Chicago has been a major pain as of late, and the Milwaukee-Chicago Hiawatha has seen a doubling of ridership over the last several years. A lot of that is how they do things in Chicago and in Illinois -- every Tollroad along with the Dan Ryan Expressway went under construction all at once, tying the whole road system up in knots. That situation is not going to last forever.
I don't see how Madison-Milwaukee is that big of a deal road traffic wise, and the opposition is making the new train out to be "800M for Madison-Milwaukee", and the advocacy community is going "no it isn't" and you get into this "yes it is, no it isn't" shouting match.
The argument in favor of Madison-Milwaukee is that it is part of a bigger picture, an incremental buildout of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, where continuing the line to St Paul is "Phase 2." The other reason why Madison-Milwaukee got the ARRA award and, what was it, Austin-Dallas, or as you mention, Norfolk-Richmond didn't is that the people up here have been planning this thing for a long time waiting for money to come, and they fit the "shovel ready" critereon, although I don't see much shoveling going on right now as stuff takes forever to plan on account that everyone gets their 2-cents in these days.
It depends on whether you think that the 8 billion in ARRA money is a "downpayment on a network of high-speed rail" or if the 8 billion "is it, for now, and you had better do a good job and make a good impression on the public with it."
When you think of priorities and how we spend money on everything else besides trains, with a President who is the most favorably disposed to this kind of thing as anyone who has a chance of getting elected, trains get 1 cent on the dollar of the 800 billion ARRA stimulus, meaning trains are pretty far down on the list, even with people who would think kindly towards them. Given the politics of it all, for better or for worse, I don't see another 800 billion stimulus coming anytime soon hence I think that 8 billion for trains is "pretty much it", which we have to make the most of.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I wonder if the $800M wouldn't be better spent on Norfolk to Richmond - to connect the Tidewater area up to the NEC. New/improved NEC extensions have a good track record and the only fighting in VA now over this idea is whether it should go south side or peninsula! Both want it on THEIR side of the James River.
There is huge pain associated in driving from Norfolk to Washington DC right now. Both I-64 and I-95 are painful to drive.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndintermodal128 Trying to have the wheel serve more markets and also avoid start stop times at transfer stations. Going zero miles per hour for short time kills average speed. The commuter rail system with concentrated ridership works, but most other rail posiblities beside freight, struggle to serve this giant county. Travel between cities is rigid and often non existent here in the south. It is this rigidness, that in some sense it the lure of train travel, but it is inconsistent with the demand responsive American expectation that air and interstate offer. Why can't rail offer the same flexiblity in the market between long interstate travel and short air hops? Intermodal128The problem is that you cannot expect to build many successful rail trunk lines that serve markets build on the back of a web of highways. The highways caused development to be what it is. It shaped the development. The south grew up on highways for passenger travel over the past 50 years. Highway enable any OD pair to be valued more or less equally with any other so that high density lanes DON'T form naturally. Rail does exactly the opposite. You won't be successful if you expect that a passenger rail can be built to serve the highway-caused market. It can find some niches here and there that will work, but real success won't come until rail starts to shape the development.
intermodal128 Trying to have the wheel serve more markets and also avoid start stop times at transfer stations. Going zero miles per hour for short time kills average speed. The commuter rail system with concentrated ridership works, but most other rail posiblities beside freight, struggle to serve this giant county. Travel between cities is rigid and often non existent here in the south. It is this rigidness, that in some sense it the lure of train travel, but it is inconsistent with the demand responsive American expectation that air and interstate offer. Why can't rail offer the same flexiblity in the market between long interstate travel and short air hops? Intermodal128
Trying to have the wheel serve more markets and also avoid start stop times at transfer stations. Going zero miles per hour for short time kills average speed. The commuter rail system with concentrated ridership works, but most other rail posiblities beside freight, struggle to serve this giant county. Travel between cities is rigid and often non existent here in the south. It is this rigidness, that in some sense it the lure of train travel, but it is inconsistent with the demand responsive American expectation that air and interstate offer. Why can't rail offer the same flexiblity in the market between long interstate travel and short air hops?
Intermodal128
You won't be successful if you expect that a passenger rail can be built to serve the highway-caused market. It can find some niches here and there that will work, but real success won't come until rail starts to shape the development.
Folks here in the local advocacy group are starting to sweat bullets regarding the opposition that is forming against the ARRA-funded Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago train service. Two candidates for Governor of Wisconsin are against it, the Mayor of Oconomowoc expressed opposition (but seems to be "backpedaling" for now), folks are out in force in Brookfield at Common Council meetings oppose it, and there is opposition forming in Dane County.
The advocacy community has been brainstorming about how to counter the "ignorance and misinformation" being spread about the train. One of the problems of being part of the advocacy community is that one is so thoroughly indoctrinated in the inherent goodness of trains, through riding trains and being around like-interested people, that it comes as such a shock that there is so much, dare I say, hate, directed against trains out there in the wider community.
Trouble is, there is no ignorance or misinformation motivating the opposition. Their "talking points" that spending 800 million dollars to facilitate, under optimistic projections, 300,000 yearly trips between Madison and Milwaukee is indeed, a rather inefficient use of the public dollar. The Madison train only makes sense if you view it as a small, initial step towards Don's 50-year project to substitute trains for continued highway development. Just about every highway "didn't make any sense" when it first went in either.
But just as those of us advocating trains can't see how anyone cannot see the inherent goodness of trains apart from being ignorant or misinformed, there are perhaps those in the anti-train camp who take a long-term view and don't want trains, especially if trains substitute for cars, that they like. In other words, if the 800 million dollars is spent on behalf of a few malcontents who want their "choo-choo", what's a few million dollars in the grander scheme, but if the 800 million dollars is the "nose under the camel's tent" to end all future highway construction and put all effort into trains, well, we need to talk.
intermodal128Trying to have the wheel serve more markets and also avoid start stop times at transfer stations. Going zero miles per hour for short time kills average speed. The commuter rail system with concentrated ridership works, but most other rail posiblities beside freight, struggle to serve this giant county. Travel between cities is rigid and often non existent here in the south. It is this rigidness, that in some sense it the lure of train travel, but it is inconsistent with the demand responsive American expectation that air and interstate offer. Why can't rail offer the same flexiblity in the market between long interstate travel and short air hops? Intermodal128
CSSHEGEWISCH Why re-invent the wheel?
Why re-invent the wheel?
Because we are able to -- see this story on patents at Slashdot http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/08/17/0437242/Why-Software-Patents-Are-a-Joke-mdash-Literally
You have to scroll way down to get to the post
"I wrote up a patent for a steering wheel. It was a complete joke and i used as much obfuscation as I could, describing complex equations defining circular motion such as X^2+y^2=1 and the likes.. It had the other engineers in stitches... We all thought it was hilarious and the boss slipped it into the pile to go to the patent office so they could enjoy the joke as well... Some time later the boss came in stony faced and simply said "The patent for the steering wheel. No one ever jokes about it again. Ever. Period." then walked out. Seems it was the only patent that stood up to scrutiny.... All the rest were rejected... So, the owner of the "Timezone" amusement centers around Australia formally owned the patent on every electronic steering wheel that controls a vehicle... Ever invented. Anywhere"
Much of the service you are suggesting would probably be better provided by feeder buses connecting with through trains at various stations. The Amtrak service funded by Caltrans (Capitol Corridor, San Joaquins, and Pacific Surfliners) includes quite a bit of connecting bus services, and it is rather well patronized. Why re-invent the wheel?
Yes, thinking out of the box is fun and also rewarding.
I am fascinated by this flexliner unit split train system that has been mentioned. I propose that it be referred to as Spilt Flexliner Unit or SFU.
Clearly at some point in time safety and other engineering concerns need to be addressed as heavy freight and light passenger SFUs share the network. But again since these things travel in one dimensional space on the rails, their integration seems very doable.
Rail travel is somewhere in between the freedom of cars and the speed of planes. I can get in my car and drive from Charlottesville VA to Hilton Head SC in about 9 hours with back pain and $400 AAA estimated cost. My paid for '95 Toyota Tercel does it for less as I ignore many of AAA’s true cost analysis. Of course my back pain is priceless.
I can fly in about 7 hours from my door to destination with cab, parking fees and all the other airport hassles for about $400. Storm delays and canceled connections always priceless.
If I took the rails, I head south on Norfolk Southern to Danville, probably to Raleigh NC and who knows where after that. Or I could head East on CSX to Richmond and intersect south bound along Interstate 95 corridor on CSX or NS, I do not know who owns that route, not to mention if even a train goes that way at all.
Thus my dilemma.
Now the option that is out of the box. I go to computer Travelocity or Orbiz or whatever and punch in SFU and times for trip. Others are doing the same on their computers and emerging from the communication is a SFU originating at Wal-Mart parking lot, then to downtown library, on way to Charlottesville Station. Maybe 4 riders maybe 12 on the SFU that heads east on CSX. Coming down from Washington is a SFU releasing Units at Richmond while heading farther south that we couple with on the fly. Another SFU originates from Richmond and also couples on the fly with destinations in Rocky Mount, Myrtle Beach, and Savannah, all possible before Miami. One SFU has obtained passenger/freight/financing capacity to release at station near Hilton Head. We passengers move between SFU assembling in proper Unit. When all is said and done, our Unit releases and delivers 12 passengers to Sun City, 6 to Bluffton, and 15 to Hilton Head as it travels Route 278 / US 95 on rubber tires.
On return trip I luck out as a bunch of Wahoos book Unit from Wal-Mart Hilton Head non-stop on Route 278 /US 95 to Savannah to meet rails back to Charlottesville.
The system needs flexibility to service concentrated stops in South Bend, Cleveland, etc and also sparse destinations in the south.
My previous post was arguing for incrementalism. Make regular train travel more convenient, and people will use it more. Then look at the most heavily traveled routes and upgrade them to faster service.
I do see what you're doing, though, Intermodal128. I enjoy thinking way out of the box, too. How about this: let's go all out for frequency of service. If you have trains going 150 MPH every hour or two, you have to consider the wait time in your start to end time. (The airport wait is one of my gripes about flying.) Let's use technology to shorten the interval between trains. Instead of coupling and uncoupling on th go, though, let's keep the units separate. Think of something like RDC's totally automated and coming through every two or three minutes. Each train (single or multiple units) will have a sign indicating its destination, and everything will be totally automated with positive train control using GPS and radar or something similar to detect proximity to other trains. For instance, leaving Chicago eastbound the trains could have destinations of South Bend, Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, etc, and the switching and station stops would be completely automated.
Baggage is another concern. If passengers have more than carry-on bags, we may have to allow more station time while it is handled. Maybe some of the longer distance trains would have to stretch their station time, but it can be scheduled. Some of the trains would be designated for baggage handling, and others would be carry-on only.
To tell the truth, depending this much on technology scares me, but its kind of fun to think about.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul Milenkovicthe Rock Island had those flat-faced E-units for doing some kind of split of a passenger train into two sections going off to two different towns.
Johnny
CSSHEGEWISCH This whole concept sounds like one of the wilder ideas out of the pulps of the immediate postwar era and presents all kinds of safety issues, especially related to the notion of coupling up at speed.
This whole concept sounds like one of the wilder ideas out of the pulps of the immediate postwar era and presents all kinds of safety issues, especially related to the notion of coupling up at speed.
C'mon, doesn't anyone remember the ADTrans "Flexliner"? (I think that Denmark's ADTrans got assimilated into the Siemens Collective along with Semmering Graz Pauker and other European train manufacturers).
The Flexliner rode on conventional, not guided-axle trucks, but it was an articulated train in multi-unit blocks. It was a "flat faced" Diesel multiple unit (DMU) instead of having locomotive-like or streamline cabs as the Colorado Railcar DMU or the Roger Williams-New Haven RDC cars. The unique thing about it is that the connection between articulated blocks had this thick rubber bumper around the edge of the train car end. That rubber bumper was supposed to provide some air drag reduction for a flat-faced MU car, and it was supposed to mate articulated blocks together into longer trains -- hence the concept of "Flexliner."
There must have been a Flexliner touring the US in Amtrak colors in the 1990's as I remember seeing posters showing the Flexliner exhibited by our local advocacy group (ProRail) at that time, although no one probably knew what it was that they were showing posters of apart from it being the latest-strange-thing-from-Europe-doing-an-Amtrak-demonstration-tour. I am thinking that Flexliner demonstrator ended up in Israel of all places, where it suffered major damage in a rocket attack during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War.
The Flexliner somehow reminded me of a "sand worm" from the Frank Herbert "Dune" science fiction novel -- that circumferential rubber bumper made the front look like a gaping sand worm mouth that was going to swallow up some unfortunates on Dune.
The Flexliner, however, was all about being flexible in some sense, and one sense is that this rubber bumper facilitated in-motion coupling and uncoupling of the articulated unit-train blocks. Not highway/rail intermodal, but very much along the lines of, say, the Spokane split of the Empire Builder into two sections, or how the Rock Island had those flat-faced E-units for doing some kind of split of a passenger train into two sections going off to two different towns. Don't know whether the Flexliner was supposed to do this at anywhere near track speed, but yes, the concept was to split off unit-train blocks in motion, however wild an idea that is.
Paul of Conington and every one else:
Paul your point is part of the issue that deals with time and acceleration. Stopping and starting and transferring one mode to other slows us down. And the one dimensional validation of rail travel is absolutely correct and is highlighted in that cars, buses, trucks, ie road travel is also 3 dimensions. Rail uniquely uses only one dimension and that is its differential advantage. Road travel is 3 dimensional due to inconsistantly in road surface, sharp grades, and bumper height. Small distances in vertical space yes, but variable all the same.
This absence of the 2 other dimensions is the amazing advantage that hard steel rail and wheels mandate. Therefore as long as regulations dictate vertical conditions in a standard format, then any vehicle that enters the rail system can hook up with the vehicle for and aft. This percision can then be intergrated into accelaration auto pilot programs that enable entering and existing vehicles to do so without disrupting the velocity of the host liner vehicle group.
Example: Bus like intermodal vehicle with both tires, steel wheels and hydraulics to lower on to rails, loaded with people or cargo, monitors the approaching host liner travelling at constant speed. Calculations allow the entering vehicle to accelerate out infront (or behind) of host liner moving at constant speed. The entering vehicle then adjusts its speed until the two lock up and travelling in the same velocity. NASA did this in 3 dimensions millions of miles away when moon lander returned to host capsule 40 years ago.
This system will work on the existing rail system with minor improvements anywhere in the country. Basically its the intergration of trucks, trains and buses, people and cargo into a standard height and locking hook up technology that is monitored by a GPS auto pilot navigation program.
This is a huge frontier waiting to be explored.
I think the big mistake in all this talk about high speed rail is that we're trying to go straight to the top. We need to get people to use regular public transportation first with an integrated system of transportation that connects all forms of transportation: rail to airports, rail to inner city hubs (stations) that then connects to public transit within the cities. Once usage is high, the highest utilized routes can be upgraded: bus to light rail, commuter and inter-city rail to high speed rail. Also, as air corridors become saturated, high speed rail could be planned.
Going straight to high speed rail is fun, and as a novelty, and may see brief success, but the hassle of trying to get local transportation once you reach your destination will dampen the fun.
How do you get people to change their habits? If I say greatly increase the gas tax, I would unleash a storm of protest, but what other ways are there?
Some of my fondest memories as a kid involve riding trains, and I would love to see a network of high speed trains, but I just can't see it happening soon.
oltmanndIt's getting from your front door to the HSR line and from the HSR line to your destination.
Correct, but that lies in getti ng from doorstep to airport as well as doorstep to station. So for theoretical calculations, that can be considered canceled out, and focuc instea dof the actualt mode of transportation's accelerations. Yes, locations do matter. In general, the airport is outlying and the rail closer to downtown, so it differs dpenging from where your marketcomes from.
oltmanndintermodal128 But the 199,000 miles of steel rails offers incredible potential. Semi free access, ie highly regulated is key to capitalize of the fact....here it comes....unlike cars and planes which travel in a 3 dimensions, transport on rails is one dimensional.Nope. Back to geometry for you! A line is one dimensional. A plane is two dimensional. Space is three dimensional. A car and a train are pretty much confined to the ground and two dimensions, although one uses a fixed guideway to control motion laterally and the other does not.
intermodal128 But the 199,000 miles of steel rails offers incredible potential. Semi free access, ie highly regulated is key to capitalize of the fact....here it comes....unlike cars and planes which travel in a 3 dimensions, transport on rails is one dimensional.
In mathematics, you are correct. In however travel-geometrics, it is safe to say a train is one dimensional (forward-backward), a car is 2 dimensions (front-back, and left-right), and a plane is three (up and down as well). A train can "turn" by running through a switch to another track, but is still essentially follwong the same line, as it is forced to do by its own flanges. a car however is not confined to a single line going approximately the same direction as one next to it, and can vary its course more easily. (which is what you later said) And do not foget, that "artistic" lines are any paths between two points. straight or otherwise.
-Morgan
blue streak 1oltmanndAn airplane can move in three dimensions. But, what I think you are talking about are the first/last mile issues. Is that it? Don: As a former pilot I feel that the 4th dimension of time applies to both airplanes and to a certain extent the operation of trains. These are all about time management!! But absolutely the first/last mile(s) issue really is what slows down present RRs even those HSR lines overseas.
oltmanndAn airplane can move in three dimensions. But, what I think you are talking about are the first/last mile issues. Is that it?
Don: As a former pilot I feel that the 4th dimension of time applies to both airplanes and to a certain extent the operation of trains. These are all about time management!! But absolutely the first/last mile(s) issue really is what slows down present RRs even those HSR lines overseas.
intermodal128Ok folks; Back to basics.
Ok folks;
Back to basics.
intermodal128As mentioned lay over time and acceleration is a huge problem inherent in the 19th century train technology that is still present today.
Back to basics. As mentioned lay over time and acceleration is a huge problem inherent in the 19th century train technology that is still present today. But the 199,000 miles of steel rails offers incredible potential. Semi free access, ie highly regulated is key to capitalize of the fact....here it comes....unlike cars and planes which travel in a 3 dimensions, transport on rails is one dimensional.
The simplicity of just one dimension offers amazing levels of coordination that planes or cars cannot match.
There is eventually the possibility that drivers could be almost eliminated by auto pilot once the vechiles have established connection to the system from the road network.
The orgin for design parameters is function mostly of revenue projections based on initial vechile size design related to economies of scale while not condeming existing trains and rolling stock. Any other problems I see are solvable and part of econimic activity as the technology develops. As an emerging product, this system is capable of intergrating all sorts of other energy technologies regarding the acceleration issue.
FlashwaveThat said, I don't think there is a way to streamline corridor service anymore than what's already being tried. That's Cut trains on the track (resons to have to slow down) cut station stops takes time to decelerate) cut crossings (reasons to slow down) cut switches/diamonds (just asking to grab a 100mph train and fling it, yes I know there are several on the NEC)
That said, I don't think there is a way to streamline corridor service anymore than what's already being tried. That's
I think HarveyK has pointed out in the past how a major contribution to higher sustained speed comes from less dwell time in intermediate stations and faster acceleration and deceleration to and down from top speed (lighter weight coaching stock and electric propulsion). Part of that also comes from improved speed through switches and terminal areas. Much of that can be managed at a much lower cost than building dedicated HSR lines, yet still having a pretty high overall average speed.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Some of the postings on this thread sound like someone chugging over to Fantasy Land. Nice, but how about finding ways to have frequent service in corridors with average (sustained) speeds of 100 to 155?
Some of the postings on this thread sound like someone chugging over to Fantasy Land. Nice, but how about finding ways to have frequent service in corridors with average (sustained) speeds of 100 to 155?
I guess I issued the "Vision Challenge" on how to make trains more cost-effective and the response has been more along the lines of "intermodal" solutions to make trains better able to substitute for automobile trips.
If there had been anyone "chugging over to Fantasy Land", it would have been my father Veljko Milenkovic, who had been a colleague of Deodat Clejan, the originator of the GATX RRollway "Fantasy Land" concept for a wide-gauge HSR automobile ferry. My father contributed a RRollway patent for the wide-gauge railroad truck. Clejan is probably better known among the railroad knowledgable for a type of freight-intermodal piggyback car, and RRollway was "the next step" to make auto travel intermodal.
After the death of Clejan in a general aviation accident, RRollway lost its energetic promoter, although Veljko Milenkovic continued to file patents for a side-loading auto ferry with a broad loading gauge but using standard gauge track, and for standard track and loading gauge end-loading auto ferry with a kind of "Flexi-Van" type turntable arrangement to allow loading cars on individual auto carriers.
I was told that GATX held on to the idea of a high speed auto ferry for a long time, and that two of my dad's colleagues rode in an auto on a freight auto-rack, and my dad's co-author of the RRollway truck patent threw up because of the bouncing and swaying ride on those 3-piece freight trucks.
The whole idea behind intermodal, whether freight or passenger, is that local trips to end destinations are probably best made on rubber tires, be it cars, buses, or delivery trucks, whereas long-distance travel may be best accomplished with the rail mode. The advantage of freight, however, is that passengers take up much more in the way of space than they do weight-bearing capacity, so freight intermodal seems to work out better in terms of tare weight penalty of going intermodal than does passenger carriage. But even freight intermodal systems are not without difficulty -- much of John Kneiling Trains Magazine "Professional Iconoclast" "rants" were about the shortcomings of piggyback -- high center of gravity, high tare weight, high air drag, expensive transfer equipment -- and how he favored an intermodal system based on side transfer gear for just the containers.
As to an auto-rail intermodal system, before calling "Fantasy Land", perhaps the most successful Amtrak long-distance service, in terms of load factor and revenue in relation to operating cost is Auto Train. One can note that Auto Train is not the "auto ferry" concept where passengers would mainly sit in their own automobiles apart from leaving to use rest room facilities or cafe-lounges. Rather, it is a conventional type of mixed coach and sleeping car long distance train with freight-type auto carriers tack on to the consist. Both the auto-ferry and the train-with-auto-carrier concepts have pros and cons if folks are interested in discussing them. On account of the bulk and tare weight penalty of auto-intermodal, however, I don't think that either concept is that strong in the energy-saving department -- Jim Hediger had a Trains article a long time ago claiming energy savings for the original privately-financed Auto Train operation, but that was with 1970's-style auto gas mileage.
Another possibility if we had gone the route of a "RRollway network" instead of an Interstate Highway system is that perhaps we could have gone more in the direction of the SmartCar or Neighborhood Electric Vehicle of much more compact automobiles if the role of the auto would be more for local driving, and hence realize savings in bulk and tare weight by shrinking the auto ferry along with cars, but maybe enormous infrastructure and social shifts are needed to go that direction.
As a final remark, perhaps the split between ProRail and Mayor Dave on the Downtown Madison, WI train station ties into the intermodality of passenger transport.
The ProRail "Vision" is that the "typical trip" would start out by automobile in greater Dane County and beyond, that ample parking be provided in Madison, and that the other endpoint of the trip would be in Downtown Milwaukee, or Downtown Chicago, where the train would obviate the need to bring a car into a congested downtown. Thus the "parking at the outlying remote station" combined with "direct to a major downtown" use of the train would be a kind of one-half intermodal where you would not need the auto-ferry. Auto Train is unique in specifically serving an auto trip on each end for the Northeast-Florida market where the "snowbirds" spend long periods of time needing their own car at the remote end and are not well served by car rentals.
Mayor Dave's "Vision" is that just as Downtown Milwaukee and certainly Downtown Chicago are destinations where you want a the train to be "car free", Downtown Madison is also such a destination, where the intermodal connection would be transit or local bus instead of your own car at the originating end, a rental car at the remote end.
So, I am not dismissing intermodal concepts discussed on this forum as Fantasy Land. The advocacy community needs to do some serious thinking outside the bounds of "traditional" or "conventional" modes of train service.
CSSHEGEWISCHThis proposal seems to get more complicated with each posting and seems to imply the existence of "open access". It also disregards such things as labor contracts and FRA safety requirements.
The problems are such:
Actually, his concept has merit. Amtrak tested an Isearli train that was designed to uncouple on the fly and go to different stations. It also had a giant rubber skirt around the front door the width and height of the car, looking something like a crash bumper...
CSSHEGEWISCHA Superliner-type car designed to carry automobiles on the lower level is probably not practicable either since the HVAC and other equipment for the car would need to be relocated, among other things.
Having not seen the interior plumbing of a Superliner, I couldn't tel ya for sure. But all I;m talking about doing is whacking out the bottom lounge area that's already there. And not on every car. As far as I know bodywise, the only thing that would require was moving the starcase and doorfrom center to one end of the bottom. What I really don't know is structural support needed. Me would think that arches would do the job.
Schlimm: It's all fantasy until something actually happens. But you are right, this did turn into "getting people on a train" and not :making trains go faster"
This proposal seems to get more complicated with each posting and seems to imply the existence of "open access". It also disregards such things as labor contracts and FRA safety requirements.
A Superliner-type car designed to carry automobiles on the lower level is probably not practicable either since the HVAC and other equipment for the car would need to be relocated, among other things.
Flashwave
No crew needed, just a driver, who could lock up and then turn on the auto pilot. Heck, the vechile company could rent out the bus like vehicle to a licensed driver who could have reduced fare for entering and exiting the system ie hook up and drop away. This vehicles could even be driven to the drivers home, but more likely back to the company shop for maintaince. Passengers could be picked up at ther home or meet in concentrated predetermined locations. Forty people could commute to a somewhat central location or trip could be organized to go half way across country. All a function of demand and passengers loging into a program like travelocity or orbitz to secure seats, times and dates.
The problem is too much time in airports, commuter traffic, and too long, uncomfortable, and expensive car trips. The key is access to the rails given the vehicles are standardized regarding docking capabilites and GPS location and acceleration relative to the already flowwing main stream train. And instead of changing vehicle at the station or the airport, transfer occurs while the train is in constant motion. The train possibly could never come to a stop. Different cars would repalce each other as the docked or released. A commuter stream could transform into a long distance journey as the train flowwed into the city and then left on the way to the next. Think off cars in bumper to bumper traffic, touching and locked into each other but instead of thirty cars at 500 ft, just one bus at 50 ft. And while the buses are locked and in motion, passenger can walk between buses for their transfers.
CSSHEGEWISCH intermodal128 Flashwave; Consider a bus like vehicle and ticketing software like the airlines use. Once the new vehicle joins the train, people could transfer to other cars that can drop off the end, accelerate forward, or have the train temporarliy separate allowing the exiting car to exit the track. Intermodal128 This seems like a rather complicated solution in search of a problem. It appears that each individual vehicle would have to have its own crew, making it expensive to operate.
intermodal128 Flashwave; Consider a bus like vehicle and ticketing software like the airlines use. Once the new vehicle joins the train, people could transfer to other cars that can drop off the end, accelerate forward, or have the train temporarliy separate allowing the exiting car to exit the track. Intermodal128
Flashwave;
Consider a bus like vehicle and ticketing software like the airlines use. Once the new vehicle joins the train, people could transfer to other cars that can drop off the end, accelerate forward, or have the train temporarliy separate allowing the exiting car to exit the track.
This seems like a rather complicated solution in search of a problem. It appears that each individual vehicle would have to have its own crew, making it expensive to operate.
I'd agree. I think "podcars" would work better ffor that, but still.
Actually, and I'm just thinking out loud here, but Superliners are not that much off from Autoracks. There's room underneath them, to park a few cars. 2 or three, it's a start on gettingf Americar back on the train, anyway.
intermodal128 Vision Challenge accepted. Trains tracks are 2 demensional and can easily be regulated as to vehicle height standards and compatability. What if a qualified vehicle could enter the rail system and "hook up" with an existing vehicle traveling at a constant velocity? I studied this issue of getting better use out of the 199,000 miles of track in our country that can compete with the conveince of the interstate system and the speed of air. There is a middle ground in rails, but the system needs to fully embrace 21st century tech and incorporate the land use pattern which is the US and not attempt to mimic old world countries. I am thinking big and out of the box, a frontier worthy of the effort in WWII. Gary
Vision Challenge accepted. Trains tracks are 2 demensional and can easily be regulated as to vehicle height standards and compatability. What if a qualified vehicle could enter the rail system and "hook up" with an existing vehicle traveling at a constant velocity?
I studied this issue of getting better use out of the 199,000 miles of track in our country that can compete with the conveince of the interstate system and the speed of air. There is a middle ground in rails, but the system needs to fully embrace 21st century tech and incorporate the land use pattern which is the US and not attempt to mimic old world countries.
I am thinking big and out of the box, a frontier worthy of the effort in WWII.
Gary
Something along the lines of TripleCrown with high-railer cpabilites? The problem is establishing an order on who gets off when. If it handles large numbers of people, the line has to adjust for the guy in the middle who wants off. if it handles small numbers of people, then it seems impractical. high numbers of small groups of these thing will likewise become crowding. Also, one guy does the drivng for all, unless a locomotive is still utilized, and the "compartment" thing never flew in the US completely, beyond sleeping rooms. There's actually documented stories of European rail people visiting the US in the early years and being dumfounded about how much better the open railcar worked than the various side-load compartments they used. I suppose a hybrid of the two, similar to later european desgns with a side corridor and a coach room in a shape similar to the sleeping berth could be achieved, but then one loses the amenities of being able to walk around, having comfortable sleeping places.(a flat bed versus the reclining driver's seat) restrooms for the volme of people, and dining. The latter two could be done in a powercar, I could see something like the Turbotrain being used like that.
Plus, in order to do such a thing, there would have to be a catclysmic shift in the auto industry to favoring the enemy. I don't see that happening.
Beyond that, it's not a bad idea.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.