Alternative 5 (you see this one quite a bit on the DB): Add dedicated tracks on the existing rail ROW.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
carnej1Interesting point. In the Northeast U.S the reverse is somewhat true in that some of the interstates were built on RR ROWs....
I know about the PA turnpike from Carlisle thru the Alleghenies although the realignment projects thru the years have lessened this.
Others?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd carnej1Interesting point. In the Northeast U.S the reverse is somewhat true in that some of the interstates were built on RR ROWs.... I know about the PA turnpike from Carlisle thru the Alleghenies although the realignment projects thru the years have lessened this. Others?
And if you have driven the PA Turnpike through that area - you know that alignment in no way could support the HS in HSR - too much curvature, even with the alignment revisions that have been implemented over the years.
The thing to remember about existing RR RoW's - they were laid out with primary concerns for grade and earthmoving required to maintain the grade, with the speeds known possible by the equipment in the early and mid 19th Century, curvature was a secondary consideration laying out the line. Most lines were laid out to follow the alignment of a waterway. The Earthmovers of the day were the stongest Irish or German imigrants, black powder and mules or horses to haul the muck away. Truthfully, I am amazed that these 19th Century alignments have been as productive as they have been for the movement of freight in the 21st Century. But HSR they are not.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDThe thing to remember about existing RR RoW's - they were laid out with primary concerns for grade and earthmoving required to maintain the grade, with the speeds known possible by the equipment in the early and mid 19th Century, curvature was a secondary consideration laying out the line.
Yes, but one of the points about the Pennsylvania Turnpike project is that it was built on the South Penn grade ... and that line was anything BUT expediently planned or built -- in fact, one of the Vanderbilts with considerable technical acumen was involved with it, and made sure that the very best 1880s technology was applied to its planning (see the existing tunnel structure, for instance).
It could be said that the South Penn's planning was an attempt at a low-grade line through the Alleghenies (the same design philosophy behind the Atglen & Susquehanna, which was anything but 'high speed' even though heavily engineered). But I rather doubt that that was an absolute priority...
It might also be remembered that the South Penn planning was done after the original Weed proposals for electric 'parcel and mail' transport between Chicago and New York in under 10 hours, so I'd suspect at least some "high-speed" consideration was put into the design. It was not just something to 'compete with the Pennsy" (in the general way that the West Shore was engineered); it was to be a showpiece of what could be done with modern tech and no lack of available capital...
Note that PRR had a similar plan with the New Main Line alignment of 1928, and the plans for the big tunnel that would have gone in with electrification to Pittsburgh. A pity THAT did not come to pass; it was no small part of the design choices for the divided-drive engines and the V1 turbine.
oltmanndOthers?
Well, just to throw something in the pot for argument, how about the ATSF line out of Pasadena that now goes up the center of the Interstate. I don't know if this affected the line of grade chosen for the Interstate in that stretch, but it would certainly be more than plausible.
What about Rt. 80 over Garret Mountain, which was supposed to have a realignment of railroad track which was left out at the last minute to provide 'one more traffic lane'...
If new row is needed maybe such row could be used for new freight rail as well.
Railroad to Freedom
ontheBNSF If new row is needed maybe such row could be used for new freight rail as well.
The whole point of separate ROW's is because HSR cannot share freight lines with safety or success or speed except at slower speeds ion urban approaches. Also the heavy loading weights of the freights damage the HSR ROW's and would thus require more expensive maintenance.
schlimmThe whole point of separate ROW's is because HSR cannot share freight lines with safety or success or speed except at slower speeds ion urban approaches.
Leaving aside FRA safety considerations -- the 'freight' being used over HSR lines need not be ancient-tech mixed freight or stack trains. See Europe for an example of how higher-speed service might be provided over congested pathing. Consider, for example, how FedEx Ground's mix of technologies might shift in the presence of capable HSR...
Also the heavy loading weights of the freights damage the HSR ROW's and would thus require more expensive maintenance.
Four words for ya: Class Nine Slab Track. Class 9 means what you think it means. Full HAL testing has been done in Pueblo. See the technical report for an explanation of how this is done.
Is there more to commercializing the structure? Yes, of course. Is it cost-efficient to build 'permanent way' on HSR alignment for use by HAL freight traffic? Much less clear, perhaps even non-advisable (I don't like it, but for reasons completely different from joint freight-passenger tenancy).
Overmod schlimmThe whole point of separate ROW's is because HSR cannot share freight lines with safety or success or speed except at slower speeds ion urban approaches. Leaving aside FRA safety considerations -- the 'freight' being used over HSR lines need not be ancient-tech mixed freight or stack trains. See Europe for an example of how higher-speed service might be provided over congested pathing. Consider, for example, how FedEx Ground's mix of technologies might shift in the presence of capable HSR... Also the heavy loading weights of the freights damage the HSR ROW's and would thus require more expensive maintenance. Four words for ya: Class Nine Slab Track. Class 9 means what you think it means. Full HAL testing has been done in Pueblo. See the technical report for an explanation of how this is done. Is there more to commercializing the structure? Yes, of course. Is it cost-efficient to build 'permanent way' on HSR alignment for use by HAL freight traffic? Much less clear, perhaps even non-davisable (I don't like it, but for reasons completely different from joint freight-passenger tenancy).
Is there more to commercializing the structure? Yes, of course. Is it cost-efficient to build 'permanent way' on HSR alignment for use by HAL freight traffic? Much less clear, perhaps even non-davisable (I don't like it, but for reasons completely different from joint freight-passenger tenancy).
I meant having dedicated tracks for freight along the right of way not using the same tracks for freight. You could use high speed trains to transport light goods such a postage and perishable goods. SNCF La poste is an example.
edit: on another stop listening to the skeptics we have listened to them long enough. If they had their way we would still hunter gatherers living in caves.
ontheBNSFedit: on another stop listening to the skeptics we have listened to them long enough. If they had their way we would still hunter gatherers living in caves.
And complaining that those other people talking about doing that newfangled 'agriculture' were excessively visionary and don't deserve community support...
BNSF
I haven't posted on this thread yet because, where high speed rail is concerned, I gend to be one of those pain in the butt skeptics who give you such grief. But in support of your ideas it does seem to me that if we can create the technology and have the will to pay for space travel we certainly ought to be able to cope with moving over the surface of the earth. It's a question of whether or not we have the will to do it.
John
John WR ... Amtrak is not quite dead yet. When it began is was carrying fewer than 2 million passengers a year. Today it carries about 3 million. And that is Amtrak as it stands, not Amtrak as it might be.
... Amtrak is not quite dead yet. When it began is was carrying fewer than 2 million passengers a year. Today it carries about 3 million. And that is Amtrak as it stands, not Amtrak as it might be.
That is the first time I heard that statistic. Unfortunately it does not give me much encouragement. When Amtrak started the US population was 200 million, and now it is 300 million. So ATK is still just carrying 1% of the population after all this time.
MidlandMikeThat is the first time I heard that statistic. Unfortunately it does not give me much encouragement. When Amtrak started the US population was 200 million, and now it is 300 million. So ATK is still just carrying 1% of the population after all this time.
Mike,
Your numbers about population growth are about right. But remember that back in 1970 private railroads were assuring us rail passenger travel was dying, that people were leaving the railroads to drive their cars and to fly. Before long there would be no rail passengers left. And there were those in government who accepted that prediction.
But for Amtrak to carry 50 per cent more people which is the same proportion of the population shows the predictions were a mistake. So what was wrong? What is it that private railroads and some in government missed?
John WR MidlandMikeThat is the first time I heard that statistic. Unfortunately it does not give me much encouragement. When Amtrak started the US population was 200 million, and now it is 300 million. So ATK is still just carrying 1% of the population after all this time. Mike, Your numbers about population growth are about right. But remember that back in 1970 private railroads were assuring us rail passenger travel was dying, that people were leaving the railroads to drive their cars and to fly. Before long there would be no rail passengers left. And there were those in government who accepted that prediction. But for Amtrak to carry 50 per cent more people which is the same proportion of the population shows the predictions were a mistake. So what was wrong? What is it that private railroads and some in government missed? John
If you pay people enough money to do something, you can get people to do most anything. If you pay people enough money, you can get them to ride trains.
For example, one of the recurrent arguments in support of trains is how much nicer trains are than competing modes of transportation, especially with respect to leg room, the ability to "get up and walk around", the Bistro Car that Wisconsin substituted for a coach on the Talgo consist before the state gummint reversed course, and so on.
There is nothing to say that a train can't pack people in like sardines as on a jet or a bus, and a commuter gallery car does just that, especially on the long benches up on the gallery. We bribe people to ride intercity trains by underwriting the cost of supplying amenities of passenger space, on-board service crew, and food service.
Whenever various Amtrak Reform proposals are made, essentially to cheapen passenger trains, bringing their above-the-wheel-rail-contact-patch costs in line with intercity buses by making the service more comparable to intercity buses, the claim is made that people won't ride trains. So nothing was missed and none of the predictions were in any way wrong.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic If you pay people enough money to do something, you can get people to do most anything. If you pay people enough money, you can get them to ride trains.
Paul,
The single most popular train in the country is the Acela. It earns a profit. And I have to add that I have been riding trains for many years but no one has ever paid me one penny to ride any train.
The issue of covering operating costs is not an issue. Most HSR routes do cover their operating costs. Some do cover capital costs as well such as Asian or European trains. Just because Amtrak can't cover its operating costs doesn't mean HSR can't. Amtraks problems are the result of old technology and sharing track with other railroads a fundamentally flawed paradigm. Saying because Amtrak is money looser thus HSR will be a money looser is like saying a creek isn't efficient at moving barges thus a canal wouldn't work. I digress if one is against subsidies to rail then for the sake of consistency they must be against subsidies for roads and airports. If government run airports and roads are ok then so are government run passenger trains. For me a free market in transportation with no subsidies is the situation I would like to have, however I see it as politically unlikely that such a situation could be created for that reason I do advocate for rail improvements as well as improvements to others modes. my .02 greenbacks
John WRno one has ever paid me one penny to ride any train.
No, not directly. But, the $1B or so a year isn't coming out of thin air. I take that back..."quantitative easing" is getting money out of thin air...for a while, anyway.
ontheBNSFAmtraks problems are the result of old technology and sharing track with other railroads a fundamentally flawed paradigm.
There are reasons it is flawed....just saying it is flawed isn't a reason by itself. Some of the reasons it is flawed can fixed, at least partially.
ontheBNSF Saying because Amtrak is money looser thus HSR will be a money looser is like saying a creek isn't efficient at moving barges thus a canal wouldn't work.
But the problem is, Amtrak is what we have and the political conversation is stuck on the operating subsidy. If it could be reduced a good bit and Amtrak appeared to be trying to operate efficiently, then maybe the conversation could be turned.
ontheBNSFMost HSR routes do cover their operating costs. Some do cover capital costs as well such as Asian or European trains.
The covering capital costs thing is a bit tenuous.....You can't really tell about any of the Chinese projects. The French and Germans put the ROW and operations in different companies and the operators pay "rent" but the infrastructure companies lose money, so who can tell? But, if Amtrak were "fixed", it might be easier to get HSR capital from the Feds.
It all comes down to choosing between two basic approaches:
One, calls for a thorough re-examination of where passenger rail service makes sense from several criteria and working toward that goal.
Two, continuing to patch up the rail network of Amtrak (outside the NEC and several other developing or connecting corridors). This amounts to maintaining a second-rate system using outmoded technology (low speeds, sleepers and baggage cars) to provide a a dozen "Nostalgia Expresses" that dilute current resources and discredit the brand.
John WR Paul Milenkovic If you pay people enough money to do something, you can get people to do most anything. If you pay people enough money, you can get them to ride trains. Paul, The single most popular train in the country is the Acela. It earns a profit. And I have to add that I have been riding trains for many years but no one has ever paid me one penny to ride any train. John
Are you in the least bit serious about your remark that no one has paid you ride a train?
You, me, and everyone else on this forum know that people riding trains are not receiving direct cash payments, vouchers or rebates. But we all know that Amtrak is subsidized at a rate that amounts from 10's to 100's of dollars per train ride depending on the route.
I also think that everyone on this forum is in agreement that in the absence of the Amtrak subsidy that the fare would have to be at least double to recover the costs, which would result in a "death spiral" of fewer people riding the train, a need for higher fares yet, fewer passengers, until there was no train left? Leaving aside the "yes, but every other mode is getting subsidy" line of reasoning, is everyone here in agreement that if we had left passenger railroading in the hands of the host railroads pre-Amtrak, that we would have no more intercity trains, say, apart from extended commuter runs subsidized by state or regional agencies or tourist trains?
So John, you had made an assertion that the people in 1970 said that "passenger trains are finished" and that Amtrak has proven them wrong. I posted my claim that you were wrong and that the people who predicted the end of passenger trains in the U.S. were indeed right because the only thing Amtrak proved is that with a billion plus in constant-dollar subsidy, trains have stayed about the same and increased with the pace of population growth.
But in a way, giving people cash to ride trains or giving the cash to Amtrak to reduce the fares to the point that people will ride the trains is a distinction without a difference. So saying "no one has ever paid me one penny to ride any train" is either being naive or is being coy. Or in some other frame of mind that someone has to explain to me.
The government does indeed pay people to purchase automobiles. The "Cash for Clunkers" program payed cash grants towards the purchase of fuel-efficient car models, both to stimulate the economy and to promote fuel efficiency. There are multi-thousand-dollar tax credits payed to persons buying certain types of electric or hybrid-electric cars on the belief that in the absence of those subsidies, electric cars would be too expensive and an electric car industry will never get off the ground.
The thing is, by the way, that the Cash for Clunkers was a one-time stimulus in time of economic emergency; the electric car tax credit gets phased out as a particular car model reaches a mandated sales level. Was/is the Amtrak subsidy ever considered as a way of getting trains going and then over time it would be phased out?
With respect to the Acela, the Acela is able to cover its above-the-contact-patch costs and then some, which is quite an achievement (for Amtrak). It is one train that runs in a narrow geographical area of the country where most experts would argue is the one place in America where passenger trains make sense, owing to population density, congestion on competing modes, and a feeder infrastructure of rail and bus mass transit, an intensity of which is not found anywhere else in the U.S.
Owing to large capital expenditures on track upgrades and electrification, it achieves travel times that compete with the alternative modes, a service feature that is generally not achieved elsewhere on the Amtrak network. Owing to the level of service -- frequency and speed of trains, the market supports something like 2-4 times the per mile coach fare of anywhere else on Amtrak. Furthermore, it is a day train with "rapid turns", which greatly reduces the crew costs, and there is no crew dorm, no lounge car, baggage car, full sit-down dining car, and yes, no labor and capital-intensive sleeping cars.
And that the Acela charges the fares that it does to exceed direct operating cost break-even also suggests to me that trains are for whatever technical reason a high cost method of supplying passenger miles and that they only make economic sense in certain narrow markets, with conditions that will take considerable time and considerable capital expenditure, not only on the train but on the feeder infrastructure, to reproduce elsewhere.
oltmannd ontheBNSFAmtraks problems are the result of old technology and sharing track with other railroads a fundamentally flawed paradigm. There are reasons it is flawed....just saying it is flawed isn't a reason by itself. Some of the reasons it is flawed can fixed, at least partially. The main flaws I point out are flaws of sharing tracks with freight which leads to poor service and old equipment. So your are right those can be fixed. ontheBNSF Saying because Amtrak is money looser thus HSR will be a money looser is like saying a creek isn't efficient at moving barges thus a canal wouldn't work. But the problem is, Amtrak is what we have and the political conversation is stuck on the operating subsidy. If it could be reduced a good bit and Amtrak appeared to be trying to operate efficiently, then maybe the conversation could be turned. They are running efficiently they greatly have reduced their costs and funding has been reduced as well. How do you expect Amtrak to cover they cover 85%? The faa gets about 20-40% from general fund appropriations and highways with all funds allocated towards them only cover 65% of their own costs. ontheBNSFMost HSR routes do cover their operating costs. Some do cover capital costs as well such as Asian or European trains. The covering capital costs thing is a bit tenuous.....You can't really tell about any of the Chinese projects. The French and Germans put the ROW and operations in different companies and the operators pay "rent" but the infrastructure companies lose money, so who can tell? But, if Amtrak were "fixed", it might be easier to get HSR capital from the Feds. But Amtrak has significantly reduced its costs. IT covers 85% of its own costs. In the case of the separate like I said operating costs aren't issue. The subsidies are for the building of the system not the running. The subsidized services lower speed local services which do have money diverted from HSR to help pay for them. Some TGV lines have indeed exceeded capital costs as well as the some JR lines
The main flaws I point out are flaws of sharing tracks with freight which leads to poor service and old equipment. So your are right those can be fixed.
They are running efficiently they greatly have reduced their costs and funding has been reduced as well. How do you expect Amtrak to cover they cover 85%? The faa gets about 20-40% from general fund appropriations and highways with all funds allocated towards them only cover 65% of their own costs.
On another note I see a oil shock coming one far greater than the 70s or 80s. A war with Iran is eminent and such war would cause great increases in prices. The cantarell oil field is depleting at high rate as well as fields in the middle east are depleting. In my view the best thing to do is not only build the high speed rail but electrify and upgrade existing passenger rail as well as freight. Plus converting electrical generating capacity to Nuclear and solar. The rest of the world is building HSR at very high rate China of course is doing it, Malaysia is doing, Taiwan already did it, Saudi Arabia is doing it. I can't predict when such a shock will come but it will come in either this decade or the next. The rest of world not only sees value in HSR but sees such an event coming.
There is no form of transportation in this country that has not benefitted from some form of tax monies
BaltACD There is no form of transportation in this country that has not benefitted from some form of tax monies
This is leading to what I call the "just give (me/us) the money" school of passenger train advocacy. Trains receive public money, but every other form of transportation receives public money, so one cannot seek that trains be cost effective, or if trains are expensive to try to better understand the cost structure or the underlying technical or cultural reasons, or if trains are expensive, to apply them where they do the most public good?
Or are you going to talk about how "this government program wastes money" and "this other government program wastes money" so "how dare anyone complain but the efficient use of money by Amtrak?" Is that the gist of it?
And if all forms of transportation receive public money, does this end any discussion of how much money? Whether highways, say, receive more money in absolute terms but receive less money per passenger mile or other unit of work product?
Or is this a sibling rivalry version of fairness, that if highways get 40 billion, trains deserve 40 billion, end of any further discussion?
ontheBNSF On another note I see a oil shock coming one far greater than the 70s or 80s. A war with Iran is eminent and such war would cause great increases in prices. The cantarell oil field is depleting at high rate as well as fields in the middle east are depleting. In my view the best thing to do is not only build the high speed rail but electrify and upgrade existing passenger rail as well as freight. Plus converting electrical generating capacity to Nuclear and solar. The rest of the world is building HSR at very high rate China of course is doing it, Malaysia is doing, Taiwan already did it, Saudi Arabia is doing it. I can't predict when such a shock will come but it will come in either this decade or the next. The rest of world not only sees value in HSR but sees such an event coming.
What if given the population patterns in the U.S., that dollar-for-dollar that the tax subsidy for electric or hybrid electric cars is multiple more cost effective in preparing for the coming oil shock than trains?
Paul Milenkovic ontheBNSF On another note I see a oil shock coming one far greater than the 70s or 80s. A war with Iran is eminent and such war would cause great increases in prices. The cantarell oil field is depleting at high rate as well as fields in the middle east are depleting. In my view the best thing to do is not only build the high speed rail but electrify and upgrade existing passenger rail as well as freight. Plus converting electrical generating capacity to Nuclear and solar. The rest of the world is building HSR at very high rate China of course is doing it, Malaysia is doing, Taiwan already did it, Saudi Arabia is doing it. I can't predict when such a shock will come but it will come in either this decade or the next. The rest of world not only sees value in HSR but sees such an event coming. What if given the population patterns in the U.S., that dollar-for-dollar that the tax subsidy for electric or hybrid electric cars is multiple more cost effective in preparing for the coming oil shock than trains?
But electric cars and hybrids are only reliable for shorter distances. Automobiles requires tar bade roads. HSR makes sense for replacing air travel in many parts of the US mostly shorter flights and some long distance ones like Chicago to NY or Chicago to New Orleans. Electrifying railroads as well as building HSR makes sense for several reasons because you can use them for the purpose of an electrical grid (the current one which is woefully out of date and crumbling) and freight trains can transport the energy needed to power our electricity. The lifestyle created by the auto which is referred to as suburbia is incredibly wasteful and resources intensive. Oil is one problem suburbia is a bigger one. Trains provide more transportation per KWH than do autos or trucks.
Paul MilenkovicAre you in the least bit serious about your remark that no one has paid you ride a train?
Yes I am, Paul. Quite serious.
oltmanndNo, not directly. But, the $1B or so a year isn't coming out of thin air. I take that back..."quantitative easing" is getting money out of thin air...for a while, anyway.
Well Don, If you are going to attribute to me the whole cost of Amtrak for one year might I attribute to you the $50 billion that was appropriated from the general fund for costs of the interstate highway system over 4 years?
(I understand total government spending for Amtrak in 2011 was $1.4 billion. You are giving me more credit than I deserve.)
Well, at least this is a discussion about Amtrak so no one can say it is not about trains. But I hope we may find a way to discuss Amtrak without personalizing it.
John WR Paul MilenkovicAre you in the least bit serious about your remark that no one has paid you ride a train? Yes I am, Paul. Quite serious. John
But you have been paid to ride a train, paid not in cash but in the on-train amenities that make a train more pleasant than an intercity bus ride, expensive amenities of low seating density, baggage, lounge and on-train food service, not to mention sleeping cars if you had patronized them, amenities that draw ridership, amenities that are supported by the high rate of subsidy.
You were paid to ride a train as much as the Cash for Clunkers program paid people to trade in a car, or people purchasing qualifying hybrid or all-electric cars are being paid to make those purchases. The train ride, the Clunkers and hybrid vehicles, all beneficial social purposes, but they involve transfers of money to induce persons to use certain modes of transportation.
John WRWell Don, If you are going to attribute to me the whole cost of Amtrak for one year might I attribute to you the $50 billion that was appropriated from the general fund for costs of the interstate highway system over 3 years?
Okay. You have the numerator (once you back out fuel tax collected for fuel burned on those roads) of cost/benefit. How about the denominator? (I'd try passenger miles...)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.