Prudent management, and investors, rely on five year plans and almost always have to adjust them.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We do not need this overpriced duplicate Northeast Corridor. The per-mile cost is outrageous, at $260 million per. The LGV Sud-Est, by comparison, was $12.3 million per mile (including land purchases); and that's 2010 dollars, so they want to build the duplicate NEC for 21 times the per-unit-length cost of the LGV Sud-Est.
I'm still of the mind that for far less than the per-mile cost of even the LGV Sud-Est, the existing NEC can be upgraded to allow triple-digit average speeds for the Acela, assuming that the Acela trainsets can sustain their maximum speeds.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After the election, I doubt Congress is going to be the least bit interested in spending money on something that could quickly turn into another "Big Dig". Indeed, I predict the funds for new rolling stock for the current routes are going to be much less than the current plan envisions.
Posts: 41 | From: South Dakota | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Although he looks like a famous New York Bus Driver in this photo the Gov of New Jersey "Gets it." Cost over run for road projects have bancrupt the country 100 years ago the tunnels where built and have stood up, The big dig? already leaking. Look at the cost of the 2nd Ave Subway tunnel in New York City.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Although he looks like a famous New York Bus Driver in this photo the Gov of New Jersey "Gets it." Cost over run for road projects have bancrupt the country 100 years ago the tunnels where built and have stood up, The big dig? already leaking. Look at the cost of the 2nd Ave Subway tunnel in New York City.
That project isn't exactly related, but it does match the Amtrak "plan" in terms of extremely high costs. Christie did have the backbone to get rid of that wasteful joke of a plan of NJT, and I have to give him credit there; it looked like he was backing it, a mere few months back. (I'm surprised that the normally-conservative NY Post posted the liberal AP's pic, which was deliberately intended to make a mockery of the governor.)
Back on topic, though: we have a Baltimore Sun editorial whose author calls for "fast-track(ing)" the $260-million-per-mile duplicate NEC travesty. Fails to note that the "costs borne by taxpayers" abroad don't rise to 21 times their estimate (except perhaps in the case of "Stuttgart 21"; look that up); being a "spend at all costs" liberal doesn't help one's credibility.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Irishcheiftain: I loved the picture it looked like he was tossing Lahoud out on his butt. Unfortunatly it looks like he might be "compromising" I hope not. Washington does not know how to run a rail road.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are these big plans getting all the attention? Why is anyone supporting this? I used to think maybe these types of things were red herrings. Now I think they're just stupid.
And then if you or I propose to spend what relatively little it would take to run more Amtrak trains we get laughed at. "Not going to happen." "Don't have this or that (expensive equipment)." Bull $#%t. I'll concede that these days there is a lot of thinking to the effect that nothing "ordinary" is worth doing. I just don't agree with it and don't think it has to be this way, comrades.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. 4021, I heartily agree with your 'baby steps first" incremental approach to enhanced rail passenger service. While not for one moment have I had any kind of "epiphany' with regards to Long Distance routes, the incremental approach would include, using the existing Chicago-St Louis GM&O route as an example, upgrading the trackage to allow for continuous 110mph operation, addressing the "miserable" conditions under which the GM&O (METRA commuters included) access Chicago, double tracking so that frequency could be increased to 'eight a day' (lest we forget, it was until the early '60's), and possibly a transfer of the line to public ownership making passenger the predominate class of service (UP has the C&EI lest we forget).
Shiny new trains? they're the "least of it': and with demonstrated public support, they would simply fall "right into line".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Article from my favorite Newspaper seems they will be celebrating the 100th birthday of Penn Station in NYC with a groundbreaking ceremony for the Moyinhan Station which has had more starts and stops than the Metroliner. I'm sure they added this ceremony to show New Jersey they really need to start digging.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not the Moynihan boondoggle again. NYP as is might be annoying, but it does not need a new concourse, after redesigning the original location twice within the space of two decades.
And how would that have anything to do with NJ "start(ing) digging"? Let ARC die already. NJT already ruined the High Line by putting too many Hoboken Division trains on it. Bad enough that ARC is two big city blocks away from Moynihan boondoggle as it is.
Thinking about Acela itself in retrospect still raises my hackles. Electric trainsets with a restrictive fixed length that can't be used anywhere else, or even within the entire Washington Union Station thanks to no low platform access; the FRA rules when it comes to track classes (what really is Class 8 track and why do you really need it to run at 150 mph?) and signaling requirements, "crashworthiness", et al; the complications arising from corridor ownership by New York MTA and Connecticut DOT; the transparently-deceptive language ("speeds of up to 150 mph", target schedules well within the capabilities of the then-extant Metroliner Service between NYP and WAS, no real improvement over Metroliner MU capabilities), more cost inflations and no work whatsoever done on extant infrastructure on the former PRR...short-term political expedience doesn't really help anyone, even the politicians, does it?
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman, you have it right about the shiny new trains. Shiny new trains are nice, but somewhat meaningless if you do not have the track to run them at speeds high enough to make a difference. That was one of the major problems with the Shiny new trains of the 1950's. Yes, the trains were shiny new, but the track and alignment were not.
The Florida "Fast Three" (City of Miami, South Wind, Dixieland) were outstanding examples: Even though the C&EI-L&N-NC&StL-ABC-ACL was the short route, it was always a struggle due to low speed limits south of Atlanta and lots of low speed curves between Chattanooga and Atlanta (3 hours for 138 miles on a CTC's main line with), and more curves and serious mountain crossings for the east north thereof. The Southwind: unsignaled territory Montgomery AL to Waycross GA, curves and grades on the L&N portions. The City of Miami, always the best patronized and with a 100 mph speed limit for parts of the ICRR in Illinois, but, once south of Jackson TN, the pace was much slower. The last 80 miles into Birmingham, very curvy with speeds in the 30 to 45 mph range. Then, south of Birmingham, lots of curves making the 70 mph speed limit near meaningless, and finally some unsignaled territory before finally getting to Waycross GA.
We talk of 110 mph, 125 mph, 150 mph and so forth, but many lines have alignments that make having a consistent 79 mph simply impossible. A 110 mph speed limit is meaningless if curves limit you to 60 mph and under.
Case in point: While a college student going back and forth between Memphis and Knoxville, (No, I did not graduate from UT, but from Tenn. Tech in Cookeville), I once got a look at the employee timetable for the Bristol to Chattanooga section. It said, Passenger Trains speed limit 80 mph. But: When you ran down the list of speed limits due to curves, there was something like 10 miles allowing 65 mph, and the rest was less, some of it quite a bit less.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it would be less expensive to the taxpayers if they just put funding for classes to teach everyone to safely drive at 110 mph. I heard passing the drivers test in Germany is a real tuffy.
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: .......Case in point: While a college student going back and forth between Memphis and Knoxville, (No, I did not graduate from UT, but from Tenn. Tech in Cookeville), I once got a look at the employee timetable for the Bristol to Chattanooga section. It said, Passenger Trains speed limit 80 mph. But: When you ran down the list of speed limits due to curves, there was something like 10 miles allowing 65 mph, and the rest was less, some of it quite a bit less.
George - too bad you didn't use the high speed Tennessee Central from Nashville to Knoxville - 6 hours for the 165 curvy miles in the 50's.
I believe TennDOT is looking at portions for future passenger rail. Crazy, but who would have thought that commuters would be on a portion now.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would love to hve ridden the Tennessee Central. It was still a going concern all the way to its junction with the Southernn at Harriman when I was in college at Cookeville. It collapsed jsut after I graduated.
By the standards of alot of today's short lines, teh track wasn't too bad. Much of it was good for 35 mph, or at least that is what they ran in the parts between Monterey and Crossville TN.
There was a Tennessee passenger study a few years back. Lots of irrational wishful thinking.
I know that at one time the TC had both a day train and a night train with Southern to provide through service between Nashville adn Knoxville. One curiosity: There was a through sleeper in the night train. There was also a through sleeper between nashville and Knoxvilee that went NC&StL to Chattanooga, and then to Knoxville. That one required switching between stations at Chattanooga. I think the TC route was a little faster, but not by a lot, despite being quite a bit shorter.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My grandmother told many stories about her rides to Nashville from Clarksville on the TC. Her brother was an operator on the TC - until he fell asleep while on duty. The other 3 brothers all worked for the L&N on the Henderson Div.
You are right, the TC did beat the NC&StL/Southern route. Both sleepers left Nashville at 9:30pm. The one via the TC arrived at 5:50am and the one via Chattanooga (carried on the Tennessean to Knoxville) arrived at 6:25. It continued on to Washington.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tanner929: Maybe it would be less expensive to the taxpayers if they just put funding for classes to teach everyone to safely drive at 110 mph. I heard passing the drivers test in Germany is a real tuffy.
Several years ago I worked with a German guy and we were discussing this subject. Apparently they do not go inmuch for defensive driving. His statement was to teh effect that, In Germany we expect auto drivers to obey the law. I asked, what if somebody doesn't? his answer was, then we have very bad collisions.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL And I bet they didn't have to spend millions of Government dollars to come up with that conclusion!
Posts: 516 | From: New Haven, CT USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
