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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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
Railroad to Freedom
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.
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
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
And complaining that those other people talking about doing that newfangled 'agriculture' were excessively visionary and don't deserve community support...
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).
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).
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.
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).
ontheBNSF If new row is needed maybe such row could be used for new freight rail as well.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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'...
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.
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?
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!
Alternative 5 (you see this one quite a bit on the DB): Add dedicated tracks on the existing rail ROW.
ontheBNSFThe government routinely sabotages the agencies it runs by trying to do too much with limited resources. One train a day is not useful transportation. When you try to do too much with too little, NO ONE gets an acceptable level of service. A better plan would be to take large city pairs just a few hours apart and run fast, frequent, on time service in those corridors. Long distance should be limited to areas where it makes sense to connect two or more corridors. A well run system would naturally expand over time. A poorly run system will eventually die.
I agree with the first part of this statement. However, 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.
Phoebe Vet Most big advances are made by dreamers who are surrounded by people who are telling them it can't be done. That said, there are some mountains you must climb to accomplish your dream. 1: Your US Note fantasy: Contrary to popular belief the majority of our national debt is not held by China, it is owed to the Federal Reserve and the various pension and dedicated funds administered by our own government. China holds about 10% of the debt. Just printing more money is a mistake our government is already making. 2: You would probably be surprised how little a trillion dollars would buy when applied at the national level. 3: The government routinely sabotages the agencies it runs by trying to do too much with limited resources. One train a day is not useful transportation. When you try to do too much with too little, NO ONE gets an acceptable level of service. A better plan would be to take large city pairs just a few hours apart and run fast, frequent, on time service in those corridors. Long distance should be limited to areas where it makes sense to connect two or more corridors. A well run system would naturally expand over time. A poorly run system will eventually die.
Most big advances are made by dreamers who are surrounded by people who are telling them it can't be done.
That said, there are some mountains you must climb to accomplish your dream.
1: Your US Note fantasy: Contrary to popular belief the majority of our national debt is not held by China, it is owed to the Federal Reserve and the various pension and dedicated funds administered by our own government. China holds about 10% of the debt. Just printing more money is a mistake our government is already making.
2: You would probably be surprised how little a trillion dollars would buy when applied at the national level.
3: The government routinely sabotages the agencies it runs by trying to do too much with limited resources. One train a day is not useful transportation. When you try to do too much with too little, NO ONE gets an acceptable level of service. A better plan would be to take large city pairs just a few hours apart and run fast, frequent, on time service in those corridors. Long distance should be limited to areas where it makes sense to connect two or more corridors. A well run system would naturally expand over time. A poorly run system will eventually die.
I won't deny the government's wasteful which is indeed a problem. Building it on a federal level might not be ideal. Building it in a select number corridors would be better however replacing certain airline routes in say the southwest is not a bad idea. I never said anything about China. However the money the government owes is not owed to itself that is banker speak. The Federal Reserve System is a contradiction in terms it has no reserves it is not part of the Federal government this has been proven through various court cases such as Lewis v. the United States. It is as best a pseudo government agency at best. The government has lost it sovereignty to bankers and rich industrialists not China. The Federal Reserve is primarily owned by the Rockefeller family owners of the Exxon Mobil and the Morgan family who financed general motors, general electric etc. A non gold and non debt based currency is far better . England had tallysticks and used them successfully for 700 years the US had greenbacks that were successful as well. Sorry if this off topic.
Lewis v. United States
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5898553144184705388&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
schlimm oltmannd Grades are not the problem. Curves are. If we take HSR to mean 190-220 mph, then large stretches of interstate have horizontal and vertical curves that make them unsuitable. If we straighten them, then we have the same cost issues we have trying adopt existing rail ROW. $$$ It would work in spots but not universally. The second problem would be access to the route. If much of the problem with urban interstates is clogged feeders, then putting a high capacity batch mode transport system that relies on the same feeder system would be a lousy idea. You you just use the interstate ROW for the rural portion, though. First look at the likely corridors. Most have interstates and the ROW's, although not arrow straight, have fairly minimal curves or fairly large radius. And as on the DB, the dedicated HSR stretches use existing shared rail ROW in approaches to cities. What are the alternatives? 1. Use freight ROW's only. Thus no HSR, now or in the future. 2. Share ROW's as much as possible with the interstates, as on various current and planned HSR lines, here and abroad. 3. Totally new ROW's at a very high cost for land acquisition. 4. Purchase existing freight ROW's that are lightly used.
oltmannd Grades are not the problem. Curves are. If we take HSR to mean 190-220 mph, then large stretches of interstate have horizontal and vertical curves that make them unsuitable. If we straighten them, then we have the same cost issues we have trying adopt existing rail ROW. $$$ It would work in spots but not universally. The second problem would be access to the route. If much of the problem with urban interstates is clogged feeders, then putting a high capacity batch mode transport system that relies on the same feeder system would be a lousy idea. You you just use the interstate ROW for the rural portion, though.
Grades are not the problem. Curves are.
If we take HSR to mean 190-220 mph, then large stretches of interstate have horizontal and vertical curves that make them unsuitable. If we straighten them, then we have the same cost issues we have trying adopt existing rail ROW. $$$
It would work in spots but not universally.
The second problem would be access to the route. If much of the problem with urban interstates is clogged feeders, then putting a high capacity batch mode transport system that relies on the same feeder system would be a lousy idea. You you just use the interstate ROW for the rural portion, though.
First look at the likely corridors. Most have interstates and the ROW's, although not arrow straight, have fairly minimal curves or fairly large radius. And as on the DB, the dedicated HSR stretches use existing shared rail ROW in approaches to cities. What are the alternatives?
1. Use freight ROW's only. Thus no HSR, now or in the future.
2. Share ROW's as much as possible with the interstates, as on various current and planned HSR lines, here and abroad.
3. Totally new ROW's at a very high cost for land acquisition.
4. Purchase existing freight ROW's that are lightly used.
Interesting point. In the Northeast U.S the reverse is somewhat true in that some of the interstates were built on RR ROWs....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Schlimm,
1. There is not only the cost of the property for the right of way. There is also the cost of building the right of way to HSR standards. Certainly the cost of new rail lines has to be more -- much more -- that using existing lines.
2. Railroad managers are not the only people capable of having attitudes. Railroad passengers can have attitudes too. And they can express those attitudes to Members of Congress. This includes attitudes about late trains whether or not the lateness is caused by a freight train.
3. I agree completely that a dedicated row is needed for high speed rail.
schlimm What are the alternatives? 1. Use freight ROW's only. Thus no HSR, now or in the future. 2. Share ROW's as much as possible with the interstates, as on various current and planned HSR lines, here and abroad. 3. Totally new ROW's at a very high cost for land acquisition. 4. Purchase existing freight ROW's that are lightly used.
What are the alternatives?
All. Depending on the particular circumstances. (some RR ROW is good for HSR. Big chunks of the ACL in the SE and NYC Cleveland to Chicago, for example.)
In Pennsylvania, I 80 is pretty straight on the west end put has vertical curves that would need flattening and I 80 really doesn't "connect the dots" very well or fit into the existing NEC and branches very well. The land there would be pretty cheap, so maybe a greenfield solution would be best - Harrsburg - State College - Pittsburgh.
In the Piedmont, the rail route south of Charlotte is too curvy for even 90 mph and the interstate alignment has terrible vertical curves and a pretty narrow ROW in SC. But, the existing rail route does a better job of "connect the dots", so using the RR alignment with some greenfield "patches" might work better than using I 85 in SC. In GA, the Interstate is newer, wider and "smoother", so piggybacking HSR might be a good idea.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
BaltACDIt cannot be done by piggybacking the routes on existing freight routes that were built to facilitate the movement of freight.
...in the 19th century, at fairly low speeds.
schlimm BaltACD HSR, West of the Missouri River is a pipe dream except on the West Coast - there aren't enough 'centers of commerce' to build a sustainable traffic base - it's called 'Fly Over Territory' today. East of Missouri, specific corridors can be built between 'centers of commerce' and eventually linked together to form a HSR network. It will not be done 'overnight' and it will not service 'East Podunk' directly, but it would have the utility of today's short haul air carriers and considering current 'air line security concerns' would in almost all instances be faster than air. It cannot be done by piggybacking the routes on existing freight routes that were built to facilitate the movement of freight. The curvature built into the freight routes to minimze the grades excludes high speed running where highly powered HSR trains can surmount grades the would financially cripple a freight carrier to operate. The bulk of the Interstate system was not built upon the pre-existing road system for similar reasons. Good points, Balt. In Germany, some of the newer, dedicated HSR routes (Neubaustrecke) are parallel to existing Autobahns. Often the countryside there is fairly hilly and tunnels are used to reduce the grades that the road uses. Why is that concept not being considered here, other than the private HSR in Florida?? Expanding the interstate ROW to accommodate a 2-track HSR line wouldn't be all that expensive.
BaltACD HSR, West of the Missouri River is a pipe dream except on the West Coast - there aren't enough 'centers of commerce' to build a sustainable traffic base - it's called 'Fly Over Territory' today. East of Missouri, specific corridors can be built between 'centers of commerce' and eventually linked together to form a HSR network. It will not be done 'overnight' and it will not service 'East Podunk' directly, but it would have the utility of today's short haul air carriers and considering current 'air line security concerns' would in almost all instances be faster than air. It cannot be done by piggybacking the routes on existing freight routes that were built to facilitate the movement of freight. The curvature built into the freight routes to minimze the grades excludes high speed running where highly powered HSR trains can surmount grades the would financially cripple a freight carrier to operate. The bulk of the Interstate system was not built upon the pre-existing road system for similar reasons.
HSR, West of the Missouri River is a pipe dream except on the West Coast - there aren't enough 'centers of commerce' to build a sustainable traffic base - it's called 'Fly Over Territory' today.
East of Missouri, specific corridors can be built between 'centers of commerce' and eventually linked together to form a HSR network. It will not be done 'overnight' and it will not service 'East Podunk' directly, but it would have the utility of today's short haul air carriers and considering current 'air line security concerns' would in almost all instances be faster than air.
It cannot be done by piggybacking the routes on existing freight routes that were built to facilitate the movement of freight. The curvature built into the freight routes to minimze the grades excludes high speed running where highly powered HSR trains can surmount grades the would financially cripple a freight carrier to operate. The bulk of the Interstate system was not built upon the pre-existing road system for similar reasons.
Good points, Balt. In Germany, some of the newer, dedicated HSR routes (Neubaustrecke) are parallel to existing Autobahns. Often the countryside there is fairly hilly and tunnels are used to reduce the grades that the road uses. Why is that concept not being considered here, other than the private HSR in Florida?? Expanding the interstate ROW to accommodate a 2-track HSR line wouldn't be all that expensive.
1. Why? the new line in Florida is paying very little to share ROW with the interstate. 2. BaltACD has a pretty good handle on the freight lines' attitude. 3. Aside from sharing lines in approaches to major cities, a dedicated ROW is needed to run HSR.
schlimmExpanding the interstate ROW to accommodate a 2-track HSR line wouldn't be all that expensive
It seems to me that building new right of way even by expanding current interstate rights of way would be quite expensive.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.