How can there possibly be BOTH freight AND passenger service over these corridors ? With passenger-trains moving over 100 miles per hour and slower freights, it does not seem possible for the system to work. It seems like it would be far too dangerous.
Will extra tracks be added to permit slower freights to share the same corridor ?
Will these corridors be electrified the entire length ? If that is the case, how would the maintenance work ? Would the freight companies be responsible for the electrical work , even though THEIR engines were NOT electrical ? Or would they be ?
This whole high-speed corridor proposal is a complete mystery to me. Why the government doesn't even know if Amtrak will continue to EXIST and yet its own transportation department designates high-speed rail corridors through-out the nation that advances the present Amtrak status ten-fold !
Congress "balks" at offering Amtrak just basic operational money and yet proposes a high-speed rail corridor system that would cost billions and billions to build and maintain.
Next question. If these high-speed corridors are to be "funded" by this huge bond-proposal that actually MAY be approved by Congress (although I find it highly unlikely) how does this effect the 2003 deadline ?
There are freights on the Northeast Corridor, and freights on many of the commuter rail routes in Chicago, Los Angeles, and other cities.
"Will extra tracks be added to permit slower freights to share the same corridor?"
In a lot of places, yes. Where tracks aren't added, there will be at least more and longer sidings. Remember that many railroads removed one or more tracks on some of their right of way, so the space is there in many places to add a second or third track without expanding the ROW.
"Will these corridors be electrified the entire length?"
California is thinking electrical (ironically enough) but the other new high-speed corridors are NOT planned to be electrified. Certainly the large Midwest system, with bids already coming in for the initial diesel rolling stock, is not going to be electric.
"Why the government doesn't even know if Amtrak will continue to EXIST and yet its own
transportation department designates high-speed rail corridors through-out the nation that advances the present Amtrak status ten-fold!"
Always remember that there is NO SUCH THING as "the government". There's the Senate and 100 individual Senators, the House and 435 individual Representatives, the President, the Secretary of Transportation, the head of the Federal Railroad Administration, the Amtrak president, the Amtrak board and its individual members, the Amtrak Reform Board and its individual members, etcetera. Each one of those has a different position because they each have different beliefs and interests.
"Congress balks at offering Amtrak just basic operational money and yet proposes a high-speed rail corridor system that would cost billions and billions to build and maintain."
Rightly or wrongly, long-distance passenger rail is perceived by many (but not all) in Congress as outdated and unnecessary when contrasted to air travel, while corridors are seen as a viable and cheaper alternative to continuous expansion of highways and airports.
I personally feel we need BOTH long distance and corridor trains, but if they're going to give Amtrak billions (or, to be more precise, let it borrow billions without paying interest), let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. The corridor money can be used to improve stations and tracks used by both long distance and corridor trains, and the regular budget can be used for long-distance rolling stock.
You are quite knowledgeable.
Now, what happens if this huge bond proposal is passed, and Amtrak gets some "operational" money (for whatever purpose.) How does this effect the 2003 "dead-line" ?---or DOES it effect it ?
Also, I didn't realize there was that much freight on the NEC.
Again, related to the corridors: Amtrak would , I presume , offer the freight companies the funds and they would be responsible for providing all the work necessary to make the corridor operational. Also, continue to provide all the maintenance.
Is there a chance that this "bond" initiative might be "stalled" in Congress until AFTER the 2003 dead-line? Let's HOPE not, but what IF ?
One other question. From what I understand, the initiation of the Skyline service through Pennsylvania is "stalled" because the financial offer Amtrak made to Norfolk Southern was not "acceptable." I wonder what the offer to N/S really WAS. Are the tow parties "close" to an agreement or not ?
One MORE, for now. I have always been curious just how much Amtrak pays in LEASING fees to the freight-companies nationwide for "track-time" , each YEAR. Wouldn't it almost be CHEAPER if Amtrak were able to build (and maintain) their OWN track BESIDE the freight track , if (as you mentioned) there IS plenty of WIDTH in "property."?
quote:
Originally posted by John Toth:
Wouldn't it almost be CHEAPER if Amtrak were able to build (and maintain) their OWN track BESIDE the freight track , if (as you mentioned) there IS plenty of WIDTH in "property."?
Interesting idea. It would certainly help on-time performance. It might work in the flat areas of the country, but in the more rugged terrain of the mountains it may be a problem to add a track without major alterations to the landscape. So many tracks in the Rockies and parts of Utah run along canyon ledges barely wider than a single train. These places have vertical cliffs on one side and nothing on the other.(And the sight is absolutely breathtaking.)
But out in the great plains, the Sacramento Valley, etc, it might be the way to go. I'll bet many states would help with the costs.
------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy