RAILforum: Post A Reply

»	RAILforum » Passenger Trains » Amtrak » High-speed rail corridors » Post A Reply

T O P I C R E V I E W
John Toth Member # 20	posted It is one thing to TALK about high-speed rail corridors and quite another to IMPLEMENT that type of service. It has been my thought all along that there is absolutely NO way that passenger-rail service in this country can succeed without the full and complete cooperation and thus "blessing" of the major freight-rail companies. Does anyone else agree with me ? I sometimes wonder. Why the freight-rail companies refuse to permit even additional "standard" passenger-rail service on their lines. How on earth are we to expect them to "embrace" high-speed rail service ? Am I missing something ?? Are SEPARATE tracks to be built on these corridors to accomodate the high-speed service ? Are the corridors to be electrified ? Presently, negotiations are completely stalled (between Amtrak and Norfolk Southern) related to the initiation of the Skyline service between Philly and Chicago. Norfolk Southern simply REFUSES to permit another passenger train on their rails. Evidently the company is "holding-out" for BIG dollars---which Amtrak (evidently) is unwilling to offer. One conductor told me the service would NEVER initiate at all ---and everyone is excited about the possibilitiy of all these high-speed corridors !!! One of the "proposed" runs between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. This is Norfolk Southern "country." Here N/S is "balking" at one additional "standard" passenger-train on its system. How will N/S react to the proposed designation of the WHOLE corridor from Pittsburgh to Philly as "high-speed" and thus "prime" passenger-rail track ?? Similar situations exist over the WHOLE country. Some somebody please explain to me (in "layman's terms") how this whole high-speed corridor proposal INVOLVES the freight-rail companies. 1. Who will actually be responsible for BUILDING and MAINTAINING the high-speed track systems ?? 2. Will freight-traffic be permitted over the rail ? 3. Will Amtrak do express shipping over the rails ? 4. It is only logical that the major freight-rail companies will want NOTHING to do with the whole high-speed corridor concept. What is to prevent them from completely refusing to cooperate with the whole idea and "shuting-down" the WHOLE concept NATIONWIDE ?? I hear all this talk about Congress wanting to get "SERIOUS" about a "rebirth" of passenger-rail service in this country, but absolutely NOTHING (not one iota) about HOW the FREIGHT COMPANIES will be EXPECTED to cooperate. Does anyone else agree that this is RIDICULOUS , or is it just ME ?? I sometimes wonder !!! Some of you may already be aware of the CSX official from Jacksonville who recently appeared before a Congressional committee related to high-speed passengers trains on the system down south----in a "nut-shell" , he told the committee , " NO WAY !!" "CSX does NOT want high-speed passengers trains on the system." "It will be dangerous and expensive" The cost per mile , he stated , to build and maintain high-speed track will be over FOUR times the "suggested" 1.5 million dollars per mile-----and thus CSX wants NO PART in the proposal. Now tell me , with this type of attitude , how can one possibly get excited about all the talk of high-speed rail corridor initiatives ?? Everyone knows that the reaction of THAT CSX official will be "mirrored" across the whole nation !! The bottom line is that the freight-rail companies DO NOT want ANYTHING to do (even remotely) with the high-speed rail corridor proposal----or the proposed rail investment plan that is proposed (and evidently will be sponsored) by so many senators. So am I missing something or what ?? Where/how do the freight companies FIT-IN to all these new proposals ??? All the PLANS I have heard related to the "rebirth" of passenger-rail service in this country have mentioned NOTHING about dealing with TOTAL freight-rail opposition. So do not expect ME to get excited about all the new "possibilities" related to passenger-rail service in the country until I hear FACTS about how the freight-rail companies will "made" to cooperate. Let's face it, without the full and complete "blessing" of freight-rail , passenger-rail service in this country will NEVER gain prominence----much to my dismay , I might add. Please respond , both those of you who agree or disagree with what I have had to say.
TBlack Member # 181	posted There are at least two major aspects to freight rail opposition to high speed passenger operations on their lines: the CSX fellow, that you quoted, accurately and candidly said the cost of maintaining high-speed rail is very expensive - that's a cost to the freight rail line. Second is the issue of insurance, another expense to the freight operation. Passenger traffic over the line increases the insurance rates enormously. So the freight line gets to be involved because of these two costs which, in the absence of negotiation, have to be absorbed by the freight line. I would suggest to you, however, that the fellow from CSX is merely negotiating with AMTRAK and the federal government for financial assistance in these two cost areas to make sure that the railroad doesn't have to pick up the tab.
geohar Member # 547	posted I can't speak for the other high speed rail initiatives but the one in California is looking at passenger only rail tracks. With that, the estimated price tag is in the tens of billions of dollars to build.
tRailblazer Member # 548	posted I could speak about the High Speed Rail talk out here in California--but there's been talk for years about linking the San Francisco Bay Area with Los Angeles and San Diego (w/possibilities for a branch from Oakland/San Francisco to Sacramento. If I'm not mistaken, the majority of this line will be built by the state-and will be independent of the freight lines. If any of you know California geography, this line will run through the Central Valley. Tracks will have to be built over the Grapevine-an 75-80 mile group of mountains along Interstate 5 south of Bakersfield-these mountains run at close to a 15 percent grade at points and will indeed be an engineering marvel. Anyway, tracks will have to be layed where none currently exist, because as you mentioned since the freight railroads, in their own way have told amtrak to 'go to hell' more or less. I'm afraid that amtrak will have to make this huge capital investment in most cases. Our regular tracks out here are for the most part in poor shape anyhow, and have caused delays and problems with regular service--amtrak is quickly becoming fed up with UP's and ATSF's failure to maintain there lines in a timely matter. The future of amtrak---period lies in laying their own tracks, for regular service and high speed alike. Passengers and employees alike are becoming frustrated by delays caused by freight companies dragging their feet. I agree fully that freight companies are part of the problem. A side note on California---High Speed Rail may be Caltrans' (California Department of Transportation)baby-not amtrak's. The future of high speed rail may fall with entities outside amtrak-in our case, the state will intitiate the process, and amtrak will be one of many entities to offer a bid on its opperation. There is a high possibility they may lose this bid. One things for sure--Amtrak needs to make the necessary capital investments to either fund maintenance mandates passed on the freight companies, or ditch those lines all together and have amtrak invest on their own lines---an extremely costly--and politically unpopular option. ------------------ PL Dietze
geohar Member # 547	posted The state of California has a website for high speed rail. www.cahighspeedrail.com. The state is having preliminary meetings in locations throughout the state on high speed rail.
MPALMER Member # 125	posted Your comments pretty much said it all. A separate dedicated rail line is the only way high speed rail would work. At this point I don't think it is politically feasible to build a high speed line in any short amount of time. There is probably no way such an investment would "pay off" for private investors, so it would be government (taxpayer + bondholder) financed. If it takes 20 years to get approval for a freeway extension, just imagine how long it would take for a rail line. Also expect vigorous protests from those who would "lose" customers under such an idea...namely Southwest Airlines (which vigorously opposes high speed rail in Texas).
The Dane Member # 126	posted John, as usual is correct. The lack of freight rail participation in the highspeed corridor debate makes the whole scheme problemmatic. Ultimately we as a nation will have to make a number of concessions in order to play in their sandbox including property tax relief, indemnification for passenger train accidents, and track access fees that make hosting passenger trains finanically attractive. All this on top of paying for the infrastructure required to safety operate passenger trains.
CG96 Member # 1408	posted Another place to look for answers to your questions would be midwesthsr.org. Also, Wisconsin DOT has an HSR page on their website. Agreed with the other posters at this forum in that the frieght companies have little to no incentive to want additional traffic over their lines, what with liability & maintenance costs. Either you figure out a way to relieve them of all their property tax liabilities, or build the passenger train only tracks without them.

Top of Page|TrainWeb|About Us|Advertise With Us|Contact Us