The original Metroliners went into service in late 1968 or early 1969. They were very fast. In test runs they hit over 160 mph. In regular service, they would run in the low 120s (you could peek over the engineer's shoulder and sometimes even strike up a conversation with him.) They actually did a pretty good job of schedule keeping. The regular schedules stopped at Newark, then either Metropark or Trenton, then Phila, Wilmington and Baltimore. Nearly all had sub 3 hour schedules. Most trains were 4 cars, but some were 6.
They were plagued by a myriad of gremlins and required maintenance riders to get them over the road. There were many mods done to them to improve reliablility and finally a complete rebuild at GE in 1976-78. The rebuilds were ultimately a failure (I heard from one of the old maintenance riders that they "undid" all the mods made between 1969 and 1976!) The most visable change was to get the braking grid resistors up on the roof. (When it snowed, they got towed by GG1s!)
While the equipment was out at GE for rebuilding, Amtrak pinch hit with a trio of Amfleet, a GG1 and a HEP gen car. They had to lengthen the schedules out to 3:10 to 3:20 because the Gs just didn't have the top end speed that the Metrolners did.
As the Metroliners came back from GE, Amtrak was getting their first AEM7s. They found they could hold down the 3 hour schedule with 5 Amfleet coaches, so as fast as the Metroliners came back from GE, they found themselves replaced with "Metroliner Service", which was just as fast and more comfortable.
While this was going one, the NEC got the next big dose of upgrading - concrete ties and new rail. While the trackwork was underway, the schedules had to be pushed back out again, but once done, and top speeds of 125 were allowed, they were all restored to 3 hrs or less. Amtrak even found they could push the consists out to 6 cars and keep time.
The original Metroliner equipment became "Capitoliners", running between Harrisburg and Philly, and later, some were emasculated into coaches and cab cars. The last hurrah was the one trainset that went on from Philly to NY every day. It got to strut it's stuff at 120+ into the early 1990s!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blue streak 1 AL: My source tells me that the Eastern shuttle weekend fare in 1967 for a while was $12.88 collected on board.
AL: My source tells me that the Eastern shuttle weekend fare in 1967 for a while was $12.88 collected on board.
oltmannd The original Metroliners went into service in late 1968 or early 1969. They were very fast. In test runs they hit over 160 mph. In regular service, they would run in the low 120s (you could peek over the engineer's shoulder and sometimes even strike up a conversation with him.) They actually did a pretty good job of schedule keeping. The regular schedules stopped at Newark, then either Metropark or Trenton, then Phila, Wilmington and Baltimore. Nearly all had sub 3 hour schedules. Most trains were 4 cars, but some were 6. They were plagued by a myriad of gremlins and required maintenance riders to get them over the road. There were many mods done to them to improve reliablility and finally a complete rebuild at GE in 1976-78. The rebuilds were ultimately a failure (I heard from one of the old maintenance riders that they "undid" all the mods made between 1969 and 1976!) The most visable change was to get the braking grid resistors up on the roof. (When it snowed, they got towed by GG1s!) While the equipment was out at GE for rebuilding, Amtrak pinch hit with a trio of Amfleet, a GG1 and a HEP gen car. They had to lengthen the schedules out to 3:10 to 3:20 because the Gs just didn't have the top end speed that the Metrolners did. As the Metroliners came back from GE, Amtrak was getting their first AEM7s. They found they could hold down the 3 hour schedule with 5 Amfleet coaches, so as fast as the Metroliners came back from GE, they found themselves replaced with "Metroliner Service", which was just as fast and more comfortable. While this was going one, the NEC got the next big dose of upgrading - concrete ties and new rail. While the trackwork was underway, the schedules had to be pushed back out again, but once done, and top speeds of 125 were allowed, they were all restored to 3 hrs or less. Amtrak even found they could push the consists out to 6 cars and keep time. The original Metroliner equipment became "Capitoliners", running between Harrisburg and Philly, and later, some were emasculated into coaches and cab cars. The last hurrah was the one trainset that went on from Philly to NY every day. It got to strut it's stuff at 120+ into the early 1990s!
Thank you for the useful and tactful information and corrections! - al
oltmannd Sam1 blue streak 1 Sam1 What we know is that Penn Central hoisted the Metroliners between New York and Washington from 1969 to 1971. The service stared on January 16, 1969, nearly 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak, with some funding provided through the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965. The best time from New York to Washington was 2 hours and 59 minutes. By the summer of 1969 the service was hoisting at least four round trips per day, including one non-stop, and they were apparently well patronized, thanks in part of a strike at Eastern Airlines that shut down the shuttle. SAM: Sorry but the only Eastern strike during that time was July - August 1966. Metroliner service was not that good after the strike. The key point is that the Metroliner was up and running approximately 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak. It lends creditability to the argument that an NEC might have survived the dismemberment of passenger rail if the government had not taken it over through the formation of Amtrak. The Metroliner/TurboTrain NEC project that started under the Johnson admin. was entirely Federally funded. The equipment was developed, tested and purchased with Federal funds. The track upgrades between NY and DC (mostly ties and welded rail) were Federally funded. I am not sure if the Feds underwrote any operating losses or participated in any operating profits, however.
Sam1 blue streak 1 Sam1 What we know is that Penn Central hoisted the Metroliners between New York and Washington from 1969 to 1971. The service stared on January 16, 1969, nearly 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak, with some funding provided through the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965. The best time from New York to Washington was 2 hours and 59 minutes. By the summer of 1969 the service was hoisting at least four round trips per day, including one non-stop, and they were apparently well patronized, thanks in part of a strike at Eastern Airlines that shut down the shuttle. SAM: Sorry but the only Eastern strike during that time was July - August 1966. Metroliner service was not that good after the strike. The key point is that the Metroliner was up and running approximately 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak. It lends creditability to the argument that an NEC might have survived the dismemberment of passenger rail if the government had not taken it over through the formation of Amtrak.
blue streak 1 Sam1 What we know is that Penn Central hoisted the Metroliners between New York and Washington from 1969 to 1971. The service stared on January 16, 1969, nearly 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak, with some funding provided through the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965. The best time from New York to Washington was 2 hours and 59 minutes. By the summer of 1969 the service was hoisting at least four round trips per day, including one non-stop, and they were apparently well patronized, thanks in part of a strike at Eastern Airlines that shut down the shuttle. SAM: Sorry but the only Eastern strike during that time was July - August 1966. Metroliner service was not that good after the strike.
Sam1 What we know is that Penn Central hoisted the Metroliners between New York and Washington from 1969 to 1971. The service stared on January 16, 1969, nearly 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak, with some funding provided through the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965. The best time from New York to Washington was 2 hours and 59 minutes. By the summer of 1969 the service was hoisting at least four round trips per day, including one non-stop, and they were apparently well patronized, thanks in part of a strike at Eastern Airlines that shut down the shuttle.
What we know is that Penn Central hoisted the Metroliners between New York and Washington from 1969 to 1971. The service stared on January 16, 1969, nearly 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak, with some funding provided through the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965.
The best time from New York to Washington was 2 hours and 59 minutes. By the summer of 1969 the service was hoisting at least four round trips per day, including one non-stop, and they were apparently well patronized, thanks in part of a strike at Eastern Airlines that shut down the shuttle.
SAM: Sorry but the only Eastern strike during that time was July - August 1966. Metroliner service was not that good after the strike.
The key point is that the Metroliner was up and running approximately 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak. It lends creditability to the argument that an NEC might have survived the dismemberment of passenger rail if the government had not taken it over through the formation of Amtrak.
The Metroliner/TurboTrain NEC project that started under the Johnson admin. was entirely Federally funded. The equipment was developed, tested and purchased with Federal funds. The track upgrades between NY and DC (mostly ties and welded rail) were Federally funded. I am not sure if the Feds underwrote any operating losses or participated in any operating profits, however.
The fact that the Federal Government funded the Metroliners does not refute the argument that the regional governments might have done it. Nor does it negate the argument that the market should have decided whether passenger rail was viable in the U.S.
Because the government jumped into the market place, American taxpayers have spent more than $25 billion to support Amtrak, which has never come close to covering all of its operating and capital costs. Except in one region!
Sam1 oltmannd Sam1 blue streak 1 Sam1 What we know is that Penn Central hoisted the Metroliners between New York and Washington from 1969 to 1971. The service stared on January 16, 1969, nearly 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak, with some funding provided through the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965. The best time from New York to Washington was 2 hours and 59 minutes. By the summer of 1969 the service was hoisting at least four round trips per day, including one non-stop, and they were apparently well patronized, thanks in part of a strike at Eastern Airlines that shut down the shuttle. SAM: Sorry but the only Eastern strike during that time was July - August 1966. Metroliner service was not that good after the strike. The key point is that the Metroliner was up and running approximately 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak. It lends creditability to the argument that an NEC might have survived the dismemberment of passenger rail if the government had not taken it over through the formation of Amtrak. The Metroliner/TurboTrain NEC project that started under the Johnson admin. was entirely Federally funded. The equipment was developed, tested and purchased with Federal funds. The track upgrades between NY and DC (mostly ties and welded rail) were Federally funded. I am not sure if the Feds underwrote any operating losses or participated in any operating profits, however. The fact that the Federal Government funded the Metroliners does not refute the argument that the regional governments might have done it. Nor does it negate the argument that the market should have decided whether passenger rail was viable in the U.S. Because the government jumped into the market place, American taxpayers have spent more than $25 billion to support Amtrak, which has never come close to covering all of its operating and capital costs. Except in one region!
Yes! The only region where any investment was made!
If AMTRK cannot get by on $1.3 b then there is something badly wrong. I'm hoping for the best here. As many forum members have already posted, the money should indeed be used for trk,eng & infrasturcture upgrading plus car repairs to both currently in- service and stored equipment @ Beech Grove. Lets not waste this on bringing back dinning car china or fancy menus. I also don't want to hear about adding more routes. This now is not the time for that. Right now its upgrading what is there now and if this goes well, perhaps in a couple yrs some yaking on expansion of routes might be wise. On March 2-4, I rode in a roomette on #6 from Sacramento-Galesburgh. On both nights the car attendent had to use a crowbar to open the top bunk in order to get the bedding items for my lower bunk.The attendent from the othr sleeping car said this bunk has been broken like this for well over a yr. Not a major repair by any means but gosh hopefully part of the $1.3 b will go for reparing this defect and car attendents won't have to use a crowbar and strain themselves to lower the upper bunk.
Sam1 Because the government jumped into the market place, American taxpayers have spent more than $25 billion to support Amtrak, which has never come close to covering all of its operating and capital costs. Except in one region!
Why do you suppose this fact doesn't matter to the apparent majority of taxpayers who support having their money spent in this fashion?
RWM
At today's Midwest High Speed Rail Association meeting in Chicago, Marc Magliari said Amtrak was considering bringing back a Pioneer, North Coast Limited, and Sunset New Orleans - Jacksonville route. Amtrak was asked to do a new service study for Montana which may or may not be related to the NCL. Even if the Sunset route stays the same, I can't see how it can be more viable without a more convenient time of day schedule for Arizona. Not one of the 200+ in attendance raised a question about increased LD service.
Job one for Amtrak with ARRA funds is to rebuild stored food service cars as coaches - blanked-out windows and seats. This would be followed by fixing salvageable wreck-damaged cars.
I saw evidence of this on trips 5-6 years ago. At the MHSRA meeting Saturday, Marc Magliari likened much of Amtrak's equipment to a Packard where parts cannot be obtained from the defunct company to make repairs.
Amtrak is looking to purchase 130 double deck cars, possibly based on the NJT car; but that would be in a subsequent multi-year transportation (PRIIA?) appropriation. He wouldn't offer any more details other than to deny this would preclude new tilt trains.
Correction: Ray Lang talked about the LD routes.
The federal matching programs for passenger rail apparently has got the attention of states the previously "wouldn't give Amtrak the time of day."
Railway Man Sam1 Because the government jumped into the market place, American taxpayers have spent more than $25 billion to support Amtrak, which has never come close to covering all of its operating and capital costs. Except in one region! Why do you suppose this fact doesn't matter to the apparent majority of taxpayers who support having their money spent in this fashion? RWM
Very few taxpayers understand government finance. In fact, very few of my fellow accountants and finance officers understand how the federal budget works. Accordingly, they have no idea how Amtrak or other transport services are funded.
I take two or three trips a year on Amtrak. Invariably I meet first time riders who wonder why the United States does not have trains like they have in Europe. When I explain to them how the trains in Europe, as well as other overseas countries, are funded, and how Amtrak is funded, they get a "deer in the headlights" expression on their faces. They don't have a clue!
And I still maintain the fastest way to wake Americans up to trains is just put a HSR system in the median of the ISH system and watch how fast they will sit up and take notice especially when they are driving at 80 per with three kids fighting in the back seat and mother trying to explain it isnt that much further count cows or something. And a HSR train flashes past at 220 mph I think they will seriously consider this option the next time they visit the grandparents. If it isn't right under there nose HSR is never going to be noticed. This morning on one of the Sunday Morning Talk shows Californias Governor, New Yorks Mayor and I think it was Pennsylvania's Governor brought up the subject of HSR and all three agreed its time is now and to wait much longer would be a serious mistake.
Al - in - Stockton
In Fall of 2007 we took NJT from Trenton to Newark in new bi-level cars (Breda, I think) and the ride was wonderful!
al-in-chgo In Fall of 2007 we took NJT from Trenton to Newark in new bi-level cars (Breda, I think) and the ride was wonderful!
I personally think that if the bi-level eastern commuter cars can be utilized for long distance services in the east it would be a very wise direction to go. First they would take less platform space for a given passenger load than single level equipment would. Probably due to there lighter weight for passengers carried would cut maintenance costs on power units required to haul them. The Amtrak California cars have been among the lowest maintenance cars in the Amtrak system and I see know reason that additional cars of this type can not be used for Californias needs until such time as either HSR gets off the ground here or it doesn't. Personally I don't think they are such a bad idea for the regional trains in Illinois and other midwestern schedules such as the Hiawathas, Missouri Mules etc. I think the Superliners should be concentrated on those LD schedules using them. I would even remove them from the Chicago - Washington DC service and this would be a good route to prove the eastern Bi-levels we have talked about.
Ordering small quantities of cars has always been one of Amtraks other problems. A fifty car order hardly pays any manufacturer to open up the doors of his production facility. And this invites more costly per unit costs. What is needed at the very minimum is a production run of 100 cars or 150 cars minimum. This would keep the costs of some of the more expensive car items such as trucks and the basic body shell down. Yes trucks are the most expensive item a passenger car is equipped with an makes up a large portion of the entire cars cost. Then Amtrak could say build 75 sleepers, 25 diners and fifty coaches. Many years ago Atlantic Coast Line purchased some car shells complete with trucks and finished them as they needed them in there own shops sometime later. I'm not suggesting Amtrak should do anything like this as every car they build I am sure they can find work for. I have maintained before that Amtrak should oversell seats on there trains as like the airlines they get a lot of no shows as well. As I have mentioned previously I have tried six or eight weeks in advance to book sleeping car space on Amtrak only to be told repeatedly that the space is sold out. In each case I have been able to get the space after boarding that they had told me was sold out. How much revenue does Amtrak lose in this way. I am sure I am not the only one who has encountered this problem.
If Amtrak has a few car spares available at terminal cities they have an advantage that the airlines are unable to address. If the train is overbooked on certain dates they can put an additional car on the train for those dates if available. An airplane has no way to board additional passengers unless they want to put them in the overhead lockers or in the cargo hold with the first class mail. Greyhound is encountering a problem with a shortage of buses so they are unable to pick up the slack they used to be able to. The problem is Amtrak does not have the additional cars available so is losing who knows how many potential passengers.
I am intrigued by the prospect of an articulated double-decked car similar to the TGV. Articulated cars offer somewhat more capacity for unit length despite the reduced proportion of car body to overall length between coupler faces or articulation center point. Articulated cars could be developed from the NJT car with any necessary modifications to meet both NEC and other corridor or regional needs.
The only problem with articulated cars or articulated trains is if one unit has a critical problem that takes it out of service than the entire articulated set or train is out of service. This was the same thing found with the early Zephyrs and UP streamliners. The other problem was that there is no way to adjust the consist for less traveled days by eleiminating part of the consist or on peak travel times increasing the consist length.
I have heard that old saw; but I don't think it is as serious a problem as what it is made out to be.
passengerfan And I still maintain the fastest way to wake Americans up to trains is just put a HSR system in the median of the ISH system and watch how fast they will sit up and take notice especially when they are driving at 80 per with three kids fighting in the back seat and mother trying to explain it isnt that much further count cows or something. And a HSR train flashes past at 220 mph I think they will seriously consider this option the next time they visit the grandparents. If it isn't right under there nose HSR is never going to be noticed. This morning on one of the Sunday Morning Talk shows Californias Governor, New Yorks Mayor and I think it was Pennsylvania's Governor brought up the subject of HSR and all three agreed its time is now and to wait much longer would be a serious mistake. Al - in - Stockton
Putting HSR or any rail in the medians of the Interstate Highway System would not work in many areas. For example, in Austin the I-35 median is, well, there is no median from approximately 15 miles north of downtown to 10 or 15 miles south of the city, unless you consider a concrete barrier a median. In fact, through the city the highway is double decked, primarily because the highway department could not find enough reasonably priced land for side by side construction. There are many other stretches of I-35 with similar constraints.
Interestingly, the UP line that carries the Texas Eagle runs down the median of the MoPac, which is a limited access highway on the west side of Austin. If there is a derailment, it would likely have serious consequences for the passengers, and it could wipe out many cars.
Traveling by train, or many forms of public transit, has it benefits. One can kick back, enjoy a good book, drink a glass of wine, engage in conversation with fellow passengers, and watch the countryside roll by. But there is another side of traveling in public transit (trains, planes, buses, etc.) that many enthusiasts overlook, e.g. sitting next to a guy who has not had a shower for a week, doesn't know enough to cover his mouth when he coughs, shouts into a cell phone, has had too much wine or beer, and lays off his nutty political views on you irrespective of whether you want to hear them. Or has his three kids along to drive you nuts. This, by the way, is why I always opt for a compartment, except for short distances, in which case I go business class.
The other problem with commercial transport is getting around once you get there. You have to rent a car or use public transport, which is less than satisfactory in most American cities, especially after hours and on the weekends. The biggest advantage of taking the car, especially on trips of less than 500 miles, is you have wheels when you get to grandmother's house or the vacation lodge. Moreover, for a family, the family buggy is the most economical way to go, even if gasoline hits $5 a gallon, which it will.
Sam1,
You mentioned a speed restriction for the UP tracks in the MoPac Expressway median. Just what is the limit, at least your best estimate?
Curve restrictions would be a physical impediment as well (approximate curvature scaled from Yahoo satellite map):
I wonder how real is the risk of damage to road vehicles by a train derailment. Highway guys just sticking it to the railroad and Amtrak? Seems to me a semi on the other side of the barrier wall would be a greater and more likely hazard, especially going 60-70 mph.
HarveyK400 Sam1, You mentioned a speed restriction for the UP tracks in the MoPac Expressway median. Just what is the limit, at least your best estimate? Curve restrictions would be a physical impediment as well (approximate curvature scaled from Yahoo satellite map): 8-degree between Chavez & Lamar limits balance speed to 20 mph with 2 inches of curve superelevation. 2-degree at Chavez & MoPac, Westover Rd, and Northland Dr at the end of the median alignment limit speed to 60 mph with a balance speed of 40 mph with 2 inches of curve superelevation. I wonder how real is the risk of damage to road vehicles by a train derailment. Highway guys just sticking it to the railroad and Amtrak? Seems to me a semi on the other side of the barrier wall would be a greater and more likely hazard, especially going 60-70 mph.
I don't know the speed restriction. Cars easily pass the freight trains running in the median; I have not observed the Texas Eagle in the median. Part of the speed restriction would be due to the curve at the south end of the median where the railway turns under the northbound lane and proceeds along the river.
The probability of a train derailing in the MoPac median is low. But it is a risk with potentially dire consequences. The risk of a truck jumping a median is not germane to the question of a train derailment.
I am surprise that no-one has picked-up on my comments regarding the downside of traveling by train or other public conveyance.
I can understand slower 40 mph freight trains from the geometry of the line. The slow speed of 20 mph at the south end of the median may be due to a long train approaching or rounding the curve at Lamar extending back to the median. At the north end freight trains should be moving at 40-50 mph and the Eagle should be allowed 60 mph, probably slower than the road traffic even if there is a posted limit of only 55 mph.
One question is why a jackknifing truck on the expressway is not viewed with the same alarm, given that some drivers may not be able to evade a pileup. A train may pile up too, but most drivers can evade that equally well. Is it that because of the frustration of controlling road safety, that was taken out against the railroad for an accomplishment?
As to the downside of public transport, maybe most in this group are in denial. I rode across Pennsylvania in a crowded Manhattan Limited coach with a little girl whose happy squeals was pure torture. I met nuts that just had to talk to me in the lounge; and as politely as possible excused myself and returned to my seat or room to escape. Generally, the good outweigh the bad. The alternative is living in an island without real social contact.
HSR in medians may seem like a good idea, and might be an improvement over existing rail lines in some corridors like Tulsa - Oklahoma City. Rarely do expressways go far between curves, even 10,000 foot radius, that would limit speed to 150 mph or much less such as in Austin, TX. The Indiana TollRoad purposely layed out an alignment with frequent curves to keep the driver's attention on the road and not become hypnotized by a long straight road to the horizon. One galling tendency of railroads was to stake out long tangents between 2-4 degree curves to cross a watercourse on a bridge at a less acute angle.
Construction and subsequent maintenance of a track in a freeway median is costly. Addition of capacity to the highway or railway at a later time is costly. Construction of new grade-separation structures is costly, because not all will fit. A scheme that proposes this as a "cost-savings feature" is not a scheme I would view with an unjaundiced eye.
HarveyK400I can't think of any reason for median (assuming there is one) rail construction costs to be higher than for a dedicated right of way. Existing grade separation structures and grading can be exploited, significantly reducing cost roughly by a third.I agree that future expansion is limited without significant rebuilding of the typical expressway and crossroad structures.New grade separation structures will not be significantly more expensive, and be significantly less expensive than separate structures for different ROW.I have stated my reluctance to adopt this as universal solution due to occasional restrictive curvature constrained by physical obstacles.
You may be correct. I'm speaking from my direct high-level experience with more than 20 freight, freight/passenger, and heavy-rail commuter projects that either built in highway medians or highway rights-of-ways or estimated costs for building in highway medians or rights-of-ways, or looked at conjoining the two modes, in Illinois, Texas, California, Colorado, Utah, Washington, and Oregon. A high-speed project compounds the difficulties because of its more demanding vertical and horizontal geometry, track modulus, train-control systems, and power systems. My experiences may be too limited or have come to the wrong conclusions. I enter here only to share my knowledge for entertainment purposes, and whatever people choose to do with it is their business alone.
The Sunset Limited leaving LA uses the median of I-10 for some distance and the track speed is 79 mph the same as the commuter trains that use this same ROW.
I was only using the medians of some Highways as a possible route for trains I understand it would not work on all routes and all highways. But using the median in densely populated urban areas would have to be less costly than using all new right of way. It would even be possible to elevate the rail structure in the median in many areas, costly yes but so is purchasing all new right of way. Maybe it could only be used for part of a route but it certainly is an alternative to what we have in many cases now.
passengerfanThe Sunset Limited leaving LA uses the median of I-10 for some distance and the track speed is 79 mph the same as the commuter trains that use this same ROW. I was only using the medians of some Highways as a possible route for trains I understand it would not work on all routes and all highways. But using the median in densely populated urban areas would have to be less costly than using all new right of way. It would even be possible to elevate the rail structure in the median in many areas, costly yes but so is purchasing all new right of way. Maybe it could only be used for part of a route but it certainly is an alternative to what we have in many cases now. Al - in - Stockton
It's an idea that no one I know of in the freight and heavy passenger-rail business will support. Nor the people in the highway business either. The construction difficulties are enormous unless someone is planning to close the freeway and the cross streets for a couple of years. The compromises made to both rail and highway alignments are very bad. The cost savings do not exist.
No one would today agree to the I-10 median location. We all just cringe that SP did.
Who knows, maybe people will do it anyway. In the whole scheme of things, I guess it will only make my taxes go up a few dollars more to not consult the engineers.
They just built a commuter rail line in the median of I-25 for part of the Santa Fe - Albequerque service, no?
With due respect to RWM's experience, building I-10 along the SP or the MoPac along its namesake through a developed area is quite different and more expensive than plopping down a railway in a 50-foot grassy median in rural areas. I think the point of the first writer in this thread was use of predominantly rural, typically four-lane Interstate medians for rail.
I-90 was built through Chicago along the railroads (NYC, PRR, CRIP & CNW) rather than relocating them in a median because of rail yards and volumes of freight, commuter, and intercity trains. The railway enbankments posed a barrier between neighborhoods that mitigated the community disruption from an expressway. A number of rail customers were wiped out in the process.
Reduction of the commutershed may have been a contributing factor in the North Western's petition to abandon stations in the City affected by expressway construction. Concurrent plans called for extending the Logan Square L to Jefferson Park and, eventually, to O'Hare in the median, duplicating the existing CNW Wisconsin Division commuter service as it was known.
Looked like a broad median was used for the train requiring little reconstruction. Now if 2,000 or more commuters ride in the peak hour, that'll put off the need for highway expansion for a few years.
Would an intercity do that, even HSR? Acelas carry maybe 300 passengers an hour on the NEC, and only four trains arrive in New York from Philadelphia and beyond between 8 am and 9 am - two Regionals, a Keystone, and an Acela. How cost-effective would that be in a median on a less populous corridor?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.