posted
Mike, allow me to perfect the link to the material you presented.
Here is the source material from the Politico site.
Amtrak’s response is of course quite expected. While becoming less the case with each Congress, Amtrak still relies on funding appropriated from representatives with constituencies away from the Northeast. Therefore, they must take issue with any material suggesting "it's the Corridor; forget the rest". Towards that end, they presented this "Connected US" proposal calling for a "potpourri" of new routes.
As I noted at another site, here's my key takeaway from the Politico material:
The value of Amtrak isn’t to extend passenger rail everywhere. It’s to provide efficient and convenient passenger rail in some places that improves American mobility while reducing carbon emissions from cars and planes.
I must question, as does Mr. Harris at another topic, how can one reasonably expect a Nashville-Atlanta route, which was proposed as part of the Connected US initiative, going "way around" through Tullahoma, Decherd, Sherwood, and Stevenson, AL a little obstacle God placed there and we humankind named Monteagle, to be speed competitive with other surface transportation?
Or how to reach Asheville NC, a "very touristy town" over a 3% rail ruling grade? 3%; no big deal for highway vehicles; something else for a train.
Finally, let us address this corridorrail.com vested interest. It seems that James Coston, a Chicago area railfan and the apparent owner of the site, acquired an interest in most of the ATSF Hi-Level fleet after they were retired by Amtrak. To date, those cars sit deteriorating near St. Louis. He still holds visions of those cars being acquired by an agency and returned to revenue service. Such certainly represents an economic intetest in my book.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Maybe because I am not paying attention like I have in the past, but one corridor that seems to have more or less dropped out of sight is Chicago to St. Louis. From what I saw of it when I was paying attention it was a political boondoggle. I would think with a few more bucks and a major attitude adjustment in their relationship with UP a reasonably good corridor service could occur. I don't think they have yet achieved the run times and reliability of the long ago GM&O / Alton. Some of these other suggestions come more under the heading of, "I don't know what you're smoking, but it shore ain't tobaccy." Maybe that is the objective, to come up with suggestions so silly that blowing megabucks on the northeast appears to be the only reasonable part of it.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
I think the article by J. Bruce Richardson (clicking the "material" link in Mr. Norman's post) is one of the most open minded and honest articles, pertaining to Amtrak, that I've ever read: "We are the United States of America, not the United States of the Northeast"
From the article: " Remember, any long distance route is simply a string of short, individual corridors knitted together to form one longer route with greater utility and greater revenue generation." That may not apply everywhere, but I think it does to a fair extent.
The govt. has come up with a novel idea; pay for infrastructure development and repair by means of an increase in the corporate tax rate, from 21% to 28%. How creative. I've always thought that corporations deal with tax increases by passing on those costs to the public, in the form of greater prices for products and services.
Richard
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Richard, I cannot agree with you.
Whatever funds are appropriated from the AJPA21 - American Jobs Plan Act of 2021 - first will not be the $80B proposed by Joe and Mayor Pete, and whatever there is eventually, be appropriated to Corridor infrastructure. The projects such as Gateway, Portal, B&P, S-Curves at Elizabeth and Frankford Jct will still only result in a property supporting "Higher Speed" Rail such I have found in Austria and Eastern Bavaria.
There simply will not be funds available for improvements much anywhere else. This is no time for the absurdity of the Obama ARRA09, which included such nonsense as allocating funds to fill the consultants' feeding troughs for studies of Trans-Kansas HSR.
Regarding the ARRA09 Funded "Chi-Stl HSR" Mr. Harris notes, such simply was an allocation of taxpayer funds to build the UP a new route, in addition to the one they already have (C&EI) into Chicago. As a minimum, if "twelve a day" and UP freight were to be accommodated, double track, such as existed until 1968, would have had to be restored. This UP shareowner should be saying "thank you Uncle Sam", but I'm instead saying what a "wool over the eyes" the whole sorry boondoggle has become.
Finally, and admittedly off topic; even though I hold that Joe will resign during the Summer of '23 (Congress will be back in Republican control and his unenacted legislative initiatives "DOA"), even his strongest critics cannot say he was a "caretaker President" such as I thought he was going to be.
Ocala Mike Member # 4657
posted
My advice, Gil:
“I always avoid prophesying beforehand because it is much better to prophesy after the event has already taken place.” ― Winston S. Churchill
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by yukon11: J. Bruce Richardson; "We are the United States of America, not the United States of the Northeast"
Richard, I'd like to expand upon Mr. Richardson's thought you captioned as significant.
My thought is simply "We cannot be the United States of Passenger Rail". We simply are too large a country in terms of land mass to be that.
We have become a country where certain activities are concentrated in one region or the other. The Northeast, defined by the Corridor, is that for Finance, News media, Government, and Elite Higher Education. The West Coast is defined by Entertainment and Technology. Our "flyover country" is defined by the assets not only to feed America but also much of the World. While there many a scenic vista in the Northeast, none are "breathtaking" in scope such as the Grand Canyon or Yosemite.
We cannot, in the interest of being "equally dependent" on, say, passenger rail transportation, relocate Harvard to Kanorado, KA or "Wall Street" to Corbin, KY, and maybe The New York Times become the "Marmarth, ND Times".
All told, these absurdities are presented with the idea that simply because there is really only one market for intercity passenger, Version 21st Century, rail, does not mean that other "markets" should so be provided at taxpayer expense.
That is why I find fault with Mr. Richardson's, a long time Chicago area railfan, thoughts - especially what you chose to caption.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
Mr. Norman: I believe that the highest priority should be for infrastructure needs. The Hudson tunnels are probably #1 on the list. However, (from the Politico article), I have a problem with:
"the Biden Administration does hope to spend half its rail money upgrading the Northeast Corridor, reserving most of the rest for Amtrak lines and other “intercity passenger rail.”
40 billion for the NEC and 40 billion for the rest of the country? There are a lot of infrastructure repair needs outside the NEC and projects as important as those in the Northeast.
I can't help thinking there is a lot of political play going on.
Richard
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Richard, we are more on the same page than I would have thought when this topic originated.
We both agree that the top passenger rail project for AJPA21 funding is Gateway, for if the existing tunnels spring a leak, that is not one, but two passenger train agencies that are (uh, to be G-rated) "disrupted".
"Out your way", I could see benefit to both State passenger train agencies if the run through tracks could be built at LAUPT without displacing too much high value real estate, however, I think a Standard Gauge Trans-Bay X-ing belongs to Edward Hungerford's dreams.
Of concern to me is that if the Bill gets too littered up with special interest "dreams", e.g. additional Amtrak routes, the Bill will step outside the Senate Rules regarding Reconciliation and, hence, require sixty votes for passage.
posted
There has been a plan in the past for a run through line into LAUS, but with typical California thinking it was a walking speed alignment in order to dodge some real and imaginary hysterical locations. (I intentionally spelled it hysterical.) If a couple of these could be made to disappear they could easily develop a 25 mph plus maybe even 40 mph alignment. While 25 mph might seem pathetic to some, it ain't bad for a terminal approach. Any sort of such a connection would make for several minutes of time saving for San Diegan that continue through. This is a connection that I think should be built, but with a realistic alignment, preferably a 40 to 45 mph one.
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
quote:Originally posted by yukon11:
quote:...the Biden Administration does hope to spend half its rail money upgrading the Northeast Corridor, reserving most of the rest for Amtrak lines and other “intercity passenger rail.”
$40 billion for the NEC and $40 billion for the rest of the country? There are a lot of infrastructure repair needs outside the NEC and projects as important as those in the Northeast.
I can't help thinking there is a lot of political play going on.
Once things are in government hands, political plays and ploys are inseparable from all the other aspects.
I don't see an average of $178 million per mile going to the NEC. I've seen a lot of smoke blown about grandiose Amtrak plans in the past, but this is volcano-grade smoke now.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
$178 million per mile could easily be blown on the NEC. As I have said before, the only way to get much more time squeezed out of the NEC is through significant alignment improvements. Think urban freeway cost per mile range.
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
Oh, lots of money could be easily blown on any government project. And of course, terms like “time squeezed” and “significant alignment improvements” are relative.
Going all the way back to 1969 (52 years ago), the Budd Metroliner was advertised to achieve a top speed of 160 mph. If it had achieved that (nothing was said about how much of the not-yet-NEC it would run at that speed for, thus leaving the intended average speed quite open for debate), it would have been the fastest passenger train in the world for that era. Back then, the Penn Central RR spent $45 million on the Metroliner project (almost $333 million in 2021 dollars) with the federal government contributing $11 million ($81.3 million); amazing how much costs have “increased” the further things got away from the private sector over the half-century. Also, the Metroliner’s fare from NYP to WAS back then was $12.75 ($94.20; compare that with any Acela fare from today).
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: ]Budd Metroliner[/URL] was advertised to achieve a top speed of 160 mph. If it had achieved that (nothing was said about how much of the not-yet-NEC it would run at that speed for, thus leaving the intended average speed quite open for debate),
It is probably the Civil Engineer in me, but whenever I hear this talk about the wonders of increased speed you can have with better equipment I want to shake these people. Curves, curves, curves. Think stupid. A straight line has not real speed limit, but curves all do based on comfort and safety (Comfort is well inside safety on rail operations) This is part of the silly of "Oh, let's just build the HSR tracks in the interstate median." No dear, the defined design speed limit on the Interstate system is 70 mph, although some states do try to make sure the true safe limit is considerably higher. If you want a 200 mph railroad, you do not follow a line of road built for less than half that speed. There are further issues with being on an existing highway alignment that make for a whole other set of problems as well, but we will not go there for now.
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
The point was not to reach 200 mph a half-century ago, of course. Notwithstanding, if the goal is at least some kind of average speed that reaches the three-digit mark, the technology for that is of course older than the Budd Metroliner.
As far as 200-mph new railroads go, the Germans have been building those on the sides of the Autobahn rather than the center, giving greater control of alignment straightness. However, the NEC is more comparable to the Berlin-Hamburg line, a traditional railroad with mixed traffic where the fastest trains reach an average speed of about 118 mph (top speed 143 mph).
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
The OBB in Austria is much the same as Mr. Helfner notes Hamburg to Berlin, which I rode Hanover-Berlin during May '90 - still complete with "border formalities" even if they were more for show than anything else at that time (where's the Iron Curtain nowadays? right here in the "land of the free USA").
Austria continually makes upgrades to its lines, such as a three mile tunnel into Vienna, eliminating slow running and backup moves needed to access over the (Austria) Western Railway from Salzburg, a like distant tunnel into Innsbruck, a diggin' under the Brenner Pass (Innsbruck-Brennero), and now the "topper"; digging under the Semmering Pass between Graz and Vienna - all this in a country that does not represent to have HSR!!!!
Even though age and health says I've made my final visit, and the six I made during '14 to'19 were primarily for music and not train riding, I did do a number of "day trips" from Salzburg and could only walk away with "why can't we at least do this over here"?
posted