# Do we really need HSR for LD?



## Qapla (Jan 23, 2021)

It has been mentioned that HSR is needed to bring riders back to Amtrak (or any LD train) - but, is that really the case?

Someone linked a video of a trip from NY to LA in another thread. That video makes some interesting observations/points.


One of the things the narrator said (starting at 27:40) is that Amtrak should be viewed as being more than "just a train" - he said it was a combination of:



He also extolled the virtues of the "relaxed pace" of the train. It should be noted he is a frequent flier and logs thousands of miles yearly by air. This seemed to be his first coast-to-coast train trip.

It made me think ... while train travel is often compared with the speed of planes or the freedom of driving - maybe it is time to quit "comparing it". Maybe it is time to extoll the virtues of train travel. Point out what it does offer instead of what it doesn't.

Watch the video and see what you think about this subject.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jan 23, 2021)

IMHO think about this way. The part of the United States east of the Mississippi River could benefit from a European or Japanese style hsr system. Some of the longer TGV trips are 600 or more miles. When the trains are operating at a speed of close to 200 miles per hour that’s a 3 hour trip. There are many decent size cities are n the eastern half of the country. It takes political will but imho it’s worth while. Passenger trains are separated from freight traffic and road crossings. Our roads and airports are already at capacity.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 24, 2021)

The reason why it's justified to invest taxpayer funds into long-distance trains is that (1) they provide transportation services to rural areas with few, if any, public transportation alternatives, and (2) they provide mobility for people who, for medical reasons, can't fly or drive. There is also those of use who enjoy or prefer riding the train for the experience, and, of course, our patronage helps the revenue bottom line, so it's to Amtrak's (and the taxpayers') benefit to accommodate us. Amtrak is justified running the premium-level service (i.e. sleeping cars) and providing decent food service as a way to cross subsidize the essential transportation service. 

Now, for these services, high speed rail, with average point to point speeds of 100 mph and maximum speeds of up to 200 mph aren't really necessary. In fact, to have real high speed rail service, you would need to eliminate as many stops as possible, which means that a long-distance high speed rail wouldn't serve the small rural towns that it's designed for. It would probably be worthwhile to speed up conventional long distance trains, mainly by incremental track improvements where needed and elimination of bottlenecks so the trains can have point-to-point average speeds of ~60 mph, which is faster than most people do on road trips, at least if they consistently obey traffic laws and don't wear astronaut diapers.  

An east-coast -- Chicago HSR service, also service Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Toledo, might attract customers -- a 100 mph point-to-point average speed would make New York - Chicago and Washington - Chicago a day trip, and a Night Owl service would be good competition to the alternative of having to get up in the very wee hours of the morning to catch an early flight. But it would probably cost zillions of dollars to build the true HSR right of way needed, especially for the segment that crosses the Appalachians. I suppose if the Southeast HSR gets fully built, and it ever becomes real HSR (probably not in my lifetime), there would be HSR between the NEC and Atlanta, which is now considered a "long-distance" train ride.


----------



## flitcraft (Jan 24, 2021)

HSR is very much a corridor idea, though I am not optimistic that I will live to see it here in the US. China uses HSR for much longer runs, but I think that the market for US transcontinental and even semi-continental travel is going to be biased towards planes, at least unless and until planes are required to pay for all of their costs, including the environmental costs. That might propel folks to consider trains for non-time-sensitive travel.


----------



## west point (Jan 24, 2021)

In the east I believe just HrSR ( 125MPH ) might be sufficient. My experience in TGV type trains is that it is too fast to be able to fully comprehend the scenery going above 130. 125 ATL = WASH would be ~ 5 hours and ATL - NYP 7 hours ! WASH - JAX = 6 hours. CHI - NOL = 8.5 hours. Those ~~ numbers are of course non stop and add 10 minutes for each stop along the routes. As well no slow orders on any of the tracks.


----------



## Ziv (Jan 24, 2021)

I agree. The US is so large it is probably best to have two types of service. Higher speed for the 8 or 9 corridors that merit it and a service level that is slightly faster than what we have today on the LD network for the rest.
I think the Vision for High Speed Rail map is pretty useful, look at the NEC(plus Buffalo and Pittsburg), the Chicago network, the Pacific NW, California/Las Vegas, Texas, Florida (Bright) and the GA/SC/NC region (which would hopefully tie into the NEC eventually). Not all of the Higher Speed networks would get up to 200 mph because the cost to do it wouldn't be worth it. But getting to 125 mph or 160 mph and for some, to 200 mph would yield travel times that transform the US rail industry. Trying to get to 220 mph seems to be more expensive than the speed is worth. 
For the LD network getting a slightly better system in place to deal with freight interference is probably more important than getting the max speed up to 95 mph because top speed doesn't matter if you are sitting on a siding or stopping every 30 minutes for a scheduled stop. But getting the Emprire Builder/Zephyr/Chief average speed up above 55 mph would be useful. Not as useful as better dining and twice daily service, but useful nonetheless.
JMHO



MARC Rider said:


> The reason why it's justified to invest taxpayer funds into long-distance trains is that (1) they provide transportation services to rural areas with few, if any, public transportation alternatives, and (2) they provide mobility for people who, for medical reasons, can't fly or drive. There is also those of use who enjoy or prefer riding the train for the experience, and, of course, our patronage helps the revenue bottom line, so it's to Amtrak's (and the taxpayers') benefit to accommodate us. Amtrak is justified running the premium-level service (i.e. sleeping cars) and providing decent food service as a way to cross subsidize the essential transportation service.
> 
> Now, for these services, high speed rail, with average point to point speeds of 100 mph and maximum speeds of up to 200 mph aren't really necessary. In fact, to have real high speed rail service, you would need to eliminate as many stops as possible, which means that a long-distance high speed rail wouldn't serve the small rural towns that it's designed for. It would probably be worthwhile to speed up conventional long distance trains, mainly by incremental track improvements where needed and elimination of bottlenecks so the trains can have point-to-point average speeds of ~60 mph, which is faster than most people do on road trips, at least if they consistently obey traffic laws and don't wear astronaut diapers.
> 
> An east-coast -- Chicago HSR service, also service Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Toledo, might attract customers -- a 100 mph point-to-point average speed would make New York - Chicago and Washington - Chicago a day trip, and a Night Owl service would be good competition to the alternative of having to get up in the very wee hours of the morning to catch an early flight. But it would probably cost zillions of dollars to build the true HSR right of way needed, especially for the segment that crosses the Appalachians. I suppose if the Southeast HSR gets fully built, and it ever becomes real HSR (probably not in my lifetime), there would be HSR between the NEC and Atlanta, which is now considered a "long-distance" train ride.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Jan 24, 2021)

Ziv said:


> I agree. The US is so large it is probably best to have two types of service. Higher speed for the 8 or 9 corridors that merit it and a service level that is slightly faster than what we have today on the LD network for the rest.
> I think the Vision for High Speed Rail map is pretty useful, look at the NEC(plus Buffalo and Pittsburg), the Chicago network, the Pacific NW, California/Las Vegas, Texas, Florida (Bright) and the GA/SC/NC region (which would hopefully tie into the NEC eventually). Not all of the Higher Speed networks would get up to 200 mph because the cost to do it wouldn't be worth it. But getting to 125 mph or 160 mph and for some, to 200 mph would yield travel times that transform the US rail industry. Trying to get to 220 mph seems to be more expensive than the speed is worth.
> For the LD network getting a slightly better system in place to deal with freight interference is probably more important than getting the max speed up to 95 mph because top speed doesn't matter if you are sitting on a siding or stopping every 30 minutes for a scheduled stop. But getting the Emprire Builder/Zephyr/Chief average speed up above 55 mph would be useful. Not as useful as better dining and twice daily service, but useful nonetheless.
> JMHO



In this country, a massive number of truly "high speed" corridors is unrealistic. It would be ideal if we could duplicate Europe's and Asias's success but the will and funding just isn't there, even with a pro-rail administration, which is regrettable. It's just too expensive. California's messy experience has done a major disservice to the "high speed" rail movement. It seems unlikely that will ever be fully completed. In most instances, you compete against cars, not air. "Higher speed" seems reasonable, and but what matters most is "reliable" service. The riding public wants to know it can count on the schedules in these corridors to deliver as promised. Upgrade the track and remove bottlenecks where possible, double rack and add sidings where needed to give passenger trains the advantage, and market the hell out of it.


----------



## jis (Jan 24, 2021)

United States, the richest nation in the world, also surprisingly appears to be the most defeated nation in the world when it comes to renewing and upgrading its infrastructure in an organized fashion. This is quite puzzling I might add.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 24, 2021)

Amtrak could do well to incorporate HS rail (defined by me here as 150+ sustained) along with standard trains that could do 80mph sustained or 100 peak but no less than 60 except when approaching/departing stations especially in the east. HS rail does not preclude eliminating stations as in most places, stations are an hour or more apart so we're still talking 30 minutes (with station approach and departure slower) between stations.

Even the "standard train" definition would dramatically reduce long distance times in most cases especially if all stations had high sufficiently-long platforms, marked loading zones, etc.

I believe HS rail should be reserved for dense traffic areas only. WAS-ATL, DAL-FTW, CHI-DET and MSP and CIN, NYP-ALB, etc.


----------



## joelkfla (Jan 24, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> HS rail does not preclude eliminating stations as in most places, stations are an hour or more apart so we're still talking 30 minutes (with station approach and departure slower) between stations.


Did you really mean "preclude" (rule out), or did you mean to say "require" or "necessitate"? I get the sense you were saying stations would _not _have to skipped.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 24, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> Did you really mean "preclude" (rule out), or did you mean to say "require" or "necessitate"? I get the sense you were saying stations would _not _have to skipped.


I did mean that - stations in most if not all places don't have to be skipped. For those that are already close such as Raleigh/Cary on the Carolinian or Greenville/Spartanburg on the Crescent, those places would do better with local train transit. But rural areas are rural (witness Alpine, Tx) and far enough from other stations to deserve a stop. If multiple HS trains traverse a route without having "locals" also ala Regionals on the NEC, then not all stations need all trains but given that Japan used to make 2 minute stops in the early 70s at major cities, rural stops would not need to be eliminated. The overall time savings would still be dramatic as compared to what we have now.
We don't need train heaven tomorrow but we do need trains that run faster, don't have the freight delays, handle stations much better, etc. and that's a lot easier and less expensive than one dream train running up the west coast.


----------



## jis (Jan 24, 2021)

In the US we could try to strive for modest performance oriented goals as are being pursued by India, such as 900 mile intercity trips in 12 hours, requiring at most 100mph max speed, something that is quite achievable using present ROWs with all their kinks, given that we do have PTC now. But it will require a unified vision to pursue across the transportation agencies and the private ROW owners. This might involve laying at least one additional track in the existing ROWs and such. But unfortunately at present we are nowhere near even that yet.

One big advantage India has over us is that they have a fully electrified railroad in its main line network, so their 100mph trains which are planned to have around ten stops on the way, and will face numerous PSRs and TSRs, will still have significantly better performance that what we can achieve with diesel traction, since they also plan to run trains with tope tail dual power and eventually evolve to their T-18 distributed power 20-24 car train sets. But hey, we've gotto start somewhere, and 100mph max with diesel will place us at a much better place than where we are now.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 24, 2021)

I was thinking about what I enjoy and what the guy in the video said about "enjoying the trip". He said he had flown over the same landscape many times but had never really seen it. The speed of the train allows you to actually see the view, especially since you don't have to "keep your eyes on the road" while traveling.

I was thinking these features should be the thrust of advertising for rail travel. Don't bemoan the fact that it takes several days to cross the country (as compared to the speed of a plane) - highlight the relaxed pace!

Maybe C-19 will help make people see a more relaxed method of travel is not only safe, it is fun - we don't always have to be in such a hurry


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jan 24, 2021)

Qapla said:


> It has been mentioned that HSR is needed to bring riders back to Amtrak (or any LD train) - but, is that really the case?
> 
> Someone linked a video of a trip from NY to LA in another thread. That video makes some interesting observations/points.
> 
> ...



Absolutely right on! And for sake of argumentative support... LD rail travel provides things that short HS rail does not. There will always be preference among the traveling public for travel that is pleasurable... often called 'the destination' in itself. 

As ships cruise along at a slow pace on the seas... often just stopping a ports of call for a cultural visit... then return to home port... LD travel goes at a slower pace between larger city pairs and allows passengers to relax and enjoy the scenery, make new friends, and arrive at destination very relaxed.

LD travel also brings transportation to small cities and towns along the way... these places too... are the backbone of America. And don't exclude tourism to 'out of the way' places.

One of the finest destinations in America is the entire route of the California Zephyr... bringing to travelers some of the most amazing scenery in America.

To break things down to justifiability... there are aesthetic and fundamental reasons for continuing LD. The US Congress representatives want viable transportation options for the people they serve. 

For these and so many other reasons... LD travel must be maintained. It's a service by the government for the people. BTW, does anyone think the US Postal Service should be cancelled because email is faster? 

I wouldn't bet on it! To quote Biden, let us all 'Unify' for those ideas and principles that unite us!


----------



## caravanman (Jan 24, 2021)

I agree that TGV speeds are impressive if you want to get from point to point quickly, they are great. I guess that describes most passengers needs.
I found when travelling on the fast French trains that the scenery does get blurred. The train environment is more like a low flying sealed capsule and for, me, as a leisure traveller, it is not my first choice for travel.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 24, 2021)

We need to quit making "slow train travel" a "bad" thing. There are many people who still walk in parks and trails - why walk when you can ride a bike, or even better, a motorcycle ... much faster.

The same is true for LD trains. They don't need to go as fast as a plane - but they need to be more enjoyable then they are now. OTP is essential. Quality food should be served since you have a captive audience for several meals. Comfort and cleanliness is a necessity and friendly attendants who are there to "help" the riders, not just collect a paycheck.

Then, these things need to be promoted as a reason to take the train.

Trains cannot compete with the speed of planes nor the freedom of a car - quit trying to compete on those fronts - offer and promote what a train can offer, not what it can't.


----------



## tricia (Jan 24, 2021)

Before even assessing the "need" for HSR in the US, might we arrange for reliable OTP on existing trains? 

I'd bet my house that most current and potential rail riders care far more about whether they can count on a train arriving at its scheduled time than whether it can be made to go a bit faster.


----------



## AFS1970 (Jan 24, 2021)

No question that at least part of the reason for taking Amtrak is the experience. For me on the NEC it is also a matter of convenience. I can get on the train a few blocks from home and ride to Boston, Philly or DC in a few hours. For me to fly would involve adding hours onto the trip to go to an airport all for a shorter flight. The time would probably be nearly the same, but at least on the train I am always making progress. 

I do think HSR would be good for the country, and I think the LD routes would see the biggest benefit. I think if stops had to be skipped, it would make sense to do different stops on different trips with maybe a local or two to help make connections. I think HSR is what will save train travel. Depending on what goes on in Florida (and if anything ever happens in California) there may be room for both Amtrak and some private carriers, but that would be secondary to actually building the infrastructure. 

As for cruise ships going fairly slowly, they do, but on my two cruises, I have flown to get to the ship, I didn't take a cruise to get to the cruise. I planned a vacation on the west coast a few years ago and was originally going to have two train segments but opted for one train and one flight because it shaved a day off of a week long vacation. I can not imagine business travelers opting for the slower pace of a train when work is involved.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 24, 2021)

AFS1970 said:


> I planned a vacation on the west coast a few years ago and was originally going to have two train segments but opted for one train and one flight because it shaved a day off of a week long vacation. I can not imagine business travelers opting for the slower pace of a train when work is involved.



This is one of the issues I am talking about. Amtrak does not have to compete with the airlines for business if people would quit thinking of trains as a slow plane. While you were willing to take a train to travel to your vacation but changed to a plane to save time just says that the train was only transportation - not the point of the trip.

The video in the OP compared the trains to transportation, Amusement Park and National Treasure.

When people go to Disney, they may take a plane to get there quicker than driving - but, while at the park they do not try to "hurry through" and miss the fun. When people fly to a port to take a cruise, they do so so they can spend more time on the ship (you even mentioned flying to take a cruise). The same could be the case with trains if people would quit thinking it has to be fast to compete with planes.

Advertise the fun on the train - then make sure that fun is there. Make sure the trains run on time and every day. Make sure the windows are clean. Make sure the cars are clean. Serve decent food and have friendly attendants. The scenery will take care of itself.

I know, some people want to call them "land cruises" - as though that is a bad thing. Well, the RV industry has been making a fortune on people taking land cruises on the road. What's wrong with a train trip being a land cruise? We should quit deriding the idea that a land cruise is somehow a bad thing and encourage them, advertise them, extol them and then deliver them!


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jan 24, 2021)

tricia said:


> Before even assessing the "need" for HSR in the US, might we arrange for reliable OTP on existing trains?
> 
> I'd bet my house that most current and potential rail riders care far more about whether they can count on a train arriving at its scheduled time than whether it can be made to go a bit faster.





Qapla said:


> We need to quit making "slow train travel" a "bad" thing. There are many people who still walk in parks and trails - why walk when you can ride a bike, or even better, a motorcycle ... much faster.
> 
> The same is true for LD trains. They don't need to go as fast as a plane - but they need to be more enjoyable then they are now. OTP is essential. Quality food should be served since you have a captive audience for several meals. Comfort and cleanliness is a necessity and friendly attendants who are there to "help" the riders, not just collect a paycheck.
> 
> ...



'You bet ya!' Don't underestimate the groundswell of Congressional support for LD! I found this quote impressive... showing support from representatives who's state wouldn't benefit... but it being in the national interest...

"Near the end of session, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) told Flynn, “I fully support using money you make on the north end of the Northeast Corridor to provide service to some of those rural areas — the ‘red’ states. Those lines don’t necessarily benefit my district but they benefit the country. … I hope you take very seriously the credibility that you will lose by engaging in these furloughs, and the representational damage that comes to Amtrak management. I’m asking you to reconsider that [because] it is not going to save the day.” Cutting 2000 employees, Lynch said, “is going to reduce service and spiral that bottom-line deficit. You’re going to lose the faith of members of Congress like me, who are behind you, because of this decision.” 

We're all in this together!  









Will Congress hold Amtrak accountable for providing essential passenger rail service? - Transportation For America


Communities large and small, urban and rural, are served by Amtrak's national network of long distance routes, providing essential connections to jobs, services, and the broader economy. Amtrak is threatening to dramatically cut these services, severing essential connections despite clear...



t4america.org




.









Congress grills Amtrak over cuts to long-distance service


Nine Republican and seven Democratic members of the U.S. Senate have asked Amtrak to explain its decision to suspend daily long-distance service on 12 routes.




www.hsrail.org










Sen. Moran, Colleagues Urge Amtrak to Continue Support for Routes That Connect Rural Communities


WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) joined a bipartisan group of colleagues in calling on Amtrak to continue service to rural communities in Kansas and across the United States by investing in long-distance and state-supported routes, including the Southwest Chief.? “We are writing...




www.moran.senate.gov


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Jan 24, 2021)

I agree that both HSR and LD (albeit slower) have (or should have) their places in the US rail system. Both have their own benefits, depending on the types of passengers who use them. Some want to enjoy the journey, while others just want to get from point A to point B.

Funding and political will aside, the size and geographic layout of the US presents quite a challenge for both LD and HSR. Even if all members of Congress (and state governments) were willing to fund passenger rail to whatever extent is necessary, and even if there wasn't quite as much "NIMBY" as there is now, there would still be obstacles to overcome. 

Also, I don't think it's always a good idea to look at other countries' rail systems and say "well the US should do exactly (or close to) the same thing. Different countries/regions have different populations with various needs and priorities.

As far as some people's opposition to US rail improvements goes, it's not necessarily that they flat-out don't want it; they just don't fully understand how it can be beneficial. 

$0.02


----------



## flitcraft (Jan 24, 2021)

LookingGlassTie said:


> Also, I don't think it's always a good idea to look at other countries' rail systems and say "well the US should do exactly (or close to) the same thing. Different countries/regions have different populations with various needs and priorities.


 More importantly, different ideologies about government spending. If we were trying to build the interstate highway system today, people would be screaming about waste and taxes, and arguing that all we need to do is patch a few potholes on the state roads we've already got.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jan 24, 2021)

flitcraft said:


> More importantly, different ideologies about government spending. If we were trying to build the interstate highway system today, people would be screaming about waste and taxes, and arguing that all we need to do is patch a few potholes on the state roads we've already got.


Well said... and I don't hear any talk about HS auto travel... over 70 or 80mph??? Burns more gas and causes dangerous HWY accidents. 

So there you have it... HS is for train only... as for the skies... yup, they have the speed but they must pay the price in pollution and all the security check in and check out hassles; etc. etc. etc... and don't forget the hassle of getting to and from the airport. With rail travel that transports masses of travelers at only a fraction of the pollution foot print... No contest!

This is why rail travel will exceed and succeed!


----------



## Qapla (Jan 24, 2021)

Just because it is "better" and "makes more sense" does not mean it will succeed - remember BetaMax tapes?


----------



## west point (Jan 25, 2021)

One reason I went with 125 MPH )HrSR) is that can avoid the initial cost of electrification. Trains can be operated with multiple Siemens chargers. Now do not get me wrong. I heavily support electrification but believe it needs application first on high density ( passenger ) routes. Of course any rebuilding of routes can be designed for high speed rail (HSR) where possible with future electrification .

One help that going for passenger 125 on freight RRs is that passenger trains can get around freight trains much faster so there are less delays for freight trains as well. On a full double track where freights are authorized 60 and passenger 79 we have a long distance for a following Amtrak train to get around the freight. ( Dispatcher comments ?) Makes oncoming trafficthat is restricting for Amtrak to get around a freight. Again it is eliminating all the slow sections of the tracks.

For good consistent 125 operation grades kept to 1 % where possible. Curves no more than 1-1/2 to 2 degrees of curvature. That allows for super elevation of tracks to stay below tipping angles for high center of gravity cars.

One consequence of HrSR as proposed will mean there will need to be additional trains to make the many stops that our current LD trains make. for instance ATL - CLT - Raleigh - Richmond-WASH only train(s) would need 1 or 2 locals that make the 20 additional intermediate stops now served. 20 additional stops adds at least 100 - 150 minutes to enroute times. S;owing and acceleration takes time. Talk about the need for additional equipment when you add this onto all the present LD routes. That route has real significant possibility of coming soon with the "S" line being acquired and almost ready for construction. 

NYP - Albany - Buffalo certainly can be a first for 125 operation if NY State can do a deal much like Virginia did with CSX. Maybe even extend NYS to Erie. Then if beyond to Toledo and onto Detroit and on the Michigan route to CHI. That has a lot of potential and should come in maybe before all the ATL - WASH can be completed.

The next thing is crossing eliminations. If financing could come from the highway trust fund grade crossing eliminations could proceed if not at warp speed but at least max impulse speeds The construction should be a 24/7 operation. Our local town could raise the tracks over all three grade crossing if the route becomes a offshoot of the Crescent.


----------



## jloewen (Jan 25, 2021)

You all are talking about heavy use corridors like DC--Atlanta. I've taken the Crescent from DC to ATL and back several times. It does NOT get heavy use. Maybe 30 people on a good day. None of them (but me) traveling for business, from the looks of them and who meets them. Since the trip puts you into ATL at 8:30AM, ready to do business, the question arises, "Why not?" The fact that it may be late is one factor, to be sure, altho I have never BEEN late into ATL. (After ATL, going to Birmingham or Hattiesburg, yes, I've been somewhat late. Also, I concede I may simply have been lucky.)
I don't think business travelers have Amtrak even in the back recesses of their minds, even when it might be time effective and cost effective for them.
Can we fix this? I don't know.


----------



## willem (Jan 25, 2021)

jloewen said:


> I don't think business travelers have Amtrak even in the back recesses of their minds, even when it might be time effective and cost effective for them.
> Can we fix this?



In 2003, I took a train from the city where I was employed to a city where I would attend an employer-sponsored training class. The travel people had never heard of such a thing and needed to research how to document and pay for it. I had a roomette one way and a bedroom the other, and it was cheaper than the negotiated city-pair fare for the flights. (I had an extra day of travel in each direction, for which I would have needed to use vacation time if they hadn't been weekend days.) I took trains to and from training on a few other occasions, which included vacation time other than travel and personal travel expense due to the train fare being higher than negotiated city-pair flights. To my knowledge, no one else in the office has taken a train for any official (or non-official, for that matter) travel before or since.


----------



## Cal (Jan 25, 2021)

Qapla said:


> It has been mentioned that HSR is needed to bring riders back to Amtrak (or any LD train) - but, is that really the case?
> 
> Someone linked a video of a trip from NY to LA in another thread. That video makes some interesting observations/points.
> 
> ...




I don't think we need HSR to long distance. First of all, all the best HSR corridors are similar to the Northeast, where they have some large cities in a straight(ish) line, and they are only a few hundred miles apart. This allows them to make a sector of straight track and have competitive times to airlines. Amtrak long distance often spans at least 1,000 miles, and has to traverse mountains. It would be really hard to make it high speed. 

And honestly, I think that taking it slow and being able to enjoy the scenery is all we need. It would be nice if we could get higher speeds on some parts of it, and equipment that is more up-to-date. In addition to making better amenities. This would make it truly, more of a land cruise and still transportation. I'd rather have it be that then rushing through America at a high speed. 

I'm (mostly) all for short corridor HSR. Would benefit us a lot! Just not long distance. 

Also I've been watching Jeb Brooks for a few years, great guy. Was so excited when he took the Chief


----------



## Cal (Jan 25, 2021)

Qapla said:


> We need to quit making "slow train travel" a "bad" thing. There are many people who still walk in parks and trails - why walk when you can ride a bike, or even better, a motorcycle ... much faster.
> 
> The same is true for LD trains. They don't need to go as fast as a plane - but they need to be more enjoyable then they are now. OTP is essential. Quality food should be served since you have a captive audience for several meals. Comfort and cleanliness is a necessity and friendly attendants who are there to "help" the riders, not just collect a paycheck.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with your statement. I just wish that we could get new equipment so it doesn't feel so dated. Make it more comfortable, get traditional (or possibly a bit better even) dining back. Include the little touches that used to make travelling on Amtrak feel so luxurious. Improve OTP. And ensure all staff are consistent. Just make it more of a true land cruise. 

Now of course this will not happen ever, or at least not for a very long time. But hey, I can dream...


----------



## sttom (Jan 25, 2021)

I would say HSR is not something we need at the present moment beyond the current projects that are currently in motion. Given how useless Amtrak is for a lot of city connections, selling Congress or any of the states on a TGV style system would be justifiably a hard sell. It would be a better use of capital funds to nationalize the rights of way of the class 1s, start the process of upgrading them and expand Amtrak service. High speed rail systems in other parts of the world were built after their conventional systems were overcrowded and capacity expansion would have been more expensive than the alternative. We need a better conventional rail system not only to prove that rail could work again which would justify more rail projects. 

I would also say we don't really need HSR to revive long distance travel. "Long Distance" has two different definitions, Amtrak defines it as over 750 miles where as the Bureau of Transportation Statistics defines a long distance trip as over 50 miles and not a part of a commute. They also record that a long distance car and train trip are around 190 miles and a long distance bus trip is around 290 miles. Even at 90 mph a 290 mile trip could be done in under 4 hours on a 90 mph train depending on how many stops are made and for how long. A bus could make the same journey in closer to 6 hours. Trains can be an attractive option so long as trains are frequent enough, faster than driving and less stressful. I would also wonder how many people don't take trips because driving is inconvenient. I know I have decided against taking trips because leaving for a 4 hour (without traffic) after work just wasn't worth it to me. If there was a train that I could have taken after work, I would have made the trip.


----------



## joelkfla (Jan 25, 2021)

west point said:


> The next thing is crossing eliminations. If financing could come from the highway trust fund grade crossing eliminations could proceed if not at warp speed but at least max impulse speeds The construction should be a 24/7 operation. Our local town could raise the tracks over all three grade crossing if the route becomes a offshoot of the Crescent.


Are grade crossing eliminations mandatory for 125mph? Or are quad gates and intrusion detectors adequate?


----------



## Cal (Jan 25, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> Are grade crossing eliminations mandatory for 125mph? Or are quad gates and intrusion detectors adequate?


I would assume they are mandatory, not sure though


----------



## jis (Jan 25, 2021)

Cal said:


> I would assume they are mandatory, not sure though


Grade crossing with positive barriers, like you see at airport entry points to the secure airside, are allowed above 110mph. But no one really wants to deal with those. So in effect grade crossings are not allowed above 110mph. Quad gate and intrusion detectors are not adequate above 110mph.


----------



## Cal (Jan 25, 2021)

jis said:


> Grade crossing with positive barriers, like you see at airport entry points to the secure airside, are allowed above 110mph. But no one really wants to deal with those. So in effect grade crossings are not allowed above 110mph. Quad gate and intrusion detectors are not adequate above 110mph.



Well honestly just getting our long distance trains to do 100 (which is the top speed for the superliners) would be great.


----------



## toddinde (Jan 25, 2021)

flitcraft said:


> HSR is very much a corridor idea, though I am not optimistic that I will live to see it here in the US. China uses HSR for much longer runs, but I think that the market for US transcontinental and even semi-continental travel is going to be biased towards planes, at least unless and until planes are required to pay for all of their costs, including the environmental costs. That might propel folks to consider trains for non-time-sensitive travel.


My view is that higher speed is desirable for long distance trains. My experience living and working in Europe is that the benefit of flying into an airport and easily continuing by rail is huge. Further, I think people make the mistake that the only travelers that matter are going from major cities to major cities. If you’re going say from Topeka to Albuquerque or Denver or Oklahoma City, the train could easily be time competitive and a much more leisurely trip than driving to Kansas City and going by way of DFW or Chicago. Awhile ago, I had to go from Tucson to Lawton, Oklahoma. I flew, but it took as long as driving. The US economy is severely hindered by our extremely poor and deficient rail passenger system in comparison to our peer competitors. If we don’t get going on developing rail, we’re going to be left behind. We can begin by beefing up existing Amtrak service with new equipment, more frequencies on existing lines, strategic expansion of routes, more feeder busses, and then targeted new infrastructure like long stretches of passenger dedicated tracks alongside existing rights of way that could accommodate 110 and 125 mph running. Along with this, investments to reduce choke points that hurt freight and passenger movements. Getting 30 mph running to 50, and 50 to 79 also is a great investment.


----------



## Barb Stout (Jan 25, 2021)

Cal said:


> I completely agree with your statement. I just wish that we could get new equipment so it doesn't feel so dated. Make it more comfortable, get traditional (or possibly a bit better even) dining back. Include the little touches that used to make travelling on Amtrak feel so luxurious. Improve OTP. And ensure all staff are consistent. Just make it more of a true land cruise.
> 
> Now of course this will not happen ever, or at least not for a very long time. But hey, I can dream...


I find train travel to be far, far more comfortable than air travel. There is a lot more room, you can walk around, the seats are more comfortable, etc. As far as dated appearance, a lot of the airlines that fly to non-big cities have a dated appearance inside the cabin.


----------



## Cal (Jan 25, 2021)

Barb Stout said:


> I find train travel to be far, far more comfortable than air travel. There is a lot more room, you can walk around, the seats are more comfortable, etc. As far as dated appearance, a lot of the airlines that fly to non-big cities have a dated appearance inside the cabin.


True, but things like the music control don't work. The tray table looks old and is not sturdy, and the climate control sometimes won't work. We would make those things work. Then, we could possibly have free decent-speed WiFi for sleeper passengers, while coach can purchase it for a small fee. 

New equipment could also be more like the viewliners, with the upper bunk window and a little more room. And just changes such as this to make the experience better.

Still dreaming though


----------



## Cal (Jan 25, 2021)

Also like in the roomette, we could probably remove the closet thing and just put shelves there. Not many people use the closet. There could be an outlet by each seat, so that we don't need to bring a power strip.


----------



## Barb Stout (Jan 25, 2021)

Cal said:


> True, but things like the music control don't work. The tray table looks old and is not sturdy, and the climate control sometimes won't work. We would make those things work. Then, we could possibly have free decent-speed WiFi for sleeper passengers, while coach can purchase it for a small fee.
> 
> New equipment could also be more like the viewliners, with the upper bunk window and a little more room. And just changes such as this to make the experience better.
> 
> Still dreaming though


Yes, I see your points except for the music control. I'm not sure what you're talking about as I have not encountered any music availability on the trains that I have taken. Which trains have these?


----------



## AFS1970 (Jan 25, 2021)

On my trip I had a total of 7 days to spend on vacation, while I did do a 24 hour trip from Seattle to Emeryville by Amtrak, taking the train down to LA would have cost a day from somewhere else in the trip, possibly Disneyland, which was the ultimate destination. So it wasn't so much thinking of the train as only transportation, it was how to fit as much as possible into a given time frame.

There is a professional conference I have thought of going to in Indianapolis and have thought about taking the train. The fact that it would add days onto the trip really isn't a factor to me at the initial planning stages. But depending on other schedule factors the train might be the easiest place to trim from. Sad but true, if the main purpose of the trip is not the train ride. 

The idea of Amtrak as a land cruise is an interesting one, but I don't think it is an exact analogy. Once on a cruise ship, there is much to do, some of which can't happen on a train. No gym, certainly no pool, and food choices that no cruise line would ever serve. Although I have always wondered about the kind of New Years Eve party seen in Trading Places, but that seems to require different cars for all the open space.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 25, 2021)

Cal said:


> we could possibly have free decent-speed Wi-Fi for sleeper passengers, while coach can purchase it for a small fee.



I do not feel punishing coach passengers is the way to gain ridership. It doesn't really cost more to provide Wi-Fi to sleepers and coach as it would to provide it for sleepers only. Making coach passengers pay for Wi-Fi will not get them to start riding in a sleeper - it will just send them to some other type of transportation while leaving a bad taste in their mouths


----------



## Cal (Jan 25, 2021)

Barb Stout said:


> Yes, I see your points except for the music control. I'm not sure what you're talking about as I have not encountered any music availability on the trains that I have taken. Which trains have these?


In the superliners, there is a thing called "Music Control". I guess they put it in thinking it would be nice, and over the years it slowly broke and became unused. The main channel just has the announcements play in your room. There is also a volume control on it. 

At 2:40 you will be able to see it. 

And also, the vent on the top apparently will blow right on you when you're in the top bunk. Could probably make that better


----------



## Cal (Jan 25, 2021)

Qapla said:


> I do not feel punishing coach passengers is the way to gain ridership. It doesn't really cost more to provide Wi-Fi to sleepers and coach as it would to provide it for sleepers only. Making coach passengers pay for Wi-Fi will not get them to start riding in a sleeper - it will just send them to some other type of transportation while leaving a bad taste in their mouths


Well, I was talking about the western long distance serves, which at this time, don't have WiFi at all.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 25, 2021)

Yes, but it you add Wi-Fi ... let all the riders use it - don't make some pay extra for it while the privileged get it for free (that is how it would be perceived). Free Wi-Fi is so common these days at so many places ... making some pay for it while others get it "included" would not set well with people used to having free Wi-Fi at McDonalds.


----------



## Cal (Jan 25, 2021)

AFS1970 said:


> The idea of Amtrak as a land cruise is an interesting one, but I don't think it is an exact analogy. Once on a cruise ship, there is much to do, some of which can't happen on a train. No gym, certainly no pool, and food choices that no cruise line would ever serve. Although I have always wondered about the kind of New Years Eve party seen in Trading Places, but that seems to require different cars for all the open space.


I believe Amtrak used to advertise their trains as a land cruise at some point. And with the Pacific Parlour car, and the wine and cheese tastings plus the theatre, it was more of a land cruise.

I think if they could make the overall experience better; more reliability, adding traditional dining back, having WiFi, and *possibly* wine and cheese tasting, it could be a decent land cruise. As you would be able to enjoy quality meals in a nice cabin that is *somewhat* comparable to those of ships (in terms of quality, not size), and enjoying beautiful America while meeting new people.

We wouldn't need all the extra activities since it's only two days really, and instead of staring at the ocean, you get to see America. And of course with the adition of WiFi you will be able to enjoy your own entertainment.

Edit: Also, Amtrak does (or did) used to have guides come on and tell people about the places they were travelling through in the sightseer lounge. It was a nice touch, and having that on the routes would make it more interesting as you are learning what you are going through.


----------



## Cal (Jan 25, 2021)

Qapla said:


> Yes, but it you add Wi-Fi ... let all the riders use it - don't make some pay extra for it while the privileged get it for free (that is how it would be perceived). Free Wi-Fi is so common these days at so many places ... making some pay for it while others get it "included" would not set well with people used to having free Wi-Fi at McDonalds.


I think it would be a tad more realistic to have Amtrak force coach to pay. I do agree though, having free WiFi for all would be a huge bonus.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 25, 2021)

jloewen said:


> Maybe 30 people on a good day.



On the Crescent? There’s way more than 30 people in the Atlanta waiting room to board the train. I’d guess it’s close to 100 usually.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 25, 2021)

Currently, coach passengers get free Wi-Fi on the Eastern trains. If you take that away and make them start paying extra for it you will just drive more passengers away - you know, like flex-dining. It is too late to start charging now for a service that has been being provided free for several years now.


----------



## WWW (Jan 25, 2021)

The oxymoron of it all -

You don't need HSR in areas where touristy scenic viewing is the name of the game -
think the Rocky Mountaineer on steroids !
AND then what is the need for a LD snail pace train trip across the plains states or
anywhere the scenery is dull blase' suitable for only night time passage -
this demands hurry-up-getter-done and over with !
Reality sets in and one train set does not fit either of these equations - but two is
just not simply practical - timing scheduling and meshing of consists equipment.

The Trans-Siberian Express needs HSR - Le Orient Express needs a leisure pace to
slow down and smell the roses tulips whatever - radical examples of course !

I don't picture getting on a train to go from "A" to "B" in record time - that is what
the airplane is for/about. Yet the NEC is set up as a business venture - speed not
scenic viewing because the airplane is not suitable for these short distances.
Fast forward to rail trips across the great western plains states - 10 or more hours
of boring same ole same ole scenery best suited for HSR and during the night.
When it comes to transiting the canyons ridges mountains continental divide the
only HSR works is tunneling straight thru the scenic obstructions bypassing the scenery.

Simply put you don't take rail for speed in scenic country !


----------



## Cal (Jan 25, 2021)

Cal said:


> I think if they could make the overall experience better; more reliability, adding traditional dining back, having WiFi, and *possibly* wine and cheese tasting, it could be a decent land cruise. As you would be able to enjoy quality meals in a nice cabin that is *somewhat* comparable to those of ships (in terms of quality, not size), and enjoying beautiful America while meeting new people.



The new rooms would probably be about the same, or better quality as the Viewliner II roomettes. As they are MUCh more modern than the superliner ones (including three outlets). 

I will say though, I don't think the in-room sink is that necessary...


----------



## jis (Jan 25, 2021)

Cal said:


> I think it would be a tad more realistic to have Amtrak force coach to pay. I do agree though, having free WiFi for all would be a huge bonus.


In order to get decent uninterrupted WiFi service on western LD trains either mucho dinero has to be given to wireless companies to setup cell towers along the routes of LD trains, basically to serve one train per day plus a few incidental stray people around in the sticks. Or develop a multi-mode wireless system which can tap into terrestrial WiFi where available and hook up to satellite link where not, to hook into something like the Panasonic system that is used by airlines, or maybe even use exclusively the new Elon Musk system coming on line soon.

In a moving body going through random landscape a terrestrial WiFi system engineered to serve it, will always be the best, and a satellite system will always have unpredictable drop offs when terrestrial features get in the way. And none of them have a work around in the matter of tunnels, short of installing leaky coax in the tunnels hooked upto antennas outside the tunnel.

In short, it is not just throw in some existing out of the box stuff into the train and it just starts working fine. It is complicated where telcos do not otherwise have any incentive to provide cell service.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 25, 2021)

The Interstate Highway System does not have speeds that come anywhere close to 100 MPH. While it would be nice if Amtrak could go 100 MPH in more places - it is not absolutely necessary to improve LD travel. Higher "average speed" needs to be improved as well as OTP.

Now, it Amtrak could achieve speeds close to 100 MPH on most of the trip it would make train travel so much faster than cars that it would seem like "high speed".


----------



## jis (Jan 25, 2021)

Qapla said:


> The Interstate Highway System does not have speeds that come anywhere close to 100 MPH. While it would be nice if Amtrak could go 100 MPH in more places - it is not absolutely necessary to improve LD travel. Higher "average speed" needs to be improved as well as OTP.
> 
> Now, it Amtrak could achieve speeds close to 100 MPH on most of the trip it would make train travel so much faster than cars that it would seem like "high speed".


That is why I prefer to work towards an end to end time goal like "New York to Chicago in 12 hours", and let the rest follow from that as parts of the solution to the techno-economic problem of getting there. Maybe you need 100mph, maybe not. And because of a quantum leap in ROW improvement needs (e.g. grade crossing elimination) you set constraints within which you must work, like restrict max speeds to 110mph.

There is real economic and operating convenience value to being able to do NY - CHI in 12 (or 14) hours instead of 20. You can run the service with fewer consists. You have to keep toilets clean en route for much shorter time so they tend to be in better shape. You have to carry and dole out much smaller overall quantity of food, which makes it easier to accommodate better quality of food for the same cost of operation. OBS costs are reduced considerably for the same or higher revenue collection, and on and on. It is not just about getting there faster, though that in itself is likely to have an extremely positive effect on revenues and demand, making it easier to introduce multiple services per day instead of one train per day trundling along slowly.

And mind you I am not talking about HSR. I am merely talking about being at par with the world for standard speed trains.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 25, 2021)

Qapla said:


> I do not feel punishing coach passengers is the way to gain ridership. It doesn't really cost more to provide Wi-Fi to sleepers and coach as it would to provide it for sleepers only. Making coach passengers pay for Wi-Fi will not get them to start riding in a sleeper - it will just send them to some other type of transportation while leaving a bad taste in their mouths


As someone who has to deal with rural wireless networking I can assure you it absolutely _does_ cost more money to facilitate hundreds of users versus a dozen.



Qapla said:


> Yes, but it you add Wi-Fi ... let all the riders use it - don't make some pay extra for it while the privileged get it for free (that is how it would be perceived). Free Wi-Fi is so common these days at so many places ... making some pay for it while others get it "included" would not set well with people used to having free Wi-Fi at McDonalds.


Sleepers passengers were paying for it through higher fares before it was taken away again. It was just barely functional for the handful of people in range and would have never worked with a entire train trying to use it.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 25, 2021)

Qapla said:


> Now, it Amtrak could achieve speeds close to 100 MPH on most of the trip it would make train travel so much faster than cars that it would seem like "high speed".



There should be more 90-110 mph running across the country. Once it goes over 110, the costs get high enough that it needs to be in specific corridors.

And of course there are other issues like what good is 100 mph running on a Chicago to New York line (there is already some 100 mph running on that route) if you don’t have a flyover and passenger main coming into Chicago.

But building that flyover isn’t sexy... it’s just an over pass. So how does it get funded without people calling out that it’s a waste of taxpayer money!


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jan 25, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> There should be more 90-110 mph running across the country. Once it goes over 110, the costs get high enough that it needs to be in specific corridors.
> 
> And of course there are other issues like what good is 100 mph running on a Chicago to New York line (there is already some 100 mph running on that route) if you don’t have a flyover and passenger main coming into Chicago.
> 
> But building that flyover isn’t sexy... it’s just an over pass. So how does it get funded without people calling out that it’s a waste of taxpayer money!


Which flyover are you referring to? The only at-grade diamond crossing I can think of on the LSL route within Chicago is the CN near the Chicago River Bridge, which doesn't see an excessive amount of traffic and would be difficult to build a flyover at given the close proximity of the river bridge and elevated Orange Line tracks. There used to be a junction with the Metra Rock Island District but a flyover for the Metra tracks was completed a few years ago. It seems to me at this point the issues on that line are more due to general freight congestion than any specific junction.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 25, 2021)

Qapla said:


> I was thinking these features should be the thrust of advertising for rail travel. Don't bemoan the fact that it takes several days to cross the country (as compared to the speed of a plane) - highlight the relaxed pace!



Crossing the country by train is strictly a niche market. Aside from people who can't fly (or drive, for that matter) due to medical reasons, it's a really small number of people who are going the whole distance for a "relaxing experience." While these people help the revenue bottom-line of long-distance service, such service is really designed for people making shorter trips, especially to and from places not well served by the airlines. (Hello, Hi-Line!)

Also remember, doing a round trip by train coast to coast requires 8 travel days in addition tot the time one spends at the destination. This is opposed to the two travel days one needs for a similar trip by air. Given that most people have limited free time for travel or are traveling for business, most people don't have the time to take a coast-to-coast trip by train.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 25, 2021)

flitcraft said:


> More importantly, different ideologies about government spending. If we were trying to build the interstate highway system today, people would be screaming about waste and taxes, and arguing that all we need to do is patch a few potholes on the state roads we've already got.


It's worse than that, it's gotten so bad that it's hard to get funding to patch the potholes and repair bridges on the highways we now have.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 25, 2021)

jloewen said:


> You all are talking about heavy use corridors like DC--Atlanta. I've taken the Crescent from DC to ATL and back several times. It does NOT get heavy use.


Well, yes, if all that's available is an overnight train whose timekeeping is erratic, I would imagine ridership is somewhat limited. But a DC-Atlanta Corridor not only connects two populous cities, it has some populous cities along the route, such as Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte. This is assuming that he corridor is based on the proposed southeast High Speed Rail to Raleigh and the Piedmont/Carolinian route to Charlotte. If you can make DC-Atlanta a day trip with multiple trains, plus have traffic to the intermediate cities (and also traffic to the NEC), there's no reason why that corridor shouldn't be "heavy use."


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 25, 2021)

Cal said:


> Well, I was talking about the western long distance serves, which at this time, don't have WiFi at all.


Well, of course they don't have wifi. There is also very spotty and non-existent cellphone reception along most of the western routes once you get out of the towns or parallel interstate highways. The wifi signal on a moving train is transmitted to the train by cellphone signals. So no cellphone, no wifi. Thus, unless Amtrak were to install satellite phone receivers, there's no point in having wifi on the western long-distance trains.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 25, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Well, of course they don't have wifi. There is also very spotty and non-existent cellphone reception along most of the western routes once you get out of the towns or parallel interstate highways. The wifi signal on a moving train is transmitted to the train by cellphone signals. So no cellphone, no wifi. Thus, unless Amtrak were to install satellite phone receivers, there's no point in having wifi on the western long-distance trains.



The only train I’ve had serious cell phone signal issues with is the Coast Starlight in Oregon.


----------



## jiml (Jan 25, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> It's worse than that, it's gotten so bad that it's hard to get funding to patch the potholes and repair bridges on the highways we now have.


This is not a US-only problem. Governments have other "priorities" than basic infrastructure.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 25, 2021)

Qapla said:


> Do we really need HSR for LD?


I would break it into separate questions.

1. Do we really need LD? Yes.
2. Do we really need HSR? Yes.
3. Does LD need to be HSR? No.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 25, 2021)

jiml said:


> This is not a US-only problem. Governments have other "priorities" than basic infrastructure.


I think the difference is that outside of the Western Hemisphere, where the US retains dominant influence, passenger rail is growing in popularity among developed nations. Even developing countries are signing up for HSR with loans and technology that could be coming from us if we hadn't abandoned our superpower status for proud mediocrity.


----------



## NES28 (Jan 25, 2021)

There is one thing that must be kept in mind when planning more trains in the U.S. The freight railroads don't want more passenger trains on their main routes. If they are forced to take them it is crystal clear that speed will be limited to 79/80 mph (possibly 90 on CSX or BNSF). The only way to get a significant number of more passenger trains is to build new track (i.e. Texas Central, Brightline) or buy track (like LA-San Diego or Virginia). Once you're building track, you may as well build it with very limited curvature and without grade crossings (which will allow 125 mph diesel or 220 mph when electrified) since this doesn't cost much more than a line with curves and grade crossings. Passenger trains are well-powered, so grades are not that much of a factor. To justify the large investment required to build new track you need to run a lot of trains and carry a lot of passengers. There are not a lot of corridors where this level of investment is justified. Beyond the ones now in the works, FRA regional studies show CAHSR, LA-Phoenix, a limited Midwest network, including a through Chicago-Orlando line via Indianapolis and Atlanta, and Atlanta-Charlotte. Others not included in the FRA-led studies include the other sides of the Texas Triangle (beyond Texas Central) and Portland-Seattle-Vancouver.


----------



## Barb Stout (Jan 26, 2021)

Qapla said:


> Currently, coach passengers get free Wi-Fi on the Eastern trains. If you take that away and make them start paying extra for it you will just drive more passengers away - you know, like flex-dining. It is too late to start charging now for a service that has been being provided free for several years now.


I had heard, rightly or wrongly, that at one point in time the western LD did have wi-fi and that it was taken away. If that's true, I assume there was a reason that it was taken away and I can think of several reasons. Does anyone of the forum know if what I heard was true and if so, the reasons(s) behind that?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 26, 2021)

NES28 said:


> If they are forced to take them it is crystal clear that speed will be limited to 79/80 mph (possibly 90 on CSX or BNSF).



There is 90-110 running on bnsf, csx, and UP. Needs to be more of it, but it’s possible.


----------



## fdaley (Jan 26, 2021)

I know that the Coast Starlight had WiFi when we took it in 2017. But when we last rode it in February 2019, I asked the sleeper attendant if I needed a password for access, and he said the WiFi had been discontinued just a few days before that. He didn't know why. I also recall that when we rode in 2017, my son kept going from our sleeper room back to the business class car to sit, because the signal was stronger there.


----------



## jis (Jan 26, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> There is 90-110 running on bnsf, csx, and UP. Needs to be more of it, but it’s possible.


Where is the 90-110 running on CSX? Not on the Empire Corridor, since all that track is now Amtrak/NYSDOT, not CSX. Once you hit CSX at Hoffmans it is down to 79.


----------



## Trogdor (Jan 26, 2021)

jis said:


> Where is the 90-110 running on CSX? Not on the Empire Corridor, since all that track is now Amtrak/NYSDOT, not CSX. Once you hit CSX at Hoffmans it is down to 79.



Or UP, for that matter? Unless we're counting the short-lived (and apparently redowngraded) couple of miles just south of Joliet, IL.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 26, 2021)

jis said:


> Where is the 90-110 running on CSX? Not on the Empire Corridor, since all that track is now Amtrak/NYSDOT, not CSX. Once you hit CSX at Hoffmans it is down to 79.



I was counting empire.. it used to be csx and 100 correct? 



Trogdor said:


> Or UP, for that matter? Unless we're counting the short-lived (and apparently redowngraded) couple of miles just south of Joliet, IL.



They spent all that money and are back at 79!?


----------



## sttom (Jan 26, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> So how does it get funded without people calling out that it’s a waste of taxpayer money!



You explain to people what the costs of building highways actually is compared to rail. 1 mile of rehabbed double track can cost between $2.5 and $2.7 million on average. Compared to highway construction which costs $3 to $11 million per mile to build depending on where you are building and what standard it is being built to. 

Another aspect to show rail isn't a waste of money is to explain the economic impact of rail. Passenger rail in specific has a total economic impact nearly 4 times what the capital spent is. Highways can't be built quick enough to ever relieve traffic. Not to mention expanding roads induces more demand until the extra capacity is eaten up.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 26, 2021)

sttom said:


> You explain to people what the costs of building highways actually is compared to rail.



If only it were that easy. (Looks at American politics).


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 26, 2021)

In reality, the number one thing Amtrak needs for speed improvement in LD is getting priority on the tracks. 

Number 2 is getting the RRs to stop using slow orders to avoid keeping their tracks up to snuff.

Number 3 is improving station wait times - electronic signs indicating where people should stand before the train comes in, disembarking through different doors than embarkation, high level stations with long enough platforms so multi-stopping is not necessary, improved overcrowded stations (like Atlanta)

Number 4 is the new engines and cars coming and those that should come (superliners) to avoid delays caused by broken equipment.

That would dramatically improve on-time performance.

Then they should look at running trains faster.

As to non-LD (including all the existing short-distance trains and future city pair like Virginia to Charlotte/Atlanta, Chicago to Cincinnati, Chicago to MSP), those are good candidates for HS rail. West Coast is in progress as, hopefully, Houston-Dallas/FTW, and the Brightline services. LA-Vegas is a must if private work falls through.


----------



## PaTrainFan (Jan 26, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> In reality, the number one thing Amtrak needs for speed improvement in LD is getting priority on the tracks.
> 
> Number 2 is getting the RRs to stop using slow orders to avoid keeping their tracks up to snuff.
> 
> ...



Exactly. Fundamentals. Blocking and tackling first, then go long.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jan 26, 2021)

The problem with HSR are the costs, any number thrown would be liked at with suspicions and rightfully so looking at the California debacle. Make iron clad contracts so that someone other than the tax payer will pay for cost over runs (like the Defense Dept finally started to do on some projects) and HSR will be an easier sell. 

President Biden wants future tax money spent on American made products, ok but again, we have the California example when it comes to HSR. Might be better though politically tricky to have Japan Rail or European Consortium come and build and run the system. Where would the California system be if they would have taken up Japan's or China's offer to do just that. But what does Brightline teach us? Private corporations do a better job completing jobs closer to budget and on time? Or as some have stated, aiming for 200 mph trains is unnecessary and expensive.


----------



## jis (Jan 26, 2021)

frequentflyer said:


> The problem with HSR are the costs, any number thrown would be liked at with suspicions and rightfully so looking at the California debacle. Make iron clad contracts so that someone other than the tax payer will pay for cost over runs (like the Defense Dept finally started to do on some projects) and HSR will be an easier sell.
> 
> President Biden wants future tax money spent on American made products, ok but again, we have the California example when it comes to HSR. Might be better though politically tricky to have Japan Rail or European Consortium come and build and run the system. Where would the California system be if they would have taken up Japan's or China's offer to do just that. But what does Brightline teach us? Private corporations do a better job completing jobs closer to budget and on time? Or as some have stated, aiming for 200 mph trains is unnecessary and expensive.


I would wait on counting the Brightline chicken until after the eggs actually hatch. I do like them but I am also a “show me” kinda guy


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 26, 2021)

jis said:


> I would wait on counting the Brightline chicken until after the eggs actually hatch. I do like them but I am also a “show me” kinda guy



What do you want to see?


----------



## Qapla (Jan 26, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> What do you want to see?



Brightline connecting Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville and Tallahassee with at least 6 trains daily ... hey, you did say "want"


----------



## railiner (Jan 27, 2021)

Qapla said:


> Brightline connecting Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville and Tallahassee with at least 6 trains daily ... hey, you did say "want"


Tallahassee?


----------



## jis (Jan 27, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> What do you want to see?


I am not very demanding. Just delivering what has been promised. 

However this thread is about LD and HSR and not about Brightline and Regional service. I am sorry that one of my posts provided the sliver of an opening to try to convert yet another thread into a Brightline one  I apologize.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 27, 2021)

jis said:


> I am not very demanding. Just delivering what has been promised.



So far they are doing that. When’s the last time you rode the Crescent Star? (An Amtrak train that was announced and advertised but never operated).


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 27, 2021)

frequentflyer said:


> Might be better though politically tricky to have Japan Rail or European Consortium come and build and run the system.


What's so politically tricky? Nearly every new passenger railcar acquired for use in the US today is built by a "foreign company," even if the cars themselves are built in the USA. So Japan Rail sets up "Japanrail USA" or whatever they want to call it and applies their expertise to the task at hand. They'll be hiring American workers to build and run the system, so who cares if some profits go back to Japan. (Even some of those profits could well be invested in the US in any event.)


----------



## Exvalley (Jan 27, 2021)

Too many people think of high speed rail as a binary option. We either lay 200 mph track or have 79 mph track.

125 miles per hour works just fine between New York and Washington DC. As much as I'd like to see 200 miles per hour on that route, it really isn't needed - especially at the price it would cost. At 125 mph the route is already competitive with air travel.

Does 125 mph work for New York to Chicago? Not really - at least as far as competing with the airlines is concerned. 200 mph would make a much bigger difference.

It gets a little complicated when you combine different city pairs along a route (e.g. Boston - Washington, DC), but my overall point is that we should tailor speeds to the needs of the route itself.


----------



## Exvalley (Jan 27, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> So Japan Rail sets up "Japanrail USA" or whatever they want to call it and applies their expertise to the task at hand. They'll be hiring American workers to build and run the system,


Sounds like the plot of a 1980s sitcom. LOL


----------



## jis (Jan 27, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> Too many people think of high speed rail as a binary option. We either lay 200 mph track or have 79 mph track.
> 
> 125 miles per hour works just fine between New York and Washington DC. As much as I'd like to see 200 miles per hour on that route, it really isn't needed - especially at the price it would cost. At 125 mph the route is already competitive with air travel.


I agree in principle. But we need to take into account some ground realities of cost of doing things. In the US there are significant cost break points at different max speeds. Roughly speaking it goes as follows:

1. 79mph - this is probably not as significant a break point as before given that PTC addresses the cab signal/ATC requirement to go above this. Maybe 90mph is what replaces this, roughly because in all likelihood things like quad gates and intrusion detection will probably be required at grade crossings above 90.

2. 110mph - For all practical purposes no grade crossing above this speed.

3. 125mph - practical limit of diesel operation. Needs electrification beyond this. Also Tier I ends at this speed, though with the new FRA standards this may be a less important constraint if simply anything to travel LD is required to be Tier III compliant. But we are not there at present.

And then of course there are the well known cost brackets determined by the FRA track standard that superposes on this.

I think it is practically possible to shoot for uniform 110mph national LD network. That will already take a deacde or two to achieve. Many other countries in the world that are larger than France or Germany are shooting for such, with select routes designated for higher speeds in steps upto 200mph. This even includes China, though all we hear about it is its HSR network. China actually has a huge passenger network which is not HSR that serves the Mom and Pop population more than the well heeled.

Things start getting more expensive above that and quite a bit more so above 125mph. Selectively targeting more traveled routes for higher speeds based on willingness to pay for the upfront work (which pays off handsomely later, one might add) is an useful exercise and indeed NY-Chicago in my mind would be a candidate route for such. Of course, the fact that the necessary real estate at present is owned by private parties who may have other interests complicates matters a bit more in the US.

Also IMHO, the primary goal of LD service should not be competing with air transport. It should be effectively competing with road transport, which carries an order of magnitude more people than air transport, and also matches the usage pattern better with ground based rail transport than air transport.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 27, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> They'll be hiring American workers to build and run the system, so who cares if some profits go back to Japan. (Even some of those profits could well be invested in the US in any event.)



What profits?


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 27, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> Sounds like the plot of a 1980s sitcom. LOL


Hey, it's no different than Siemens, Alstom, etc. building railcars in the USA.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 27, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> What profits?


Well, Credit Mobilier was very profitable.  And despite the scam, the transcontinental railroad they built was eventually profitable for someone, and benefited the country as a whole.

Seriously, nobody is going to build anything if they don't expect to make a profit, unless they're running some kind of crooked tax-cheat scam. The contractors building the California HSR certainly expected to make a profit, even if the State of California didn't. That's why contractors attempt to bill for cost overruns if they miscalculate and unexpected things come up. Same thong happened with the Purple Line in Maryland. If the State of California (or Amtrak or whoever wants to build these thins) doesn't have the expertise to build and operate a project, why not hire someone who does?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 27, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Well, Credit Mobilier was very profitable.  And despite the scam, the transcontinental railroad they built was eventually profitable for someone, and benefited the country as a whole.
> 
> Seriously, nobody is going to build anything if they don't expect to make a profit, unless they're running some kind of crooked tax-cheat scam. The contractors building the California HSR certainly expected to make a profit, even if the State of California didn't. That's why contractors attempt to bill for cost overruns if they miscalculate and unexpected things come up. Same thong happened with the Purple Line in Maryland. If the State of California (or Amtrak or whoever wants to build these thins) doesn't have the expertise to build and operate a project, why not hire someone who does?



Oh so you’re saying rail Japan would make a profit from operating the line, but the operation itself would still be losing money and covered by taxes? 

That makes sense. I didn’t make that connection in your post.


----------



## dlagrua (Jan 27, 2021)

I doubt if national HSR will ever come. The freight railroads own all of the important ROW's and land so where do the HSR systems fit in? What maybe practical are 90 mph national LD routes and working with the freight railroads on projects for track upgrades. On some LD routes like the Cardinal speed improvements may not be possible.


----------



## sttom (Jan 27, 2021)

Buying the ROWs of the Class 1s wouldn't be horribly expensive. Looking over their balance sheets, they own about $193 billion collectively in "property" that I am mostly sure is in the US and isn't their rolling stock. The math gets dodgy with KCS, CN and CP since they don't separate US holdings (or even land vs rolling stock some of the time) vs all their other potentially real estate holdings. UP is the only railroad that actually lists how much real estate it owns in a very obvious manner. Throw in $40 billion of debt being transferred from the railroads to the agencies that will own the ROWs and we have a total of $243 billion. Assuming they only want cash and not something else of value. 

Upgrading the 93,000 or so miles of track would be next. Assuming we'd modernize every mile (I know we wouldn't, branch lines wouldn't be a high priority) we'd have to budget $2.6 million per mile on average for double tracking and $400,000 per mile for traffic control. So $3 million per mile or $279 billion total. I know bridges, tunnels and mountains complicate things, but I'm just doing rough numbers. 

Running total: $522 billion

Amtrak is a different story, but this is what my ask would be. $180 billion. $50 to keep the NEC projects going and the remaining $130 billion for the rest of the country. What I would ask that be spent on is 32,000 miles of triple tracking in areas where hourly or better passenger service would make sense, 1200 or so stations, 10,000 new cars, 2,000 new engines, 3 new Beech Groves, expanding the existing Beech Grove and a margin of $12 billion for unexpected expenses.

Total: $702 Billion 

How you gonna pay for it? US corporations earn about $8 Trillion per year in profits, if we fund this over 5 years, that's 1.8% of their profits towards rail. I think we can swing it. Kick it up to 2% and make it permanent and use it to continue to fund capital funds for the ROWs, Amtrak, Regional Rail and public transit in general. 

I know we'd also have to change the legislation that Amtrak operates under, but that is a different story.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 27, 2021)

sttom said:


> Buying the ROWs of the Class 1s wouldn't be horribly expensive. Looking over their balance sheets, they own about $193 billion collectively in "property" that I am mostly sure is in the US and isn't their rolling stock. The math gets dodgy with KCS, CN and CP since they don't separate US holdings (or even land vs rolling stock some of the time) vs all their other potentially real estate holdings. UP is the only railroad that actually lists how much real estate it owns in a very obvious manner. Throw in $40 billion of debt being transferred from the railroads to the agencies that will own the ROWs and we have a total of $243 billion. Assuming they only want cash and not something else of value.
> 
> Upgrading the 93,000 or so miles of track would be next. Assuming we'd modernize every mile (I know we wouldn't, branch lines wouldn't be a high priority) we'd have to budget $2.6 million per mile on average for double tracking and $400,000 per mile for traffic control. So $3 million per mile or $279 billion total. I know bridges, tunnels and mountains complicate things, but I'm just doing rough numbers.
> 
> ...



You could start with purchasing the Chicago - NYC Mainline and Chicago to New Orleans Main. 

Get those 2 up and running with true passenger mains... ya know the way they used to run!


----------



## jiml (Jan 27, 2021)

sttom said:


> Buying the ROWs of the Class 1s wouldn't be horribly expensive. Looking over their balance sheets, they own about $193 billion collectively in "property" that I am mostly sure is in the US and isn't their rolling stock. The math gets dodgy with KCS, CN and CP since they don't separate US holdings (or even land vs rolling stock some of the time) vs all their other potentially real estate holdings. UP is the only railroad that actually lists how much real estate it owns in a very obvious manner. Throw in $40 billion of debt being transferred from the railroads to the agencies that will own the ROWs and we have a total of $243 billion. Assuming they only want cash and not something else of value.
> 
> Upgrading the 93,000 or so miles of track would be next. Assuming we'd modernize every mile (I know we wouldn't, branch lines wouldn't be a high priority) we'd have to budget $2.6 million per mile on average for double tracking and $400,000 per mile for traffic control. So $3 million per mile or $279 billion total. I know bridges, tunnels and mountains complicate things, but I'm just doing rough numbers.
> 
> Running total: $522 billion


You wouldn't even need to acquire every track - just the ones that support or eventually could support passenger traffic. Once you deduct all the yards, industrial trackage, spurs to nowhere, your total cost could shrink considerably. You already pointed out some examples of tracks that might not need upgrading.


----------



## jiml (Jan 27, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> You could start with purchasing the Chicago - NYC Mainline and Chicago to New Orleans Main.
> 
> Get those 2 up and running with true passenger mains... ya know the way they used to run!


Great place to start.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 27, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> In reality, the number one thing Amtrak needs for speed improvement in LD is getting priority on the tracks.


Amtrak has already been granted priority status; there's just no practical method for enforcing compliance and US courts have invalidated prior attempts as being unfair to the hosts, which is par for the course in a system this broken. There is another attempt to measure and correct non-compliance already in progress but I'm not holding my breath.



me_little_me said:


> Number 2 is getting the RRs to stop using slow orders to avoid keeping their tracks up to snuff.


The hosts would respond saying minimum speed thresholds require a new usage contract at much higher prices and the current SCOTUS is virtually guaranteed to support that view.



me_little_me said:


> Number 3 is improving station wait times - electronic signs indicating where people should stand before the train comes in, disembarking through different doors than embarkation, high level stations with long enough platforms so multi-stopping is not necessary, improved overcrowded stations (like Atlanta)


Most stations probably don't need electronic message updates or full length platforms for only a couple trains per day, but improved conventional signage with marked boarding locations would be helpful and practical IMO.



me_little_me said:


> Number 4 is the new engines and cars coming and those that should come (superliners) to avoid delays caused by broken equipment.


New engines are an issue that is being addressed but I'm unaware of Superliners being a bigger delay problem than other designs in the rolling stock fleet. The primary failure mode seems to be impact/derailing at a grade crossing in relation to a commercial vehicle use and every car in the fleet is susceptible to that.


----------



## sttom (Jan 27, 2021)

jiml said:


> You wouldn't even need to acquire every track - just the ones that support or eventually could support passenger traffic. Once you deduct all the yards, industrial trackage, spurs to nowhere, your total cost could shrink considerably. You already pointed out some examples of tracks that might not need upgrading.


I would say do it all in one go for more than just expanding passenger service. Getting freight off the highways is needed given how much damage 1 semi does to a highway compared to 1 car...well ~400 cars. Nationalizing the ROWs, upgrading and managing them as a public good would enable this since a public entity has more of an incentive to run more trains, where as a private company has to worry about the margin between making money and using/maintaining a depreciating asset they pay taxes on. Not to mention if the ROWs are nationalized, segregating freight and passenger trains becomes easier since the entity the controls the traffic would effectively have all the necessary information to make the decisions as to where to send the trains. It would also put them all on the same footing. Not to mention having a rolling plan to modernize the whole network would enable better economies of scale and better planning than if only a few hundred miles gets done every so often.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 27, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> Too many people think of high speed rail as a binary option. We either lay 200 mph track or have 79 mph track. 125 miles per hour works just fine ...



That was the thrust of this thread. That efficient, workable, a useful LD passenger train network does not "require" HSR. The LD network does not "need" to compete with the airlines to work. The goal does not have to be to replace planes ... when significantly reducing the number of cars on the roads and cutting down on expensive highway expansions would be just as desirable - or even more desired than trying to compete one-on-one with the airlines.


----------



## railiner (Jan 27, 2021)

As far as acquiring rights of way....how about taking a page out of the old Chicago Transit Authorities book, and erect new trackage adjacent, or over interstate highways? AFAIK, many, if not most of them, except perhaps in some urban area's have sufficient room for that...


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 27, 2021)

How did the British compensate the private railroads when they natio9nalized back in the 1940s?


----------



## jiml (Jan 27, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> How did the British compensate the private railroads when they natio9nalized back in the 1940s?


Without looking it up, I believe it was wartime appropriation (WWII) and the government did not return them, unlike after WWI.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 27, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> What's so politically tricky? Nearly every new passenger railcar acquired for use in the US today is built by a "foreign company," even if the cars themselves are built in the USA. So Japan Rail sets up "Japanrail USA" or whatever they want to call it and applies their expertise to the task at hand. They'll be hiring American workers to build and run the system, so who cares if some profits go back to Japan. (Even some of those profits could well be invested in the US in any event.)


I'd rather see the jobs here and the profits overseas than the other way around in many cases. The expertise remains here. The income from the workers helps a lot of people. The rules for operating legally and those for worker safety and pay and those for the environment can be enforced here. Lastly, the taxes on the profits that are made here can stay here.

I still remember when, about 15 years ago, we bought some items online from a small company in New Jersey that had advertised their products were American made. Afterwards, I wrote to the CEO thanking him for doing that. He replied they had just moved production to Asia "to save the company". I asked him, in reply, what did he save? One or two sales jobs plus those of the owners. He had no answer. The rest of the employees lost their jobs but he didn't.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 27, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Amtrak has already been granted priority status; there's just no practical method for enforcing compliance and US courts have invalidated prior attempts as being unfair to the hosts, which is par for the course in a system this broken. There is another attempt to measure and correct non-compliance already in progress but I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> The hosts would respond saying minimum speed thresholds require a new usage contract at much higher prices and the current SCOTUS is virtually guaranteed to support that view.
> 
> ...


I never said it would be easy or inexpensive but those fixes would be, IMHO, more cost effective than new HSR right of way or other speed improvement proposals.

As to enforcing compliance, a clear and specific law passed, and not an FRA rule, would have much more meaning.

Then of course, eminent domain can be used to take certain parts of the RR system and the money paid for it will be reduced by the fees paid by the RRs for the use of the track. It also can be used as bargaining power to gain the right to put HSR and/or other tracks tracks above the right of way in lieu of buying them out.

As to electronic signs, with cell phone service and/or local cable, electronic signs can be updated and changed at will. Even at stations with few people boarding, it takes forever to board a train and picking up a few minutes at even the smallest of stations can have a big overall effect on the service for a small price.

I mentioned Superliners as they badly need refurbishment, replacement and additional cars. Looking forward, Amtrak needs to do something about their condition. They will soon be causing more delays as they continue to age. One bad car in L.A. I rode on caused a 2 hour delay - and that was in a place where a spare was available. I did say "and those [cars] that should come" when referring to the Superliners.


----------



## west point (Jan 28, 2021)

About replacing Amfleets and Superliners. It is not going to happen for at least 10 years. If the plans that politicians and others even get halfway implemented the "replacements" will essentially replace these AMs and SL which will be moved to new or expanded services. Much of the Capital funds proposed will need to fix the many problems with tracks. 

The NEC needs $30B+ to get into a state of good repair and eliminating the slow areas. HrSR tracks into CHI from all directions eliminating bottlenecks will need what? $10B? Elimination of slow sections on heavily traveled passenger routes routes will need what ? At least another $10B? Sone of those routes are San Diego - San Francisco, WASH - Richmond - Raleigh, NYP - Buffalo - Erie - Toledo, South of the lake, 

Then we get to new service routes, second opposite clock services, expansion of train sets from the 8 - 9 car lengths to 14 - 16 car trains. You eat up any of the "replacements that will just supplement the AMs and SLs so do not expect them to be replaced. Instead all parked cars that can be repaired need immediate funds to start. There will be continuing shrinkage as the next wrecks will take more out of service. Somehow any vehicle cause repairs should go directly to Amtrak not the US treasury..


----------



## jimdex (Jan 28, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> So far they are doing that. When’s the last time you rode the Crescent Star? (An Amtrak train that was announced and advertised but never operated).


If you're talking about the proposed Atlanta-DFW train, that service was proposed, but it was never announced or advertised.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 28, 2021)

jimdex said:


> If you're talking about the proposed Atlanta-DFW train, that service was proposed, but it was never announced or advertised.



It was both announced and advertised.

I have the printed Amtrak material in a file somewhere if you think I’m lying.


----------



## jis (Jan 28, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> It was both announced and advertised.


Was this the once talked about Crescent-Star which was to split off at Meridian and one section head off to DFW on KCS IIRC?

I don;t quite remember how far the idea advanced before it was abandoned. All I recall is it did not make it too far. Wasn't it part of Warrington's grand plans to be supported by roadrailer based and other high priority cargo service or some such?


----------



## jimdex (Jan 28, 2021)

jis said:


> 1. 79mph - this is probably not as significant a break point as before given that PTC addresses the cab signal/ATC requirement to go above this.


The PTC requirement does not cover many freight-only lines, (only mainlines that handle hazardous materials) so expanding passenger service to some freight-only lines could require the additional expense of installing PTC.


----------



## jimdex (Jan 28, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> It was both announced and advertised.
> 
> I have the printed Amtrak material in a file somewhere if you think I’m lying.


I did not accuse you of lying, but if you do have that material and could scan it, I would love to see it!


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 28, 2021)

jis said:


> Was this the once talked about Crescent-Star which was to split off at Meridian and one section head off to DFW on KCS IIRC?
> 
> I don;t quite remember how far the idea advanced before it was abandoned. All I recall is it did not make it too far. Wasn't it part of Warrington's grand plans to be supported by roadrailer based and other high priority cargo service or some such?



Yes. My point of course was that brightline is up and running and actively constructing the next phase. 

Meanwhile Amtrak has announced services that never ran, and cut other services and routes. So I’m not sure what you want brightline to prove to you.


----------



## jis (Jan 28, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Yes. My point of course was that brightline is up and running and actively constructing the next phase.


You may wish to inform Brightline that they are up and running, since they seem to be unaware of that fact.  

Of course they are not currently running and don't plan to be until near the end of this year. They do not have a PTC compliant signal system in operation yet. If they were running they would be paying hefty fines each day.

The COVID thing came to their rescue providing good cover for what unfolded, since they did not ever get their original eATC based PTC certified, and actually withdrew their original PTC application. More recently they filed a new application based on the I-ETMS system that they have Wabtec installing and commissioning for them.

They just started testing the new I-ETMS PTC and associated new signaling system this week (week of 1/25/21).

Brightline announced that they will start running last time about a year before they actually did. Got to hand it to them though that they did actually start running, and as they had expected, lost money hand over fist. They actually failed to meet their originally stated goals for the Miami - West Palm Beach segment.

As I have said before I do like the Brightline guys and they face some difficult situations. I am very hopeful they will eventually succeed. But as I said, until they actually meet their goals all of the activity could simply mean that they build something and then try to palm it off to the state if things get rough. I am not saying that will happen. But many Floridians have long memories of FEC's past shenanigans. So I think the jury is still out, though many railfans who pine for some success, any success, apparently seem to be unwilling to wait for actual victory before declaring victory by decree.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 28, 2021)

jis said:


> You may wish to inform Brightline that they are up and running, since they seem to be unaware of that fact.



3 years ago (almost to the day... it just came up in my Facebook timeline) I rode brightline. So they are up and running in my book.

Covid has caused many services to be altered and cancelled including Amtrak services like the Vermonter. You know that information of course. 

Again I ask what do you want to see? If you keep moving the goal posts brightline will always be a failure to you.


----------



## jis (Jan 28, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> 3 years ago (almost to the day... it just came up in my Facebook timeline) I rode brightline. So they are up and running in my book.


Good for you. But it really stopped running because of lack of PTC. COVID happened to come at a convenient time. We knew that it was going to not run for a while before COVID came.

Frankly feel free to believe whatever you want. I am done with this subthread. 



> Again I ask what do you want to see? If you keep moving the goal posts brightline will always be a failure to you.


I have already answered that. If that answer is not acceptable you can keep asking until the cows come home and you won't get a different answer from me.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jan 28, 2021)

west point said:


> One reason I went with 125 MPH )HrSR) is that can avoid the initial cost of electrification. Trains can be operated with multiple Siemens chargers. Now do not get me wrong. I heavily support electrification but believe it needs application first on high density ( passenger ) routes. Of course any rebuilding of routes can be designed for high speed rail (HSR) where possible with future electrification .
> 
> One help that going for passenger 125 on freight RRs is that passenger trains can get around freight trains much faster so there are less delays for freight trains as well. On a full double track where freights are authorized 60 and passenger 79 we have a long distance for a following Amtrak train to get around the freight. ( Dispatcher comments ?) Makes oncoming trafficthat is restricting for Amtrak to get around a freight. Again it is eliminating all the slow sections of the tracks.
> 
> ...


Yes... big expense for infrastructure revision... 'but if you put it out they will come.' The other big sticking point is the present administration's focus on environment with priority spending and rebuilding yet to come. We are rapidly approaching the day when the choice between more interstates or public transport will shift to the more environmentally friendly transit.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 28, 2021)

GM has announced that they will cease Manufacturing Fossil Fuel powered Vehicles by 2035 in the US, only Electric Powered Vehicles.

This should help Public Transportation in the future, and slow up the Building of more Highways.

Undoubtably, the Fossil Fuel and Asphalt Industies, and the Politicians they "own", will not be amused!


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jan 28, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> GM has announced that they will cease Manufacturing Fossil Fuel powered Vehicles by 2035 in the US, only Electric Powered Vehicles.
> 
> This should help Public Transportation in the future, and slow up the Building of more Highways.
> 
> Undoubtably, the Fossil Fuel and Asphalt Industies, and the Politicians they "own", will not be amused!


Regardless they're doing it for the environment, and those of us who care about the environment!


----------



## joelkfla (Jan 28, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> GM has announced that they will cease Manufacturing Fossil Fuel powered Vehicles by 2035 in the US, only Electric Powered Vehicles.
> 
> This should help Public Transportation in the future, and slow up the Building of more Highways.
> 
> Undoubtably, the Fossil Fuel and Asphalt Industies, and the Politicians they "own", will not be amused!


I don't follow your logic.

They don't say they'll be producing less cars, just changing the fuel source. If anything, I think that will increase the attractiveness of owning a car, as operating costs will be lower, and the downside of environmental impact will be reduced.

There surely are other reasons for reducing private car usage, but I don't see switching from fossil fuel to electric as a driver.


----------



## west point (Jan 29, 2021)

Confusion here . If Brightline cannot run right now how does FEC run? Is FEC using a different PTC or what other problems is there.?


----------



## PaTrainFan (Jan 29, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> GM has announced that they will cease Manufacturing Fossil Fuel powered Vehicles by 2035 in the US, only Electric Powered Vehicles.
> 
> This should help Public Transportation in the future, and slow up the Building of more Highways.
> 
> Undoubtably, the Fossil Fuel and Asphalt Industies, and the Politicians they "own", will not be amused!



This trend, which may end up being followed by other manufacturers, also means that radical changes will be necessary in funding the Highway Trust Fund and all other transportation given that gas tax receipts will be greatly reduced. This is already the trend given the greater efficiency of gas powered vehicles over the last 30-40 years.


----------



## Exvalley (Jan 29, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> I don't follow your logic.
> 
> They don't say they'll be producing less cars, just changing the fuel source. If anything, I think that will increase the attractiveness of owning a car, as operating costs will be lower, and the downside of environmental impact will be reduced.
> 
> There surely are other reasons for reducing private car usage, but I don't see switching from fossil fuel to electric as a driver.


It's hard to know what the state of technology will be by 2035. But for urban areas, demand for public transportation will go up unless charging technology improves. Many urban dwellers don't have access to a power source to charge overnight. And if they don't have access, rapid charging times will need to shorten to make owning an electric car attractive. 

The biggest hope for widespread adoption of electric vehicles lies with solid state batteries that can be charged in a couple of minutes. Hopefully we get there in a few years - or at least by 2035.


----------



## jis (Jan 29, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> As to enforcing compliance, a clear and specific law passed, and not an FRA rule, would have much more meaning.


Until a bill that is passed by Congress is actually enacted as a set of regulations, often penned by the FRA in case of railroads, it is not clear what the parties are actually supposed to do to comply. So saying that a FRA regulation, which is in the first place created to put the law into effect, is somehow less meaningful than the bill that is passed, seems a little bizarre.

At the end of the day, railroads and other parties act on the CFR. If and when there is disagreement about whether the CFR represents the intent of the law passed by Congress, it goes to a Court and is hashed out there, leading to possible change in the CFR, and sometimes the entire law being struck down. The net effect of the latter is for the corresponding sections of the CFR being retired and removed.

The specificity of the law is something that needs to be discussed. In another thread @Tuck makes a good point that sometimes the laws in connection with passenger train priorities trend into meaningless unimplementable nuts and bolts wishes, and there is some evidence to support that.

Some seem to believe that Congress should be adopting a dispatchers operating manual as law and then try to enforce that. I think that is a fool's errand. Congress should specify metrics that have to be met and penalties for not meeting them, and require transparent publication of the metrics, how the parties are doing month to month, and what corrective actions are being taken together with penalties and results. The technicalities should be left to the technical people. Congress usually creates a disaster and logjam when they try to micro-manage almost anything (e.g. food service on Amtrak trains, specifically instead of leaving it to the operators to meet the higher level "break even" goal as it was, however they saw fit). They should refrain from doing that even in the case of the matter of dispatch priorities.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jan 29, 2021)

west point said:


> Confusion here . If Brightline cannot run right now how does FEC run? Is FEC using a different PTC or what other problems is there.?



Brightline ran a test train yesterday.


----------



## jis (Jan 29, 2021)

west point said:


> Confusion here . If Brightline cannot run right now how does FEC run? Is FEC using a different PTC or what other problems is there.?


FEC does not need PTC by keeping its train traffic below the IIRC five trains per day limit. It is that simple for getting an exception, specially for freight trains that do not carry any hazmat.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 29, 2021)

PaTrainFan said:


> This is already the trend given the greater efficiency of gas powered vehicles over the last 30-40 years.


The efficiency of petrol _engines_ has increased but the growing number of less efficient _vehicles_ (SUV's, crossovers, luxury pickups, crew cabs, etc.) has wiped out those gains. As we burn the last of the easily extracted light oils and convert to processing heavier fuels each gallon of petrol emits more pollutants before it even reaches the pump.



Exvalley said:


> It's hard to know what the state of technology will be by 2035. But for urban areas, demand for public transportation will go up unless charging technology improves. Many urban dwellers don't have access to a power source to charge overnight. And if they don't have access, rapid charging times will need to shorten to make owning an electric car attractive.


Almost any house can support 240v which provides a full charge overnight without issue. A bank of simple 240v chargers is cheap enough for most apartments and medium or larger employers to handle. Beyond 240v most residential installations will require stationary battery packs to avoid current limit problems but these are dropping in price and don't really need to be lithium batteries at all.



Exvalley said:


> The biggest hope for widespread adoption of electric vehicles lies with solid state batteries that can be charged in a couple of minutes. Hopefully we get there in a few years - or at least by 2035.


Hopefully this will finally put an end to all the bellyaching about charge times. Instead of a $35,000 vehicle that takes an ungodly half hour to finish we'll finally have a more practical model that dual-charges in five minutes for $350,000.


----------



## Ziv (Jan 29, 2021)

Ex, you are assuming that cities regain the luster they have lost over the last 10 months. There is a small but significant chance that between Zoom and other tech that living in a city won't be necessary to get a top notch job. What we have seen happening to suburban shopping malls may happen to larger cities. People will vote with their feet and both malls and cities will more frequently be left tenantless and searching for a new purpose.
Small towns all over the US are seeing a surge in people moving there. It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
My gut, though, is that we will return to the status quo prior to the Covid epidemic with a few minor changes in behavior, but that remains to be seen.
Still chuckling over DA’s final paragraph. Fast charging has been one of the last sticks that BEV haters have when they try to whack plug in cars but given how high powered Tesla Superchargers are now and how much total pack capacity Tesla cars can have, the time it takes to to charge enough to add another 3 hours of hwy range has gotten amazingly short. If they can delay charge tapering by a little bit more even the mid-sized packs will be excellent road trip vehicles. 



Exvalley said:


> It's hard to know what the state of technology will be by 2035. But for urban areas, demand for public transportation will go up unless charging technology improves. Many urban dwellers don't have access to a power source to charge overnight. And if they don't have access, rapid charging times will need to shorten to make owning an electric car attractive.
> 
> The biggest hope for widespread adoption of electric vehicles lies with solid state batteries that can be charged in a couple of minutes. Hopefully we get there in a few years - or at least by 2035.


----------



## Exvalley (Jan 29, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Hopefully this will finally put an end to all the bellyaching about charge times. Instead of a $35,000 vehicle that takes an ungodly half hour to finish we'll finally have a more practical model that dual-charges in five minutes for $350,000.


Fortunately scientists and innovators don’t share your inherent pessimism.









Toyota's game-changing solid-state battery en route for 2021 debut


Japan's government to join forces with industry to supercharge development




asia.nikkei.com


----------



## joelkfla (Jan 29, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> Fortunately scientists and innovators don’t share your inherent pessimism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And Japan, China, and Germany lead on, while once again the USA gets left in the dust, worrying more about preserving obsolete jobs than about innovation and evolution.


----------



## Exvalley (Jan 29, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> And Japan, China, and Germany lead on, while once again the USA gets left in the dust, worrying more about preserving obsolete jobs than about innovation and evolution.


General Motors is very serious about EV technology, and Tesla too, but your point is well taken.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 29, 2021)

Rivian is already only manufacturing EV's ... they are not waiting until some future date.


----------



## jiml (Jan 29, 2021)

Ford is running numerous commercials here about their commitment to electric vehicles, many of which will be built in Canada. The more recent GM announcement is little more than a footnote by comparison. Toyota remains the major vendor of EV's and hybrids this side of the border.

Not sure what this has to do with HSR though.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 29, 2021)

jiml said:


> Ford is running numerous commercials here about their commitment to electric vehicles, many of which will be built in Canada. The more recent GM announcement is little more than a footnote by comparison. Toyota remains the major vendor of EV's and hybrids this side of the border.
> 
> Not sure what this has to do with HSR though.


Hey, its AU! Were famous for thread drift!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 29, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> Hey, its AU! Were famous for thread drift!


Redacted


----------



## Qapla (Jan 29, 2021)

Maybe, with all the new electronic gadgets they put on cars these days that the EV's will have ones that avoid trains and prevent them from entering RR crossings when a train is coming





Whew!! I managed to get this thread back on topic and still include the EV's


----------



## Ziv (Jan 29, 2021)

And yet Tesla is selling millions of excellent BEVs while Japanese and German companies are selling mere thousands of fairly good BEVs. And China is building some excellent BEVs of late, but the best ones are Tesla’s.


joelkfla said:


> And Japan, China, and Germany lead on, while once again the USA gets left in the dust, worrying more about preserving obsolete jobs than about innovation and evolution.


----------



## toddinde (Jan 30, 2021)

Qapla said:


> I do not feel punishing coach passengers is the way to gain ridership. It doesn't really cost more to provide Wi-Fi to sleepers and coach as it would to provide it for sleepers only. Making coach passengers pay for Wi-Fi will not get them to start riding in a sleeper - it will just send them to some other type of transportation while leaving a bad taste in their mouths


Charge the sleepers and have free wi fi in coach. Seriously, free wi fi throughout the train. That would be a huge draw.


----------



## jis (Jan 30, 2021)

toddinde said:


> Charge the sleepers and have free wi fi in coach. Seriously, free wi fi throughout the train. That would be a huge draw.


Providing reliable and relatively good performance WiFi on all LD routes and specially single train per day through the sticks routes which for considerable lengths are not within range of any cell towers, would be a considerable expense. See explanation in earlier posts in this thread.


----------



## toddinde (Jan 30, 2021)

jis said:


> Providing reliable and relatively good performance WiFi on all LD routes and specially single train per day through the sticks routes which for considerable lengths are not within range of any cell towers, would be a considerable expense. See explanation in earlier posts in this thread.


Obviously, it’s within the technical limitations of what’s reasonably possible. I’m not suggesting that every inch of the line have hi speed wi fi regardless of cost. Greyhound does it. So do airlines. On neither is it perfect.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 30, 2021)

jis said:


> Providing reliable and relatively good performance WiFi on all LD routes and specially single train per day through the sticks routes which for considerable lengths are not within range of any cell towers, would be a considerable expense. See explanation in earlier posts in this thread.



While I agree, it must be noted that, when WiFI first started on trains it was only available in "certain areas". Some said it was not possible on LD trains while they were not in the "corridors" ... It is available on the Silvers from Miami all the way to NY. That was not the case when it first became available. So, before we say "it can't be done" - give it time


----------



## jis (Jan 30, 2021)

Qapla said:


> So, before we say "it can't be done" - give it time


You will note that I never ever said it can't be done. Heck, I used to be a telephony guy in my early career (Bell Labs). I would never say no to someone who is willing to pay for a fancy or even minimal service, specially back in those days when we had cost plus accounting.  I just said that it might need some special setup in sparsely populated areas where wireless service providers do not have much incentive to invest in the necessary infrastructure.

This problem really is peculiar to the US because of the way in which responsibilities are distributed. In many other countries railroads have their own network based on GSM technology called GSM-R, and is compatible with wireless telephony GSM protocols, so a few channels can be allocated on their GSM-R network to carry WiFi related signal from the trains. And needless to say, since it is a railroad network, it exists along all rail routes.

Again, notwithstanding everything else, of course it can be done. The issue is how much is one willing to pay for it.


----------



## John Santos (Jan 30, 2021)

jis said:


> You will note that I never ever said it can't be done. Heck, I used to be a telephony guy in my early career (Bell Labs). I would never say no to someone who is willing to pay for a fancy or even minimal service, specially back in those days when we had cost plus accounting.  I just said that it might need some special setup in sparsely populated areas where wireless service providers do not have much incentive to invest in the necessary infrastructure.
> 
> This problem really is peculiar to the US because of the way in which responsibilities are distributed. In many other countries railroads have their own network based on GSM technology called GSM-R, and is compatible with wireless telephony GSM protocols, so a few channels can be allocated on their GSM-R network to carry WiFi related signal from the trains. And needless to say, since it is a railroad network, it exists along all rail routes.
> 
> Again, notwithstanding everything else, of course it can be done. The issue is how much is one willing to pay for it.


Who says it has to be done over cell service?


----------



## jis (Jan 30, 2021)

John Santos said:


> Who says it has to be done over cell service?


No one. But for now that is how it is done on all routes.

I have explained earlier in the thread how it can be done using other services. But for now that is not the case.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 30, 2021)

How about a long LAN cable that is swapped out at each stop so the train going the other way can use the same LAN cable on the return trip


----------



## jis (Jan 30, 2021)

Qapla said:


> How about a long LAN cable that is swapped out at each stop so the train going the other way can use the same LAN cable on the return trip


One way to avoid said LAN cable having to unfurl as the train runs along is to lay a leaky coax cable along the track which essentially acts as a continuous antenna. This is one of the ways of providing cell service and WiFi service inside tunnels.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 30, 2021)

toddinde said:


> Charge the sleepers and have free wi fi in coach. Seriously, free wi fi throughout the train. That would be a huge draw.


Do what Marriott and others do - everyone who has a (free) membership (read "travels in coach") gets free wi-fi that does not do "high speed" but can pay for the high speed. The premium members (read "sleeper passengers, business class passengers") get high speed free.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 30, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> I don't follow your logic.
> 
> They don't say they'll be producing less cars, just changing the fuel source. If anything, I think that will increase the attractiveness of owning a car, as operating costs will be lower, and the downside of environmental impact will be reduced.
> 
> There surely are other reasons for reducing private car usage, but I don't see switching from fossil fuel to electric as a driver.


Highway construction is funded by the tax on gasoline. If less gasoline is sold, there's less funding available to build highways. Or they'll have to come up with some other funding mechanism.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 30, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Highway construction is funded by the tax on gasoline. If less gasoline is sold, there's less funding available to build highways. Or they'll have to come up with some other funding mechanism.


Like NC. They want to tax hybrids because they don't use enough gas so supposedly don't pay enough taxes. The real shaft is that it would be a fixed amount, not based upon mileage so those who don't drive a lot get ripped off.

That's not going to help this country become green.

Ripoff States


----------



## Qapla (Jan 30, 2021)

They could always require odometer readings when you renew your tag - and charge a renewal fee based on mileage driven ... of course, it would be nice if they also allowed discounts against that mileage for the number of miles ridden on LD trains* (or all trains)




*Needed to pull this thread back on topic


----------



## railiner (Jan 31, 2021)

jis said:


> This problem really is peculiar to the US because of the way in which responsibilities are distributed. In many other countries railroads have their own network based on GSM technology called GSM-R, and is compatible with wireless telephony GSM protocols, so a few channels can be allocated on their GSM-R network to carry WiFi related signal from the trains. And needless to say, since it is a railroad network, it exists along all rail routes.


Didn't Amtrak have an early example of something similar in the NEC? IIRC, they allowed some com company to lay their fiber-optics line along the NEC, in exchange for Amtrak being allocated a portion of its service...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 1, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> Like NC. They want to tax hybrids because they don't use enough gas so supposedly don't pay enough taxes. The real shaft is that it would be a fixed amount, not based upon mileage so those who don't drive a lot get ripped off. That's not going to help this country become green.


The vast majority of physical damage done to asphalt is caused by commercial vehicles. You can see it with your own eyes if you pay attention to the pavement near commercial plants and along freight corridors. A sea of hybrid sedans driving in circles for the life of the vehicle wouldn't be able to match the damage of a single high gross weight truck.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 1, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> The vast majority of physical damage done to asphalt is caused by commercial vehicles. You can see it with your own eyes if you pay attention to the pavement near commercial plants and along freight corridors. A sea of hybrid sedans driving in circles for the life of the vehicle wouldn't be able to match the damage of a single high gross weight truck.


I guess the trucking lobby is more effective at persuading our elected leaders than is the car-drivers' lobby (whatever that is). Which is weird, because there are far more of us who own cars and drive them on the public highways.


----------



## jis (Feb 1, 2021)

railiner said:


> Didn't Amtrak have an early example of something similar in the NEC? IIRC, they allowed some com company to lay their fiber-optics line along the NEC, in exchange for Amtrak being allocated a portion of its service...


That was allocation of channels on what would otherwise be dark fiber for a while at least. It was a win-win because Amtrak needed that capacity to do the full upgrade they were planning to the CETC system, and the Telco was able to monetize a facility that was otherwise going to be dark fiber producing nothing. It did not involve any use in wireless telephony enroute AFAIR. It was just high capacity digital data link.


----------



## Mailliw (Feb 1, 2021)

Cal said:


> Also like in the roomette, we could probably remove the closet thing and just put shelves there. Not many people use the closet. There could be an outlet by each seat, so that we don't need to bring a power strip.


I visit NYC alot so I'm a fan of 
minimalist micro hotels like Arlo, Pod Hotels, and Yotel. Open concept storage is one a good thing.


----------



## sttom (Feb 1, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> The vast majority of physical damage done to asphalt is caused by commercial vehicles. You can see it with your own eyes if you pay attention to the pavement near commercial plants and along freight corridors. A sea of hybrid sedans driving in circles for the life of the vehicle wouldn't be able to match the damage of a single high gross weight truck.



The damage between a car like a Prius and the damage from a semi has been quoted as 410 times more damage. So if you charge a Prius 1 cent per mile, you'd have to charge a semi $4.10 per mile. At least this is the rate I heard quoted on a podcast about traffic engineering. If we charged trucks a mileage fee based on weight, long distance trucking would go under almost immediately.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Feb 1, 2021)

sttom said:


> If we charged trucks a mileage fee based on weight, long distance trucking would go under almost immediately.



So what you are saying is long Distance trucking is heavily subsidized?


----------



## McIntyre2K7 (Feb 1, 2021)

I guess it would be one of those new deal type of projects. If money isn't an object and all there would be a giant rail corridor from New Orleans to Boston. 4 tracks all electrified. Trains could go up to 200 MPH on this line. 

Hubs:
New Orleans
Atlanta
Charlotte
Richmond
Washington DC
Philadelphia 
NYC 
Boston




The Acela would remain in service. 



Each stop would have 2 to 3 trains as well. 



Regional lines below would have speeds of 125. 

Florida Regional:

Florida West Coast:
Miami/Naples/Ft. Myers/Sarasota/Tampa/The Villages/Ocala/Gainesville/Tallahassee/Pensacola then on to New Orleans. 


*New Orleans:*
Gulf Coast to Orlando, FL 
Sunset Limited to LA
City of NO to Chicago

*Atlanta: *
Atlanta/Augusta/Savannah
Atlanta/Jacksonville/Orlando
Atlanta/Chattanooga/Nashville (express)

*Nashville:* 
Nashville to Memphis
Nashville/ Evansville/ St. Louis
Nashville/Louisville/Cincinnati/Columbus/Cleveland 
Nashville/Louisville/Indianapolis/Chicago 


*Charlotte: *
Charlotte/ Asheville/Knoxville/Nashville
Charlotte/Florence/Myrtle Beach


*Richmond:*
Richmond/Charlottesville/Lynchburg/Roanoke
Northeast Regional Trains 



DC north would keep the same regional service with a few additions. A Boston-Montreal service would be introduced.


----------



## west point (Feb 2, 2021)

Wear and tear on a highway goes up to the 4th power of the weight on a tire. So your Prius has maybe 750 pounds on each tire. A Tractor trailer 18 wheels 80,000 pounds means 4444 pound on each tire. That is 6 times the weight . to the 4th power = 1296 times the damages of your Prius. 

An example often use is the Parkway system around NY City. Some of them built after WW-2 have clearances too low for trucks or buses. They have never been repaved.


----------



## railiner (Feb 2, 2021)

west point said:


> An example often use is the Parkway system around NY City. Some of them built after WW-2 have clearances too low for trucks or buses. They have never been repaved.


Which ones have never been repaved? I know for certain, the ones I used the most have been repaved many times...the Grand Central and Northern Parkways...


----------



## Qapla (Feb 2, 2021)

The ones with the deep ruts and frequent potholes have never been repaved


----------



## sttom (Feb 2, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> So what you are saying is long Distance trucking is heavily subsidized?


Yes and the public has been convinced that cars cause most road damage and we pay taxes based on that. Like in California the tax on gas is 82 cents per gallon and $1.13 for diesel. Or diesel pays just a little more despite diesel powered vehicles tending to do a disproportionate amount of road damage.


----------



## jiml (Feb 2, 2021)

Getting off-topic, but there needs to be more incentives to put trucks on trains (as I watch a giant JB Hunt consist pass on a railcam).


----------



## jis (Feb 2, 2021)

railiner said:


> Which ones have never been repaved? I know for certain, the ones I used the most have been repaved many times...the Grand Central and Northern Parkways...


The Southern State and Sagtikos have been repaved and then proceeded to develop deep ruts and potholes and then was repaved again several times, in the 40 or so years that I have driven on it now and then.


----------



## railiner (Feb 2, 2021)

Northern roads that go thru freeze and thaw cycles can and do get potholes almost over night. I am really appreciating the Florida roads, and so does my Prius.


----------



## Qapla (Feb 2, 2021)

@railiner If we ever get this COVID thing behind us - maybe we can meet sometime ... although I am quite a bit further north in Florida


----------



## sttom (Feb 2, 2021)

Getting more freight and passengers onto the rails is something we need to work on, but I personally don't see that happening given the situation the railways are in. Either the government is going to need to take the rights of way into public ownership and manage the market to some extent or the government is going to have to pull the plug on the trucking industry. The problem with option 1 is that it would cost a lot even if the railways would go for it since they could relieve themselves of liabilities for cash and get access to better infrastructure. The problem would be Congress's general disdain for spending money on things that would benefit the public and the public's weird ability to be scared out of rational thought by putting "billion" after a number. The second option likely won't happen because "the federal government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the economy". That argument will get trotted out even though the government has very clearly picked a winner, subsidizes the "winner" and has left its competitor for dead. Doing something at the state level is also hard since its against federal laws* to put general tolls on the Interstate highways and putting a mileage charge on trucks would have to be done nationwide or it wouldn't work. And if studying business and public policy has taught me anything, there will always be at least one state willing to undercut the rest in the hopes of making a quick buck.


----------



## railiner (Feb 2, 2021)

Qapla said:


> @railiner If we ever get this COVID thing behind us - maybe we can meet sometime ... although I am quite a bit further north in Florida


Seems there are enough of us in Florida to have a "mini-gathering"...


----------



## Qapla (Feb 2, 2021)

If it survives the pandemic, Kissimmee has a pizza place within walking distance of the train station and Winter Park also has some places within walking distance


----------



## TWA904 (Feb 3, 2021)

Where I'm at in Florida we have one road where the easiest way to fix the potholes is to just build an overpass.


----------



## Qapla (Feb 3, 2021)

Where we are in Florida there is a perfectly good track that Amtrak used to use and a station that is now only used for thruway bus service ... sad the train no longer comes this way


----------



## TWA904 (Feb 4, 2021)

Sounds like Ocala. They have a nice station that's no longer used for trains but does have thruway bus service.


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2021)

Qapla said:


> Where we are in Florida there is a perfectly good track that Amtrak used to use and a station that is now only used for thruway bus service ... sad the train no longer comes this way


In exchange for removing all through freight trains from the (Palatka) - Deland - Orlando - Poinciana, all passenger trains were removed from the line via Ocala. SunRail got control of Deland - (Orlando) - Poinciana in that deal.

I wonder though if CSX would be agreeable for the use of the unused part of their ROW via Ocala if the additional track was designed to have no connection or at grade crossing with the freight track and provide no interference. That possibility would be worth exploring I think.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Feb 4, 2021)

jis said:


> In exchange for removing all through freight trains from the (Palatka) - Deland - Orlando - Poinciana, all passenger trains were removed from the line via Ocala. SunRail got control of Deland - (Orlando) - Poinciana in that deal.
> 
> I wonder though if CSX would be agreeable for the use of the unused part of their ROW via Ocala if the additional track was designed to have no connection or at grade crossing with the freight track and provide no interference. That possibility would be worth exploring I think.



I thought the silver palm ended well before the sunrail deal... but maybe the timeline in my head is way off.


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I thought the silver palm ended well before the sunrail deal... but maybe the timeline in my head is way off.


Until the deal happened, Amtrak could exercise its access rights to put a train on that line, even though they may not have used that right for a while. After the deal they cannot.

Of course, now that they are responsible for the Palatka - Deland segment themselves, they have even less of an incentive to go chasing after that other line. If anything happens there it will be whenever FDOT wakes up and chooses to strike some new deal with CSX, which of course could be an eternity.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Feb 4, 2021)

jis said:


> Until the deal happened, Amtrak could exercise its access rights to put a train on that line, even though they may not have used that right for a while. After the deal they cannot.
> 
> Of course, now that they are responsible for the Palatka - Deland segment themselves, they have even less of an incentive to go chasing after that other line. If anything happens there it will be whenever FDOT wakes up and chooses to strike some new deal with CSX, which of course could be an eternity.



Oh I see. That makes sense.


----------



## AmHope (Feb 4, 2021)

fdaley said:


> I know that the Coast Starlight had WiFi when we took it in 2017. But when we last rode it in February 2019, I asked the sleeper attendant if I needed a password for access, and he said the WiFi had been discontinued just a few days before that. He didn't know why. I also recall that when we rode in 2017, my son kept going from our sleeper room back to the business class car to sit, because the signal was stronger there.



The wifi access points on the Coast Starlight were just consumer-grade Verizon hotspots -- the kind some people carry around in their pocket. It's not any faster than just tethering with your phone, and has the same limitations. I remember one trip I took on the Starlight, someone had actually hacked the access point and renamed it with a funny message if you checked its user interface. 

Having a Starlink dish in every car would be nice but hard to implement as it would need to have a place to mount it that let it point upwards unobstructed. i.e. they would have to hack part of the roof out. I suppose you could get away with one dish hacked into the baggage car and then mesh network it to access points in the rest of the train. Spectrum usage would still be an issue as if you use unlicensed spectrum, some person firing up their own hotspot on that frequency would screw the entire train. (Also Starlink doesn't work very well in moving vehicles right now, but that should improve as constellation density goes up and they release dishes with better tracking and suspension). 

People who can work from remote generally like long-distance trains if they have a good data plan on their mobile device that they can tether with. Once you get them to try it out, they actually appreciate it. A roomette becomes an office on wheels. The dog slow speed of Amtrak long distance trains won't help anyone though who have to make their retail or physical labor jobs where remote work is not an option. They want to do other things on their days off than sitting on a train, even if they actually enjoy the train. The train needs to *at least* be faster than driving on the interstate. 

I take the Coast Starlight fairly regularly and like to take friends with me to show them how nice the trip can be. Speed is their number one complaint, followed by the rough ride on the poorly-maintained segments. They did appreciate the Pacific Parlour car back when they still existed -- they were impressed by the big comfy chairs. 

You could even keep some of the slow segments if the bulk of the route could be gotten up to 110mph. Salinas to Paso Robles is the part that could be most improved (not much scenery, relatively flat/straight right-of-way, crappy-ass track). 

The worst part track-wise is the Elkhorn Slough where the tracks are literally underwater at high tide sometimes. I gotta admit I enjoy that though as the train sloshes through, since there's plenty of great wildlife to watch while the train temporarily turns into a boat.


----------



## Qapla (Feb 4, 2021)

TWA904 said:


> Sounds like Ocala.



Nope ... try a little further north*



jis said:


> In exchange for removing all through freight trains from the (Palatka) - Deland - Orlando - Poinciana,



I still see freight trains going through Palatka - and as far south as Barberville still heading south 




* Think "Where's Waldo"


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Feb 4, 2021)

AmHope said:


> They want to do other things on their days off than sitting on a train, even if they actually enjoy the train.



Not necessarily. I enjoyed traveling by train on my days off in between work.


----------



## McIntyre2K7 (Feb 5, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Not necessarily. I enjoyed traveling by train on my days off in between work.



I wish I could take the train and go to Orlando on a day trip. It's great for people who live in Orlando. They can take a trip to Tampa arrive by noon and spend about 4-5 hours here before taking the train home. Living in Tampa, I would have to spend a night in a hotel since the northbound train doesn't get into Orlando until after 7pm. 


It would be nice if they extended the SunRail to Tampa as well...I guess I have to drive or wait until Brightline finishes the extension to Tampa. Sigh...


----------



## jis (Feb 5, 2021)

Qapla said:


> I still see freight trains going through Palatka - and as far south as Barberville still heading south


CSX has trackage rights for local deliveries, and they do have quite a number of customers along that route.

CSX considered their traffic needs to be low enough to dispose off the Palatka to Deland segment to Amtrak.

Similarly, you can see freight trains almost everywhere on the NEC too (except CP Lane just west of Newark Airport Station to just west of Hell Gate Bridge where the Fresh Pond Conrail Shared Assets line separates out). But the onlt through runs are in a few places, most notably Perryville to Bayview, and up north P&W has a few


----------



## neroden (Feb 14, 2021)

jiml said:


> Without looking it up, I believe it was wartime appropriation (WWII) and the government did not return them, unlike after WWI.


Nope. Nationalization of the British railways was done in 1948 (Transport Act 1947), by the post-war Clement Atlee Labour government, elected on a socialist platform of nationalizing industry. The stockholders were bought out at a stock price based on the valuation of the shares in 1946; they were actually given "British Transport Stock" (which were basically government bonds) in exchange for their shares.

What made it easy was that the railways of the UK (forcibly merged into the "Big Four" in 1923, so there were basically only four of them) were all nearly bankrupt after WWII (often suffering bomb damage). Three of them had been nearly bankrupt before the war. Since British Transport Stock paid a guaranteed 3% for 40 years, it was a far better deal for the stockholders than stock in a nearly-bankrupt company.









Transport Act 1947 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





It's really no different than the US formation of Conrail, except that some *idiots* decided to privatize Conrail, so now we have to buy them out and nationalize them all over again.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 14, 2021)

neroden said:


> It's really no different than the US formation of Conrail, except that some *idiots* decided to privatize Conrail, so now we have to buy them out and nationalize them all over again.



Looks like that's what the British are doing, too.


----------



## me_little_me (Feb 14, 2021)

neroden said:


> It's really no different than the US formation of Conrail, except that some *idiots* decided to privatize Conrail, so now we have to buy them out and nationalize them all over again.


I disagree with your contention. I don't think privatization was bad. What was bad is not getting a concession from the railroads to allow any number of priority passenger trains on those tracks at any time in the future at no cost to Amtrak or any public transit system; a stipulation that the mainlines had to meet certain maintenance standards so passenger trains could meet the same standard of speed as what they would have been capable of at the time the government turned over the tracks to the railroad; that the railroads had to give any of those tracks they wanted to abandon to a federal, state or local government at no cost if an agency wanted them and in the same condition as they were when turned over to the railroad; and offer the government the option to buy any of those tracks the railroad wished to sell at their appraised value before offering it to another entity.

This would have allowed Amtrak and public transit to run trains on any or all of those lines at priority and without paying unless they wanted the tracks upgraded to faster speeds.

The offers would have been lower but the benefit would have been much greater.


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 15, 2021)

me_little_me said:


> I disagree with your contention. I don't think privatization was bad. What was bad is not getting a concession from the railroads to allow any number of priority passenger trains on those tracks at any time in the future at no cost to Amtrak or any public transit system; a stipulation that the mainlines had to meet certain maintenance standards so passenger trains could meet the same standard of speed as what they would have been capable of at the time the government turned over the tracks to the railroad; that the railroads had to give any of those tracks they wanted to abandon to a federal, state or local government at no cost if an agency wanted them and in the same condition as they were when turned over to the railroad; and offer the government the option to buy any of those tracks the railroad wished to sell at their appraised value before offering it to another entity.


The way our "free enterprise system" is set up, the major (and to some, the only) obligation of private businesses is to their owners, shareholders in the case of publicly held companies or the rich plutocrats or venture/vulture capitalists who own "privately held" companies. Even if they're not looting the assets of a company by running up massive debt and providing the most inferior product they can get away with while skimming off as much of the revenue as they can until the company is a bankrupt shell, they will optimize their operations by cutting costs as much as possible. In the case of the railroads, the class I's even messed up their freight services to save costs after they shut down the competition from Conrail by buying up the assets. Any "concessions" they might have given the government about passenger trains when they bought the assets wouldn't worth the paper they're written on. They will either try to find loopholes, or just tie the government up in court. And even if the government were to win the case, the railroad would still drag their heels if it affected its bottom line.

There's a reason why every other kind of transportation infrastructure is owned by the public.


----------

