CMStPnP dmikee GOP congress hates trains If it was that simple we would have sent schlimm up to Capitol Hill with a Chocolate Cake and Bible to convince them not to hate.
dmikee GOP congress hates trains
If it was that simple we would have sent schlimm up to Capitol Hill with a Chocolate Cake and Bible to convince them not to hate.
Single malt whisky and comic books would be more effective.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
dmikeeGOP congress hates trains
I think your "why" has been answered very thoroughly already. Just read previoius postings and other threads on long idstance trains.
Why are we giving up on trains, both long distance and corridor operations while Europe, Japan, China, and now even Russia and others are constructing high speed solutions to move far more people than roads and airlines??? The current subsidy to Amtrak is simply a pittance, keeping them gasping for air just to survive. The equipment on even former "name trains" like the Zephyr, Daylight and Desert Wind is in pathetic condition while the routes are clogged with frieght traffic that keep speeds far below design levels. We can't seem to create grade separations to keep trucks and cars from trying to outrun a locomotive. The USA will never be great again as long as the GOP congress hates trains.
The Piedmont turns in Atlanta could be done but it appears the following is needed.
1. A new siding west of station with 2 switches
2. Additional switch east of station to allow quick car sorting
2a. Additional station signalingfor these switches that can be locally controlled.
3. yard switcher
4. 480 V connections ( 2 or 3 ).
5. Passenger platform on south side of Atlantic siding
6. Elevator and stair to platform #5.
This would definitely also allow for the cut off cars proposed for the Crescent. Two birds with one stone. This would also enable station work without additional traveling thru Howell diamonds, wye, & CP
Makes just terrific sense. Some switch work and sidings in Atlanta may be required, however, given the limitations of the present station setup.
oltmannd CSSHEGEWISCH For what it's worth, Southern did operate a daytime Washington-Atlanta schedule (the "Piedmont") opposite the "Southern Crescent's" overnight schedule after May 1, 1971. The passengers just weren't there, and I don't think the fact that it was operated as a mainline mixed train had anything to do with it. Its not 1971 anymore. Atlanta has 5X the population, ditto the other Piedmont cities. I-85 is no fun at all in SC and not much better in GA or NC. A day train from Atlanta to the north could be useful - and used.
CSSHEGEWISCH For what it's worth, Southern did operate a daytime Washington-Atlanta schedule (the "Piedmont") opposite the "Southern Crescent's" overnight schedule after May 1, 1971. The passengers just weren't there, and I don't think the fact that it was operated as a mainline mixed train had anything to do with it.
For what it's worth, Southern did operate a daytime Washington-Atlanta schedule (the "Piedmont") opposite the "Southern Crescent's" overnight schedule after May 1, 1971. The passengers just weren't there, and I don't think the fact that it was operated as a mainline mixed train had anything to do with it.
Its not 1971 anymore. Atlanta has 5X the population, ditto the other Piedmont cities. I-85 is no fun at all in SC and not much better in GA or NC. A day train from Atlanta to the north could be useful - and used.
If NC, SC, and GA can work together, they can start by extending one Piedmont each way from Charlotte to Atlanta (73 south and 76 north). The train takes about 5 1/2 hrs between the cities. It would add daytime service between Atlanta and both Charlotte and Greensboro and a direct train between Atlanta and Raleigh.
Amtrak once proposed cutting cars off the Crescent at Atlanta since demand south of Atlanta is much less than it is north. So after the 19 gets into Atlanta, send the extra cars north to North Carolina. Then once the 73 gets into Atlanta, add those cars onto the 20 back north to New York.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I agree. But today just might be different with highway congestion. The State-supported trains in the area and their success might be proof.
daveklepper The Piedmont did not poke along, and the mixed aspect was mostly intermodal, if my memory is correct, and the coaches were reclining-seat, air-conditioned, either modernized heavyweights and/or lightweights. Speeds were pretty much the same as when it was pure passenger.
The Piedmont did not poke along, and the mixed aspect was mostly intermodal, if my memory is correct, and the coaches were reclining-seat, air-conditioned, either modernized heavyweights and/or lightweights. Speeds were pretty much the same as when it was pure passenger.
SRR ran it because they were required to. Not many passengers rode it, however. Why? Like most Americans, they chose other modes of transportation.
Have often thought that a HrSR corridor TUS - PHX- Yuma - San Diego - LAX would put several large Metropolitan locations together with it only a slightly longer route compared to a straight line PHX - LAX.
Absolutely right. In the cases with which I am personally acquainted via many rides -- NYC, NKP, RI, U.P. -- abdication by the passengers preceded downgrading by the roads.
Deggesty too many passengeres abandoned rail travel many years ago, even though the trains were still there.
And they did that voluntarily; nobody forced them to. First, Interstates made driving more feasible over longer distances. Two, air travel become faster and more affordable for millions.
A very astute comment Johnny.
Amtrak is cited as doing business the way it has always been done, and the schedule of the Super Chief across Kansas is mentioned. However, the Santa Fe also ran one or two other trains across Kansas, providing daytime service--because the passengers were there. Sad to say, too many passengeres abandoned rail travel many years ago, even though the trains were still there.
This could be applied to almost any area that now has passenger service at night only. Sixty-five years ago, the Southern had seven trains a day each way between Washington and Atlanta, and the Seaboard had three (one required a change in Richmond). The SAL and the ACL each had four trains between Washington and Jacksonville; most went on to other Florida destinations.
Johnny
There are four needs at the top of the list:
1. Money from Congress for more REVENUE equipment -- no baggage cars, no baggage-dorms -- that is wisely chosen and awarded to contractors that can deliver it ready to run in a timely manner.
2. Money from Congress for a second schedule on long-distance routes that will provide reasonable time-of-day service for places like Cleveland, O.
3. Agreements with the freight railroads allowing this second schedule at a reasonable price.
4. Money from Congress, and agreements with the railroads, for development of corridors within those LD routes (e.g., Cleveland-Chicago).
schlimm oltmannd schlimm oltmannd We need to demand a "better Amtrak". Better isn't perfect and it isn't ideal and it doesn't necessarily fit anyones political views, but better is still better than status quo. One notion that has not been discussed here is putting Amtrak on a steady, non-political source of funding. That would mean not being subject to yearly appropriations requests to Congress and having to provide irrelevant trains in exchange for votes. I suspect the steady, non-political funding amount would be close to zero. But, politically based funding does stuff like keeping the SW Chief running through Kansas in the middle of the night. Rural southern Kansas gets a train. Rural South Dakota does not. Fair or not fair? Or, just the way it is... It would be difficult to achiewve, granted, but it would permit Amtrak to be run in a more rational and creative fashion. As to the SWC running through KS in the middle of the night? That was the schedule, more or less, of the AT&SF's Super Chief and El Cap 40+ years ago. As you've said on here before, Amtrak does things that way because that's the way it always has been done.
oltmannd schlimm oltmannd We need to demand a "better Amtrak". Better isn't perfect and it isn't ideal and it doesn't necessarily fit anyones political views, but better is still better than status quo. One notion that has not been discussed here is putting Amtrak on a steady, non-political source of funding. That would mean not being subject to yearly appropriations requests to Congress and having to provide irrelevant trains in exchange for votes. I suspect the steady, non-political funding amount would be close to zero. But, politically based funding does stuff like keeping the SW Chief running through Kansas in the middle of the night. Rural southern Kansas gets a train. Rural South Dakota does not. Fair or not fair? Or, just the way it is...
schlimm oltmannd We need to demand a "better Amtrak". Better isn't perfect and it isn't ideal and it doesn't necessarily fit anyones political views, but better is still better than status quo. One notion that has not been discussed here is putting Amtrak on a steady, non-political source of funding. That would mean not being subject to yearly appropriations requests to Congress and having to provide irrelevant trains in exchange for votes.
oltmannd We need to demand a "better Amtrak". Better isn't perfect and it isn't ideal and it doesn't necessarily fit anyones political views, but better is still better than status quo.
One notion that has not been discussed here is putting Amtrak on a steady, non-political source of funding. That would mean not being subject to yearly appropriations requests to Congress and having to provide irrelevant trains in exchange for votes.
I suspect the steady, non-political funding amount would be close to zero.
But, politically based funding does stuff like keeping the SW Chief running through Kansas in the middle of the night. Rural southern Kansas gets a train. Rural South Dakota does not. Fair or not fair? Or, just the way it is...
It would be difficult to achiewve, granted, but it would permit Amtrak to be run in a more rational and creative fashion.
As to the SWC running through KS in the middle of the night? That was the schedule, more or less, of the AT&SF's Super Chief and El Cap 40+ years ago. As you've said on here before, Amtrak does things that way because that's the way it always has been done.
I did and I still do. So, in my opinion, a "better Amtrak" would include taking a zero-based look at the LD routes to see how they might be optimized. First, that would be the schedule on the exising routes. Try to serve the bigger markets at times people want to go. Does Denver to Chicago during the day make more sense than overnight? If you expand that to try connect the dots differently on the map, that would help, too. But, that's quite a chore, though. Look at how much effort it took just to keep the SW Chief where it was!
A guy like Moorman has the best chance of anyone to convince the frt RRs that the rearranging isn't just some new way of sticking it to them. But, he only has a year. I doubt he'll spend much of his limited time on it. Although it would be neat to see him dust off the unfinished stuff in PRIIA 2008 and get it moving.
But, my bet is that he focuses on customer service, getting those new cars on the road, and getting funding lined up for incremental NEC improvements. (and basically walking away from the Boardman new NEC spine boondoggle)
CMStPnP Interesting you should mention that as they are again talking about fixing up the former San Diego, Arizona and Eastern line. As well as rebuilding the line from Tijuana to San Diego and extend further into Tijuana. I doubt it will be passenger train speed though with the curves and not sure how they would handle the short dip into Mexico.
You clearly lack vision. Those mountains and canyons can be made to support HSR with only a few billions of dollars for tunnels and bridges, and with a long enough tunnel we can avoid Mexico, at a higher cost of course.
Mac
If it were a corridor, some of the RoW could be used with high speed track; one lower grade track could suffice for freight. Some new RoW could also be constructed in the desert.
schlimm A logical corridor would be Tucson-Phoenix-San Diego (or LA). In 2010, these were the MSAs: Tucson - 980,283 Phoenix - 4,300,000 San Diego - 3,095,000 and/or Los Angeles - 12,828,837 Total: 8.4 to 18 to 21 million people, in a corridor about 410 - 490 miles long. If this became another HrSR, then HSR corridor, downtown stations are not absolutely necessary as long as they are connected to downtowns on a fast link.
A logical corridor would be Tucson-Phoenix-San Diego (or LA).
In 2010, these were the MSAs:
Tucson - 980,283
Phoenix - 4,300,000
San Diego - 3,095,000 and/or
Los Angeles - 12,828,837
Total: 8.4 to 18 to 21 million people, in a corridor about 410 - 490 miles long.
If this became another HrSR, then HSR corridor, downtown stations are not absolutely necessary as long as they are connected to downtowns on a fast link.
Interesting you should mention that as they are again talking about fixing up the former San Diego, Arizona and Eastern line. As well as rebuilding the line from Tijuana to San Diego and extend further into Tijuana. I doubt it will be passenger train speed though with the curves and not sure how they would handle the short dip into Mexico.
Charles Kent I've been impressed with what I've heard about the new Hoosier State and, yes, it should run seven days a week, and the idea of extending it to Cincinatti sounds reasonable to me. But if it ran to Cincinatti would the next logical step be to extend it further to Louisville and Nashville, two cities not now served by Amtrak?
I've been impressed with what I've heard about the new Hoosier State and, yes, it should run seven days a week, and the idea of extending it to Cincinatti sounds reasonable to me. But if it ran to Cincinatti would the next logical step be to extend it further to Louisville and Nashville, two cities not now served by Amtrak?
Absolutely!
schlimm For sports, Chase Field, US Airways Center. There are several museums, Phoenix Symphony Hall, several theaters, 11 venues for live music, and numerous bars and restaurants. Phoenix, being the county seat of Maricopa County and the capital of Arizona, serves as the center of politics, justice and government on the local, state and federal levels. The area is a major center of employment for the region, with many financial, legal, and other national and international corporations housed in a variety of skyscrapers.
For sports, Chase Field, US Airways Center. There are several museums, Phoenix Symphony Hall, several theaters, 11 venues for live music, and numerous bars and restaurants. Phoenix, being the county seat of Maricopa County and the capital of Arizona, serves as the center of politics, justice and government on the local, state and federal levels. The area is a major center of employment for the region, with many financial, legal, and other national and international corporations housed in a variety of skyscrapers.
If it was me I wouldn't restore service back to downtown but instead get permission from the GILA Indians to build across their reservation a smaller passenger train loop up to South Chandler or even a little further North to South Tempe. Thats as far as I would go unless this became a Corridor. I think the biggest impediment to Amtrak continuing service downtown Phoenix was not necessarily the once a day train frequency but the sheer length of the spur it had to traverse. I think if you could cut the length down by 1/2 or 3/4 the maintence/inspection costs would not be so high nor the speed limit as critical. Anyways that is what I would do for the current train frequency. You might be able to argue that if it becomes a Corridor then restoration to downtown Phoenix makes sense. If a spur were to be built for the single LD train then it should be engineered to become part of a larger extension to Phoenix and also function as part of a Phoenix to Tuscon cooridor........tall order but I think doable within Amtraks financial budget given the Indian land can probably be had for a song and would make up most of the ROW. The current Maricopa Station is on GILA Indian land by the way and they are trying to get permission via UP to move the location a little further West so they can build a passenger train spur when the train is stopped at the station (cost $4.2 million). Turns out the first site forces the Sunset Limited to stop four seperate times at Maricopa because the platforms are too short...........holding up UPRR trains. I think the $4.2 million could be put to better use to apply towards my Northern Spur idea to get the Train slightly further North and closer into Phoenix.
Victrola1t does not look like population growth will encourage ridership over vast distances between urban centers.
Demographics have changed since the 19th century. Freight railroads used to serve every little town with freight stations and/or team tracks and daily services, but that ended long ago. But some on here want Amtrak to run 2000+ mile full service passenger trains, often stopping at declining towns where only a few board on some days. It's nostalgia. Nice, but not an obligation for the government or anyone else to provide them. People chose starting years ago to move to population centers. They also have chosen as technology and infrastructure changed to drive or fly in overwhelming numbers, abandoning the horse and buggy, canal packets, riverboats, stage coaches, ocean liners and trains for serious transportation. Passenger trains survive and do well around metro areas and linking those in corridors of ~500 miles if speeds are good.
CLAREMONT, Minn. (AP) -- A small southeastern Minnesota community is trying but failing to give away land for free.
Claremont, which has about 500 residents, has had no takers in the three years it has been offering free lots to anyone with a qualifying income who is willing to build a house, Minnesota Public Radio News reported (http://bit.ly/1AE46QS ). The city, which is located between Owatonna and Rochester, has three churches, three parks, a gas station and a bank — all within one square mile.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/minnesota-town-offers-free-land-175459865.html
Drawing more people to live near the tracks is not working like it did in the 19th century.
Land grants build the railroads across the plains. Trains populated the plains in turn. Population numbers across vast swaths of the plains remain the same, or are in actual decline.
It does not look like population growth will encourage ridership over vast distances between urban centers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.