Not holding my breath since this is at least the fourth study of rail involving Chattanooga and Atlanta in recent years ($1m study in 2008; $14.2m MagLev study in 2009; $700k study in 2011).
Gotta love all this money being spent on studies that lead to nowt.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh well; this is simply a "bring back an LD"; last time that was heard with any degree of success was Sunset East - and we all know where that one went; along with any of the other "expansion" LD routes (whoops. Spokane-Portland survives).
I don't think either the Tennessean (NY-Roanoke-Chat) or the Royal Palm (Chat-Atl) survived until A-Day.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, that video represented the immediate "postwar" optimism as the industry made what will be considered one of the poorest investments of the time (many since have eclipsed such) any industry could have made - to do any reequipping whatsoever of long distance trains.
Researching Guides, by 1964, Tennessean had been reduced to a Knoxville-Memphis Sleeper line and a Diner in consist only to serve Dinner and Breakfast. By A-Day Eve, SRY had killed it Bristol-Memphis as part of the Claytor strategy of "paling up" with State regulatory agencies, and it finished life as a nameless Wash-Bristol Coach only "endurance challenge".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had several trips on this line on the Birmingham Special and Pelican in the 60's. Very pleasant trips especially with the heavyweight diner lounge. Chattanooga is one of my favorite southern towns. We still go back frequently to sample its many tourist attractions including, of course, the Tennessee Valley RR Museum, now home to a restored Southern 2-8-2 4501.
This may be the way service is restored to Atlanta on this route from the north - in increments. Washington to Lynchburg, then Roanoke, then Bristol and finally to Chattanooga and on to Atlanta. Perhaps the sharp decline in coal volume will make CSX and NS less hostile to accommodating Amtrak. And of course we can dream that this would encourage service Chattanooga to Cincinnati. Meanwhile, I plan a short jaunt behind 4501 this fall from Chattanooga to Cleveland, TN..
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard -- thanks a lot for posting the Tennessean video! I enjoy videos like that of old, post-war, pre-AMTRAK trains.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Oh well; this is simply a "bring back an LD"
I don't think so - Louisville KY to Atlanta GA is about 400 miles by road, way short of the 750 required.
I'm still gobsmacked at how much these studies cost. These are all paper studies: people sitting around tables with whiteboards, people looking at paperwork. Not testing lunar landings on the moon.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
These studies are all in Appalachia. The country is hilly to Eastern style mountainous. The railroads are curvy and hilly. There will be nothing resembling anywhere near a normal road speed run time, or maximum speed even, without maximum rebuilding.
By the time the money is spent to permit a maximum speed of 79 to 90 mph, or even 60 mph, or on some lines over 40 mph, you will be close to a complete rebuild of the line, so in the vicinity of the cost for track and line for a high speed railroad.
If I recall correctly, to use one example, the distance from Bristol to Knoxville by rail is 130 miles by rail and 110 miles by road and the highest speed limit on the railroad was somewhere around 55 mph with lots of 45 mph or less. Knoxville to Chattanooga, which I road regularly for a while, 1964 to 1966, was about 110 miles with 10 miles at 65 mph and the rest less with lots of 55 and 50 mph.
Chattanooga to Atlanta? The passenger run time was 4 hours by the Southern route and 3 hours minimum by the NC&StL / L&N route. The Cartersville to Atlanta portion of the later was 40 to 45 mph throughout, and that was pushing it.
For the most part the good 1950's to early 60's trains in this area averaged 35 to 40 mph over their run distances.
To make that a high speed, with 79 to 90 mph being high speed would require a near complete rebuild more or less following the L&N route, with an absolutely complete rebuild south of Cartersville, a direct line into Chattanooga from the south with a 3 to 4 mile tunnel (both lines into Chattanooga from the Atlanta direction approach Chattanooga from the northeast) and miscellaneous other alignment improvements.
See, I did that much of a study for nothing.
These people are living in Fantasyland if they think they can put a train on existing alignments that will have much of anything in the way of ridership or get much speed without major investments.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In addition to your points, Geoff & George, I think one also has to ask, with these studies on new Amtrak routes or previous route restoration, are the studies accurate with regard to costs and ridership.
The 2009 study concerning the possible restoration of the Northcoast Hiawatha concluded that it would get a fair ridership but be too costly.
The cost prediction was 1 billion, which doesn't seem a lot in today's money. Also, Montana was willing to cover a good percentage of the cost. I think many folks posting, on the Forum, also thought that Amtrak never really wanted to restore the route, in the first place.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In addition to the cost, there's also the time element to consider. Amtrak's study for a 2nd daily train between Chicago and MSP took over 3 years to complete. While I was reading that report it seemed that at least 75% of the information could have been collected by a few internet searches and perhaps a little crowd-sourcing from sites like this. The remaining 25% did require some original research, but 3 years to collect and present all the information!?! Why don't we all get together and start a consulting firm that produces endless feasibility studies on the same old corridors? We can start with another Sunset East Feasibility Study, then a daily Sunset Study, then a North Coast Hiawatha Study, then repeat the cycle.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that George and Geoff ought to write a letter to the editor of the paper outlining their thoughts. I'd do it but I don't have their knowledge or credibility.
Posts: 518 | From: Maynard, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TBlack: It seems to me that George and Geoff ought to write a letter to the editor of the paper outlining their thoughts. I'd do it but I don't have their knowledge or credibility.
Having been involved with one of these, I would not bother. It was a group that should have good credibility putting together a contrary view for a newspaper article. The response never made it into print in any fashion, and all involved thought it was put together in a fashion the paper would have liked.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yukon11: In addition to your points, Geoff & George, I think one also has to ask, with these studies on new Amtrak routes or previous route restoration, are the studies accurate with regard to costs and ridership.
Predicted future ridership is always a tough one (and indirectly cost, I suppose, since cost is high if ridership is low). Doubling a frequency often more than doubles the ridership because of more flexibility and options for the user, but far from always.
quote:Originally posted by Vincent206: In addition to the cost, there's also the time element to consider. Amtrak's study for a 2nd daily train between Chicago and MSP took over 3 years to complete. While I was reading that report it seemed that at least 75% of the information could have been collected by a few internet searches and perhaps a little crowd-sourcing from sites like this. The remaining 25% did require some original research, but 3 years to collect and present all the information!?! Why don't we all get together and start a consulting firm that produces endless feasibility studies on the same old corridors? We can start with another Sunset East Feasibility Study, then a daily Sunset Study, then a North Coast Hiawatha Study, then repeat the cycle.
Yes, quite! I suspect that companies external to Amtrak are sourced quite frequently which means they have a large learning curve to climb, which increases cost, increases time, and reduces subject matter experience as a whole - which results in a crap report, statements of the bleeding obvious, lots of furry padding, etc.
quote:Originally posted by TBlack: It seems to me that George and Geoff ought to write a letter to the editor of the paper outlining their thoughts. I'd do it but I don't have their knowledge or credibility.
Hah, your comments are much appreciated, but as a Brit I find my comments from one rail professional to another are often met with "not invented here" or "what do you know, you're not from here", and "but we've always done it that way" kind of attitudes. Not everybody, but certainly a fair few. Actually, that third attitude is quite common outside the US too, to be fair.
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Having been involved with one of these, I would not bother. It was a group that should have good credibility putting together a contrary view for a newspaper article. The response never made it into print in any fashion, and all involved thought it was put together in a fashion the paper would have liked.
Agreed: journos often want a story to fit a theme, rather than letting facts get in the way of a good story. They do also like to be fed stories (subject to the above) as it means less work for them. I had a couple of stories published in a couple of different publications and was somewhat surprised at how easy it was: I wouldn't say the journos were begging for a story, but they certainly lubricate the way to getting something in print.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo: Hah, your comments are much appreciated, but as a Brit I find my comments from one rail professional to another are often met with "not invented here" or "what do you know, you're not from here", and "but we've always done it that way" kind of attitudes. Not everybody, but certainly a fair few. Actually, that third attitude is quite common outside the US too, to be fair.
Ahh, yes, the "not invented here" psychosis: Having done a few years of international work, I can say I have run into several version of there are multiple ways to do things but they can be categorized as "The [fill in name of countyry] way and a wrong way." One of my take away observations from dealing with both was to cease to wonder why there had been so many wars with the French on one side and the Germans on the other to wondering how there had managed to be so few.
This not invented here sysdrome has been carried to differences between railroad company practices in the US. Do not know how it is doing now since the massive run of mergers. However, quite a few years ago I nearly lost a job by simply taking a yard schematic developed by an old head the company had brought on to do such things and when putting it into a mathematized alignment that could be built changing the turnout numbers he put on his sketch from those used by his former employer to those used by the company for whom the yard was to be built. "He changed my design!! Fire him" In his mind the only way to do it was the way he had done it for the previous 40 years. I thought it might be a good idea to read the standards of the guys who were going to be using it.
All involved in this little uproar are no longer working or in existence, including both the engineering company and the railroad company.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vincent206: In addition to the cost, there's also the time element to consider. Amtrak's study for a 2nd daily train between Chicago and MSP took over 3 years to complete. While I was reading that report it seemed that at least 75% of the information could have been collected by a few internet searches and perhaps a little crowd-sourcing from sites like this. The remaining 25% did require some original research, but 3 years to collect and present all the information!?! Why don't we all get together and start a consulting firm that produces endless feasibility studies on the same old corridors? We can start with another Sunset East Feasibility Study, then a daily Sunset Study, then a North Coast Hiawatha Study, then repeat the cycle.
************************** To endorse your point, Vincent:
Printer-friendly view of this topic
