So according to NARP, the most service miles AMTRAK has ever had on it's national route was 26,621 which was in January, 1978.
In January of 1962, the total number of passenger miles was 88,717
Makes me wonder if we will ever be able to approach those route miles again like we had in 1962. Is it possible we can find a way to get back what we had, or are we doomed with what's left of a formal national transportation system?
What do you think?
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If states get involved, like California, Amtrak could possibly reach half of 88,717.
Posts: 562 | From: Beaumont Texas | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StonewallJones: Makes me wonder if we will ever be able to approach those route miles again like we had in 1962. Is it possible we can find a way to get back what we had, or are we doomed with what's left of a formal national transportation system?
What do you think?
Non-happen, Mr. Stonewall, be thankful you got what you got.
The future of rail passenger service is in the Corridors. The Northeast is a sure, but so long as there is a local initiative to maintain those on the West Coast, count them in as well.
The LD's exist for one reason and, albeit quite important, that is to provide sufficient legislative support with the "crumb or two' of economic benefit they drop along the way so as to ensure continued Federal level funding of what can only be considered a regional operation - the NE Corridor.
The Bush administration, which has exercised a degree of control over Amtrak operations that no predecessor has, is not interested whether you and I have had a great ride on an LD, if the LD's could be gone without impairing Corridor funding, they would be. But they are the funding catalyst for what is needed and little else.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StonewallJones: System Maps
So according to NARP, the most service miles AMTRAK has ever had on it's national route was 26,621 which was in January, 1978.
In January of 1962, the total number of passenger miles was 88,717
Makes me wonder if we will ever be able to approach those route miles again like we had in 1962. Is it possible we can find a way to get back what we had, or are we doomed with what's left of a formal national transportation system?
What do you think?
Major expansion of the LD network is unlikely. Some regional and corridor gains are possible with state support.....ie: maybe someday getting a state-supported passenger train back to Asheville, NC.
As for remnants of a former national transportation system, just today I received a copy of the latest Greyhound System Timetable. First time I've bought one in about 10 years and I did so out of curiousity mostly. Ground travel options on the highway are only a fraction of what was once there as well. I'll spare you the particulars but there are a number of places I've gone by bus in the past that you just can't get to anymore.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. The future of Amtrak is regional trains. Phoenix to Tucson high speed, DFW-AUS-SAT, DFW-HOU, SL-KC, etc etc...The long distant trains will still exist to link the regional trains with new routes. Ofcourse this depends on getting states involved.
Posts: 562 | From: Beaumont Texas | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If George and Norm have a plan to reform Amtrak--where is it? I can find all sorts of state and regional plans: California, Midwest, North Carolina, Pacific Northwest, etc. But is there any sort of co-ordination or oversight or direction at DOT? Just eliminating fried eggs isn't a plan and won't to get me from point A to point B any sooner. Improving regional networks should lead to stronger longer networks. For example: if I need to go to Portland (from Seattle), my first choice is Amtrak; when I need to go the Bay Area, I fly. But if the Cascades Corridor and the Bay Area infrastructures are upgraded to support high speed regional service, then a CS could leave Seattle around 5pm and arrive in the Bay Area reliably by 9am the following morning. That's a schedule I could ride, with or without the fried eggs.
Posts: 78 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, the pathetic thing was, in 1962 we were unhappy about how far down rail service had gone in the 10 years preceeding it. But - a lot of this was reduction in frequency, not reduction in miles of line with service.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Call me overly optimistic if you want, but I believe that eventually rail will again have a place of prominence for passenger transportation to all corners of the country. Probably nothing like it had before 1962, but much more than we have now.
And I don't buy for a minute that "corridors" are the only thing in Amtrak's future. I see a place for all sorts of rail develoment in a wide variety of markets. But it will take time to shift the mental focus of our policymakers. Several factors affect my opinion.
1. I believe there is a significant latent demand for rail transportation of all types, evidenced by rapid growth of corridors, and well patronized long distance trains. The latter is particularly significant, because if Amtrak can fill trains that don't run on time, I'm sure they could pack even more of 'em if they did.
2. According to industry experts, freight railroads lack the needed capitol to meet projected capacity demands for the next 20 years. Thus I believe public/private partnerships for infrastructure investment will become more and more common. It's already being done at the state level, so it is not at all far fetched. Since the rail congestion is a nationwide problem, eventually the feds will be involved as well. These partnerships will require some concession to "public benefit" which translates into passenger trains - nationwide. If the arrangements mean that freight and passenger trains can both operate comfortably, then the railroads will eventually embrace it, grudgingly, at first, no doubt.
3. Increasing energy costs will shift more transportation, both goods and passengers, towards the most energy efficient mode of travel -by train. Thus making point #2 above all the more likely - eventually.
4. State and local governments already see the writing on the wall, and are actively working in these directions. The federal government will catch up sooner or later. Congress will get the message at the next electoral housecleaning, once they realize that voters actually do care more about things like energy, and whether the dikes will hold through the next hurricane, or the bridges will stay up in the next earthquake. After Kartina, I think voters are less likely to be led astray by the emotional social issue of the month. "We won't be fooled again" kind of thing.
So I have hope. Not so much for the short term, but the long term looks rosy. I'm just not sure if it'll happen before I'm too old to enjoy it.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is missed by a lot of people is that outside the very densely populated areas railroad passenger service was no more aimed at the corridors than the major airlines are now. Most of the short to medium distance airline services are by "who are you" companies with their planes painted in the colors of the major company they are associated with.
In the "old days" the railroads very much targeted the long distance passengers. A one night ride was the minimum target. Look at an old timetable, and if a line had one train, it was a night train between the major cities on the line. If they had more than one the nicer ones were aimed at services between major end point type cities. If you wnated to ride the train between Podunk and East Cowpath you would likely have to do it at 3:00am to 5:00am.
Therefore, going after medium and short distance corridors is chasing a business that has never been served well.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Passenger trains on corridors or 500-mile segments only? No. Data exist in graphic form to indicate otherwise.
Growing congestion on Interstate highways BETWEEN cities and whole regions, not just in and around metro areas, is projected by the Federal Highway Administration.
The highway segments projected to be over capacity are shown in red; those approaching capacity, in blue. On the year 2020 map, red or blue lines cover the entire East Coast and for hundreds of miles inland to points some distance west of San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Lincoln, and Minneapolis on multiple routes. Much of the first 200 miles eastward from the West Coast will be in a similar congested situation.
Look to see the situation in your part of the country.
Those red and blue lines coincide with many Amtrak and former long-distance passenger train routes that are still in main-line freight service. Judging that the total length of those highways are about 30,000 miles or more, that's my estimate for the total length of passenger train services in 2020.
-------------------- John Pawson Posts: 137 | From: Willow Grove, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by delvyrails: Passenger trains on corridors or 500-mile segments only? No. Data exist in graphic form to indicate otherwise.
Growing congestion on Interstate highways BETWEEN cities and whole regions, not just in and around metro areas, is projected by the Federal Highway Administration.
The highway segments projected to be over capacity are shown in red; those approaching capacity, in blue. On the year 2020 map, red or blue lines cover the entire East Coast and for hundreds of miles inland to points some distance west of San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Lincoln, and Minneapolis on multiple routes. Much of the first 200 miles eastward from the West Coast will be in a similar congested situation.
Look to see the situation in your part of the country.
Those red and blue lines coincide with many Amtrak and former long-distance passenger train routes that are still in main-line freight service. Judging that the total length of those highways are about 30,000 miles or more, that's my estimate for the total length of passenger train services in 2020.
I'd be interested in taking a look at these projections but the link provided isn't working for me. Is the problem on my end?
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Contrary to observations above, the major RR's are spending significant capital funds to upgrade their lines at the locations where the business is growing and they are doing it with their profits.UP,CSX, NS and BNSF expenditures are reported in Railway Age and Trains and I suggest that reading those two monthly publications will benefit participants at this forum and minimize comments which mislead.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RRCHINA: Contrary to observations above, the major RR's are spending significant capital funds to upgrade their lines at the locations where the business is growing and they are doing it with their profits.UP,CSX, NS and BNSF expenditures are reported in Railway Age and Trains and I suggest that reading those two monthly publications will benefit participants at this forum and minimize comments which mislead.
What they have to spend is not insignificant. But everything I've read says its not going to be enough to keep up with projected demand.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
(by a friend of mine) shows pretty convincingly, the focus of railroads on long-distance "limiteds" revealed their fundamental misunderstanding of their own costs. The focus on coal and low-marginal intermodal traffic in recent years revealed the same sort of misunderstanding. Railroads apparently do not have a good grasp of the incremental cost of additional gross tonnage, but are very sensitive to the costs of additional crew starts and yard operations. They are biased against carload freight, for example, which has a much higher yield per ton-mile than bulk freight or even intermodal.
The same sort of misunderstanding is shown by URPA in insisting that the LD trains have low costs as compared to corridor trains. At the margin, that's exactly backward.
Posts: 614 | From: Merchantville, NJ. USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr.Toy, you are one of the most respected participants at this site and I was in no way wanting to appear disparaging.
That said, I would like to quote this years capital expenditure numbers but I donate my copies of Trains to the local VA Hospital within a few months after I get them and I do not keep Railway Age but a month or two. But since you inform us of what you have read and what "industry experts" say perhaps you are more diligent than myself and can furnish names and quotes. We all need a maximum exposure to the info that is extant.
Fortune Magazine recently published its ranking of the top 500 public companies with the following results: #164 - UP 2005 revenues $13.6 billion #171 - BNSF 2005 revenues $12.99 billion #266 - CSX 2005 revenues $8.6 billion #270 - NS 2005 revenues $8.5 billion
Another significant point, their decisions about where to spend their money to improve and upgade are made without the involvment of politics which we have all seen described too many time on this site.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by gp35: take the period off the end of the link.
Wow. Is it my imagination or is North Carolina the reddest of the southern states?
This projection confirms my observation on my daily commute that I-26 between Asheville and Hendersonville is already handling twice the traffic they imagined it ever would forty years ago.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Here is an excerpt: "Class I railroads currently invest about $2 billion annually for improvements above and beyond repair and maintenance. Continued investment at this level will result in freight rail losing market share among freight shippers over the next 20 years as the industry will not be able to keep up with growing demand. Most within the railroad industry agree that even with these continued substantial investments by the railroad industry, it will be unable to generate the revenues needed to sufficiently maintain tracks and equipment."
It states that freight tonnage is expected to increase 50% by 2020. It goes on to say that capital investment over the next 20 years will need to be in the $175-$195 billion range just to keep up with current freight levels, much less projected increases. That works out to about $8.75-9.75 billion per year, more than CSX's annual revenue, according to your Fortune citations.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look carefully at those red lines. In many cases, the states already are supporting rail passenger service on parts of those routes:
1. North Carolina, as stated 2. Oklahoma, between Oklahoma City and Dallas-Fort Worth 3. Missouri's recent plan for St. Louis-Springfield and perhaps beyond 4. California, almost everywhere 5. the erstwhile NO-Mobile Gulf Coast Special 6. Wisconsin's Hiawathas, etc.
My point is that in the eastern half of the country, many of these congested highways routes will be well over a thousand miles long. What will passengers do at the end of each 300-500-mile "corridor"? Must they get off and ride another train or stay overnight for the first train of the next day?
Several necessary existing and new overnight/long distance train routes are staring us in the face from this map.
-------------------- John Pawson Posts: 137 | From: Willow Grove, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What has not been discussed here is that the four major RR's are in the process of adapting to the changing market and that their investments today are focused on that infrastructure and equipment that is required to accomodate it. For instance; new railroad yards which would have no use in passenger operations; new triple track to facilitate coal movements from Wyoming and new locomotives designed to efficiently handle the freight now being brought to the RR's instead of trucks on the road.
Any public investment in passenger infrastructure would have to accomodate this freight business unless constructed upon public rights of way. Yes, there have been accomodations made in major metropolitan areas and certainly the Alemeada Corridor in Los Angeles is an example of how the public need and railroad efficiency can collaborate to benefit both. And in the larger cities the RR's may be able to consolidate into fewer corridors and make those vacated available, ie, Los Angeles. But for long distance passenger service in the existing corridors the freight RR's business is growing and they will need the Right of Way for their business in most cases.
The State of New Mexico has agreed to purchase the BNSF line between Belen, NM and Trinidad, CO over which the SWC operates with the BNSF having the right to operate freight trains for an agreed price. This is a line that has very little freight business but is an overflow or emergency outlet from the TRANSCON, should it have interuptions in availability because of weather related events, derailments of an unexpected surge in freight shipments.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the agreement between New Mexico and BNSF is a good look into the future. BNSF is freed from ownership responsibility, saving $$$ on maintenance but still has the access when needed. The buzz word in freight railroading these days is *velocity*, meaning not just the speed of the trains, but the velocity of the entire transportation system. The NM-BNSF arrangement gives NM commuter rail and BNSF gets to put their money in other areas. WIN-WIN. Washington State and BNSF also have a plan that basically rebuilds the BNSF mainline north-south from the Columbia River to the Canadian Border. WA gets enhanced passenger rail and BNSF gets greater *velocity*. WIN-WIN. Look also at Minnesota, where an agreement with BNSF is being negotiated. Compare BNSF's attitude to UP's *NO! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!* attitude. If BNSF's greater velocity results in a competitive advantage, UP and other freights will start talking to state and local governments about more passenger rail in exchange for new infrastructure. Look at California--currently UP can't rebuild or maintain the Coast Route track adequately. What will it take for CA, Amtrak and UP to find a win-win to upgrade the Coast route? I think the answer to that question is the answer to the future of 21st century railroading.
Posts: 78 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Beacon Hill: What will it take for CA, Amtrak and UP to find a win-win to upgrade the Coast route?
The reports I get on the Coast Rail Coordinating Council indicate that there's sort of a bootstrapping problem there. UP won't do the capacity studies for the state without a funding committment. The California Transportation Commission, which allocates transportation funds, won't spend the money without a commitment from UP.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Beacon Hill: What will it take for CA, Amtrak and UP to find a win-win to upgrade the Coast route?
The reports I get on the Coast Rail Coordinating Council indicate that there's sort of a bootstrapping problem there. UP won't do the capacity studies for the state without a funding committment. The California Transportation Commission, which allocates transportation funds, won't spend the money without a commitment from UP.
So around and around we go.
All this bureaucratic BS is killing the future of rail travel. This country will never get back to even close what it once had.
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Mr. Stonewall; but do you really think the USA should return to a level of intercity passenger rail service existing, say, during 1950?
If such were to be supported from the public trough, I guarantee that I would be opposed to such.
The future of rail passenger service is within Metropolitan area commuter service and Corridor intercity service. The LD's, I'm sorry to report, have had their day. The only reason they exist today is because they are the catalyst to secure funding from a national constituency for what is essentially a regional operation called the Northeast Corrdior.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: The LD's, I'm sorry to report, have had their day.
Then how do you explain their record high ridership?
Without taking sides in this particular debate, I am AMAZED that Amtrak is still selling out the long-distance trains with service as spotty as it has become. (Checked earlier today, Crescent is booked solid next Thursday when I was considering taking it for a ride.)
If the LD routes were able to offer reliable service and two frequencies per day, Amtrak would have to beat prospective riders off with a stick I think.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I agree with you completely. Every other form of public transport feeds a lot more heavily from the public trough than rail. The problem most of the anti-rail people have is that they think everyone else uses the same thoght processes they do. In essence, "I would not consider riding a long distance passenger train, therefore no one else would either." Somehow they can not see how egocentric that thought process is.
If we were to develop a good rail service with most cities connected at least twice a day, I think that there would be a huge change in travel patterns. It would take a few years, but probably very few, for people to change their habits, but it would happen.
George
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something to remember--Amtrak was born as the US interstate system was nearing completion. In 1971 the passenger rail system was considered worn out and inefficient, especially compared to the newly poured interstates. In 2006 those interstates are starting to look worn out and inefficient, so what happens now? Given the political realities of 2006, there won't be much coming from Congress, except asphalt; so it's best to look local. Where local support exists for upgraded rail it will be built. As more and more local systems are built, networks will be formed. We'll be re-living the pre-WW I evolution of the US railroad network. Let's do it right! Hopefully the LDs will be preserved and upgraded to serve as the mainlines along which the local services will grow, strengthening both the LDs and the locals. But the experience of the last 35 years shows that it isn't a real good idea to have DC based Amtrak executives deciding how many trains to run between, for example, Chicago and St. Louis. Let the people between CHI and StL decide how many trains are needed.
Posts: 78 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good observation about how the Interstate system highway system was viewed then compared to now.
But how does one design a national rail system locally? That was widely considered the fatal flaw in the Bush plan, having states organize to develop interstate routes. For example, California would have to enter into agreements with 17 other states, each with their own budget priorities, just to keep our existing 4 LD trains running. There has to be some sort of federal coordination.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Want some more real insight into what's now motivating the major 4 freight railroads to expand and increase service? Take a look at each month's issue of WORLD TRADE magazine. Every month the growing trade with China is talked about as the single largest motivator. Not one of the railroads can keep up with the demand for moving container traffic quickly from east and west coast ports that originated in China.
Posts: 35 | From: Palatka, FL | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem in both freight and passenger service is at we have gotten spoiled to having fares and freight rates that do not cover the true cost of producing the services. The railroads have kept their rates down for years by cannibalizing their assets, and now after roughtly 80 years of shrinkage, they are needing to expand but if they raise their rates to the point that they can truly maintain their fixed plant and add capacity, all the large volume shippers will be running to congress screaming, crying, and moaning for relief. And, of course since day one of gasoline taxes the automobile drivers and general taxpayers have been subsidizing road freight which probably does not pay 10 cents on the dollar of what the true cost of road maintenance and construction expense that shoudl be attributible to road freight. And air? Not really a player in high volume freight. If the true cost of air service to the general taxpayer were known there would be lynch mobs heading for capital hill. It is not just air traic control and airports, but the roads, the noise, the huge blocks of land no longer taxable, and on and on.
George
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: The LD's, I'm sorry to report, have had their day.
Then how do you explain their record high ridership?
The issue, Mr. Toy, is not that Amtrak can fill up a "one a day' LD and possibly even fill up an "Auto Train consist a day' (i.e. 6 Sleepers 4 Coaches 2 Diners 2 Lounges), it is simply that the contribution being made to a region's transportation needs is absolutely infintessimal - and, while I realize some here disagree, anybody aboard has transportation alternatives.
As several preceeding posts have noted, the railroads need all the capacity they can get to move what for which there is no other reasonable alternative - freight!
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since there are some around here who surmise I am some "nabob of negativism" with my remarks such as "LD's have had their day', allow me to set such in a better perspective with material adapted from a posting I made at another forum.
Although I do not ride trains simply for the sake of riding trains, I'm always pleased to use LD's for travel whenever their use is reasonable and practical. I have always found Sleeper travel to be price competitive with auto and my overall impression of the LD travel experience remains "more positives than negatives".
Here is this century's log:
Jan Dec 2000 None
Feb 2001 Lorton to Sanford* OW Jun 2001 Chi-Albany*-Chi Jun 2001 New Haven-BOS*-NH
Feb 2002 Chi-Wash-Orlando*-NO-Chi Nov 2002 Stmfd-Phl*-Stmfd
May 2003 Chi-Wash*-Stmfd*-Phila-Chi Aug 2003 Chi-Memphis* OW
Jan 2004 Lorton-Sanford* OW Feb 2004 Chi-Was-Orlando*-NO-Chi Oct 2004 Chi-Was-Phila*-Stmfd*-NY*-Chi
Feb 2005 Lorton-Sanford*-Lorton Mar 2005 Chi-Milw*-Chi
Jun 2006 Chi-Wash*-Stmfd*-NY*-Chi
* denotes an away from home destination or transfer to rental auto.
While such history is hardly "up there' with Mr. Guenzler (ChrisG), it does show that I ride when I can if reasonable to do so. I should note a regular and recurring trip I make is to visit friends in Amana, IA; however I would never consider taking the Zephyr to Mt Pleasant insomuch as there is no auto rental concern there. To take a taxicab to the hotel in Coralville (room with a view of the Rock Island) where I generally stay during the visit and renting an auto from there is simply "unreasonable'. Another trip I make is to the Atlanta area which is also by auto in that Chi-Atlanta is "not exactly" served (never mind that the website will construct one of its "connect the dots" itineraries). But I guess I'm not "dyed in the wool' in that I never have nor have I intention of being active with any advocacy group.
Regarding air transport, my last flight was during November 2002, my next in all likelihood will be when the next family emergency occurs. I'm not afraid, I simply have no reason. Now that my family of expats are all stateside, for the moment at least, I have no need to consider air travel for any journeys, which from the above trip summary one can note are all to the Northeast or Florida. I can do without crowds anytime, anywhere, and being retired, I have no need to drive during rush hour, or for that matter ride METRA trains during same.
Flights taken during this century, save the last, were all in conjunction with my Father; first his 90th birthday during 1999, thence his death during 2001. The 2002 flight was intended for travel to Sacramento to meet a possible 'little Sister" for my Newfoundland (I just LOVE that flick "Must Love Dogs"). As I was then still working, "out and back" on the Zephyr was quite unreasonable. Well any consideration of a "littler sister" "flew South" before I had a chance to "fly West', so I exchanged the ticket for one to New York.
While the flights were without incident, "I just don't need it". At my age, I find travel, even that of the "high on the hog" variety, to be very disruptive and is no longer any avocation. On my last overseas trip during 1990, I was simply zombied most of the time and I recall staring in a hotel room mirror in Paris asking that face "why, WHY, am I doing this?'.
Maybe someone knows what the "--phobia" is, but darned if I do. Auto and Sleeper travel make the best of it, as in either case, I've got my private cabin, or I guess in newspeak, "myspace".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that its not that you dislike long distance trains. You enjoy taking advantage of them when they suit your needs. You just don't see that they have any value to the public at large. True, their capacity is limited at present. Thus their value is limited, but hardly nonexistent. Furthermore, I believe the potential is there for them to make a much more significant contribution to the nation's mobility, if some sort of public/private partnership could be arranged to expand capacity.
You also seem to feel the LDs interfere with freight operations, and you have noted in the past that you are a stockholder with one of these operations. Major infrastructure investment is needed to serve projected freight demand. Eliminating a handful of Amtrak trains isn't going to do it. I think private freight and public passenger operations will be stronger if they work together to solve their mutual problems, than if freight goes it alone.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not see eliminating the current LD trains having any significant effect on the increasing demand for freight service, but adding them within the major freight corridors would. And involving politics in the mkajor corridores, as would surely happen, will cause more problems than it solves. Yes there may be a few exceptions for short distances, ie Los Angles area, but across multiple states it would be a mess.
Those who feel the potential is there in any project, not just RR's, always seek more money and political participation when their visions do not materialize. How many Gov't programs are shut down when they fail, and fail again after more assistance. NONE!!
If there are corridores like Trinidad to Belen that can be made availbale without affecting the freight business then let those be the trial balloon. And why not user the rights of way assigned to the interstate highways. There is plenty of room in most situations. This works in cities so why not out in rural ares?
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RRCHINA: And why not user the rights of way assigned to the interstate highways. There is plenty of room in most situations. This works in cities so why not out in rural ares?
"There is plenty of room in most situations" is simply not true in a practical sense. There are also significant differences in the alignment geometric requirements of highways and railways. In most urban areas the interstate right of ways are lanes and shoulders from right of way line to right of way line. In some cases there is not even sufficient room in the line of the median barrier to plant a single row of columns that would be strong enough to hold up a railroad. Most of the locations where the median is wide enough obtaining a seperate right of way would be relatively easy.
The standard median width is usually 64 feet. This looks wide, like there is room for most anything, but it is actually a minimum. This is defined by providing a 30 foot barrier free zone plus allowance for a center column on overpasses. Any area not having 30 feet from the edge of the lane is supposed to be protected by guard rails or barriers. Why 30 feet? Because it was determined years ago that something like 90% plus of all single car run off the road accidents never get more than 30 feet from the edge of the traveled lane.
George
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
