I find it interesting that as far as I can tell there has been no mention of CZ delays on the Amtrak website. I am particularly interested in this since I will be traveling on the CZ on April 15-17. Any comments?
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
The NARP news hotline was reporting that the detour was costing the California Zephyr about two hours delay in each direction. It sounds like they will at least have one track reopen by April 1 so that will at least decrease the delay incurred at Sacramento.
With the California Zephyr these days it's what could happen getting across Nevada that ya gotta worry about!
Dixie Flyer Member # 4640
posted
Sacramento bridge building update-
The UP site is now predicting that Track 1 will be complete by March 30 and Track 2 by April 22. There are also a couple of new pictures detailing the progress to date. I am impressed by the progress.
tommers207 Member # 3930
posted
According to the UP site, track 1 is done and already in use and track 2 should be done in early April.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Outstanding example of why railroads as private entities really work.
Another example: The bridges at Bay St, Louis, Mississippi that were washed away by Katrina: CSX finished the rebuilding their approximately two mile long bridge about the time the state DOT advertized for a design-build contractor to replace the parallel US 90 bridge. So far as I know, it is not open yet. And that despite the fact that the Mississippi DOT is one of the better ones at getting things done.
Kiernan Member # 3828
posted
Rail bridges can go up very quickly. All the bridges are pretty much the same, they probably use a lot of their own people, and a lot of the materials are probably stockpiled. They drive the steel H beams and weld prestressed concrete caps onto the piles. After that, it's just a matter of setting everything else in place and putting the tracks on. Some highway bridges are built like that, too.
The main difference between what the the railroads do and what transportation departments do is the environmental assessment work.
But I agree, it's amazing to see how fast they can move along.
RRCHINA Member # 1514
posted
I remember how the I-5 Freeway (I think) was rebuilt following the major earthquake some ten years ago. The State just said to contractors, go do it and let the devil have the hindmost. Well not quite, but the usual RED TAPE associated with Government work was substantially truncated.
In Mississippi the CSX hired contractors and spared no reasonable cost to get the bridge rebuilt. No RR has a backup plan to handle something like that, but they have contractors who can do amazing work if the RED TAPE people are sent somewhere else.
Mr. Harris obviously has experience in this discipline, both in getting it done and in dealing with RED TAPE.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
The fire was on the 15th, and the first train ran over track 1 on the 27th. That's just twelve days!
Back in '95, the Highway 1 bridge over the Carmel River washed out. I was working in a building next door and was able to watch the construction. Working 24/7 they built a new bridge in six weeks (actual construction time, not including the week or two of red-tape cutting), and that was faster than expected.
12 days is therefore nothing short of miraculous!
sojourner Member # 3134
posted
How come if UP was so prompt with this, they cannot get more track down and do a few other things to avoid some of those excruciatingly frequent delays on their Zephyr, Coast Starlight, and Sunset Ltd lines? BNSF always seems so much better to me on the Zephyr etc.
RRRICH Member # 1418
posted
George - to answer your comment, as of Christmas '06, the Bay St. Louis highway bridge had NOT been rebuilt yet, but the CSX tracks were up and running with several trains per day (well, maybe only 2 or 3 trains)....
Ms. Sojourner - to answer your question, 2 words -- FREIGHT BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by RRRICH: Ms. Sojourner - to answer your question, 2 words -- FREIGHT BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Totally concur, Mr. Rich---
I realize that a vast number of Members here at this Forum gather to discuss RIDING trains, as distinct from at another site (OK I'll name names - railroad.net) where they gather to discuss the public and business POLICY REGARDING trains.
At times I think it worthy to point out what just what a minnow in the ocean passenger service is to the industry. Passenger revenues comprise not more than 2% of all revenues and Amtrak comprises some 50% of that 2%, or 1% of total. Of interest is that the favorite whipping boy known as Union Pacific ('You P*e over at a site famous for griping just to gripe) is that I once learned that UP's contract with Amtrak results in annual payments of some $110M; UP's annual revenues are in the range of $14B, or $14,000M.
How worried can anyone reasonably expect UP's management to be concerned about Amtrak affairs. If I were a UP stakeholder, my answer would be they had best not be too concerned.
delvyrails Member # 4205
posted
I happen to disagree with the gentleman from Clarendon Hills. This topic is entitled "Amtrak". It would seem that all matters relating to Amtrak are reasonably discussible here.
I'm on that other site, too; and its deliberations on "policy" sometimes seem to get like the infamous Middle Ages arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Fortunately, the members here are usually more pragmatic, concise, and goal-centered when they opine on the spectrum of Amtrak matters.
City of Miami Member # 2922
posted
Isn't it the law, Mr. Norman, that they be concerned about Amtrak service? Didn't they willing sign onto this law in order to shed themselves of the onus of passenger service? Are you suggesting that it is OK for UP to disdainfully disregard the law in order to make more money for their shareholders? Surely not. My personal opinion is that they should be punished pitilessly with harshly punitive fines for their disregard of the public in general (ripping up tracks and downsizing in previous decades)in order to maximize the meaningless bottomline.
rresor Member # 128
posted
No, harsh punitive measures are not likely to work. In any case, the "level of utility" clause to which you indirectly refer is not part of ANY of the renegotiated 1996 contracts. In 1971, railroads guaranteed Amtrak the same "level of utility" that prevailed before May 1. This was stricken from the 1996 renewals, and railroads are now free to downgrade or abandon Amtrak passenger routes.
To return to the subject of the Sacramento bridge -- when the main line is out of service, railroads are often capable of amazing things. Recall that in spring 1983 half a mountain came down into Thistle Canyon, UT, burying Rio Grande's main under 200 feet of rock and dirt. DRGW had to detour over UP, so they had a major incentive. Their contractor completed seven miles of double-track railroad plus two 3,000 foot tunnels through a mountain of unknown geology and had the line open in FOUR MONTHS. I was at a major transit agency at the time, and we agreed we probably could have gotten the contract out for bid, and held a pre-award meeting, in that time.
Geoff M Member # 153
posted
Without wishing to rain on UP's impressive success at getting a bridge up and running quickly, I can think of two possible scenarios: 1. Railroads have contingency plans for major, vulnerable bridges like this and already had the drawings approved for this particular bridge in the event of a disaster. 2. They've done the minimum survey work required (or have they?) and landed a platoon of worker ants to get the job done. Standard bridge patterns or not, the geography (or geology) on where the bridge is located is important.
Therefore I hope the former!
Geoff M.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Well, I must say, Mr. Miami, after reviewing your immediate posting, you let your thoughts be known about the underpinnings of our economic system in which folk (possibly yourself as well) plunk their money down on the table of an investor owned business enterprise with the expectation of future rewards for so doing.
Last time I checked, that is called capitalism - and it appears to have a far better track record of working than anything the other guys have dreamed up. In fact the major surviving other guy out there, while not yet changing the nameplate, has largely adopted the features of capitalism into their economic system.
But to the rails, I totally concur with Mr. Resor's thoughts regarding repeal of RPSA '70's 'same degree of utility" provisions pursuant to ARAA '97. ARAA '97 left undisturbed the earlier legislation's provisions regarding 'right of access" to a Class I ROW. That basically states the Class I must 'come to the table' to negotiate in good faith terms and conditions. The law allows Amtrak to be there in consideration of incremental costs i.e. additional wear and tear, physical facilities solely needed to support a passenger train, and direct supervision (Amtrak operating employees must be qualified on the Rules of the host road and are under the jurisdiction of the Road's operating officers as well as their own Rules and Officers). However, as Mr. Resor noted, no performance levels, beyond gross negligence arising from a wilful and intentional delay of an Amtrak train, are specified, although the parties are free to negotiate performance provisions. However, since 1996 Amtrak has chosen not to commit much in the way of funds to have meaningful provisions in their Agreements with the Class I's. Accordingly less than stellar performance exists on some roads today, but by no means does such performance rise to the level of punitive civil (criminasl?) sanctions.
While I'm not stating I have knowledge such is about to happen, Mr. Miami, I would not be surprised if a coalition lobby of industry and shipper interests seeks repeal of RPSA '70's right of access provisions. Be assured any such lobby would represent many more jobs i.e. votes than any coalition of rail passenger advocacy groups could bring to the table.
If such comes to pass, time to break out the "Adios' drumheads.
City of Miami Member # 2922
posted
"This was stricken from the 1996 renewals, and railroads are now free to downgrade or abandon Amtrak passenger routes." I stand corrected. I was unaware of this change. So it would seem Amtrak has no recourse or basis whatsoever for redress. Hopeless.
"beyond gross negligence arising from a wilful and intentional delay of an Amtrak train, are specified," I think I have read about a lot of this on this and other forums.
"any such lobby would represent many more jobs" Are you saying merely depriving the country of a national passenger railroad system would create more jobs in the freight industry? Really?
"time to break out the "Adios' drumheads" ....which, it seems you are fond of advocating!
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
First, please excuse me for parsing your material, Mr. Miami. Sometimes it is the most efficient means to address points made by other members. Be assured in this instance I take no umbrage that you chose to do so with mine.
GBN "beyond gross negligence arising from a wilful and intentional delay of an Amtrak train, are specified," IC53 - I think I have read about a lot of this on this and other forums.
I know people face to face who "swear up and down" that some Class I's intentionally delay Amtrak trains, presumably in the hope that Amtrak will give up and go away.
What has to be differed is the delay intentional i.e.a wilful act by management directing a Train Dispatcher to delay Amtrak for no other reason to "give 'em a lesson' or is "intentional' simply that the Class I will not subordinate their freight operations to the needs of Amtrak. Amtrak's "bargain basement rates' entitles them to nothing other than "bargain basement service", and as Mr. Resor noted, there is no statutory provision requiring anything further by a Class I to Amtrak. As the old adiage goes "you get what you pay for".
GBN "any such lobby would represent many more jobs" IC53 -Are you saying merely depriving the country of a national passenger railroad system would create more jobs in the freight industry? Really?
You are addressing jobs solely within the railroad industry and overlooking the industries that are dependent upon railroads for timely delivery of materials and finished goods.
GBN "time to break out the "Adios' drumheads" IC53....which, it seems you are fond of advocating!
I really advocate nothing; I merely share my thought that if Amtrak had to pay the full opportunity cost of the profit deprived the Class I from that freight that could not be run account Amtrak occupying a dispatch slot, the drumheads would be quick to come out. I am neither a member of anti-passenger-rail Heritage Foundation nor am I a member of any advocacy group such as NARP.
Lastly I have not had a railroad industry paycheck in more than twenty five years.
And one final item - Amtrak travel YTD: LOR-53(18)-SFA-52(23)-LOR $993.00
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kiernan: Rail bridges can go up very quickly. All the bridges are pretty much the same,
Since the bridge in Sacramento was the north approach trestle to the main spans over the river this is more or less true. But it would be equally true for a highway bridge in the same situation. Some of this stuff probably was stockpiled. Some of it may have come in response to a phone call to a surplier to the effect of, "How many feet of H-piles of xxx lbs/ft or greater can you ship out TODAY?" Some of it may have been intended for use elsewhere. (There may be a bridge on the Sunset Route that will now be delayed a few months until more deck spans are cast and cured and new H-piles delivered.) But railroad bridges are in a different league than highway bridges altogether. A single track railroad bridge has about the same load carrying capacity in its design as a four lane highway bridge.
quote:The main difference between what the the railroads do and what transportation departments do is the environmental assessment work.
Not usually. Most of the environmental requirements are legal mandates that apply to all construction. At least due to the fire any living thing under the bridge was burned to a crisp already so they had no need to do studies for disturbance of vegetation and habitats of small critters. They may simply have decided it would be worth it to simply pay any fines ground disturbance related to doing approach roads without proper permitting rather than wait weeks for the process to grind through.
What you do get away with is not having to comply umpteen pages of requirements to prove everything under the sun for various legal set-asides.
George
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
It is my understanding that environmental review requirements only apply to new construction, and not to a replacement structure, as long as the replacement has essentially the same footprint as the original.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: It is my understanding that environmental review requirements only apply to new construction, and not to a replacement structure, as long as the replacement has essentially the same footprint as the original.
Yes and No. This appears to have some variability.
I don't have the specifics at my fingertips, but a few years ago when BNSF replaced the through truss span or spans on one of the bridges on the San Joaquin Valley line they had to do an environmental analysis for some sort of berry bush that would be affected becuase the bush was the habitat of some endangered species of beetle. (I kid you not.) They ended up transplanting something like 30 bushes and the whole exercise cost something like $30,000 per bush. The article aslo noted that no beetles were found.
There was also an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) that ran to over 100 pages done for building a parallel second main of under three miles length in the existing right of way on the San Diego line.
George
Kiernan Member # 3828
posted
California law requires an enviromental analysis of some sort for every project, regardless of where it's done, as long as the project meets certain basic requirements. A new subdivision, for example, might require an analysis. So might a new railroad bridge.
In the Federal realm, you only have to do an environmental analysis if you're using Federal money or doing the work on Federal dirt. A state department of transportation must do an environmental analysis for a road construction project if they plan to use Federal money, and they almost always use Federal money. If a private company wants to build a ski area on a national forest, the company must do an environmental analysis even though they're not using Federal money.
The main reason we have red tape in government is to make sure that the money--taken from us involuntarily--is spent correctly. While a railroad, or any other company, has to make money, the government has to spend money and "be fair." In order to do this, we the people have set up procedures to make sure that the money goes to projects and not into pockets. Well, as least as much as we can insure that the money doesn't go into pockets.
All environmental laws have waivers that take effect under certain conditions, and a burned-up bridge on a mainline might fall into that category.
When you have to live with a limited budget you can't do anything as quickly as when you can throw money around. Today I was at a construction progress meeting with the Federal Highway Administration. The FHWA is building a bridge across a wetland and a few miles of road for the Forest Service and the New Mexico DOT. The original design started out as a causeway with big culverts at one end. As more information about the wetland developed, the design changed to a bridge. When the bids opened, the miles of road disappeared from the project. Eventually it will all get done, but it will take longer.
Are railroads insured for the kind of thing that happened in Sacramento?
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kiernan: Are railroads insured for the kind of thing that happened in Sacramento?
I think so. When I worked briefly for a railroad company almost 40 years ago, I asked that question. The answer was yes, and the deductible is $1,000,000. I would suspect the deductible, like auto deductibles, are much higher now.
Dixie Flyer Member # 4640
posted
Both tracks of the Sacramento are now open.
From the UP Website:
"Saturday, March 31, 2007
Main track two of the bridge approach was open for train traffic at 1 a.m. PDT today.
Both lines are now open for trains to operate over the bridge at 10 mph, with the original maximum speed of 25 mph to be resumed in seven days.
All trains that were detoured are now operating on their normal routing. About 50 trains a day operate over the bridge."
In my opinion, that's quite a feat.
Dixie Flyer Member # 4640
posted
Sorry first line of last post should have read,
Both tracks of the Sacramento Bridge are now open.
posted