# H.R. 6003, The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act



## Chessie Hokie (May 12, 2008)

Here is a summary of legislation introduced by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last Friday on the NARP website:

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/main...#When:17:30:00Z

A few of the many intriguing points:


Amtrak self-sufficiency requirement repealed. 

Amtrak within 9 months of enactment, is to issue plan for the restoration of service between New Orleans and Sanford, Florida including projected timeline, costs of restoring and proposals for legislation needed. $1 Million authorized for preparation of plan. 

Amtrak with other bodies including unions and rail passenger advocacy groups to develop new metrics and minimum standards to measure train performance. 

New Contracts with host railroads to incorporate metrics and minimum standards where practical.

DOT-IG to evaluate performance of intercity rail services 6 months after establishment of metric and minimum standards. Using those standards, IG to identify in a report to Congress, the five worst performing Amtrak routes. At the same time IG to establish criteria for evaluating routes not currently being served by Amtrak and to compare proposals by Amtrak and other proposed service providers on how to serve the underperforming and unserved routes. The IG would then recommend 1 route currently not being served and 2 of the 5 worst performing routes to Congress for action. DOT Secretary prohibited from implementing recommendation until authorized by Congress.

Establishes a committee to design, develop specifications for and to procure standardized next generation corridor equipment. May establish a pool of equipment for corridor use. 

Comptroller General of the United States to study and compare passenger rail systems in United States with Canada, Germany, France, Great Britain, China, Spain & Japan.



Lots more where that came from, kids!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 12, 2008)

Wow. I hope this passes. I assume this is the House's variation of S. 297?


----------



## Rail Freak (May 12, 2008)

Chessie Hokie said:


> Here is a summary of legislation introduced by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last Friday on the NARP website:
> http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/main...#When:17:30:00Z
> 
> A few of the many intriguing points:
> ...


WOW, didn't know it would be so SIMPLE!!!!


----------



## Chessie Hokie (May 12, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Wow. I hope this passes. I assume this is the House's variation of S. 297?


I think it is actually S. 294, but yes, that is what this is intended to be. Thus, whatever finally emerges from the House will have to go into committee to be merged with the Senate bill into something acceptable to both bodies. Seems I have heard that Sen Lautenberg, sponsor of S. 294, has some major problems with the House legislation.

Anyway, there is a long way to go on this. Oberstar was very positive about the chances of it passing in the House. I'm hopeful.


----------



## George Harris (May 12, 2008)

Chessie Hokie said:


> Comptroller General of the United States to study and compare passenger rail systems in United States with Canada, Germany, France, Great Britain, China, Spain & Japan.


If they do this honestly, they would find in most performance areas other than average train speed we are already better.


----------



## transit54 (May 12, 2008)

George Harris said:


> Chessie Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > Comptroller General of the United States to study and compare passenger rail systems in United States with Canada, Germany, France, Great Britain, China, Spain & Japan.
> ...


Such as? Certainly not in ridership, I can say that for sure. I doubt we'd be better at a lot of the conventional economic measurements of performance, such as RASM*, CASM**, frequency of service and the like. I do believe that we have some superior aspects of our passenger rail system in the US, but I'll admit they are few and far between. I'd probably exclude Canada and China from my statements, as well as Britain potentially. But the others are light years ahead of where we are.

A few years ago, I read a fascinating book that did a similar comparison, called "New Departures: Rethinking passenger rail in the 21st century." It was one of the most insightful comparisons I've ever seen done between the US/Canadian passenger rail systems and those of Europe and Japan. I highly recommend it.

*Revenue per available seat mile

**Cost per available seat mile


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 13, 2008)

I disagree, in a lot of areas we are quite superior. Safety, for one thing! We have the safest passenger trains in the world. Also, I think we have vastly superior scenery for most of our long distance routes! In terms of passenger service, though, I'd say we have a lot to learn from Europe. I really don't want to see much change in the long distance services.

Here is what I'd like to see:

An overall equipment system containing:

• More Acela trainsets, with Acela service operating to Harrisburg, Albany, Springfield, Richmond, and Pittsburgh.

• A total single level sleeper service with enough cars to operate 1 deluxe sleeper (all bedroom) on each LSL-route and Silver route, 2 current Viewliners on each single level route, 1 or 2 slumber coach on each route, and atleast 2 sectional sleepers on each, with coach cars only used for non-overnight travelers.

• A total Superliner amount to allow 2 full sleepers, 1 deluxe sleeper, and 1 slumbercoach type sleeper (figuring that out would be interesting), plus several sectional sleepers for each overnight Superliner train.

• A new 150 mph capable diesel equivalent to the Acela to provide high speed express service on all 3 hour plus corridor trains.

• Electrification from Washington to Richmond, Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, New York Penn to Albany (or maybe Schenectady), and New Haven to Springfield.

• Completion of grade separation.

• Full continuous tension catenary.

• A new diesel locomotive capable of atleast 125 mph for certain trains.

• New Superliner cars of all kinds, with at-least one frequency of each train getting _Coast Starlight_-esque first class accommodations.

• New Coach, Diner, Lounge (of a sightseer type) and baggage cars to match the new single level sleepers.

Train Routes:

• _National Limited_ brought back.

• _Desert Wind_ restored.

• _North Coast Hiawatha_ restored.

• _Pioneer_ restored.

• _General_ limited/local train from NY to Chicago via Pittsburgh

• _Broadway Limited_ brought back as a nearly non-stop all-sleeper train from NY to Chicago. Limited stops in Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh.

• _Floridian_ restored.

• _Gulf Coast Limited_ restored.

• _Montrealer_ restored.

• _Silver Palm_ restored with sleepers in addition to, not replacing, the _Palmetto_.

• _International_ restored with two frequencies, both day and overnight.

• _Twilight Shoreliner_ restored with sleepers.

• _Federal Express_ overnight train departing Richmond at 6:30, stopping only in Washington, Philly, New York, and Boston.

• _Empire Builder_, _Lake Shore Limited_, _Southwest Chief_, _California Zephyr_ and _Coast Starlight_ gaining at least another frequency

• _Cardinal_ goes daily.

• _Sunset Limited_ restored to Florida and made daily

• Hub created in New Orleans with service to Detroit, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Las Vegas, and Denver.

• Hub created in St. Louis with service to Florida (provided by Floridian), Los Angeles, Denver, Las Vegas, Portland, Seattle, and Toronto.

• Hub created in Denver with service to Los Angeles, New Orleans, and Seattle.

• Additional frequency over _Silver Meteor_ route, in addition to _Silver Palm_ which will do its pre-truncation route.

• Dedicated high-speed rail in California with 200mph speeds as the goal.

• 3 daily high-speed (125-150) frequencies added over _Pierre Marquette_, _Blue Water_, _Wolverine_, _Illini/Saluki_, _Hiawatha_, _Lincoln Service_, _Anne Rutledge_, _Illonois Zephyr_, and _Heartland Flyer_ routes.

• High speed and regular corridor service between Chicago and Twin Cities.

• _Panama Limited_ brought back, with _City Of New Orleans_ resuming its rightful place using high-speed equipment as an all daylight train.


----------



## WICT106 (May 13, 2008)

I would like to see a network along the lines of what Green Maned Lion proposes, with services so that the routes would have service at least twice per day each direction. I would also like to see money with which to upgrade the tracks in several areas of the country, so as to remove or ameliorate the bottlenecks that prevent higher speeds. I would also like to see more money with which to compensate those landlords that require it in order to passenger services to FRA Class 5 (90 mph speed limit) or Class 6 (110 ? mph speed limit). I would also like to see execution and installation of the MWRRI.

As long as I am on a tear, I would also like to see service restored to Madison, WI -- perhaps by re-routing the Empire Builder -- as well as restart of the Duluth, MN - Chicago _North Star / Arrowhead._ A guy can dream, can't he ?


----------



## edding (May 13, 2008)

As long as we're totally day-dreaming, is there a reason why we can't add direct service to Phoenix,AZ -- it is after all the 5th largest city in the country. And while we're at it let's add service between Toledo & Detroit and international service to Toronto and then on to NYC through both/separately Detroit & Sarnia.

Ed


----------



## DaveKCMO (May 13, 2008)

why can't hiawatha trains alternately terminate in madison and greenbay/sheboygan?


----------



## Neil_M (May 13, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I disagree, in a lot of areas we are quite superior. Safety, for one thing! We have the safest passenger trains in the world. Also, I think we have vastly superior scenery for most of our long distance routes!


On what basis do you make that rather flimsy claim? How many accidents do you have at grade crossings each year? Each one of those has a potential for a major league rail pile up and unless you have barriers on both sides of the road and/or a longer time between train approaching and the barriers going down then it presents a very real chance of an accident.

How much track is not fitted with any form of in cab signalling or even signals?

Why do I see piles of damaged wagons from yet another freight train pile up?

130 wagon trains with a single pipe brake system? Not the best approach.....

Given the relatively small number of trains run each day on the Amtrak system and the low average speed compared to places like Germany, France and Switzerland or even the UK, its probably not surprising there are less severe accidents in the USA, but that requires investment and improvement, not just luck...


----------



## WICT106 (May 13, 2008)

DaveKCMO said:


> why can't hiawatha trains alternately terminate in madison and greenbay/sheboygan?


I do not know about either Green Bay or Sheboygan, but the track for Madison and the surrounding area is FRA Class 2 or worse. In other words, the track in the Madison area, as it is right now, would not permit speeds in excess of 25 - 30 mph. Amtrak refuses to operate on track of such quality, and I cannot say that I blame them.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 13, 2008)

Neil_M said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree, in a lot of areas we are quite superior. Safety, for one thing! We have the safest passenger trains in the world. Also, I think we have vastly superior scenery for most of our long distance routes!
> ...


Not quite. Our trains are safer because they are more solidly built. We have very strict standards for passenger car safety. On the other hand, in europe, most of those trains are light as heck and crumple like tin cans in accidents.


----------



## Neil_M (May 13, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Not quite. Our trains are safer because they are more solidly built. We have very strict standards for passenger car safety. On the other hand, in europe, most of those trains are light as heck and crumple like tin cans in accidents.


Not quite. Try looking at the history of the British Rail Mk3 coach. Only around 35 tons, but been involved in some big accidents, yet the vehicle kept its shape and didn't crumple like a tin can.

Rail safety isn't just about building heavy vehicles, its keeping road vehicles off the track and other trains out of the way of your train.

Regardless of how well and heavy you think your passenger car is, if its involved in a head on with another train at 90mph then the end result is still a pile of mangled scrap.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 13, 2008)

I wasn't referring to British rail.


----------



## Neil_M (May 13, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I wasn't referring to British rail.


That's in 'Europe' as well.....

And the vehicle to which I refer is one of the "light as heck" ones that crumples like a "tin can" but actually doesn't.....


----------



## Kramerica (May 13, 2008)

DaveKCMO said:


> why can't hiawatha trains alternately terminate in madison and greenbay/sheboygan?


I think that may be what the "plan" is, based on the Midwest Regional Rail System Report:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/stat...railmidwest.pdf

Go to page 10 and you'll see a proposed frequency table. There are 17 daily trips from Chicago to Milwaukee. Then it also lists 10 from Milwaukee to Madison and 7 from Milwaukee to Green Bay. It doesn't explicitly say it, but I am assuming those would be continuous trains.

If even half that plan was implemented, that would be phenominal.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 14, 2008)

Mostly in reaction to Green Maned Lion's list:

I certainly think that more Acela trainsets and adding two business class cars to each existing Acela trainset probably makes sense, and I certainly want sleepers on the Twilight Shoreliner.

After the CSX vs MA liability disagreement gets worked out, I think a long term goal ought to be high speed commuter rail between Boston and Springfield; I think the trip could be done in under an hour if it's possible to build 200 MPH track for enough of the route. (I don't know if the geography actually makes enough 200 MPH track practical.) If that happens, some Amtrak service between Boston and New Haven ought to be rerouted via Springfield.

Where existing freight railroad rights of way are wide enough and straight enough, I'd like to see Amtrak buy part of the total width of the right of way, and build a dedicated passenger track, ideally spending the money on a concrete base for all that new track, and generally planning the spacing with the idea that someday 200 MPH trains will run on that track, without having to completely rebuild that track from scratch. Perhaps part of this program should involve grade separations from roads, too. Something will still have to be done to allow the existing freight track to cross the passenger track, probably as a level crossing of the tracks, so that the freight railroads can get to their existing spurs. Perhaps at major spurs, the passenger track can pass above the freight track with a 3% grade.

I think this should be done along all of Amtrak's existing long distance routes. It'll probably be a lot cheaper than building the Interstate Highway system was. (And remember that the Interstate Highway system is completely grade separated from the local roads, which makes me not understand how grade separating the railroads could be too expensive to be feasible.)

The goal should be to get an average of at least 150 MPH along the western long distance routes, and perhaps we should see if we can beat the French in this area (in which case we'd probably need to average more like 177 MPH). At that speed, having passing tracks every 25 miles or so might be adequate if there is only one passenger train every four hours in each direction, especially as a starting point to keep initial costs down a bit. However, if there's space, it would be best if Amtrak's share of the right of way is wide enough for eventual expansion to two or more tracks. (Though I'm not sure if Amtrak would ever need more than two tracks in places where there is never commuter rail.)

And in some places, creating a completely new right of way may be more practical than trying to get Amtrak to own part of the existing right of way.

I'm not sure if faster diesels really make sense. The really fast trains in any given country (I'm thinking of the Acela and TGV) seem to be electric. Maybe we should just be focusing on the electric trains.

Why isn't the Cardinal daily now? The lack of Diner-Lite and Viewliner cars? (It seems like the mothballed P40s and Amfleet Is could easily fill in the rest of a Cardinal consist.)

I'm not sure I'm convinced slumbercoaches make sense. The main argument for them is that they're cheaper than roomettes. But if Amtrak actually owned an adequate supply of sleeping cars similar to the current designs, it might become possible for Amtrak to sell roomettes at lower prices than they do now, especially to travlers who can be flexible about their travel dates.

I would like a train that departs Boston no earlier than 6 PM and arrives in Chicago Union Station reliably at the time 49 is alleged by the Amtrak System Timetable to arrive at its final destination now, without needing to change trains in Albany, and possibly without physically joining it to the cars that come from NYP. This train should use equipment that doesn't freeze up in the winter when it goes to Boston.

Of course, I also want a similar train that arrives at that time in Seattle instead of Chicago. I think part of what I really want here is for Chicago to be a hub that sorts sleepers in the middle of the night, so that a particular car can be designated as going from a particular right coast route to a particular left coast route, and each right coast route can have a single westbound overnight train, with that train having a sleeper for each west coast route. Or perhaps the sleeper sorting hub should be somewhat south of Chicago.

I think the tracks the Downeaster uses should be electrified, and the North South Rail Link built through Boston, so that the Acela trainsets can also run to Maine.

Amtrak should also maybe think about better airport connections. Can tracks be built directly to all of the airport terminals to get rid of the stupid shuttles? Does it make sense to build a couple pieces of track so that Amtrak can easily stop at the Philadephia airport without ever having to back up? Does it make sense to electrify the LIRR tracks that go to JFK and LGA so that NEC trains that currently run between DC and NYP could continue to JFK and LGA before terminating? Can the tunnel used by the MBTA SL1 bus be converted to heavy rail with track going directly to the Logan Airport terminals so that Amtrak can take people directly to Logan? Can the tracks to Manchester, NH be electrified and a spur built that goes right to the Manchester airport terminal?

However, in the short term, it sounds like if Congress can pass just the small set of improvements they're proposing now, that will be better than no Amtrak funding bill being passed by Congress.


----------



## AlanB (May 14, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Why isn't the Cardinal daily now? The lack of Diner-Lite and Viewliner cars? (It seems like the mothballed P40s and Amfleet Is could easily fill in the rest of a Cardinal consist.)


I wouldn't want to overnight in an Amfleet II coach, much less an Amfleet I coach. For a trip of 6 to 7 hours an Amfleet I coach can be rather trying, I sure wouldn't want to spend 28+ hours in one. And they've already got enough P42's to run daily, without needing to pull a few P40's out of mothballs.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Does it make sense to electrify the LIRR tracks that go to JFK and LGA so that NEC trains that currently run between DC and NYP could continue to JFK and LGA before terminating?


There are no LIRR tracks that go to either LGA or JFK. The closest the LIRR ever gets to LGA is probably the Woodside stop and that's still at least a mile away or more. The closest the LIRR gets to JFK is Jamaica, again probably a mile or more away. Now technically it might be possible to reconfigure the AirTrain tracks to connect with the LIRR tracks, but then I'm not sure that conventional trains can handle some of the grades on the AirTrain line.

I suppose that the LIRR given funding could also reactivate it's line to Rockaway off the main line to Jamaica, but that still leaves it short of the airport and would conflict with the A train once you get down to Howard Beach.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 14, 2008)

The elimination of the self-sufficient operation is an indicator that they are serious about improving things.


----------



## Neil_M (May 14, 2008)

The "Fantasy Island" wishlists are all very well, and some ideas mentioned do make sense, but whatever happens with the political side of things, its all years off yet, even if you ordered some off the shelf trainsets tomorrow, its still going to be a year or so, or more, till you get them in service.

Amtrak needs to focus on getting right the things it does now, so that in the future people are tempted to come back. Getting toilets to work, air conditioning to cool, diner cars to serve food, getting the train to arrive on time, and doing a host of little things to prove to the passengers its a good idea to use the train is not as glamourous as some fancy new high speed train full of whistles and bells, but for the next few years thats what needs to happen to keep the customer happy. Not everyone on a train is a railfan. People just want to go from A to B at a good price, in some sort of comfort and arrive in 1 piece.

One bad experience will put them off, and make them tell their friends and family how bad it was.


----------



## frj1983 (May 14, 2008)

WICT106 said:


> DaveKCMO said:
> 
> 
> > why can't hiawatha trains alternately terminate in madison and greenbay/sheboygan?
> ...


Since my hometown is Sheboygan,

The trackage north from Milwaukee on UP is all Single Track with very few passing sidings. While the trackage is in excellent shape, most trains are long, slow, coal drags...so more trackage would be needed. North of Sheboygan the trackage is in really poor shape and I'm not totally sure, but I believe there is a section of it which is either gone or no longer used. The better direction would be to go through the Fox River Valley area...Oshkosh, Appleton and thence to Green Bay!


----------



## Larry H. (May 14, 2008)

Senators and Congressmen should be required to ride at least an overnight or preferably the whole western routes to actually see what the passengers do. It might make some real changes. We recently went round trip to California and on the way out the Sleepers Bathrooms didn't work for two days of the trip. On the Southwest Chief we had the same problem. One of the attendants said the issue was that it took two functioning vacuum pumps to make them work in high altitude and only money for one was spent. They have know this forever and still they run this way. Having the congressmen see there fellow passengers remains every day in the toilet might get at least those fixed.

The overall trip was good, but many features are suffering. Poorer food quality and more rushed and surly dinner crews as a result. The dinners should seat people like guest instead of cattle. You do as they say or your out! My mom who is 85 had eye surgery and is not comfortable with sun in her face. When we were seated at breakfast on the sunny side I ask the Lady in charge to be seated out of the sun and her reply was that "we could close the curtain". We enjoy the scenery and riding with the drape closed ruins that experience. The other side was empty and she quickly sat people there. There is no reason for the price you pay you should be treated in that manner. I think I will start a new thread about the dinner situation..

We had a customer service manager riding the Coast Starlight and talked at length about what we thought of the trains and conditions. He was receptive to many things but still had the attitude that cutting back the lounges and diners make good economic sense and that the Cross County Cafe cars were doing better revenue wise. Every one I meet on that train want the lounge back including the conductors and crew. It may happen they say, we will see.


----------



## DaveKCMO (May 14, 2008)

frj1983 said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> > DaveKCMO said:
> ...


is anyone actively pursuing such a thing? the grassroots group we have in kansas has been really effective at getting lawmakers' attention by getting official support from cities on or near the proposed route. seems like a no-brainer since there is so much frequency already!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 14, 2008)

Neil_M said:


> Amtrak needs to focus on getting right the things it does now, so that in the future people are tempted to come back. Getting toilets to work, air conditioning to cool, diner cars to serve food, getting the train to arrive on time, and doing a host of little things to prove to the passengers its a good idea to use the train is not as glamourous as some fancy new high speed train full of whistles and bells, but for the next few years thats what needs to happen to keep the customer happy. Not everyone on a train is a railfan. People just want to go from A to B at a good price, in some sort of comfort and arrive in 1 piece.One bad experience will put them off, and make them tell their friends and family how bad it was.


Getting the trains to run on time probably requires dedicated passenger track at some speed. And if you're going to do that at all, it's probably most cost effective to know where you're going to want to end up so that you can save money in the long run by doing some of the things for faster speeds with the earlier construction.

(The track doesn't quite have to be dedicated to Amtrak. Amtrak handles dispatching on the NEC tracks in Massachusetts that are shared with the MBTA Commuter Rail system, and I don't think that causes problems. On the other hand, the situation Amtrak experiences through western Connecticut on Metro North owned and dispatched tracks is less than ideal, but I think some of the problem there is that the Metro North tracks are running pretty close to their maximum capacity, and there's no obvious easy place to put more tracks for most of the length of that route.)

The only problems I have personally seen with toilets on Amtrak is inadequate cleaning during corridor runs. And Amtrak is apparently making some progress in that direction, though the Regional trains may not yet be getting cleaned en route. (I was in one of the restrooms on train 449 in coach last week on Friday sometime after Pittsfield, the second to last stop, and the only issue was that the trash can was nearly full. But the coach was slightly less than half full; it may get worse when the coach is full. Amtrak probably ought to have someone board at some intermediate stop to empty out those trash cans if that's not the responsibility of any of the crew on that train.)

I haven't personally seen air conditioning problems, and the diner-lite cars I've experienced have managed to serve edible food without any real difficulty.

I do wish Amtrak would build a bunch of single level dining cars that have real kitchens, but that's not something they're likely to be able to have in service everywhere six months from now.


----------



## DaveKCMO (May 14, 2008)

seems like an obvious upgrade to all trains would be hand dryers, like on some corridor trains. that alone could save much of the cleanup effort.


----------



## jis (May 14, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I disagree, in a lot of areas we are quite superior. Safety, for one thing! We have the safest passenger trains in the world.


Where did you get that from? Could you provide a citation with actual mortality and injury statistics?

We certainly don't have that by a long shot when compared to Japan, who run for decades without any accidents, specially on their high speed network.

My concern is if we do not even recognize the problems we have we would never get around to fixing them. Hence always good to know the actual facts backed by statistical data.



> Not quite. Our trains are safer because they are more solidly built. We have very strict standards for passenger car safety. On the other hand, in europe, most of those trains are light as heck and crumple like tin cans in accidents.


Man! You have really drunk the FRA Koolaid haven't you? In the industry actually there is quite a lively debate going on on this very subject and it is by far not certain that FRA's approach actually saves lives. There is some evidence that in higher speed crashes carriages that do better energy management thus ensuring that passengers do not face accelerations beyond a threshold that is damaging to them, and do so by crumpling at designated places safely away from the passenger compartment actually come out better than the tanks the FRA requires by its regulations. So the case is not as open and shut as you make it sound.

By saying that "we have very strict standards for passenger car safety" if you are insinuating that the Europeans or the Japanese don't I woud take that with a rather large pinch of salt


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 14, 2008)

Neil_M said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't referring to British rail.
> ...


When England gets off their obstinateness and joins the rest of EU with the Euro, and a million other things it doesn't follow, I'll consider it part of Europe. Until then, it is part of the British Isles, which are an off-continent island.

In general, I find that British rail standards are much heavier than the trains in Europe proper.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (May 14, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Not quite. Our trains are safer because they are more solidly built. We have very strict standards for passenger car safety. On the other hand, in Europe, most of those trains are light as heck and crumple like tin cans in accidents.


I don't entirely agree with this statement. TGV's have derailed at 220 with no reported injuries. European trains are designed to crumple, the equipment absorbs the impact rather than the people inside. Being light also helps greatly with braking in an emergency. Ours are built to completely destroy whatever they hit, this works good in grade crossing accidents and light crashes but in a major crash European equipment would be safer because of the way crash forces are managed.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 15, 2008)

Does the European equipment manage the energy in a way that doesn't crush passengers even if it collides with a freight train that consists of 150 cars that weigh 300,000 pounds each?

(Maybe that's not quite a realistic question. I know that there are freight cars in the US that weigh over 300,000 pounds, and I know that there are trains with 150 cars, but I don't know if trains full of 300,000 pound cars are ever 150 cars long. Then again, the freight railroad industry seems to like to gradually move to bigger trains, and with 30+ year lifespans on passenger equipment, assuming the current largest freight train is the largest freight train we might have 20 years from now may be poor planning.)


----------



## Neil_M (May 16, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Your knowledge of politics and geography seems to be on par with that of your knowledge on rail vehicle construction and safety.....

Stick to the Pizza joint recommendations.


----------



## Neil_M (May 16, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Does the European equipment manage the energy in a way that doesn't crush passengers even if it collides with a freight train that consists of 150 cars that weigh 300,000 pounds each?
> (Maybe that's not quite a realistic question. I know that there are freight cars in the US that weigh over 300,000 pounds, and I know that there are trains with 150 cars, but I don't know if trains full of 300,000 pound cars are ever 150 cars long. Then again, the freight railroad industry seems to like to gradually move to bigger trains, and with 30+ year lifespans on passenger equipment, assuming the current largest freight train is the largest freight train we might have 20 years from now may be poor planning.)


When you say 'collides' do you mean head on? If so then there generally aint a lot you can do.

The fact that most passenger trains have at least a loco or two and maybe a baggage car might take the sting out of the crash for the passenger cars, but something like an Acela or cab car would not fair so well.

There was a debate in the UK a while back about allowing passengers into the leading cars of trains travelling at 125mph and the design of the crumple zone at the front of these vehicles, but when you look at the forces involved in a head on, then it is massively higher than the crumple zone could ever protect. The best way to protect the train is not to crash into another train in the first place!


----------



## George Harris (May 16, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Not quite. Our trains are safer because they are more solidly built. We have very strict standards for passenger car safety. On the other hand, in Europe, most of those trains are light as heck and crumple like tin cans in accidents.
> ...


I do not think you know what you are talking about. The whole "crumple zone" concept only works up to a point. Beyond that, goodbye. I have two words to say about the safety of European rail equipment: Eschede, Germany. Read about the details of that accident. If all the things wrong and done wrong there had existed in the US every tort lawyer in the US would have been able to become a rich person. These cars did not "crumple" they came apart.

Japanese trains are extremely safe, but that is because of fanatic attention to detiail in everything operational. They also managed a high speed derailment in an earthquake with no injuries of significance. But, that was on a track wit a smooth concrete slab base.

By the way, a couple of years ago a study on railroad accidents on a world wide basis put Western Europe about equal to India when the statistics were put on a passenger-kilometer basis.


----------



## jamesontheroad (May 16, 2008)

And unfortunately the lack of movement between US standards and non-US standards means that many thinner US routes will never see passenger service. Here in the UK and Europe only relatively lightweight DMU and EMU units can make passenger rail commercially viable


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 16, 2008)

Neil_M said:


> Your knowledge of politics and geography seems to be on par with that of your knowledge on rail vehicle construction and safety.....Stick to the Pizza joint recommendations.


My knowledge of politics and geography aren't relevant to my statement. This is the great blessing and curse of human language. I can perceive things one way, you can perceive them another. I do not consider consider England part of Europe, I don't consider Bermuda or the Caribbean part of North America, the Falklands part of South America, Madagascar part of Africa, or Sri Lanka part of the Indian sub-continent. Whether the world in general considers it so is a moot point.

My knowledge of rail vehicle construction is not as relevant as my basic knowledge of physics, which tell me, quite frankly, that in most accidents that a train can get into, solidity is more important than crush zones. Crush zones are only important if the item impacted is an inanimate object that can't be moved easily. Crush zones would be quite helpful if the train crashed head on into, say, a concrete wall. A really really really thick one. Since train wrecks generally do not involve crashing head on into concrete walls, however, this is irelelvant.

What is relevant is that most train wrecks that involve derailments are the ones where serious injury seem to occur. In a derailment, crush zones are almost irrelevant because the train accordions if it is at any speed. The crush zone, by and large, would be bypassed. However, the heavy construction stops the car from being crushed like a tin can and means survival rate is surprisingly high.

Further, look online for the November '07 crash of the Pere Marquette. 100 people minorly injured, 5 people seriously, and AFAIK, none dead. Look at the force with which it stopped, then come back an argue with me about. But please, lose the chip on your shoulder.


----------



## Neil_M (May 16, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > Your knowledge of politics and geography seems to be on par with that of your knowledge on rail vehicle construction and safety.....Stick to the Pizza joint recommendations.
> ...


At about 35mph? Hardly conclusive.... And why did it run into the back of the stationary freight train? Best way to survive a train crash is not to have one.

Heavy construction doesn't mean the vehicle is 'strong', as I mentioned before, the BR designed Mk 3 coach is fairly lightweight but the passenger compartment has survived some serious accidents due to the bodyshell being designed to keep it rigidity.

If you want to survive a derailment then better keep those road vehicles away from the railway, about 1000 incidents at grade crossings a year? Someones luck is going to run out one day.

Keep up the geography lessons. You might get there one day.....


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 16, 2008)

Do you really need to insult me to get your point across or is it an affectation?

As for your opinions on rail car construction practice, we must agree to disagree.


----------



## Guest RailFan (May 26, 2008)

WICT106 said:


> I would like to see a network along the lines of what Green Maned Lion proposes, with services so that the routes would have service at least twice per day each direction. I would also like to see money with which to upgrade the tracks in several areas of the country, so as to remove or ameliorate the bottlenecks that prevent higher speeds. I would also like to see more money with which to compensate those landlords that require it in order to passenger services to FRA Class 5 (90 mph speed limit) or Class 6 (110 ? mph speed limit). I would also like to see execution and installation of the MWRRI.
> As long as I am on a tear, I would also like to see service restored to Madison, WI -- perhaps by re-routing the Empire Builder -- as well as restart of the Duluth, MN - Chicago _North Star / Arrowhead._ A guy can dream, can't he ?



I believe Amtrak, Illinois, and Wisconsin have already completed their studies on restoring service to Madison by extending the Hiawatha service.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (May 26, 2008)

For those interested in the "light vs. heavy passenger cars" discussion, here's a few interesting statistics:

1. Collisions at crossings account for 96% of train-caused injuries (cited here).

2. Trespassers account for the largest number of rail-related fatalities in the U.S. – approximately 500 per year (here).

3. A motorist is almost 20 times more likely to die in a crash involving a train than in a collision involving another motor vehicle (here).

4. There are approximately 3000 train/car collisions each year, resulting in about 300-400 fatalities and 1000 injuries per year (here).

5. The rate of deaths for Amtrak passengers is only slightly higher than air travel, and approximately 25 times safer than traveling by car here).

I read another source, which I can't find right now, which stated that most injuries to train passengers were not related to the structure of the car at all - instead, passengers were injured by items inside the car itself (i.e. hitting tables, chairs, other passengers, etc. upon impact). So, it appears that the weight of the train car itself is almost irrelevant to the number of train-related injuries & deaths each year. We'd be a lot better off addressing grade crossing safety, making passenger car interiors safer (seat belts anyone?), and decreasing the chance of injury in train/human collisions (if you're going to put a crumple zone anywhere, perhaps it should be on the front of the locomotives instead of in the passenger cars).


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 26, 2008)

Grade separations are often paid for by general highway/road funds and not by rail funds, I believe.

If that's true, one of the things you need to consider when evaluating whether to get rid of a grade crossing with a railroad is whether there's some other road project that has nothing to do with trains that would be more cost effective at improving safety.

Somewhere there's a list of the hundred most dangerous intersections in Massachusetts. I bet a lot of them are more dangerous than any railroad-highway grade crossing in Massachusetts


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 26, 2008)

God forbid they require seatbelts. That would make the train very unpleasant to ride in! They are already practically the safest form of transport in the US. Why make them much more unpleasant with limited improvement in safety?


----------



## RailFanLNK (May 27, 2008)

I contacted my Representitive Jeff Fortenberry...have all of you? The more people who rattle the cage on this the better it is. DO NOT point fingers or e-mail in an accusatory tone. Writing letters can be troublesome due to security precautions. A quick phone call or go to the Representitives website, click on "Transportation" and ask for support for this aforementioned bill. Have your ducks in a row if you call. Keep things short and to the point. Know the House Bill's number. So glad all of you have read this and now are finding your Representatives website or phone number. Remember this is a "house" bill and not the Senate. Contact your Rep not your Senator on THIS bill. Can folks post who actually took the time to do this! Lets see 900 replies to my question! Git er done! Do not take time to contact "other" Representatives that DO NOT represent your home address. Complete waste of time. If you do not know your rep (shame on you) you can easily find out on the internet. Ready...set....GO CALL/E-MAIL YOUR REP!!!!

Al

PS. Don't care if you are Democrat and your loathe your Republican rep or if you are Republican and you loathe your Democratic rep, set aside politics on this. Remember on just one Amtrak train there are probably people from Red States, Blue States, Christians, non-Christians, aethiests, anarchists, Hindu's, Amish, Drunk, Sober, Muslim, Buhdists, educated, illiterate, gay or straight, adults and children, conservative or liberal. Tryin' to make a point here: EVERYONE can use a better rail infrastructure.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (May 27, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> God forbid they require seatbelts. That would make the train very unpleasant to ride in! They are already practically the safest form of transport in the US. Why make them much more unpleasant with limited improvement in safety?


I wasn't suggesting that Amtrak should actually do this. I agree that seat belts would be a pain. However, when they get around to designing another generation of passenger cars, it WOULD make a difference if Amtrak made the INSIDE of its rail cars safer. For example, if passengers are most likely to get injured by slamming into tables, walls, etc. during a crash, perhaps they should design "breakaway" tables, walls, etc. to reduce passenger injuries.

The point was that it doesn't make sense to nix high-speed rail because it would require lighter, "unsafe" cars, when other safety factors (i.e. crossing safety) are much more important (in terms of reducing the number of deaths and injuries). Furthermore, as Joel N. Weber II pointed out,



Joel N. Weber II said:


> If that's true, one of the things you need to consider when evaluating whether to get rid of a grade crossing with a railroad is whether there's some other road project that has nothing to do with trains that would be more cost effective at improving safety.
> Somewhere there's a list of the hundred most dangerous intersections in Massachusetts. I bet a lot of them are more dangerous than any railroad-highway grade crossing in Massachusetts


So, if the real goal should be reducing the number of accidents, injuries, and deaths for ALL travelers, making auto transportation safer in general should be a higher priority than making rail travel safer. You may remember that I mentioned that train travel is about 25 times safer than traveling by car. When you look at those risks, the difference between the level of safety in a light passenger rail car vs. a heavy passenger rail car is almost negligible.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 28, 2008)

I have a problem with government intervention in safety. I'll mention one example we all know, Airbags. Airbags are not a safety device. They cause a lot more injury and death than they prevent. An eye-opening study by NCAP demonstrated that Airbags only cause injury. The life saving feature is actually a un-sung hero invented in conjunction with MBs airbags, a part of the whole SRS system, called a pyrotechnic pretensioner. It basically operates by setting off a small rocket that tightens then latches the slack out of the seatbelt, thereby keeping you in your seat and preventing the airbag from doing much to you. The study came out conclusively in 2001, yet airbags are not only still required but are becoming required in other places!

This is neglecting the fact that the best safety device a car can have is, has been for fifty years, a four-point safety harness integral with a solidly mounted seat. I have seen half a dozen production cars featuring them, almost exclusively from Audi.

It doesn't matter that the airbag is heavy, inefficient, wastes massive amounts of fuel, (the system typically weighs several hundred pounds) and only causes injury. Its still in cars because the regulatory commission isn't going to embarrass themselves by banning something once required. I don't want newfangled "safety" on Amtrak trains that will be basically the same thing.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 28, 2008)

Does your Mercedes have a sufficiently solidly mounted seat? And can you get an aftermarket four point harness?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 28, 2008)

Its sufficiently solidly mounted, but I haven't put 4 pointed harnesses on it. To be honest, I have yet to find a comfortable seat like that- generally because the seats that have them are designed for racing. Also, I find standard Mercedes seats uber-comfortable- my computer chairs is one mounted on a swivel base.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (May 28, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I have a problem with government intervention in safety. I'll mention one example we all know, Airbags. Airbags are not a safety device. They cause a lot more injury and death than they prevent. An eye-opening study by NCAP demonstrated that Airbags only cause injury.
> It doesn't matter that the airbag is heavy, inefficient, wastes massive amounts of fuel, (the system typically weighs several hundred pounds) and only causes injury. Its still in cars because the regulatory commission isn't going to embarrass themselves by banning something once required. I don't want newfangled "safety" on Amtrak trains that will be basically the same thing.




Again, netiher I nor anyone here said that Amtrak should add airbags. However, in terms of cars, every major automotive organization (for example, check the IIHS here) says that airbags save lives. As for the NCAP, I have not seen the report you mention. However, the NCAP lists airbags as a positive safety feature on all their car tests on their web site.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 28, 2008)

The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety exists for the purposes of reducing accident costs. Not saving lives.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (May 29, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety exists for the purposes of reducing accident costs. Not saving lives.


The point of an airbag is to reduce injuries and deaths during car accidents. If airbags were _harmful_ during a collision, more people would be injured or killed, and insurance companies would have to shell out more money in claims. Do you really think that insurance companies would continue to shell out millions (or hundreds of millions, or even billions) on insurance claims just because they don't want to be "embarrassed"?

Anyway, the whole point of this thread has been lost. At last count, your beloved 1995 Mercedes 300D is the current topic of conversation in three different threads, all of which originally dealt with trains. So, end of tangent, at least for me.


----------



## kw (May 29, 2008)

D.P. Roberts said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety exists for the purposes of reducing accident costs. Not saving lives.
> ...


Seat belts save lives in collisions... if they are worn. They also cause injury and even death, be it at a dramatically lower rate then what they prevent. Overall SRS airbag systems also save lives, even if in some accidents they cause increased injury or death. I have seen the results, I am a volunteer firefighter. Crossing gates save lives... If people dont drive around them, lol. The law of the lugnuts is at work here (the more lug nuts you have in a collision you win!). Passenger rail cars impailing themselves into 300000 lb freight cars need to be heavy to try to transfer some momentum and not stop to quickly, smooshing passengers and causing flying objects in the passenger cars. European freight rail is much lighter and less frequent so lighter cars can survive in that enviroment. Bottom line is prevention of accidents in the public transport enviroment is going to be the most cost/injury effective. 767's are NOT expected to be survivable when they fall out of the sky, the FAA and airlines stratigy (and successful the last several years) has been to not crash them.


----------



## SUNSETLIMITED02 (May 29, 2008)

Uh.......... Guys I don't know if you know this but this bill got approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rep. Gene Taylor a few days ago.


----------



## jackal (May 30, 2008)

SUNSETLIMITED02 said:


> Uh.......... Guys I don't know if you know this but this bill got approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rep. Gene Taylor a few days ago.


Thanks for the update--haven't been following the news lately (only what's posted here on this board), so please keep us updated!


----------



## SUNSETLIMITED02 (May 30, 2008)

I got this information from the google group known as Sunset Un-limited.


----------



## MrEd (May 30, 2008)

SUNSETLIMITED02 said:


> I got this information from the google group known as Sunset Un-limited.


th

do they have any information on when sunset service will be restored ?


----------



## Neil_M (May 30, 2008)

kw said:


> European freight rail is much lighter and less frequent so lighter cars can survive in that enviroment.


"Lighter" I could give you, less frequent? Depends on where you are standing, there are some places in Europe with one freight a week, but stand at Erstfeld in Switzerland, Or Dijon in France or anywhere along the Rhine Valley in Germany and you are very wrong.


----------



## Neil_M (May 30, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety exists for the purposes of reducing accident costs. Not saving lives.


Is there _any_ subject you don't think you know everything?

Surely the best way to reduce accident costs is to have less of them, and a by product of that is less people dead? Or is that too simple to begin to make sense?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 1, 2008)

There is a huge volume of subjects on which I think I don't know everything, or even a great deal about them. In such instances, drawing on my fine command of the English language, I say nothing.


----------



## SUNSETLIMITED02 (Jun 1, 2008)

SUNSETLIMITED02 said:


> I got this information from the google group known as Sunset Un-limited.


They are a group supporting the restoration of the Sunset Limited. They helped formed SMART (Sunset Marketing And Revitalization Team). Go on google groups and type this in exactly (Sunset Un-limited).


----------



## Neil_M (Jun 1, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> There is a huge volume of subjects on which I think I don't know everything, or even a great deal about them. In such instances, drawing on my fine command of the English language, I say nothing.


:blink:


----------



## Shotgun7 (Jun 1, 2008)

Man, LET IT GO!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 1, 2008)

Neil_M said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > There is a huge volume of subjects on which I think I don't know everything, or even a great deal about them. In such instances, drawing on my fine command of the English language, I say nothing.
> ...


Let me put it another way: If I don't think I'm qualified to argue, discuss, or coherently debate, I don't, and perhaps even ask questions. You do notice that I do ask questions as well as state opinions, yes?


----------



## Chessie Hokie (Jun 11, 2008)

Passed in the House of Representatives this afternoon by a vote of 311 Yeas to 104 Nays.


----------



## GP35 (Jun 11, 2008)

Chessie Hokie said:


> Passed in the House of Representatives this afternoon by a vote of 311 Yeas to 104 Nays.


Correct me if I am wrong, this vote is high enough to over-ride a veto, right?

Ofcourse we would still need a senate vote of 67 senators to also be high enough to beat a veto.


----------



## Rafi (Jun 11, 2008)

GP35 said:


> Chessie Hokie said:
> 
> 
> > Passed in the House of Representatives this afternoon by a vote of 311 Yeas to 104 Nays.
> ...


That is correct. The vote was veto-proof on the house side. First time in a while for Amtrak if memory serves me. All the more reason to put pressure on your state senators to shoot for a veto-proof vote on that side as well.

Rafi


----------



## meatpuff (Jun 11, 2008)

GP35 said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, this vote is high enough to over-ride a veto, right?Ofcourse we would still need a senate vote of 67 senators to also be high enough to beat a veto.


My analysis:

This is good. Yes, that is a veto-proof majority. And in fact the Senate passed a companion bill, S.294, last year with a veto-proof majority (70 aye - 22 nay). Also good.

BUT the bill still has to make it through conference, i.e. the House and Senate bill must be mated, and then THAT must pass by a veto-proof majority (unless of course they can drag it out 7 more months AND Barack Obama is elected). Some news sources are saying this could be tricky because though the money is similar for both bills, there are some substantial differences. The most likely sticking point is that the House bill says Amtrak MUST allow private operators to be able to compete to run their own passneger service on the NE Corridor. This was definitely a factor in getting plenty of G.O.P. House votes onboard with this bill.

Heh. I say let that provision stay in there. I am reminded of when I do my income taxes, there is a blurb in the instructions that spells out what steps you should take if you would like to make a donation to the federal government towards the public debt. It seems this provision is cut from the same cloth: the federal government is excited to announce a new way for you to lose money! I am sure the business community will be all over it. And if some entrepreneur does somehow manage to run a more attractive service than Amtrak, well, the passenger wins.

One other comment, now there can be no doubt that, _these days at least_, the Democrats are the more friendly of the two parties toward Amtrak. Democrats in the House voted 224-0 for H.R.6003, and Democrats in the Senate supported S.294 by 43-0.


----------



## MrEd (Jun 13, 2008)

House took this bill up on Wednesday, did not see the outcome.

Amtrak's previous authorization expired in 2002. Amtrak says that having a new authorization in place will make it easier for the company to make long-term plans.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 13, 2008)

meatpuff said:


> The most likely sticking point is that the House bill says Amtrak MUST allow private operators to be able to compete to run their own passneger service on the NE Corridor. This was definitely a factor in getting plenty of G.O.P. House votes onboard with this bill.
> Heh. I say let that provision stay in there. I am reminded of when I do my income taxes, there is a blurb in the instructions that spells out what steps you should take if you would like to make a donation to the federal government towards the public debt. It seems this provision is cut from the same cloth: the federal government is excited to announce a new way for you to lose money! I am sure the business community will be all over it. And if some entrepreneur does somehow manage to run a more attractive service than Amtrak, well, the passenger wins.


It all depends how much the private operator has to contribute towards the debt that has been incurred building the NEC. If the answer is $0, or even industry standard trackage rights fees, it's quite possible that this would be a government handout to whatever individuals happen to own the company that runs this business, if Amtrak has to pay for all of the construction costs out of profits from selling tickets for trips on worn out trainsets.

I'm not sure how much risk there is of any trainsets bought by such a company becoming useless if the price of those trackage rights suddenly went up by a lot, but I suspect the trainsets would have some value to some commuter rail system somewhere in the country.


----------



## meatpuff (Jun 13, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> It all depends how much the private operator has to contribute towards the debt that has been incurred building the NEC. If the answer is $0, or even industry standard trackage rights fees, it's quite possible that this would be a government handout to whatever individuals happen to own the company that runs this business, if Amtrak has to pay for all of the construction costs out of profits from selling tickets for trips on worn out trainsets.
> I'm not sure how much risk there is of any trainsets bought by such a company becoming useless if the price of those trackage rights suddenly went up by a lot, but I suspect the trainsets would have some value to some commuter rail system somewhere in the country.


I didn't read the bill, but I'm very confident that such a private operator's costs could only include those above the rails, plus perhaps these trackage rights fees. Certainly they wouldn't pay for capital improvements and maintenance on the NE Corridor.

Your analysis is not precisely correct on this, Amtrak does not pay for construction costs on the Corridor out of earnings from ticket sales, either. Those costs are funded out of their capital budget, which is kept separately in their books and is appropriated separately by Congress.

I don't think the privatization scenario is any panacea, but neither is the current situation. Yes, Amtrak could be whipped into cutting costs more by adding a competitor; but suppose the private competitor defeated Amtrak and had a monopoly of their own. They could charge whatever they wanted. At least Amtrak is somewhat bound to serve the public good in running their service and setting ticket prices. The laissez-faire capitalist folks complain about Amtrak's inefficiencies, but firms with virtual monopolies bring inefficiencies (and high prices) of their own. Just look at Microsoft, patent-protected prescription drugs; or the railroads before regulation and the competition brought by trucking, private autos and airlines. Some House members could probably do with a history lesson.

Such is the dilemma when there is only ONE Northeast Corridor.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 13, 2008)

meatpuff said:


> I didn't read the bill, but I'm very confident that such a private operator's costs could only include those above the rails, plus perhaps these trackage rights fees. Certainly they wouldn't pay for capital improvements and maintenance on the NE Corridor.
> Your analysis is not precisely correct on this, Amtrak does not pay for construction costs on the Corridor out of earnings from ticket sales, either. Those costs are funded out of their capital budget, which is kept separately in their books and is appropriated separately by Congress.


But Amtrak is also expected to pay the interest and principal on the loans that Amtrak took out years ago to make those capital investments, right? I'd expect that on the NEC, the number of dollars of the average Amtrak ticket that goes to pay off those capital investments may exceed the trackage fees that a new corporation would have to pay from their ticket sales. And if that's the case, this is a handout from taxpayers to that private corporation.

You could argue that if Amtrak is currently paying the freight railroads less than industry standard trackage rights (which may or may not be the case), that might also be unfair, but then again, the initial builders of those rights of way often got handouts from the government to begin with, and then went bankrupt, and the current railroad generally hasn't paid off the full private costs that were incurred constructing that railroad, so it may be the case that the current freight railroads are getting a much, much better deal than they would have been getting if they didn't have to let Amtrak operate over their tracks but they'd had to pay to construct the tracks completely from scratch on land that had never previously had a railroad.


----------



## jis (Jun 13, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> But Amtrak is also expected to pay the interest and principal on the loans that Amtrak took out years ago to make those capital investments, right?


 For NEC track improvements under NECIP they were all straight grants. No loans and hence no interest payments at least for that part. 
OTOH in the Warrington years in order to raise cash to keep Amtrak solvent many capital assets were sold and leased back and real estate mortgaged. Those lease and mortgage payments will have to be picked up by someone.



> You could argue that if Amtrak is currently paying the freight railroads less than industry standard trackage rights (which may or may not be the case), that might also be unfair, but then again, the initial builders of those rights of way often got handouts from the government to begin with, and then went bankrupt, and the current railroad generally hasn't paid off the full private costs that were incurred constructing that railroad, so it may be the case that the current freight railroads are getting a much, much better deal than they would have been getting if they didn't have to let Amtrak operate over their tracks but they'd had to pay to construct the tracks completely from scratch on land that had never previously had a railroad.


Some railroads got land grants (e.g. UP) and others did not (e.g. GN, predecessor of BNSF), and either way even those that got land grants have mostly met the obligations that were placed on them in the way of doing land development along the rights of way granted, and indeed it is the US Government and by implication the nation that has really done well as a result of those deals. So I don't think the argument holds much water.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 13, 2008)

If a private operator runs the Corridor, and Amtrak is dispatching it, how well do you think that operator is going to do with OTP if Amtrak sees them as a threat?


----------

