Amtrak's own hypothetical national track infrastructure discussion

[basketmaker]

Look at the freight carriers that Amtrak utilizes assets. BNSF=$59B, UP=$59B, CSX=$36B, NS=$36B, CN=$29B, CP=$21B and AMTK=$22B comes to $266B. That was just with a very quick Google search.

 

[ehbowen]

Look at the freight carriers that Amtrak utilizes assets. BNSF=$59B, UP=$59B, CSX=$36B, NS=$36B, CN=$29B, CP=$21B and AMTK=$22B comes to $266B. That was just with a very quick Google search.

And further keep in mind that much of that is depreciated. To build new from scratch...just wow.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Can you say "All the Money in the World and More!!"( Cost overruns are a sure thing!)

 

[jis]

In any case, lack of political will is the primary problem. If there is political will, money can always be found. Just curtailing a few of the fancy aircraft and sea craft programs of the DoD will be enough to fund a significant part of the basic network. LOL!

 

[Bob Dylan]

In any case, lack of political will is the primary problem. If there is [political will, money can always be found. Just curtailing a few of the fancy aircraft and sea craft programs of the DoD will be enough to fund a significant part of the basic network. LOL!

Paging Ryan!! lol

 

[NightRose]

If you want rail to be genuinely competitive on something like a coast to coast line, even HSR isn't fast enough to be a genuine alternative to airlines. You'd have to look at something like maglev or a hyperloop for that. The costs would be immense.

This is true in terms of speed, but speed isn't the only thing that matters when people are making transportation decisions. If a government seriously dedicated to GHG reductions built out then started heavily subsidizing rail because of environmental and social benefits, I suspect it would become a primary choice even for long distance transportation. Sure, people with extreme efficiency needs/time constraints might fly (sort of how private jets work today) but if it only costs $20 (or nothing!) to travel from LA to Chi, and $50 will upgrade you to a sleeper pod or roomette, then a lot of people would likely choose the slower, more leisurely option.

 

[neroden]

Look at the freight carriers that Amtrak utilizes assets. BNSF=$59B, UP=$59B, CSX=$36B, NS=$36B, CN=$29B, CP=$21B and AMTK=$22B comes to $266B. That was just with a very quick Google search.

So, pretty cheap then. We spend roughly 3 times that much on the US military every year, and the US military appears to exist primarily to threaten our national security by angering and alienating foreign govenments and foreign citizens -- it certainly hasn't won any wars. At that price, we should just do it, nationalize the railroads, it's cheap. Of course, what prevents this is political -- we have a lot of Congressmen who like blowing money on completely counterproductive military spending (probably because they get kickbacks) but reject any spending which might actually make life better for Americans. (Yes, I am cynical.)

 

[drdumont]

In some places, it might be possible for Amtrak to co-exist with other freight tracks and simply “lease” one track for its own use from the host railroad. And then lease back operating rights for freight on schedules that won’t interfere with passenger train operations. Amtrak dispatchers would decide.

Wow! Would that it could be the case! So many of the railroads have ripped up "surplus to needs" tracks that could have been turned into a revenue source.


This might mean upgrading track, if it already exists beside other tracks, for faster speeds that make the train a better option than private autos. It would not need to be “high-speed” tho.

Agreed.

Other places it would involve brand new tracks.

 

[dogbert617]

It would seem that there is a movement afoot in some states to provide Amtrak with its own trackage. Michigan has already done this for the Wolverine service. VA and NC are in the process of doing this as well. Even in states not receptive in supporting corridor trains Amtrak is taking the steps in this direction, such as Florida where they acquired a 50 some mile section of the CSX A line north of Deland to Palatka. I would not be suprised to see Florida unload the line through Orlando as well as the line Tri Rail uses from WPB to Miami onto Amtrak.

Speaking of Florida Amtrak routes, what was the reason Amtrak stopped running through Ocala, FL? It's too bad you no longer can take a train, to there. And also to a station (I think Waldo), which wasn't too far from Gainesville. Am I right in think Amtrak no longer doing train service to Ocala, was because of Amtrak no longer running the Silver Palm(IIRC now the Palmetto to only Savannah) through central Florida?

And of course, don't need to get started on the sadness about Sunset Ltd. no longer running through Pensacola, Tallahassee, Jacksonville, etc.

 

[AGM.12]

I believe that, in addition to state funded improvements to the ex SAL route to central Florida, CSX would part with the A line through Orlando on the condition that passenger service would be focused there and not on the S line, which will become freight only.

 

[Qapla]

Yes, the station in Waldo, Fl is just east of Gainesville.


It has been closed for many, many years although it is listed as a depot for the thruway bus

The building was built in 1963 to replace the old on - which had, at one time, been a divisional headquarters for the Seaboard Air Line Railway.

 

[20th Century Rider]

It's simply too late for even thinking of building a rail network across private lands... not even worth speculation; land is simply too scarce and expensive. We need to think of negotiating and upgrading existing track and rights of way along already existing utilities, pipe lines, and interstate / federal highways.

 

[pennyk]

Yes, the station in Waldo, Fl is just east of Gainesville.
View attachment 18250

It has been closed for many, many years although it is listed as a depot for the thruway bus

The building was built in 1963 to replace the old on - which had, at one time, been a divisional headquarters for the Seaboard Air Line Railway.

Thanks for posting the photo. It brings back wonderful memories. I traveled to and from Waldo many times. In fact, when I first traveled to college, it was by train (pre Amtrak) to Waldo.

 

[west point]

Yes Waldo ~ 12 miles NNE of Gainesville. SAL once served Gainesville on a branch line from Waldo to Cedar Key that was abandoned by SCL. The University of Florida has a lot of potential passengers but being on a branch line it would never have been able to get Amtrak service. Now in the distant future a new HSR line ? ? I believe the "S" line missing the Orlando area was its death knell ?

 

[Qapla]

There are no longer tracks in Gainesville that would allow service to go anywhere ... rails-to-trails have claimed the connecting tracts that would link the Ocala area to Gainesville

There are also NO direct tracks between Gainesville and Tallahassee - connecting the two Universities by rail

 

[McIntyre2K7]

There are no longer tracks in Gainesville that would allow service to go anywhere ... rails-to-trails have claimed the connecting tracts that would link the Ocala area to Gainesville

There are also NO direct tracks between Gainesville and Tallahassee - connecting the two Universities by rail

Which is strange considering the amount of open land in that part of the state. There should be a Florida west coast line that runs from Miami to Atlanta using the right of way on Interstate 75. You would have stops in Naples, Ft. Myers, Sarasota, Tampa, Ocala, Gainesville. Then once it crosses into Georgia it would stop in Valdosta, Macon before ending in Atlanta. You could crate a station near the I-75/I-10 interchange that would connect with a Jacksonville to New Orleans route using the right of way from Interstate 10.

 

[MARC Rider]

All new tracks just for passenger rail seems to be overkill. It seems that it might be better to purchase partial ownership arrangements and build an extra track and sidings on current right of way so that both passenger and freight can coexist peacefully.

However, there are places where all-new right of way might be in order -- for both passenger and freight. Nearly all of the US rail network was laid out during the 19th century under technological constraints -- both in construction technology and the performance of rail vehicles -- that don't apply today. Most of the routes over mountainous areas twist and turn following stream valleys to be able to keep to the low grades needed by old time steam locos and the limitations of 19th century earthmoving capabilities. The network is thus not very direct in many places, and has difficulty competing with road traffic, given that the Interstate Highway network was designed and built from the mid 20th century on. Even though the highways don't cross the mountains in a straight line, they are a lot less twisty than the railroads. Imagine trying to drive a model year 2020 18-wheeler tractor trailer across the country using the highway network of, say, 1940. That's what the American railroad system is like.

The rail mileage between Washington and Pittsburgh, for example, is about 50 miles longer than the highway mileage. Furthermore, much of the rail mileage is so curvy the trains can't go much faster the 40-50 mph. On the other hand, once you merge on to the freeway in DC, you can drive nonstop at 60-70 mph (if you're the type to actually observe speed limits) all the way to Pittsburgh. (OK, there's a couple of traffic lights in Breezewood, and one might need to take a bathroom break, you get the idea.) From the perspective of passenger service, the NS main across Pennsylvania happens to bypass State College, one of the largest urban conglomeration between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. I could definitely see an advantage to building a new rail corridor that would serve State College along the Harrisburg - Pittsburgh line. We clearly need to take a closer look at our rail system and bring it up to date to better serve our total transportation system.

 

[TheVig]

Environmental law suits alone would make it cost prohibitive. After all we need to make sure the habitat of the rare speckled unicorn cockroach is not harmed.

 

[Siegmund]

Nearly all of the US rail network was laid out during the 19th century under technological constraints -- both in construction technology and the performance of rail vehicles -- that don't apply today. Most of the routes over mountainous areas twist and turn following stream valleys to be able to keep to the low grades needed by old time steam locos and the limitations of 19th century earthmoving capabilities.

Construction technology has improved, but physics hasn't changed. 19th century technology is NOT why railroads follow rivers rather than go straight over mountains.
The other constraints have gotten tighter, rather than looser: labor is much more expensive, land is much more expensive, and so are things like adding and removing helper engines.

It's not "low grades needed by old time steam locos," but "low grades needed in order to move any heavy mass without an insane amount of power." The trend is to lower grades, not steeper. In steam days there were many mainlines of more than 2% grade, temporary lines before tunnels were dug of 4% and more, and routine use of 6+% places like logging railroads with low speeds and short trains and extreme terrain. Such new routes as have been built in my lifetime have mostly been built to reduce grades to 1% or less.

Railroads move freight across mountains with perhaps 2 horsepower per ton. "Overpowered" passenger trains may get up to 6 or 8 HP per ton (power they don't need for speed on level ground, but for quick acceleration, and to maintain speed on grades.)

Meanwhile semi trucks on the highway are in the 10-20 HP per ton range; your car is insanely overpowered at something north of 100 HP per ton, about the same as a piston airplane; jets are more like 500 HP/ton.

There are proposals to do things like run the LA to Vegas train along the I-15 median across Cajon Pass - and provide it with enough power to climb a 6% grade - and it can be done if cost is no object.

If cost were no object, though, we'd do better to flatten and straighten track, and imitate the tunnels under the Alps.

 

[Ziv]

There is one joker in play though. The Boring Company does seem to have reduced the cost of tunneling a great deal. Unfortunately, so far, their bore size is not adequate for rail traffic much larger than that used by the London Underground's deep tube operations. Probably not a train that would be of much use for Amtrak. ;-)
But the future is uncertain when it comes to cost per mile of tunneling.

Construction technology has improved, but physics hasn't changed. 19th century technology is NOT why railroads follow rivers rather than go straight over mountains.
The other constraints have gotten tighter, rather than looser: labor is much more expensive, land is much more expensive, and so are things like adding and removing helper engines.

It's not "low grades needed by old time steam locos," but "low grades needed in order to move any heavy mass without an insane amount of power." The trend is to lower grades, not steeper. In steam days there were many mainlines of more than 2% grade, temporary lines before tunnels were dug of 4% and more, and routine use of 6+% places like logging railroads with low speeds and short trains and extreme terrain. Such new routes as have been built in my lifetime have mostly been built to reduce grades to 1% or less.

......

If cost were no object, though, we'd do better to flatten and straighten track, and imitate the tunnels under the Alps.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Environmental law suits alone would make it cost prohibitive. After all we need to make sure the habitat of the rare speckled unicorn cockroach is not harmed.

The people funding environmental lawsuits against passenger rail do so because they're anti-rail rather than pro-environment. The vast majority of environmentalists are pro-rail. Environmentalists don't have enough power to fight more than a few battles at a time and their limited means are already tied up and spoken for in other lawsuits. Realizing this to be the case the current government has suspended enforcement of air and water pollution regulations, curtailed states' ability to block energy projects, and suspended requirements for environmental review and public input on new mines, pipelines, highways, and other projects. This could be done to help speed up and lower the cost of implementing more and faster passenger rail if we had the will to do so.

 

[Nick Farr]

It's simply too late for even thinking of building a rail network across private lands... not even worth speculation; land is simply too scarce and expensive.

Well, with COVID and global warming, there's probably a lot of people who wouldn't mind selling off their brownfields.

We need to think of negotiating and upgrading existing track and rights of way along already existing utilities, pipe lines, and interstate / federal highways.

Pretty much this. There's plenty of existing right of ways that, while not perfect, would be roughly adequate to build new rail lines.

The main point of the OP was to declutter freight traffic from passenger trains. A lot of this can be accomplished by building a lot more sidings, flyovers and bypass routes along existing lines.

We don't need to build new rail, we need to improve the mileage that we have, straightening curves, electrifing where possible, removing grade crossings and allowing for better dispatch planning. Amtrak doesn't need to own 100% of its rail

 

[neroden]

The main point of the OP was to declutter freight traffic from passenger trains. A lot of this can be accomplished by building a lot more sidings, flyovers and bypass routes along existing lines.

The Water Level Route (Lake Shore Limited) had at least four tracks the entire way from NY to Chicago. (Sometimes along different alignments, as in Syracuse, or approaching Grand Central via the Harlem or Hudson lines, or going via Indiana vs. via Canada).

There are *plenty* of ROWs from NY to Chicago and only mild curve straightening would be needed to separate passenger and freight, if some politician was willing to buy half the right of way and build the track.

As has happened from Richmond to DC, which Virginia inked a deal to buy half the ROW.

We don't need to build new rail, we need to improve the mileage that we have, straightening curves, electrifing where possible, removing grade crossings and allowing for better dispatch planning. Amtrak doesn't need to own 100% of its rail

States and federal government need to be willing to buy exclusive passenger track; it really is just political will.

 

[Old MM]

I find this a compelling topic and wish I had something to contribute....
Building infrastructure shouldn't be a pipe dream, unaffordable, etc...
It was once achievable and should be today but even better.

 

[caravanman]

Would anyone build a whole brand new freeway across the country to allow one or two vehicles to drive along it each day?

Given the lack of passenger revenue, even allowing for ridership to increase by tenfold this just won't err, fly...