Passenger Trains > .

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/21 00:23 by F40PHR231.

F40PHR231 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Utah's FrontRunner will no longer serve an
> end-point station due to PTC this summer.
>
> http://www.standard.net/Transportation/2018/02/17/
> Pleasant-View-FrontRunner-station-to-close-in-Augu
> st-due-to-new-safety-rules.html
>
> Snippet: "The cost to upgrade trains using the
> line north of the Ogden FrontRunner station to
> Pleasant View, owned by Union Pacific Railroad,
> would be prohibitive, thus officials opted to halt
> service to Pleasant View instead."
>
> This is not how public transportation is supposed
> to be built. May as well shut the whole thing down
> if it's 'cost prohibitive', nevermind that Weber
> County recently voted and passed Prop 1 to
> increase tax rates that would allocate new funds
> to be dedicated to public transportation (a
> measure which failed in Salt Lake County). This is
> real disappointing.

Don't think this outcome was on the minds of many in congress when the law was passed.

It loads 35 passengers per day.

You know, it ought to start to be clear to folks that only mode of surface passenger transportation in the United States that has the the lobbying power to get whatever it wants is the highway lobby. People have forgotten that the highway lobby, with much less political power than it has amassed since, was a key factor in exterminating the trolley and interurban rail transit systems in this country, many of them still privately-owned, financed, and operated systems at the time. Were a PTC type system to be mandated for the highway system, the highway lobby would make sure that the feds had their checkbook wide open to finance it--and it would be open without any significant debate or oversight. It's just yet another sign that, for a supposedly well-educated, First World country, we have an electorate made up of dunces who have elected either dunces or crooks to represent them--and I don't mean just the current bunch in office; it's been going on for decades now.

I would hope that the voters in Utah would rise up and tell the feds that, if the feds are going to require PTC for passenger trains to operate, then the feds should pay to get it implemented where it is needed. Utahns, and I know a number of them, do a pretty good job at making sure that their state and local governments are at least fairly responsive and efficient, and Utahns, like a lot of other fiscal conservatives, don't like unfunded federal mandates jammed down their throats. Time for them (and the rest of us) to tell the feds to quit playing favorites in transportation and quit kissing up only to the highway lobby.

The riders, however few, will be no safer driving down to Ogden to get their train. I am sure I-15 and US-89 are no fun when it snows.

With such low levels of service, why is the route not exempt from PTC, as is LIRR Ronkonkoma - Greenport, which on summer Fridays has 2 passenger trains running on it simultaneously, as well as some NY&A freight ? I am not familiar with UTA's operation, but shouldn't there be some feeder mini-buses to connect with other trains to supplement the two they have ?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/18 11:12 by joemvcnj.

Maybe the problem could be solved by restricting access of freight trains to certain hours. Similar to what we see with the San Diego Trolley and the NJT River Line.

Let's face it. Since WW11 we have become a totally auto centric society and the building of the Eisenhower Interstate System sealed it forever. Stand on a bridge over any Interstate a look down upon the cars passing underneath. 90% of them will be occupied by 1 person, the driver.

We've grown accustomed to our selfish ways wanting our own personal chariot so that we can come/go as we please ( not tied to a rigid schedule), listen to whatever music we want, smoke a stogie if we want etc.

Until/unless the cost of operating a personal auto ( tolls/fuel/maintenance) becomes prohibitive (i.e. $ 15/gal.gas, $40 toll for 25 mile trip etc.) this is not going to change. Public transportation will always be sucking hind tit.

Sad but true.

IMHO-Ross Rowland

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the problem could be solved by restricting
> access of freight trains to certain hours.
> Similar to what we see with the San Diego Trolley
> and the NJT River Line.

Isn't that a heavy UP freight line up to Pocatello and Boise, or does most of that run via the Cutoff from Wyoming ?

As the resident Trainorders PTC troll, I have to ask:

Why is nobody willing to push back against the mandate? It has serious safety questions, it's unproven and no other mode of transport would allow itself to be fundamentally altered in this fashion without at least solid safety data.

Just ask one of the NTSB cheerleaders...er safety experts who loves PTC any of these questions. They can't answer them. We as an industry can eliminate this and make adjustments--from crew sleep to training to legacy systems like ATC or ATS--that improve safety in a meaningful and relatively inexpensive way.

But to simply give up railroading because nobody is willing to challenge Congress? That's like a redux of the bad old days of regulation when the carriers of the day allowed the ICC to run their businesses with no opposition.

PhilBell4022 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As the resident Trainorders PTC troll, I have to
> ask:
>
> Why is nobody willing to push back against the
> mandate? It has serious safety questions, it's
> unproven and no other mode of transport would
> allow itself to be fundamentally altered in this
> fashion without at least solid safety data.
>
> Just ask one of the NTSB cheerleaders...er safety
> experts who loves PTC any of these questions. They
> can't answer them. We as an industry can eliminate
> this and make adjustments--from crew sleep to
> training to legacy systems like ATC or ATS--that
> improve safety in a meaningful and relatively
> inexpensive way.
>
> But to simply give up railroading because nobody
> is willing to challenge Congress? That's like a
> redux of the bad old days of regulation when the
> carriers of the day allowed the ICC to run their
> businesses with no opposition.

Amtrak’s new CEO’s proclamation that our trains won’t run over any non-PTC line echo those words of the other NTSB cheerleaders quite well— still, they all show an inadequate understanding of RR’ing and are looking for a “miracle” cure that simply w/ never happen. Sure, some wrecks will be prevented, but IMHO, $ would be better spent separating all ROW with fences and elminating grade crossings subsequently saving more lives than will ever be saved by the costly implementation of problematic and unproven PTC technology.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't that a heavy UP freight line up to Pocatello and Boise, or does most of that run via the Cutoff from Wyoming ?

Most of it runs via the Granger Cutoff.

Andersen ought to spend a day chatting with Denver RTD's grade crossing guards.

IC_2024 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PhilBell4022 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As the resident Trainorders PTC troll, I have
> to
> > ask:
> >
> > Why is nobody willing to push back against the
> > mandate? It has serious safety questions, it's
> > unproven and no other mode of transport would
> > allow itself to be fundamentally altered in
> this
> > fashion without at least solid safety data.
> >
> > Just ask one of the NTSB cheerleaders...er
> safety
> > experts who loves PTC any of these questions.
> They
> > can't answer them. We as an industry can
> eliminate
> > this and make adjustments--from crew sleep to
> > training to legacy systems like ATC or
> ATS--that
> > improve safety in a meaningful and relatively
> > inexpensive way.
> >
> > But to simply give up railroading because
> nobody
> > is willing to challenge Congress? That's like a
> > redux of the bad old days of regulation when
> the
> > carriers of the day allowed the ICC to run
> their
> > businesses with no opposition.
>
> Amtrak’s new CEO’s proclamation that our
> trains won’t run over any non-PTC line echo
> those words of the other NTSB cheerleaders quite
> well— still, they all show an inadequate
> understanding of RR’ing and are looking for a
> “miracle” cure that simply w/ never happen.
> Sure, some wrecks will be prevented, but IMHO, $
> would be better spent separating all ROW with
> fences and elminating grade crossings subsequently
> saving more lives than will ever be saved by the
> costly implementation of problematic and unproven
> PTC technology.

As always, the safest railroad is one that does not run any trains LOL!

Anderson may be trying to achieve that :P

co614 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Until/unless the cost of operating a personal
> auto ( tolls/fuel/maintenance) becomes prohibitive
> (i.e. $ 15/gal.gas, $40 toll for 25 mile trip
> etc.) this is not going to change. Public
> transportation will always be sucking hind tit.
>
> Sad but true.
>
> IMHO-Ross Rowland


Well said, Mr. Roland. I always appreciate your remarks.

Just take a look at Europe where gas is much higher than it is here in the States. Gasoline is generally over one Euro per liter, usually closer to 1.5 Euros. At those prices, a gallon would be $6 - $7. We have become accustomed to gas around $3.00 in the US over the past several years. We love it when it gets closer to $2.00 or lower and if it got up to $6.00 or maybe $7.00 we would complain but eventually, we would accept it and go our merry way, one person at a time. We enjoy our freedom to move around without having to wait for a bus or commuter train. We enjoy listening to our music and listening to it as loud as we want. Many people want to smoke without restrictions. We want to get out of the car in the company parking lot, not at the commuter station 3 blocks away. Until that all changes, we are not going to have funded commuter systems in most cities. Places like New York, Washington or Chicago that have extremely high cost and relative lack of parking are an exception. In most places in the US, the commuter doesn't have to pay tolls either. Tolls are more common in Europe. Even if gas was to go sky high and tolls were placed on every major highway, it would take decades to build and put into operation the commuter system we would need.

John

Smoking is very rare these days.

And, the highway lobby is not all that powerful, otherwise getting fuel tax increases would be easy (they support it) rather than very difficult. Ultimately, the "highway lobby" may be somewhat synonymous with "the general public".

There's already some concern that many millenials prefer to live in the cities or close in suburbs, rather than in farther out suburbs or exurbs. It's regularly discussed in real estate publications. That has impact on office parks, real estate developers, town budgets. etc. And on commuter railroads.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smoking is very rare these days.

Wow, what are you smoking? (Yes, pun intended.) While true cigarette smoking is way down from past decades, I still see and smell it everywhere I go. (co-workers, market parking lots, etc). Gas station connivance stores seem to be consistently doing a healthy amount of sales of cigarettes. Also, anyone who thinks vaping is not smoking must be smoking something. Vaping among teenagers might be approaching a majority.

> And, the highway lobby is not all that powerful,
> otherwise getting fuel tax increases would be easy
> (they support it) rather than very difficult.
> Ultimately, the "highway lobby" may be somewhat
> synonymous with "the general public".

When comparing transportation modes, the highway lobby does absolutely have the most power of all. If you are trying to compare it to other public services, well that would be apples to oranges.

The "highway lobby" here in Florida is a lot of people. Well connected developers. Surveyors and engineers. Water and storm mitigation crews. Construction trades, sand and gravel, steel riggers. Growth management specialists in and out of government, etc.

I continue to be amazed at all the supporting statements, reports, studies, etc that even a one mile widening of a highway or rebuilding of an existing bridge requires.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "highway lobby" here in Florida is a lot of
> people. Well connected developers. Surveyors and
> engineers. Water and storm mitigation crews.
> Construction trades, sand and gravel, steel
> riggers. Growth management specialists in and out
> of government, etc.
>
> I continue to be amazed at all the supporting
> statements, reports, studies, etc that even a one
> mile widening of a highway or rebuilding of an
> existing bridge requires.

And almost the entire staff of Florida Department of Transportation too :)

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The "highway lobby" here in Florida is a lot of
> > people. Well connected developers. Surveyors
> and
> > engineers. Water and storm mitigation crews.
> > Construction trades, sand and gravel, steel
> > riggers. Growth management specialists in and
> out
> > of government, etc.
> >
> > I continue to be amazed at all the supporting
> > statements, reports, studies, etc that even a
> one
> > mile widening of a highway or rebuilding of an
> > existing bridge requires.
>
> And almost the entire staff of Florida Department
> of Transportation too :)

Yes. And the county transportation people, etc. It's a lot of mouths to feed