# Two goals for the 2014 election season



## CHamilton (Jul 4, 2014)

I think these are pretty simple.


Ask all local, state and national political parties to include a plank in support of a robust, national passenger rail system.
Ask all local, state and national candidates to pledge their support for passenger rail, and to start or actively participate in a passenger rail caucus in their legislative bodies.
We don't want to be one-issue voters, but we need to make passenger rail a more important part of the election process.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 5, 2014)

Charlie, stop assuming the system is honest.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 5, 2014)

I'm not unmindful of the limitations of the system. Certainly, the recent Supreme Court decisions are discouraging. On the other hand, there are signs that people are disgusted with "politics as usual," and are willing to put their work, and money, into turning things around.

Which means that this may be the perfect time to press for changes at all levels -- including state legislatures, where rail funding is increasingly decided, and where redistricting decisions are made -- and in Congress, where Supreme Court nominees are approved.

Yes, it will take time, but we may be closer to a tipping point than we know right now.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 5, 2014)

Even if they're not, I'll be darned if I'm not going to go down without a fight. It may be tilting at windmills, but I'm not going to just sit idly by and see the things that I like slowly get dismantled...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 5, 2014)

Every thread in the Rail Advocacy Forum starts the same way. Someone suggests an activity of some sort and then along comes our amazingly determined detractor to bash anyone who dares to speak up. On the plus side his endless whining and moaning helps keep bumping the advocacy topics back to the top of the active threads list so I guess that's a plus.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 5, 2014)

Kinda makes you look good, uh, DA.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 5, 2014)

Pfui. The wrong tactics are worse than doing nothing- you lull yourself into the false sense that your working on the problem.

We shouldn't be talking to bought and paid for anti rail politicians and aprising them of what they already know. We should be working on depoliticizing rail. It was a bipartisan issue 10 years ago. Obamas HSR push united Republicans and especially T-Pubs in an Anti Obama campaign that unfortunately featured rail as it's talking point.

You don't have to like me, DA. I don't like you, either. I find your tactics infantile. But from now on I hold you to the standard of having logical reasons for crticizing me personally. Otherwise stick to the topic at hand or throw your keyboard against the wall.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 7, 2014)

Keep other political issues far, far away.

For msot of the candidates of any general political viewpoint any rail issues, wheter rail transit, long distance rail, or any other thing rail related are very minor issues of interest to only a very small number of people and will be treated accordingly. What you don't want to do is make it appear that rail issues are married to or part of the same package as issues of greater concern regardless of what these issues. (Using the following only as examples, do not let it get in the same package with gun control or anti-gun control, pro life or pro abortion, or anything else of the far more hot-button issues. If you are heavily involved in either one of these on either side, using these only as examples, then do not identify yourself to the politicians, at least, as having strong views on rail issues.)

In your pro-rail promotion, it is perfectly fine to raise the issue of reduced use of fossil fuels, air polituion, road congestion, airport congestion, and anything related, but I would strongly recommend you not mention "global warming" or "climate change". The fuel use, air pollution, and congestion issues are obvious, serious, and real even to those who are skeptics concerning warming and change issues.

Recognize that you are in the real world and are not going to find anybody politician or otherwise with whom you will be in 100% agreement. "Do not let the striving for perfection drive out the good." This is not heaven. Perfection does not exist here.

Now a political statement from me: The "environmentalists" are not our friends when it comes down to doing something. They may like the concept of rail in concept as reducing the human "fotprint" in general, but when it comes to actuall building something, they seem to be able to find no end of things wrong with whatever is being planned. They also seem to be, either themselves used by those opposed to the rail line in general, or else their concepts and regulations are misused by those that really care nothing about the environment but simply want to stop the porject.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 7, 2014)

George Harris said:


> Keep other political issues far, far away.
> 
> For msot of the candidates of any general political viewpoint any rail issues, wheter rail transit, long distance rail, or any other thing rail related are very minor issues of interest to only a very small number of people and will be treated accordingly. What you don't want to do is make it appear that rail issues are married to or part of the same package as issues of greater concern regardless of what these issues. (Using the following only as examples, do not let it get in the same package with gun control or anti-gun control, pro life or pro abortion, or anything else of the far more hot-button issues. If you are heavily involved in either one of these on either side, using these only as examples, then do not identify yourself to the politicians, at least, as having strong views on rail issues.) In your pro-rail promotion, it is perfectly fine to raise the issue of reduced use of fossil fuels, air polituion, road congestion, airport congestion, and anything related, but I would strongly recommend you not mention "global warming" or "climate change". The fuel use, air pollution, and congestion issues are obvious, serious, and real even to those who are skeptics concerning warming and change issues. Recognize that you are in the real world and are going to find anybody politician or otherwise with whom you will be in 100% agreement. "Do not the striving for perfection drive out the good." This is not heaven. Perfection does not exist here. Now a political statement from me: The "environmentalists" are not our friends when it comes down to doing something. They may like the concept of rail in concept as reducing the human "fotprint" in general, but when it comes to actuall building something, they seem to be able to find no end of things wrong with whatever is being planned. They also seem to be, either themselves used by those opposed to the rail line in general, or else their concepts and regulations are misused by those that really care nothing about the environment but simply want to stop the porject.


So we have a warning to avoid mixing too many goals and inviting unnecessary controversy followed by a completely unnecessary and divisive attack on an entire movement. George, do you ever read what you write before you post it or are you really this blind to your own hypocrisy?


----------



## Ryan (Jul 7, 2014)

Bold fearless prediction: George will walk away from his statement saying that this isn't the place to discuss these sorts of things. He's the master of taking the political cheap shot but then steadfastly refusing to defend it.


----------



## jis (Jul 7, 2014)

Why try to defend the indefensible unnecessarily  What is anyone exactly going to do if it is not defended. The point is made. The purpose served. move on with life


----------



## George Harris (Jul 7, 2014)

To Ryan and Devil's Advocate: Are you blind to how much and how frequently you throw your own political viewss into everything you say? usually I just try to ignore it as much as possible. I suggest that it is time for you to start reading your own writing as if you were seeing it for the first time.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 7, 2014)

Nope. I'm not blind to it at all. In fact, I embrace it.

The difference is that I don't claim to be keeping politics out of my posts, and when challenged, I actually attempt to respond constructively instead of hiding behind the "we're not really here to talk about that" excuse.

It's a shame, you're obviously an expert in your field, and I've got a great amount of respect for the technical content that you bring to the forum. It'd just be a million times better if you either kept the politics out of it (especially in a post where you cheerlead the separation of politics and rail advocacy for the first 4 paragraphs, then crap all over it in your conclusion), or actually engage in a discussion when you try to score political points.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 8, 2014)

I actually agree with George wholeheartedly. I want more rail. I will sell it to any given politician using whatever argument I think will work on that politician. I'll work with a tea party guy to get more rail if I think I can get him on my side.

My general non rail politics are decided in the voting booth. Rail, I don't care if they agree or disagree with any other issue of mine. I push for rail using whatever lever I can lay my hands on if they are already in office.

I do have extreme politics in all kinds of areas. But that never rears its head when I'm advocating.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 8, 2014)

RyanS said:


> Nope. I'm not blind to it at all. In fact, I embrace it.
> 
> The difference is that I don't claim to be keeping politics out of my posts, and when challenged, I actually attempt to respond constructively instead of hiding behind the "we're not really here to talk about that" excuse.
> 
> It's a shame, you're obviously an expert in your field, and I've got a great amount of respect for the technical content that you bring to the forum. It'd just be a million times better if you either kept the politics out of it (especially in a post where you cheerlead the separation of politics and rail advocacy for the first 4 paragraphs, then crap all over it in your conclusion), or actually engage in a discussion when you try to score political points.


That last paragraph is from dealing with people that are trying to wrap themselves in the cloak of environmentalism to try to kill rail by the thousand cuts method or at least try to push some really misreable alignments through trying to disguise NIMBYism as environmentalism. If you consider that being politics, sorry about that. It is realism. When embracing these people, protect your back to avoid the knife.


----------



## jis (Jul 8, 2014)

We have had a serious issue with the Sierra Club of NJ with regard to the Lackawanna Cutoff. They have been opposed to it because it allegedly encourages sprawl. never mind that that train left the station long back with the construction of Routes I80 and 23. Afterall, as long as their BMWs can make it up there what do they care what happens to anyone else?

But then again a stalwart rail advocate has also been dead set against it and also the MOM project for various personal reasons. So you can never really trust anyone on these things. You have to look at it on a case by case basis. Sometimes your notional friends turn out to be the worst enemy of your cause. Conversely, sometimes you get support from completely unexpected places too.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 11, 2014)

George Harris said:


> That last paragraph is from dealing with people that are trying to wrap themselves in the cloak of environmentalism to try to kill rail by the thousand cuts method or at least try to push some really misreable alignments through trying to disguise NIMBYism as environmentalism. If you consider that being politics, sorry about that. It is realism. When embracing these people, protect your back to avoid the knife.


I don't disagree with your conclusions, for the most part. Just be honest and accept that it's an inherently political statement and flies in the face of your admonition to "Keep other political issues far, far away."


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 11, 2014)

Politics comes from the Latin- Polly = many, tics = bloodsucking parasites. Since NIMBYs are a bunch of blood sucking parasites, NIMBYs are a political problem. And don't you forget it.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 17, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Politics comes from the Latin- Polly = many, tics = bloodsucking parasites. Since NIMBYs are a bunch of blood sucking parasites, NIMBYs are a political problem. And don't you forget it.


I love it, I love it, I love it.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 18, 2014)

Quoting myself from another forum:

Amtrak is such a creature of Congress, and always has been, that it tends to get involved in the cyclical political nonsense that goes on in DC.

At the moment, we're seeing several negative trends, all of which have been talked about to death here, so I won't list them. But I'm seeing some trends that may turn things around in the long term, such as:


Millennials turning away from cars and toward other forms of transportation.
Private interest in passenger rail, for the first time in half a century.
State funding of passenger rail, forcing Amtrak to compete and think outside the rails (this one's a double-edged sword, to be sure!)
Gradual easing of heavy-handed safety regulations, which may allow easier use of off-the-shelf equipment from other parts of the world.
Wider recognition that the era of private fossil-fueled vehicles is finally coming to an end.
These trends are likely to take a long time to become widely accepted among the public, and even longer to be accepted in the halls of Congress, state legislatures, and local city councils. So it is imperative that those of us who want to see more passenger rail must *speak up and lobby hard!*


----------



## neroden (Jul 28, 2014)

I actually think we need to push hardest on this one:

"Gradual easing of heavy-handed safety regulations, which may allow easier use of off-the-shelf equipment from other parts of the world."

(The Buy America restrictions cause similar problems.)

I think the wind is at our backs. Furthermore, state and local governments understand the importance of owning their own tracks. But these particular ill-thought-out federal rules have tied states & localities in knots trying to work around them, and are slowing everything down.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 31, 2014)

neroden said:


> I actually think we need to push hardest on this one:
> 
> "Gradual easing of heavy-handed safety regulations, which may allow easier use of off-the-shelf equipment from other parts of the world."
> 
> (The Buy America restrictions cause similar problems.)


OK, so here again you will probably scream that I am being political: so be it. This is one that I will absolutely fight against. Take a careful look at how some of thes four axled soda cans have performed in crashes and you will not want to discard our safety regulations. Could they be improved? Yes. Where? I really do not know where and how, but for the most part those fighting against them are doing it exactly for the reason you give. They want to sell their off the shelf equipment as is except for the paint job. These various suppliers screaming about the problems they have meeting American safety regulations for the most part can be categorized under two headings: Propoganda because they want to take the lazy way out. and not do any additional analysis or design and fabrication modifications, and Uncertainty/inability to do any design outside the cookbook rules they have been taught.


----------



## neroden (Jul 31, 2014)

American FRA-compliant designs, with 1940s "safety" standards which are designed around preserving the carbody rather than protecting the passengers, have been repeatedly proven to be less safe than European non-compliant designs with crash energy management. Nothing more need be said. I see you're part of the problem, Mr. Harris. You're a professional. Do your research, since you haven't.


----------



## jis (Jul 31, 2014)

The modified tier I has a profile now which admits a CEM exterior and only requires that the passenger compartment not be compromised. So there is at least some progress. Tier III is entirely based on such, and that is why Tier III compliant equipment will turn out to be much lighter than Acelas, and should have much better ride quality as a consequence, but without compromising safety. The issue is actually more complex and involved than George unfortunately makes it out to be. Or at least that is the understanding I got from the Chief Safety Officer person who is working the safety case for the higher speed NEC service and Acela II acquisition. In general there appears to be significant motion in the direction of a standard that starts looking more like the European one, but not quite exactly like it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 31, 2014)

Nathaniel, compare Eschede with Chase. 'Nuff said.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 31, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Nathaniel, compare Eschede with Chase. 'Nuff said.


Eschede was an unsurvivable crash no matter what safety regulations you are under. There's pretty much nothing you can do to survive slamming into a bridge at 120mph and then having it collapse on you (and, if memory serves, the designs are for a locomotive led collision, not a car derailing into something separately). Meanwhile Amtrak lucked out on Chase by having mostly empty forward cars. Per the NTSB:



> The lead car of train 94 was so thoroughly crushed that had the car been occupied, almost none aboard could have survived the crash. Fortunately,thecar served as a buffer much as a baggage car would. It was also fortunate that there were only 25 passengers aboard the second car, which had 84 seats. More than half the passengers in this car were fatally injured, and the emergency response personnel had great difficulty in extricating injured passengers. Had the car been filled to capacity, as were most of the cars to the rear, the toll of fatally-injured passengers would have been much higher.


For that matter, at those speeds, I don't think anyone's willing to claim that there's anything that can be reasonably done design wise to improve survival, there's simply too much energy.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 1, 2014)

Paulus said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Nathaniel, compare Eschede with Chase. 'Nuff said.
> ...


Cars may have crumpled at Chase, but they did not literally come apart at the seams like they did at Eschede. Admittedly, there may not be much difference in the outcme between being crushed in the vehicle as at Chase and being thrown all over the countryside as at Eschede, but these were both off the charts for anybody's standards. There were so many things wrong at Eschede it would take a while just to make the list much less a discussion of them. Suffice to say that given the American standards for wheels, structures, and vehicles Eschede would not have happened at all, much less been so catastrophic. Chase was much simpler. Very simple, indeed. An intoxicated engineer overran the end of the track he was running on so that the passenger train simply ran into him at speed. I would suspect that mass represented by 3 diesels end on exceeded that of a light duty two lane road structure hit sideways.

Nathaniel, I have been reading ICC, then NTSB accident reports for about 40 years by now, and a good bit of my thoughts on what is good and no good is based on discussions of hov vehicles and fixed facilities have performed when things go wrong. One thing I have also learned: When the contents and basis of some standard or regulation is not understood the easiest way to disparage it is to throw around some date in reference to it, the more distant in the past, the better.

There are things in American regulations on safety and other things that can be improved, yes, but throwing them out wholesale is NOT the answer. People on this side of the ocean do at least read them and have some understanding of what is in the Euronorms. There are good things there, buth there are also in them that leave you saying "why oh why?", "no way would anybody really do that," and other less polite reactions.


----------



## Paulus (Aug 1, 2014)

George Harris said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


My complaint on using Chase is more that it's dishonest to try and compare fatalities with it when they were only as low as they were because there was hardly anybody in the front of the train. Switch things around (if it were the rear cars were left empty for the northern boarders for instance) and you're dealing with a 120+ fatality crash which has me wondering what the regulatory response to _that_ would have been.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 1, 2014)

Paulus said:


> My complaint on using Chase is more that it's dishonest to try and compare fatalities with it when they were only as low as they were because there was hardly anybody in the front of the train. Switch things around (if it were the rear cars were left empty for the northern boarders for instance) and you're dealing with a 120+ fatality crash which has me wondering what the regulatory response to _that_ would have been.


My complalint with this whole "how wonderful things are under the Euronorms" is that we do not get enough information to make an honest comparison. Partly that is becasue railroad accidents that happen there are simply not reported at all here, tend to be treated more like local news there, and anything that could be construed as being an embarassment to the agencies or goverrnments tends to be covered there rather that waved wildly in the public as tends to be the practice in the US. Some digging can bring out a different picture.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 1, 2014)

I didn't talk about fatalities. Most of the cars on the Chase train are STILL IN SERVICE. It is possible some of the scrap metal from Eschede has been repurposed back into rail somewhere I suppose.


----------



## Paulus (Aug 1, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I didn't talk about fatalities. Most of the cars on the Chase train are STILL IN SERVICE. It is possible some of the scrap metal from Eschede has been repurposed back into rail somewhere I suppose.


What does it matter if the cars are still in service? The point is occupant survival, not car usability post crash. If you want to compare Chase to something, try comparing it to Ladbroke which is a far better example, though neither the HST or the Turbo were built with CEM in mind.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 1, 2014)

Bro, I am confident that if the Eschede disaster happened with Amfleets, more would have survived. I can't prove it. I can prove that when a ICE 1 derailed at 120 miles per hour 40% of the passengers on board died, another 30% were severely injured, every car that was involved in the impact was a pile of scrap metal and all of the non casualties were forward of the derailment.

I can also demonstrate that when an Amcan set derailed 5 mph faster with a force collision of similar magnitude, of its 660 passengers, 2.4% died, 25% were injured, and only 3 cars and the lead locomotive were not returned to service. Any questions?


----------



## Paulus (Aug 1, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Bro, I am confident that if the Eschede disaster happened with Amfleets, more would have survived. I can't prove it. I can prove that when a ICE 1 derailed at 120 miles per hour 40% of the passengers on board died, another 30% were severely injured, every car that was involved in the impact was a pile of scrap metal and all of the non casualties were forward of the derailment.
> 
> I can also demonstrate that when an Amcan set derailed 5 mph faster with a force collision of similar magnitude, of its 660 passengers, 2.4% died, 25% were injured, and only 3 cars and the lead locomotive were not returned to service. Any questions?


And I can also demonstrate that, had the cars been occupied rather than empty, the death toll would have exceeded Eschede by a considerable margin. You cannot just go gallivanting about ignoring critical factors like that. Every single passenger in that lead Amcan would have died and as it was half of them in the second Amcan did die. Lack of fatalities in empty cars do not prove safety and to try to pretend otherwise, as you're doing, is incredibly dishonest.

Seriously, this is just nonsense. You're comparing a derailment with offset/side impact into a bridge, with subsequent collapse, with loaded cars to a head on collision with a lead locomotive and an empty car ahead of any passengers.


----------



## jis (Aug 1, 2014)

I tend to agree with Paulus on this one. It is an apples to oranges comparison, and I don't think any definitive conclusions can be drawn from those two cases at all. but as for anyone whose mind is already made up that should not matter now, should it?


----------

