JPS1 Los Angeles Rams Guy One of the things that really irked me about Amtrak and how it was conceived was the lack of North-South routes in its national system. Thoughts? Come to think about it, the Coast Starlight, Texas Eagle, City of New Orleans, Crescent, and the Sivler Service trains are more north/south trains than east/west trains. So too is the Auto Train. Amtrak has a slew of state supported north/south trains, including the Adirondack, Cascades, Carolinian, Piedomont, Downeaster, Ethan Allen Express, Heartland Flyer, Hiawathas, Pacific Surfliners, San Joaquins, and Vermonter. The NEC is mostly a north/south operation. It has approximately 95 trains a day during the week between New York, Philadelphia, and Washington.
Los Angeles Rams Guy One of the things that really irked me about Amtrak and how it was conceived was the lack of North-South routes in its national system. Thoughts?
One of the things that really irked me about Amtrak and how it was conceived was the lack of North-South routes in its national system. Thoughts?
Come to think about it, the Coast Starlight, Texas Eagle, City of New Orleans, Crescent, and the Sivler Service trains are more north/south trains than east/west trains. So too is the Auto Train.
Amtrak has a slew of state supported north/south trains, including the Adirondack, Cascades, Carolinian, Piedomont, Downeaster, Ethan Allen Express, Heartland Flyer, Hiawathas, Pacific Surfliners, San Joaquins, and Vermonter.
The NEC is mostly a north/south operation. It has approximately 95 trains a day during the week between New York, Philadelphia, and Washington.
Add the four Lincoln Services and the Illini and Saluki to your list of state-sponsored north/south trains.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
n012944Where did I say anything specific about the line in question? I guess you still haven't mastered reading comprehension, as my post was in regarding to using a tonnage map to determine capacity. It also touched on my experienced with operations on a light tonnage line that hosted Amtrak. I look foward to hearing about you experience with railroad operations...Oh wait, never mind. But since you want to discuss the line in question, please tell me how they are adding "higher speed" intermodals to the line. Here is the list of speeds out of the BNSF's timetable for the joint line: "1. Speed Regulations 1(A). Speed—Maximum Freight MP 0.0 to MP 1.5 ........................................................................ 20 MPH.MP 1.5 to MP 4.5 ........................................................................ 30 MPH. MP 4.5 to MP 84.4 ...................................................................... 45 MPH. MP 84.4 to MP 108.6, MT1 ........................................................ 55 MPH.* MP 84.4 to MP 108.8, MT2 ........................................................ 50 MPH.* MP 108.6 to MP 118.4, MT1 ...................................................... 55 MPH.* MP 118.3 to MP 118.8, MT1 ....................................................... 20 MPH. MP 118.8 to MP 120.4, MT1 ....................................................... 15 MPH. MP 108.8 to MP 115.0, MT2 ...................................................... 50 MPH.* MP 115.0 to MP 118.2, MT2 ....................................................... 45 MPH. North Pueblo Highline, arriving and departing ............................ 10 MPH. MP 52.0 to MP 12.2, Main 1 against the current of traffic ............ 45 MPH. MP 12.2 to MP 52.0, Main 2 against the current of traffic ............ 45 MPH. * The maximum speed for freight trains is 45 MPH when: Train exceeds 10,000 feet; or Train averages 100 TOB or more. On descending grade between Palmer Lake and MP 61.4, the following table must be used to determine the maximum speed taking into account freight trains TOB and tons per axle of operative dynamic brake: A train that exceeds the above table, one that experiences dynamic brake failure, or if the use of full dynamic brakes and a ** 15 ** pound brake pipe reduction will not control the train at the allowable speed, the train must be stopped and sufficient hand brakes set to prevent movement. The train must not proceed until additional dynamic braking is obtained, tonnage reduced, or retainers on all cars placed in operative position. The train must not proceed except as instructed by a road foreman of engines or other proper authority. On descending grade between Palmer Lake and MP 41.0 on the northward track, the following table must be used to determine the maximum speed, taking into account freight train’s tons per operative brake (TOB) and tons per axle of operative dynamic brake. " There is not a serperate speed for intermodal, so your new "higher speed" intermodal trains will operate at same speed as other freight traffic. I understand, since you seem to struggle with reading comprehension, how the headline confused you. However the faster intermodal service is from a shorter route.
OK your off in your own argument somewhere. The train being discussed was Dallas to Denver not Denver to Pueblo (there is a slight mileage difference there).
Buslist implied in his post it would run at 70 mph over mountain grades and curves......I didn't. The old Texas Zephyr was not a fast run. California Zephyr headed West doesn't probably hit 70 until Utah.
Also, if I had a loaded Coal Train over mountain grades and curves waited for it to pass and then ran a Intermodal Train over the same route. All things being equal between the two trains, guess which one will run at a slower average speed despite the MAX speed. Something for you to think about with your experience.
Anyways, your speed limits above are not a rebuttal to the argument that a LD Passenger Train could be added to this line in each direction Dallas to Denver. 118 miles is a small segment of the total line.
Also, BNSF says this section of it's network is underutilized, I see you didn't respond to that.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
n012944 My minor misspellings should not effect ones ability to comprehend my post. So no irony. I do want to thank you for pointing them out, as grammar nazis always contribute so much to a discussion. As for "cheap shots", I give what I get. CMStPnP has gotten almost trollish with his/her cheap shots and arguments just to argue. His/her posts on this thread are a perfect example. We have a member, Buslist, who has experience on the line in question. He is labeled as "clueless" on the line by CMStPnP, a cheap shot. If you want to talk about irony, according to CMStPnP we can only be told about a lines capacity from a railroad executive, however CMStPnP can tell us all about Amtrak's dining car waste because he/she managed a Subway at the local mall....
My minor misspellings should not effect ones ability to comprehend my post. So no irony. I do want to thank you for pointing them out, as grammar nazis always contribute so much to a discussion.
As for "cheap shots", I give what I get. CMStPnP has gotten almost trollish with his/her cheap shots and arguments just to argue. His/her posts on this thread are a perfect example. We have a member, Buslist, who has experience on the line in question. He is labeled as "clueless" on the line by CMStPnP, a cheap shot. If you want to talk about irony, according to CMStPnP we can only be told about a lines capacity from a railroad executive, however CMStPnP can tell us all about Amtrak's dining car waste because he/she managed a Subway at the local mall....
My remark was at least 50% tongue-in-cheek. I agreed with your thoughts on CMStPnP's recent comments, which is why I pointed out that it weakens your comment when you become peevish as well. You might want to revisit irony, BTW. And calling someone a grammar nazi when you make a bunch of sloppy mistakes is pretty offensive.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 I guess you still haven't mastered reading comprehension, as my post was in regarding to using a tonnage map to determine capacity. It also touched on my experienced with operations on a light tonnage line that hosted Amtrak.
n012944There is not a serperate speed for intermodal, so your new "higher speed" intermodal trains will operate at same speed as other freight traffic. I understand, since you seem to struggle with reading comprehension, how the headline confused you. However the faster intermodal service is from a shorter route.
Your post gives valuable info. So why spoil it with the cheap shots? Your shots are especially ironic given your struggles (recent examples above) with spelling and syntax.
CMStPnP n012944 Your tonnage map is irrelevent. As pointed out by Buslist, in far better terms than I could, there is far more to this than looking at a Trains map. I can attest to having thorough knowledge of a line that would show up as a light density line on your little map. Getting the two Amtrak trains that run over it is a daily struggle, not due to the amount of traffic, but the configuration of the line. Make sure you join Buslist on the conference call and let BNSF know they are totally crazy to add higher speed intermodal to the line. It's only been operating for a month now, apparently in stealth mode since it hasn't been spotted by Buslist yet......and he watches the line. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160901006348/en/BNSF-Launches-Faster-Intermodal-Service-Pacific-Northwest Please note the comment from BNSF about UNDERUTILIZED CAPACITY.
n012944 Your tonnage map is irrelevent. As pointed out by Buslist, in far better terms than I could, there is far more to this than looking at a Trains map. I can attest to having thorough knowledge of a line that would show up as a light density line on your little map. Getting the two Amtrak trains that run over it is a daily struggle, not due to the amount of traffic, but the configuration of the line.
Make sure you join Buslist on the conference call and let BNSF know they are totally crazy to add higher speed intermodal to the line. It's only been operating for a month now, apparently in stealth mode since it hasn't been spotted by Buslist yet......and he watches the line.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160901006348/en/BNSF-Launches-Faster-Intermodal-Service-Pacific-Northwest
Please note the comment from BNSF about UNDERUTILIZED CAPACITY.
Where did I say anything specific about the line in question? I guess you still haven't mastered reading comprehension, as my post was in regarding to using a tonnage map to determine capacity. It also touched on my experienced with operations on a light tonnage line that hosted Amtrak. I look foward to hearing about you experience with railroad operations...Oh wait, never mind.
But since you want to discuss the line in question, please tell me how they are adding "higher speed" intermodals to the line. Here is the list of speeds out of the BNSF's timetable for the joint line:
"1. Speed Regulations 1(A). Speed—Maximum
Freight
MP 0.0 to MP 1.5 ........................................................................ 20 MPH.MP 1.5 to MP 4.5 ........................................................................ 30 MPH. MP 4.5 to MP 84.4 ...................................................................... 45 MPH. MP 84.4 to MP 108.6, MT1 ........................................................ 55 MPH.* MP 84.4 to MP 108.8, MT2 ........................................................ 50 MPH.* MP 108.6 to MP 118.4, MT1 ...................................................... 55 MPH.* MP 118.3 to MP 118.8, MT1 ....................................................... 20 MPH. MP 118.8 to MP 120.4, MT1 ....................................................... 15 MPH. MP 108.8 to MP 115.0, MT2 ...................................................... 50 MPH.* MP 115.0 to MP 118.2, MT2 ....................................................... 45 MPH. North Pueblo Highline, arriving and departing ............................ 10 MPH. MP 52.0 to MP 12.2, Main 1 against the current of traffic ............ 45 MPH. MP 12.2 to MP 52.0, Main 2 against the current of traffic ............ 45 MPH.
* The maximum speed for freight trains is 45 MPH when:
Train exceeds 10,000 feet; or
Train averages 100 TOB or more.
On descending grade between Palmer Lake and MP 61.4, the following table must be used to determine the maximum speed taking into account freight trains TOB and tons per axle of operative dynamic brake:
A train that exceeds the above table, one that experiences dynamic brake failure, or if the use of full dynamic brakes and a ** 15 ** pound brake pipe reduction will not control the train at the allowable speed, the train must be stopped and sufficient hand brakes set to prevent movement. The train must not proceed until additional dynamic braking is obtained, tonnage reduced, or retainers on all cars placed in operative position. The train must not proceed except as instructed by a road foreman of engines or other proper authority.
On descending grade between Palmer Lake and MP 41.0 on the northward track, the following table must be used to determine the maximum speed, taking into account freight train’s tons per operative brake (TOB) and tons per axle of operative dynamic brake. "
There is not a serperate speed for intermodal, so your new "higher speed" intermodal trains will operate at same speed as other freight traffic. I understand, since you seem to struggle with reading comprehension, how the headline confused you. However the faster intermodal service is from a shorter route.
DeggestyIs there a connection between the former C&O and former RF&P at Doswell (once called Hanover Junction, I believe)?
At Doswell there are two connections between BB (former CSX Piedmont Sub) and CSX (former RF&P). From the former RF&P #4 track SB (now referred to as the siding - it will clear a empty hopper train of 100 cars & 2 units - not 101 or higher) to BB Main WB. Also between the BB Main EB and RF&P #3 Main SB (known as the C&O connection). Both connections are on the West side of the RF&P Mains (#2 East track and #3 West track)
The Control Point at Doswell is controlled by the CSX BD Dispatcher, including signals across the diamond.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CMStPnP schlimm No matter what others post, you disagree. No, just throwing a BS flag on an oft stated claim a specific line cannot handle a passenger train because there is not enough capacity or space or due to directional running or slow moving coal trains, or steep grades, or whatever. I said this in other threads as well. Give me the proof of the capacity issue from the railroad that owns the line and I'll back down. schlimm Of the many passenger trains still operating when Amtrak took over, some were operated because the marginal revenue contribtion was a plus. This was especially true if GAAP numbers were used internally, as contrasted with ICC rules. OK and here all I asked for was a specific CB&Q train as an example that met that criteria in May of 1971. I am curious which one or ones it was.
schlimm No matter what others post, you disagree.
No, just throwing a BS flag on an oft stated claim a specific line cannot handle a passenger train because there is not enough capacity or space or due to directional running or slow moving coal trains, or steep grades, or whatever. I said this in other threads as well. Give me the proof of the capacity issue from the railroad that owns the line and I'll back down.
schlimm Of the many passenger trains still operating when Amtrak took over, some were operated because the marginal revenue contribtion was a plus. This was especially true if GAAP numbers were used internally, as contrasted with ICC rules.
OK and here all I asked for was a specific CB&Q train as an example that met that criteria in May of 1971. I am curious which one or ones it was.
Rails applied to the ICC to abandon trains that were both 1. running a large loss, by any measure, and 2. provided no other benefits. I suggest you look to see which trains the CB&Q applied for.
Is there a connection between the former C&O and former RF&P at Doswell (once called Hanover Junction, I believe)?
Johnny
blue streak 1 BaltACD I manage subdivisions where trains cannot be called through terminals based on their time figures arriving the terminal - they can only be called through the terminal based upon the location of opposing traffic. I have no idea if a similar situation may exist on lines that are under discussion. They do exist and in many more places than those on the outside of the industry would expect. The plant rationalization mantra of the 80's and early 90's bit hard and deep on many carriers. The physical plant that existed when the private carriers operated their own passenger trains no longer exist in that form - in many cases the physical plant no longer exists PERIOD. Just a WAG but would think WASH - Richmond and the BBrRR for east bound Cardinals would fall in that category..
BaltACD I manage subdivisions where trains cannot be called through terminals based on their time figures arriving the terminal - they can only be called through the terminal based upon the location of opposing traffic. I have no idea if a similar situation may exist on lines that are under discussion. They do exist and in many more places than those on the outside of the industry would expect. The plant rationalization mantra of the 80's and early 90's bit hard and deep on many carriers. The physical plant that existed when the private carriers operated their own passenger trains no longer exist in that form - in many cases the physical plant no longer exists PERIOD.
I manage subdivisions where trains cannot be called through terminals based on their time figures arriving the terminal - they can only be called through the terminal based upon the location of opposing traffic.
I have no idea if a similar situation may exist on lines that are under discussion. They do exist and in many more places than those on the outside of the industry would expect. The plant rationalization mantra of the 80's and early 90's bit hard and deep on many carriers. The physical plant that existed when the private carriers operated their own passenger trains no longer exist in that form - in many cases the physical plant no longer exists PERIOD.
Can't call empty coal cars West from Doswell on the BB at certain times on passenger days. DC to Richmond is 2 & 3 tracks all the way. BB Richmond to Charlottesville and beyond is (I believe) dark single track.
CMStPnP No, just throwing a BS flag on an oft stated claim a specific line cannot handle a passenger train because there is not enough capacity or space or due to directional running or slow moving coal trains, or steep grades, or whatever. I said this in other threads as well. Give me the proof of the capacity issue from the railroad that owns the line and I'll back down.
Depending upon line configuration, a line can be capacity constrined with a train in each direction daily - freight or passenger.
schlimmNo matter what others post, you disagree.
schlimmOf the many passenger trains still operating when Amtrak took over, some were operated because the marginal revenue contribtion was a plus. This was especially true if GAAP numbers were used internally, as contrasted with ICC rules.
CMStPnP schlimm And that abandonment because of loss of mail contract meant that the train was not drawing enough passengers to survive on its own, unlike other CB&Q trains of that era. What trains were drawing enough passengers without the mail contract? Just curious. Certainly Soo Line wasn't but it maintained it's passenger service via cabooses to the Northwoods of Wisconsin and UP, years and years after Amtrak was formed. Survival or Lack of Survival of a train past 1965, I don't think meant much. Look at how many people on here argue the CZ was profitable. Yet you have the full story told by railway executives themselves right on Amazon Video for anyone to watch or see. It hemmoraged money and long before it was yanked.
schlimm And that abandonment because of loss of mail contract meant that the train was not drawing enough passengers to survive on its own, unlike other CB&Q trains of that era.
What trains were drawing enough passengers without the mail contract? Just curious. Certainly Soo Line wasn't but it maintained it's passenger service via cabooses to the Northwoods of Wisconsin and UP, years and years after Amtrak was formed. Survival or Lack of Survival of a train past 1965, I don't think meant much. Look at how many people on here argue the CZ was profitable. Yet you have the full story told by railway executives themselves right on Amazon Video for anyone to watch or see. It hemmoraged money and long before it was yanked.
I fail to see your point. No matter what others post, you disagree. My post above was not a repudiation of yours, just a clarification. Of the many passenger trains still operating when Amtrak took over, some were operated because the marginal revenue contribtion was a plus. This was especially true if GAAP numbers were used internally, as contrasted with ICC rules.
n012944Your tonnage map is irrelevent. As pointed out by Buslist, in far better terms than I could, there is far more to this than looking at a Trains map. I can attest to having thorough knowledge of a line that would show up as a light density line on your little map. Getting the two Amtrak trains that run over it is a daily struggle, not due to the amount of traffic, but the configuration of the line.
CMStPnP You can look at a tonnage rail map of the United States and see that freight traffic on the line is not a huge monolithic issue. It's a medium density usage line at best.
You can look at a tonnage rail map of the United States and see that freight traffic on the line is not a huge monolithic issue. It's a medium density usage line at best.
Your tonnage map is irrelevent. As pointed out by Buslist, in far better terms than I could, there is far more to this than looking at a Trains map.
I can attest to having thorough knowledge of a line that would show up as a light density line on your little map. Getting the two Amtrak trains that run over it is a daily struggle, not due to the amount of traffic, but the configuration of the line.
BuslistOf course what you seem to overlook is that density is only half the capacity equation. Capacity is theoretical density times speed. (Trains/mile [function of signal system and track arrangement] X miles/hour [function of gradient, curvature, HP/ton] = trains/hour) Therefore even a medium density line has lower capacity if speed is low, which it is in this case. Have you ever been out there and observed trains? Maybe all those posters know something. I've participated in the tests of the original AC units on the hill so I've seen it up close and personal. Up until the advent of locotroled AC units this was a maned helper operation. UP was even running midtrain and reared locotrol units for a while. Nice to make claims from a distance but those familiar with it don't agree. And what do we do with the widely separated north and southbound tracks south of Pueblo? Do we serve LaJunta southbound only and Trinidad northbound only. Or do we run against the current of traffic in one direction? The State of Colorado has repeatedly looked at Denver/Pueblo service but has rejected it as non competitive. Nothing on BNSF's intermodal planning site about a Denver Dallas lane coming that I could find, maybe an outdated browser. I would think a Denver LA service via ABQ would have far greater demand.
I'll answer this as I did in the past. When I hear from a Railroad Executive the line is at or near capacity I will believe it. Anyone else, highly likely.......clueless.
From the recent issue of Trains Magazine which I presume you read:
"In September, BNSF Railway launched new, faster service between the Pacific Northwest and Texas via Denver. Trains linking Portland, Ore and Seattle with Dallas-Fort Worth are two days faster than previous rail transit times and are comparable in speed to single driver OTR options.....BNSF says......"
You just better get on that phone ASAP and call the CEO of BNSF and tell him he has it all wrong. His line is at capacity and cannot handle higher speed trains. Make sure you record the phone conversation and attach it to your next post please.....heh-heh.
CMStPnP Buslist Of course in those days you didn't have numerous PRB coal trains grinding up and down Monument Hill (3000' above Pueblo, 2000 above Denver) @ 20 MPH. I don't think passenger trains sandwiched in there as automobiles on parallel I25 are zipping along at 75 would be very popular. Trains ran an item a number of years ago written by an engineer on the Denver Pueblo crew district. He went on about how boring the 20mph assent of Monument is, I suspect passengers that aren't being paid to ride wouldn't feel better about it. Add You can look at a tonnage rail map of the United States and see that freight traffic on the line is not a huge monolithic issue. It's a medium density usage line at best.
Buslist Of course in those days you didn't have numerous PRB coal trains grinding up and down Monument Hill (3000' above Pueblo, 2000 above Denver) @ 20 MPH. I don't think passenger trains sandwiched in there as automobiles on parallel I25 are zipping along at 75 would be very popular. Trains ran an item a number of years ago written by an engineer on the Denver Pueblo crew district. He went on about how boring the 20mph assent of Monument is, I suspect passengers that aren't being paid to ride wouldn't feel better about it. Add
Of course what you seem to overlook is that density is only half the capacity equation. Capacity is theoretical density times speed. (Trains/mile [function of signal system and track arrangement] X miles/hour [function of gradient, curvature, HP/ton] = trains/hour) Therefore even a medium density line has lower capacity if speed is low, which it is in this case. Have you ever been out there and observed trains? Maybe all those posters know something. I've participated in the tests of the original AC units on the hill so I've seen it up close and personal. Up until the advent of locotroled AC units this was a maned helper operation. UP was even running midtrain and reared locotrol units for a while. Nice to make claims from a distance but those familiar with it don't agree.
And what do we do with the widely separated north and southbound tracks south of Pueblo? Do we serve LaJunta southbound only and Trinidad northbound only. Or do we run against the current of traffic in one direction?
The State of Colorado has repeatedly looked at Denver/Pueblo service but has rejected it as non competitive.
Nothing on BNSF's intermodal planning site about a Denver Dallas lane coming that I could find, maybe an outdated browser. I would think a Denver LA service via ABQ would have far greater demand.
schlimmAnd that abandonment because of loss of mail contract meant that the train was not drawing enough passengers to survive on its own, unlike other CB&Q trains of that era.
BuslistOf course in those days you didn't have numerous PRB coal trains grinding up and down Monument Hill (3000' above Pueblo, 2000 above Denver) @ 20 MPH. I don't think passenger trains sandwiched in there as automobiles on parallel I25 are zipping along at 75 would be very popular. Trains ran an item a number of years ago written by an engineer on the Denver Pueblo crew district. He went on about how boring the 20mph assent of Monument is, I suspect passengers that aren't being paid to ride wouldn't feel better about it. Add
I keep hearing this over and over again like a broken record on the Trains Magazine forums, yet.........
You can look at a tonnage rail map of the United States and see that freight traffic on the line is not a huge monolithic issue. It's a medium density usage line at best. In fact the traffic on the California Zephyr line from Chicago to Omaha is more than twice as heavy. Same deal with the Southwest Chief line Chicago to LA as well as most of the Empire Builder line.
BNSF is launching high speed intermodal service on the line it just announced. What do you think those trains are going to do on the same trackage? I think if line capacity were an issue, BNSF would not make the public announcement before launching that service or implying it might also up the frequency if the business is there? BNSF even went so far to say in their press release that the speed the trains will achieve on this line is what clinched the deal as the speed will be slightly better than if someone drove the route with an OTR Truck. So it reads to me that traffic from Denver to Dallas is still not an issue on this line.
CMStPnP CSSHEGEWISCH When you consider that the "Texas Zephyr" was discontinued by 1968, I'm not sure that a rail market for that route exists any more. It was abandoned in Sept 1967 due to loss of the mail contract. The train had sleeping and full dining car service to the very end along with several coaches I believe. I have seen an older picture of one of the ski specials at approx 12-13 cars led by two back to back E units but no idea on the date. SWOPE SKI SPECIAL on the side of the train it said. No idea who SWOPE is. I believe the ski train originated in Houston via Dallas on the way to Denver.....if that helps. The Texas Zephyr was popular in Dallas because of it's look and schedule. http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/texzephyr196009.html
CSSHEGEWISCH When you consider that the "Texas Zephyr" was discontinued by 1968, I'm not sure that a rail market for that route exists any more.
It was abandoned in Sept 1967 due to loss of the mail contract. The train had sleeping and full dining car service to the very end along with several coaches I believe. I have seen an older picture of one of the ski specials at approx 12-13 cars led by two back to back E units but no idea on the date. SWOPE SKI SPECIAL on the side of the train it said. No idea who SWOPE is. I believe the ski train originated in Houston via Dallas on the way to Denver.....if that helps.
The Texas Zephyr was popular in Dallas because of it's look and schedule.
http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/texzephyr196009.html
And that abandonment because of loss of mail contract meant that the train was not drawing enough passengers to survive on its own, unlike other CB&Q trains of that era.
Of course in those days you didn't have numerous PRB coal trains grinding up and down Monument Hill (3000' above Pueblo, 2000 above Denver) @ 20 MPH. I don't think passenger trains sandwiched in there as automobiles on parallel I25 are zipping along at 75 would be very popular.
Trains ran an item a number of years ago written by an engineer on the Denver Pueblo crew district. He went on about how boring the 20mph assent of Monument is, I suspect passengers that aren't being paid to ride wouldn't feel better about it.
Amtrak needs more money and New Cars order of Superliners cars and more Viewliners cars too. Amtrak does not have cars to put any new LD trains on right Now. Maybe Wick can put New Order of Cars after Nov. See who gets into Office in D.C.
JPS1Oklahoma City to Fort Worth is pretty much a north/south route. Dallas to Fort Worth, however, is an east/west route.
They will either abandon that completely or extend it to Kansas City. It's not going to stay static too much longer. Amtrak favors heavily replacing the bus North from OKC to Newton, KS with a train. OK is behind that idea as well but needs to scrape up the funds. If I had to rate chances of it happening I would say now 50% extension to KC and 50% total abandonment of the train. Future direction is entirely in Oklahoma's hands with their budget. Texas is not paying any more for the train and they made that clear.
Philly Amtrak Fan I'd like to bring back some sort of Floridian to give Louisville and Nashville Amtrak service. I'd also like it to go through Atlanta although there are a lot of problems down there. I also think there needs to be Chicago to Houston service like the old Lone Star (or bring back the Houston leg of the Texas Eagle which would provide Dallas-Houston train service via College Station giving Texas A&M students a train to/from home). I'd also like to see service from the NEC to Texas.
I'd like to bring back some sort of Floridian to give Louisville and Nashville Amtrak service. I'd also like it to go through Atlanta although there are a lot of problems down there. I also think there needs to be Chicago to Houston service like the old Lone Star (or bring back the Houston leg of the Texas Eagle which would provide Dallas-Houston train service via College Station giving Texas A&M students a train to/from home). I'd also like to see service from the NEC to Texas.
They do need to bring back Chicago to Florida somehow, that is still a big market.
They attempted to start the Meridian MS to Dallas, TX (Southern Crescent extension) in several variants, last being just a truncated Dallas to Shreveport, LA train sponsored by Casinos. Everyone in Dallas likes the proposal and they like it in Louisiana as well but once you start talking about money, the enthusiasm disappears.
I think the Dallas to Houston service is probably not going to happen until the HSR proposal in place now falls apart.
North South routes in the east are not very speedy except the CNO or the Silver service trains. Any train between those routes suffers from the glacier mountains that are close together without many gaps to traverse.
yes the routes are available but either slow or very expensive to build HrSR lines.
The Texas Eagle is essentially a north/south train, although southbound it is slanting to the west. Northbound it is slanting to the east.
Oklahoma City to Fort Worth is pretty much a north/south route. Dallas to Fort Worth, however, is an east/west route.
According to TXDOT the I-35 corridor from DFW to San Antonio is the most densely populated corridor in Texas. In addition to the anchor cities, it has significant potential passenger rail markets in Waco, Temple, Round Rock, Austin, and San Marcos.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.