes from flying".
Moving large numbers of troops by trains ala WW II probably is not a key component of U.S. military plans for going to war. Moving them by air to the potential points of conflict is the primary method of moving troops today.
Clearly, if significant amounts of heavy equipment need to be moved to seaports for deployment overseas, railroads are ideally positioned to handle the task as long as the homeland is not under attack. However, if the homeland is under attack by a force with air and naval superiority, the rail system, as the Germans found out during WW II, is likely to be neutered.
Once the Allies got ashore in Normandy, their move inland was supported largely by trucks. The French rail system was largely ourt of service, due in no small measure to concentrated bombing by the Allied air forces.
If a rail line gets blow to bits, especially if a key bridge is knocked out, it is difficult to repair it quickly. But if a highway is cratered, including knocking out key bridges, military trucks and track vehicles can take off through the fields, ford shallow streams, or cross on pontoon bridges that can be thrown up quickly.
Also, the U.S. military has staged equipment near potential hot spots as opposed to keeping it in the U.S. Thus, prior to the current situation in Iraq, the U.S. had staged significant amounts of equipment in Middle East countries near Iraq. This has also long been the case in Europe.
I agree that fleet capacity is an issue if car supply does not meet demand for and potential passengers are turned away from existing trains. This is not an either equipment versus line capacity issue; rather it is both.
As I see it, the priority would not be for long-distance equipment. Perhaps a slower rate of production for Superliners would be acceptable to restore coach and sleeper capacity on long-distance routes where demand is high if this does not detract from short-distance needs or adversely affect employment stability.
Another possibility, and a higher priority, would be to repair and convert Superliners for medium- and short-distance trains on routes with mild or little curvature.
The first priority would be to return short-distance, mostly single-level, cars to service. I would love for Amtrak to investigate retro-fitting these cars with active tilting suspension. The existing single-level cars pose an accessibility problem, and high level platforms are not the answer outside the Northeast Corridor.
Blue Streak --
I don't think platform length is an issue; it is my impression that most Amtrak trains have shrunk in recent years (for example, the Zephyr used to be three-trains-in-one). Also, there are stations like Connellsville, PA, which really only accommodate one Superliner at a time, but it still works:
">
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
The specifications for magnetic levitation infrastructure are in the Civil Engineering handbook; therefore, anyone with a calculator and that book (it costs 200 bucks...) could cost out a national maglev system. I really think we should start building it now, even though the vehicles are ten years down the tracks.
In the very least, if we are serious about high-speed surface transportation, inner city stations and rights-of-way need to be preserved. Every day of delay for New York City's Moynihan Station means it will cost more. And it means we are throwing away more money on jet fuel and highways.
At this point, the cost of Seattle's new light rail probably is not that different from expanding their monorail (easily converted to maglev). And remember, we have not yet totally invented light rail: Seattle's system is plagued with computer problems. Expansion of the monorail would mean that Boeing would have a test track for maglev when they have to stop selling airplanes...
I know it's hard to think of the future when we have not yet recovered from the past. California's plans are not futuristic, but really just deferred maintenance when you look at what other nations have done. At some point, in order to catch up, we are going to need to take some forward leaps!
Maglev; Harvey: The point that has been made by people more wiser than me is that some expansion of capacity can occurr now. The main expansion is the repair of over 60 AMTRAK superliner cars that are laid up bad order at approximately $700,000 per car or maybe $42 Million. Also an unknown number of single level cars. I asked about 6 months ago how long to repair those cars at Beech Grove but no answer has been forthcoming. Now we can only expect maybe 40 cars to be available as maybe others go down. The obvious solution is to add these cars to existing traing so train starts are not increased.One problem with that solution is some platforms cannot take longer trains yet. But 40 cars would give some trains at least another car. Anyone know the number of superliner train sets?
In the meantime designs and construction contracts for both single level and double level cars can begin. Maybe the design of the California cars will be the standard however not knowing their clearances I do not know if they can go into Wash Union Station.If they can then many trains can go there and even the east coast LD trains could drop superliner type at Wash.(Would require more transistion cars). and proceed onto NYP.
At the some time those routes that are capscity overloaded can be expanded however necessary and the new routes proposed (Wash - Clt; Chicago - Various; West coast) that have their studyies complete can start construction. I suspect that the Albany - Buffalo route can be triple tracked and PTC installed fairly quickly since most ROW is there when NYC was 4 tracks.
Much of the "debate" would be moot if our nation had a transportation policy. To extend HarveyK400's Mardi Gras metaphor -- at this point, we haven't even decided if we want to participate in the party. Yet we already made the decision that we can't afford to toss good candy!
Here in the San Juan Islands of Northwest Washington, it is not possible for islanders to connect between ferries and the morning Talgo to Seattle (except on winter weekends and only if traffic is perfect and somebody else drives from the ferry, because parking is limited at the station so you need to park in the SeaTac Airporter Shuttle lot a mile from downtown; at that point why not just take the bus but it only goes to the airport...). The evening train back up doesn't connect most of the year either...
Yet there is ALWAYS construction happening on I-5; soon it will be six lanes all the way except for the Skagit River Bridge. Any day now, a new bridge will be needed because there has not been investment in trains.
oltmanndThe Albany- NY express would be the 13th round trip on the route. It would get the running time down close to 2 hours where most trains run 2:20 to 2:30 now over the 141 miles. Not a huge deal if it gets done or not, I think. Most of the other corridor studies are not in the "ready to build" state. The farthest along is the SEHR corridor, perhaps, with NC leading the way. The others are really nothing more than feasability studies with none of the hard engineering or capacity planning work done.
Sam1:
I didn't say anything about using trains to move armor around during a battle. On the very remote chance that we are ever actually defending ourselves for a change, you won't have to move them much. You will need them right where they are.
I said to move them to the coast, you know, where the ships are.
ONE train can move 100 or more tanks right to the pier. An extensive rail network means there are many alternate routes. How many airplane trips would it take to move them to the coast, and then you still have to get them from the airport to the ships.
Don't forget the tools and spare parts that also must go with them. Then there is the fuel and ammunition. All that stuff is bulky and very heavy.
Let's compare the cost of those two plans...
Defense is not a reason for building rail, but it sure should be a consideration.
We're not tossing candy from a Mardi Gras float. Even that takes planning, starting with weighing the value of the good will and setting a budget.
What fair national priorities are, or can be, established? Even big programs have a limit for resources that can be tapped. How can a consensus be reached on a national program and service network within, or determining, a budget?
What measures of costs and benefits, including economic development, jobs, and economic stimulus, should be taken into account to establish priorities? Not all of these measures are identified in previous studies; and some studies are out of date. States (and their consultants) could update and supplement their previous studies to common criteria to avoid the time and cost implementing Federal analyses unfamiliar with previous studies. This should be done before proceeding to the engineering and procurement phases which are governed by regulations.
The alternative is a grab-bag of uncoordinated congressional earmarks for projects that may not fit together.
Maglev: You have hit the nail on the head. Its time for action instead of studies. There are enough studies out there to keep our nation busy implementing the proven ones while the new government gets busy for the next two years ramping up the production of more locos, motors, and rolling stock. Maybe the non stop can be implemened this spring. If it occurrs I wonder how much demand for more will occurr??
HarveyK400 I think it was John Kneiling that made the point 20-30 years ago similar to Sam's about how many times a plane could fly back and forth in the time it would take a train. That said, aircraft availability should be sufficient for a few thousand Abrahms, Bradleys, and Humvee's. As for troop trains, Amtrak has little reserve capacity. In an emergency, most if not all long-distance services would be embargoed and additional time would be needed to position equipment for troop transport. Overseas deployment would still require aircraft; and rail moves would not shorten air transit time appreciably to significantly reduce aircraft requirements. Germany's use of railroads for logistical support in the Franco-Prussian War and WWI was not susceptible to the kind of air power available beginning in WWII and modern missiles and drones. Sabotage of the railroads within the United States is unlikely to be significant with protection of key bridges and tunnels; but this removes forces from the primary battle theater. The Viet Nam Railroad was virtually inactive during the war. Air transport has a clear advantage. The US no longer is laced with railroads facilitating access to any domestic tactical theater.
I think it was John Kneiling that made the point 20-30 years ago similar to Sam's about how many times a plane could fly back and forth in the time it would take a train. That said, aircraft availability should be sufficient for a few thousand Abrahms, Bradleys, and Humvee's.
As for troop trains, Amtrak has little reserve capacity. In an emergency, most if not all long-distance services would be embargoed and additional time would be needed to position equipment for troop transport. Overseas deployment would still require aircraft; and rail moves would not shorten air transit time appreciably to significantly reduce aircraft requirements.
Germany's use of railroads for logistical support in the Franco-Prussian War and WWI was not susceptible to the kind of air power available beginning in WWII and modern missiles and drones.
Sabotage of the railroads within the United States is unlikely to be significant with protection of key bridges and tunnels; but this removes forces from the primary battle theater. The Viet Nam Railroad was virtually inactive during the war. Air transport has a clear advantage.
The US no longer is laced with railroads facilitating access to any domestic tactical theater.
The USAF has approx. 109 C-5A/B models flying currently and 165 C-17's. While the C-5 can and does carry payloads up to and including 2 M1 Abrams MBTs and the smaller C17 can haul a single M1 this airlift fleet is NOT how heavy armored formations are deployed to conflict zones. The equipment and supplies necessary to transport and sustain an armored Brigade (let alone a division) overseas can only be delivered by sea, which is exactly what happened in both Operation Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. The logistical "tail" that an armored force requires for even a few days of combat operations(fuel, ammo, parts) is far beyond what the Air Force can fly in.The US military absolutely relies on the freight railroads to move heavy equipment around the continental US.
As far as moving the troops themselves the DOD relies on chartered airliners particularly from the Civil Reserve Aviation fleet but the USAF also provides a lot of capability. That's not to minimize the strategic importance of USAF airlift but large scale combat operations require moving thousands and thousands of tons of material by rail and ship...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Sorry for derailing this thread -- I was suggesting that there were a a variety of reasons for investing in railraods, including civil defense.
TRAINS NEWS WIRE says New York killed upgrades on the Albany to New York route due to budget cuts. It is my impression such a project would be much simpler than approved projects such as high - speed rail in California or light - rail for Honolulu. Don't get me wrong -- I'm thrilled California, Honolulu, and other places are finally facing reality. But I've watched a "reinvent the wheel" circus nearby in Seattle for the past few years. The USA seems more anxious to throw billions at planners and consultants rather than to spend just a few bucks on actually accomplishing something.
Maglev Here is a much more realistic point on use of rail for national security: at least the PRESIDENT should be able to move safely and comfortably by rail, but the USA does not even have this capability. Britain has a Royal Train. In my lifetime, most of the POTUS movements have been in borrowed, ancient cars. Also, about evacuation, my scenario was one in which airplanes are not usable. And regarding recent events in New Orleans -- did the evacuees stay on the train and ride out the storm? I've had no problems spending several days in an Amtrak coach... An evacuation by bus (or airplane) would require additional overnight accommodations.
Here is a much more realistic point on use of rail for national security: at least the PRESIDENT should be able to move safely and comfortably by rail, but the USA does not even have this capability. Britain has a Royal Train. In my lifetime, most of the POTUS movements have been in borrowed, ancient cars.
Also, about evacuation, my scenario was one in which airplanes are not usable.
And regarding recent events in New Orleans -- did the evacuees stay on the train and ride out the storm? I've had no problems spending several days in an Amtrak coach... An evacuation by bus (or airplane) would require additional overnight accommodations.
I think the trains ran a couple round trips to Meridian and Memphis and unloaded. They weren't used for hotels.
Per a recent Trains, FEMA used 3 Amtrak LD train sets filled out with some converted Conn DOT SPVs and manage to evacuate a few thousand people.
Wonder what the cost per evacuee was.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.