Without looking it up, I believe it was wartime appropriation (WWII) and the government did not return them, unlike after WWI.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.How did the British compensate the private railroads when they natio9nalized back in the 1940s?
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.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 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.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.
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.
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.
If you're talking about the proposed Atlanta-DFW train, that service was proposed, but it was never announced or advertised.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.
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?It was both announced and advertised.
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.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.
I did not accuse you of lying, but if you do have that material and could scan it, I would love to see it!It was both announced and advertised.
I have the printed Amtrak material in a file somewhere if you think I’m lying.
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?
You may wish to inform Brightline that they are up and running, since they seem to be unaware of that fact.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.
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.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.
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.Again I ask what do you want to see? If you keep moving the goal posts brightline will always be a failure to you.
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.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.
Regardless they're doing it for the environment, and those of us who care about the environment!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.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!
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!
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.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.
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.As to enforcing compliance, a clear and specific law passed, and not an FRA rule, would have much more meaning.
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.Confusion here . If Brightline cannot run right now how does FEC run? Is FEC using a different PTC or what other problems is there.?
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.This is already the trend given the greater efficiency of gas powered vehicles over the last 30-40 years.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Enter your email address to join: