# High-speed rail a top priority



## GoldenSpike (Aug 3, 2009)

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1765092178/Wor...ity-LaHood-says


----------



## stntylr (Aug 3, 2009)

If high speed rail was a top priority they would spend some real money on it. Not just the 8 billion this year or the still undecided amount for next year but the 50 billion Rep. Oberstar is proposing to spend. That still wouldn't ge enough but it would get things going.


----------



## acelafan (Aug 3, 2009)

stntylr said:


> If high speed rail was a top priority they would spend some real money on it. Not just the 8 billion this year or the still undecided amount for next year but the 50 billion Rep. Oberstar is proposing to spend. That still wouldn't ge enough but it would get things going.


Couple comments. I support high speed rail 100% but I also hope the public understands that true "high speed" rail requires a lot of money as noted above. Are people being told empty promises? I hope not. Boardman has also suggested that incrementally upgrading existing tracks to accommodate higher-speed rail (110 MPH) would build support for faster trains and he probably has the right idea. Most people I speak with still feel Amtrak is painfully slow (and at times it definitely is...often at the mercy of the freight railroads). Amtrak's own report of re-introducing the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans at http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/PRIAA/GulfCoastS...ePlanReport.pdf states the following with regard to a particularly slow section:

The line between Flomaton and Tallahassee has seven long and one short passing sidings. Maximum speeds are generally 40-59 miles per hour, but are limited to 20 miles per hour on a seven-mile section of track at CSX’s Chattahoochee Yard west of Tallahassee. This segment includes the Suspended Service Stations at Pensacola, Chipley, Crestview, and Tallahassee, Florida.

If some of the HSR funds can be used to fix a few bottlenecks, that might help improve Amtrak's image. Of course, Congress has not fully funded Amtrak's FY10 funding request - yet they can pump a few billion into Cars for Clunkers at the drop of a hat. Too bad Amtrak is always the red-headed step child.

One more thought...there has been some bad PR with regard to Amtrak's inspector general leaving/retiring abruptly, and distributing a copy of a report outlining several issues with the IG process within Amtrak . Might Amtrak be in the position of 'being punished' by Congress because of that issue?


----------



## JSmith (Aug 5, 2009)

I definitely support the incremental improvement approach. I think we need to walk before we try to run.

Personally, I would like to see us bring our railroad system up to the standards of, say, Great Britain. Most trains run at under 100 mph, but there are trains at least hourly to almost anywhere you might like to go. (I know the Brits on the forum can tell us about the many problems of their rail system, but it's still decades ahead of ours).

I don't really need to travel 180 mph to go from Buffalo to Cleveland (although it would be fun). But I sure would like to be able to visit my uncle there without having to ask him to pick me up at the station at 3:30 AM. More frequent and more reliably on-time service is a more cost-effective way to increase ridership than high speeds (unless they include the other two aspects), IMO.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 5, 2009)

JSmith said:


> I definitely support the incremental improvement approach. I think we need to walk before we try to run.
> Personally, I would like to see us bring our railroad system up to the standards of, say, Great Britain. Most trains run at under 100 mph, but there are trains at least hourly to almost anywhere you might like to go. (I know the Brits on the forum can tell us about the many problems of their rail system, but it's still decades ahead of ours).
> 
> I don't really need to travel 180 mph to go from Buffalo to Cleveland (although it would be fun). But I sure would like to be able to visit my uncle there without having to ask him to pick me up at the station at 3:30 AM. More frequent and more reliably on-time service is a more cost-effective way to increase ridership than high speeds (unless they include the other two aspects), IMO.


Hear!Hear!Ditto!The HSR $$ will be fought out in DC with lots of mouths @ the trough and lots of cities/areas competing for

the $$!Who gets it,when and how much is the name of the game!This is another reminder for those who dont want to pay

taxes but want services to wake-up and smell the coffee!Hope your reps are on the ball,were pretty behind here in Texas

thanks to our car first culture but that too is changing,if slowly!


----------



## DET63 (Aug 13, 2009)

> I don't really need to travel 180 mph to go from Buffalo to Cleveland (although it would be fun).


Well, who'd want to go to Cleveland at 180 mph anyway? 

OTOH, who'd want to go to Buffalo at that speed?



> But I sure would like to be able to visit my uncle there without having to ask him to pick me up at the station at 3:30 AM.


I do think that daytime arrivals and departures from major cities along a train route would be desirable. Not too many people are going to want to start or end a major cross-country ride (or even one to another city 200-300 miles away) at 3:00 am.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 14, 2009)

DET63 said:


> > I don't really need to travel 180 mph to go from Buffalo to Cleveland (although it would be fun).
> 
> 
> Well, who'd want to go to Cleveland at 180 mph anyway?
> ...


I know about connections and dispatching by the freights etc. but wonder why burgs can have train stops in the daylight amd major cities are visited

in the middle of the night(can you say SL/LSL/Cardinal/CL/SWC/CZ/EB(isnt SPK a major city?),come to think about it almost every route except the NEC!!

Give the stations that have 10 people a year board/deboard the wee hour stops!!!(theyre safer and folks can wait in their cars easier!!)


----------



## AlanB (Aug 14, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > > I don't really need to travel 180 mph to go from Buffalo to Cleveland (although it would be fun).
> ...


Even the NEC sees a train make a stop at a major city in the middle of the night.

But again, when a city in the middle of a run gets served is a funtion of how long does it take to get there from the end point cities. Everything revolves around the end point cities, which typically are the largest and in most cases offer transfers to other trains. The timings must be coordinated to facilitate those transfers and serving those end point cities.

Everything else just falls into place after that based upon the running times. Maybe if people were more accepting of slow running and/or just sitting some where during the run, we could improve calling times for major cities in the middle of a run. But that would also of course affect the overall running times and one would still have to be careful not to kill transfers.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2009)

AlanB said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > DET63 said:
> ...


You are correct about calling times and connections,but whats wrong with altering the LD times,perhaps stagger the departure/arrival times in

CHI/WAS/NYP so as to make the arrival and departures more convient for these cities(ie why does the Cardinal have to run CHI-WAS @ 5:45PM

to 555PM,the LSL sure could be improved too,the closest to a better sched is the CL)?And the western trains,do all of them have to leave in the same window resulting in crowding and confusion in CHI?(last but not least is the schedule of the TE/SL which perhaps the worst one of all,theresno real reason for the overnight layover in SAS that I can see?)Perhaps even consider flip flopping the schedules,the CZ and the EB would be a good example,

it wouldnt hurt to arrive in CHI or California @ the flip flopped times IMHO!Last but not least the SWC has perhaps the best schedule of all LD

trains (except for Kansas City!LOL)and the CS could get pax to the Bay Area and LAX @ better arrival times could it not? :blink:


----------



## DET63 (Aug 14, 2009)

I would think that, where a large city is served only in the middle of the night by an LD train, a market for a daytime service over much of the same route (though maybe not to or from the same destinations; maybe not even LD) would be a consideration. Of course, Amtrak might have to buy more equipment for the service, or local governments (states and even the cities themselves) might have to pony up the dough for such a service.

Would a PIT-CLE service running during daylight hours be feasible? Would the Pennsylvania and Ohio state governments be willing and able to foot the bill for such a train?

Perhaps the train to Pittsburgh could be called the _Steeler_ and the one to Cleveland could be called the _Brown_.


----------

