posted
According to the article, $100 million for the restoration of New Orleans to Florida and/or for the SW Chief. I thought the states were going to pick up the tab for the Chief.
posted
Pertinent Fair Use quotation from the material immediately linked by Richard:
A provision in a multiyear transportation bill that was approved in July by the Senate would provide funding for a study of the feasibility of restoring the service, which used to make stops in Alabama and the panhandle of Florida before it headed south to Orlando.
Advocates of restoring the dormant Gulf Coast Amtrak service are hoping to win support for the language in the House when lawmakers return to Washington in September.
Best case the advocates of this useless service, whose "patron saints" have long left the scene (K Street, anyone?), can hope for is a "study". It was already studied under PRIIA 08; what hath changed?
Lest we overlook, there is economic benefit to the public funds expended on upgrading the Raton Pass line. First is that it removes a train that would otherwise be handled on the busy BNSF Transcon and, secondly, there are two traffic generating stops on that route - Raton and Albuquerque. While the Boy Scout Raton traffic is seasonal in nature, the Boy Scouts have their "pull in the right places". In addition to "on The Hill", their movement has been assimilated into the management of various railroads. Aspirants to climb the ladder have found that "active in Boy Scouts" is a ticket to be punched.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Agree that continuing agitation for this route will at this point lead only to one more study that would most accurately be described as beating a dead horse. However a major cause of its demise or more accurately return after Katrina was the excessive delay and erratic service WEST of New Orleans due to UP's complete lack of understanding of how SP managed to function at all.
The current condition of the CSX line is probably best described as better than ever. The relative slowness of the line is due to the lack of signals between Flomaton and Tallahassee and the round about route between Mobile and Pensacola. The slowness squawked about in the Media is screaming about the time between New Orleans and Orlando by forgetting about the train going to Jacksonville first. Going to Jacksonville made for a decent connection to the Northeast to Florida trains, also conveniently forgotten.
When talking about rerouting of the Southwest Chief Albuquerque will not be missed. It simply requires a divergence from the direct route that can easily be made and is made when the Southwest Chief is rerouted due to issues on the normal route.
By the way: When we consider what it would take to get the current Southwest Chief route back up to its 90 mph condition it would be far less on a per passenger mile than the money dumped into the Vermonter route, which, among other things, amounted to a near if not total rail replacement from Springfield MA to the north end of the route.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
As discussed before, the most logical way to get something started on this route is an incremental approach: A state funded train from New Orleans through the gulf coast cities to Mobile using CONO equipment. And then, perhaps a state funded train from Tallahassee to Jax with connections beyond. Why do we have to make things so hard these days.
But, as George points out, this is a tough route as an LD operation to make highway competitive with the dog leg and slow operation through Flomaton, AL and down to Pensacola.
The current issue of Trains has a good recommendation on the service and it too suggests connecting to the CONO rather than the Sunset on a schedule somewhat similar to the Gulf Wind as operated by the SAL/LN. I suspect there is a lot more revenue potential for through passengers from Chicago and midwest/mid southt cities to Florida than there ever was from Texas and points west.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: First is that it removes a train that would otherwise be handled on the busy BNSF Transcon and, secondly, there are two traffic generating stops on that route - Raton and Albuquerque.
Agreed with the latter, but the former is not really a benefit at all: when that train leaves the Transcon, and when it rejoins the Transcon, that interrupts the flow of traffic in at least one direction if not both in the worst case scenario - twice, per train. Imagine this: a road with one lane in each direction. All the vehicles are moving in a steady flow. Suddenly your vehicle (the SWC) wants to turn left to access a side road (to Albuquerque). It has to wait while blocking the traffic in its own direction of travel until a gap is created in the opposite direction of travel. Eventually both directions are stopped while your vehicle turns left. Slowly they'll recover but at an expense that lasts for scores of minutes.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Came across this Southern Rail Commission Report that details the latest version of gulf coast service. It seems to favor a Gulf Wind type train from New Orleans to Orlando and a state train New Orleans to Mobile.
While an Orlando train would be nice, it seems to me a more logical and feasible first step would be to just get a state train running to Mobile using a portion of the CONO equipment. That obvious alternative was not included in the five scenarios in the report.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Cynical me:
Someone in DC has a friend in Congress, and got himself a study contract in the pork.
Trust the boys and girls had a nice time away from whatever politicians do to pass their day.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Wonder who will pay for PTC on the non-signaled portion - former L&N Tallahassee to Flomaton?
But,it is an interesting route. I never rode the SL there but did on L&N's Gulf Wind and nameless local. An Atlanta to Savannah or Jacksonville train would be more useful.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
quote:Originally posted by palmland: Wonder who will pay for PTC on the non-signaled portion - former L&N Tallahassee to Flomaton?
That's a question in general that I have not found answers to. There are hundreds, if not thousands of places where one railroad directly connects to another - simple diamond/flat crossing, or switches. When one RR requires PTC and the other doesn't, who pays to protect the conforming RR from the non-conforming RR? Maybe derailers is all that is required.
SilverStar092 Member # 2652
posted
Those of you living in other parts of the country are unaware of the interest by folks along the Deep South. The inspection train attracted a huge crowd at most of it's stops and showed the desire of the public to have Amtrak return. It is amazing how people living in other places think they are so knowledgable about this part of the country. I suppose that Mr. Norman 's living in Chicago makes him an expert on the people of south Alabama, southern Mississippi , and Nirth Florida. Ditto those of you in various other states.
As for the past, the Sunset Limited turned into a real dog as it ran hours late and was frequently annulled. These issues should be eliminated by using City of New Orleans equipment, something that should have been tried long ago. Additionally, daily service will attract many more riders.
I apologize for being personal but I am sick of reading posts that continually denigrate my part of the country and especially am tired of seeing posts praising AutoTrain and perhaps Acela while bashing long distance service and efforts to expand that service.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Welcome back, Mr. Turner; you haven't been around in about a year and a half.
Be it noted that I do respect you would like to see more passenger trains - and as I recall, residing in the Florida "panhandle", restoration of some kind of service along the Gulf Wind route is a means to an end.
Of possible interest is, while never having ridden the Gulf Wind, I have ridden the "Pan American" during 1970. Also as I've noted, I rode #1, Sunset East, ORL-NOL twice during '02 and '04. The timekeeping was "good enough" and my "more positives than negatives" overall assessment of my Amtrak experiences was quite "applicable".
Auto Train's relative success is simply that for many of its passengers, it is the most painless means of moving their own auto and stuff between Florida and the Northeast. Somewhere, someone has analyzed at what point it is more economical to "use Auto Train and your own wheels down below" than to "fly and rent". Once upon a time, Florida was a very competitive auto rental market; nowadays "uh, not exactly", so that break even point is now reached far more quickly. Furthermore, there are some who simply 'want their own" rather than the wind-up-toy rented autos have a way of being.
Now so far as Acela, how can one not praise it. Here is a transportation vehicle than can command "a dollar a mile' even if it is only slightly faster and, since I don't think Acela coach - whoops, Business - seats are all that comfortable, less comfortable than Regionals.
Finally, indicative of how Acela has become part of the landscape of Northeast "movers and shakers" is this rail unrelated column appearing last week in The Times:
Since everyone who ever met Justice Scalia is telling Scalia stories, I’ll tell mine. The last conversation we had took place in the spring of 2013, on a Washington-bound Amtrak Acela. I noticed him sitting across the aisle from me, wearing headphones and working. He didn’t notice me, and I didn’t bother him. But when we stood to collect our things, we found ourselves face to face. “So, Linda,” he said, “what do you think of the new pope?”
This was such an unexpected conversation opener that I didn’t know what to say. Pope Francis had been chosen just a few days earlier. I was hardly qualified to discuss the first Jesuit pope with a Jesuit-trained Supreme Court justice. “I’m surprised they picked someone so old,” I finally managed.
“Well, he’s a transitional figure,” Justice Scalia said.
How could anyone ever overlook such priceless publicity.
SilverStar092 Member # 2652
posted
Good points about AutoTrain and Acela...I totally agree they are excellent operations. Likewise glad to hear your westbound trips on the Sunset were mostly good. Such usually was the case on westbound trips. Eastbound was the problem due to poor performance by the UP and predecessor SP at the time. Those issues have apparently improved but the prospect of better timekeeping using City of New Orleans equipment promises better outcomes along with daily service.
My point is that I'd like to see a bit less bashing of this region and it's prospect for successful passenger rail service as there is a desire and need for it. Actually running the train is the only way to know how it will do but my money is on success given that there will be an increase of over 114% in departures each week and the train should be far more timely.
BTW, I agree with GBN regarding rental cars in Florida. There used to be competitive deals but now not so much. In fact, one big name company has resorted to ripping off its customers with deceptive rate offerings.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo:
quote:Originally posted by palmland: Wonder who will pay for PTC on the non-signaled portion - former L&N Tallahassee to Flomaton?
That's a question in general that I have not found answers to. There are hundreds, if not thousands of places where one railroad directly connects to another - simple diamond/flat crossing, or switches. When one RR requires PTC and the other doesn't, who pays to protect the conforming RR from the non-conforming RR? Maybe derailers is all that is required.
These things are decided by agreement between the railroad companies, usually by negotiation, but sometimes in court. The general rule is that the "senior" says what is acceptable and the "junior" pays all costs. This may be that junior performs all maintenance and inspection or that if the senior performs any maintenance or inspection they then bill the junior line. By the way, if I remember correctly, and it has been near 50 years since I was involved in any such, there were 3 different overhead rates applied to the direct cost part of the billing: The lowest, which was very small, included only that directly applicable to the crew doing the work, presumably direct materials cost, equipment O&M and the company portion of the men's pay, presumably such things as the company portion of fringes. The second was that charged to an industry, that is for such things as construction and maintenance of company owned track materials serving an industry with possibly some localized overhead, a somewhat higher overhead on wages possibly reflecting some regional managerial overhead, then the highest to work done for an outside agency such as related to a public works project which would full overhead costs that could be assigned to the materials cost, addition of depreciation to equipment cost, and full overhead assignable to the wages of the work crews.
As to signals, it may be as simple as a four-way stop. For this situation the first train, after stopping then has the right of way to continue, that being by whether he is first by seconds, minutes, or hours. There are such crossings where there are gates across the tracks that have to be unlocked and swung across the other track and then the train proceed. Depending upon the agreement between the two railroads, either the gate may be left as last used or must be restored to a defined position. Here is where the ending of cabooses led to some long hikes by a member of the train crew.
The crossings with signals: These aren't simple either. The following are just some of the ways they may be. There are crossing where, whether either both or neither of the lines has signals, the signals operate on an approach circuit where whichever train gets on their line's approach circuit first gets the signal at the crossing locked for their movement. Sometimes the crossing signal will be dispatcher controlled by one of the lines so that he can set it to favor movement on his own line. Often the operating timetable will have a lengthy description on what to do if the signal does not clear and no train shows up on the crossing line.
Crossing controls may be inconsistent between crossing on the same line. For example: On the L&N Memphis line, at Humboldt it crossed the GM&O main with the crossing having a four way stop. For many years both lines had passenger trains. Next up northeast, at Milan it crossed the ICRR m main to Birmingham. This line had signals and it was a signaled crossing, but I have no idea of what set up.
As an example of what the senior-junior setup can get you: At Holly Springs MS the Frisco main (now BNSF) main Memphis to Birmingham was junior, being built somewhere in the 1880's, I think, having some 16 to 20 trains a day crossed the ICRR's Jackson TN to Grenada MS line which was senior built somewhere in the 1850's. For many years the crossing was a diamond that was curved on the Frisco side and straight on the ICRR side. The Frisco had a very low speed limit, plus the diamond was high maintenance. Around 1980 the finally replaced it with a pair of turnouts. I have no idea of what sort of negotiations got them there. The replacement consisted of a pair of No. 15 power operated turnouts with the ICRR on the curved side of the turnout, thereby allowing them to have a 25 mph speed limit which was probably as fast as they ran anyway. You can be certain that if the ICRR was junior these would have been a pair of hand thrown No. 10 turnouts with electric locks so that the ICRR crew would have to grovel before the Frisco dispatcher to get unlocked in order to allow their movement.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: As to signals, it may be as simple as a four-way stop.
Thanks George. I've read your quoted statement above twice and come to two conclusions about what you mean. So I'll err on the side of being patronizing (sorry) and say that for PTC it is not as simple as a four-way stop! The PTC railroad has to have some protection from the non-PTC railroad: in the case of a simple diamond/flat crossing, lamps on poles, written authority, pressing a button, waiting out a timeout etc is not protection as humans are not infallible. One day one train will, for whatever reason, proceed without authority which is where some sort of manual protection is required. Again, I suspect it would be a set of derailers to at least throw the train in the dirt in the hope that the offending train didn't have enough momentum to foul the PTC track(s).
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
In view of the weather today, just as well the "Pols" took their joyride last week.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Goeff: I understood that you asked what is done now between lines having different owners, and that is what I told you. When it comes to what will be done with PTC, you are far more of a signals guy than me. But I will say this, I seriously doubt whether what the FRA says will in any shape or form differentiate between whether the two lines leading up to the crossing have the same or different owners. Yes, I do suspect that there will be a requirement for derails in the approach lines, whether one or both who can say. Right now there are requirements for derails on tracks leading into high speed tracks above a certain speed. I don't remember the precise conditions and I am not going to look it up. Anybody wanting to know bad enough can chase it down in the CFR. I do know it is not specific about the type of derail because on one occasion I had to check that out.
"Amtrak is working with host railroad company CSX to establish the final routes. CSX has indicated interest in Amtrak's plan to have two daily Gulf Coast routes - a round trip from New Orleans to Orlando via Jacksonville and a shorter route that would offer a round trip from New Orleans to Mobile."
Richard
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Ahhh. CSX sees a cash cow to get signalling for a chunk of the line.
Money talks.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
I know times are tough at CSX but "CSX has an interest in Amtrak's plans." Hard to believe.
Maybe the answer is another CSX quote: "CSX is exploring options to expand the railroad's current signal coverage and is examining viable passenger operating plans that won't interfere with freight systems."
Translated that might mean if Amtrak helps fund PTC, to include the now dark territory on former L&N, CSX would accept federal funding to defray that cost and run the passenger trains. I'm not sure if there is currently any haz mat traffic that cannot be rerouted which would require CSX to fund PTC just for freight traffic.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
quote:Originally posted by palmland: I know times are tough at CSX but "CSX has an interest in Amtrak's plans." Hard to believe.
Maybe the answer is another CSX quote: "CSX is exploring options to expand the railroad's current signal coverage and is examining viable passenger operating plans that won't interfere with freight systems."
Translated that might mean if Amtrak helps fund PTC, to include the now dark territory on former L&N, CSX would accept federal funding to defray that cost and run the passenger trains. I'm not sure if there is currently any haz mat traffic that cannot be rerouted which would require CSX to fund PTC just for freight traffic.
In other words... CSX sees a cash cow to get signalling for a chunk of the line.
posted