Passenger Trains > Vice: The US is not ready for high speed rail

"The U.S. already has 140,000 miles of perfectly good regular train tracks. Let’s start with what we have."

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3aqz8y/the-us-is-not-ready-for-high-speed-rail

Some clogged with PSR barge trains.  

well written, imho.  And I agree...withoiut spending nearly as much money, and very little disruption, we can build a decent rail travel system in this country.    I know some ppl are obsessed with speed..not just with trains, but with everything.

In this case, i dont think the difference between 90 and 150 Mph  is nearly as important as the efficient use of time.  A 6 hour trip with the ability to get work done and get some real rest, is a whole lot better than a 4 hour trek theu airports and being crunched into a little seat , next to ppl you'd probably rather not be next to.  (and the screaming babies)

The whole point of HSR is not sharing rails and eliminating grade crossings.

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

I am generally a fan of Vice reporting as being well done and failry balanced.  However, their coverage of the ST Louis - Chicago section is disappointing

"The route has already received $2 billion in order for trains to have fewer crossings with roads and can travel at 90 mph (soon to be upgraded to 110 mph)."

The $2 billion is right, but trains don't travel 90 mph yet (maybe technically they CAN) and last I heard there were no plans to upgrade to 110 mph any time soon.  They also pick a lot on the fact the the Amtrak trains share the line with freight, but my experience is that UP actually does a pretty good job giving Amtrak priority.  Seems like most of the time I am sent to a siding on this line, it is because we are meeting another Amtrak.  So I am not sure "ensuring passenger rail has priority," would really change anything.

The reality is, $2 billion of government money has been spent to allow trains to go 10 mph faster.
 

kbmiflyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The reality is, $2 billion of government money has
> been spent to allow trains to go 10 mph faster.
>  

Is that the problem of government or of capitalism?

TAW

When Amtrak trains run at 90 mph on the Chicago to St. Louis route, that will be a start. When they can run at 110 mph on that route, that will be even better. The right is way is straight as an arrow in several spots once you clear Joliet. Maybe in a couple of years, we will see 110 mph running on the Lincoln Corridor. I know very soon, more 110 mph running is supposed to be offered on the Wolverine route. The USA won't get true high speed railroads anytime soon, just like what they have in Europe.

In NY State, I would love to see 90-110 mph running on the Water Level Route west of Schenectady in many spots. There is a lot of straight track. It's a matter of not only getting NY State to play nice but CSX as well. They own much of the Water Level Route in NY State so they can do whatever they want. A third track would have to be built in many spots along the Water Level Route where there is presently two tracks. The single track between Schenectady and Hoffmans(where the CSX Selkirk Branch interchanges with the Water Level Route) would have to get a second track.

This country has sucked when it comes to transportation, if they funded Amtrak properly and had decent leadership we'd have a nice passenger train system without the HSR B.S.!

Posted from Android

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This country has sucked when it comes to
> transportation, if they funded Amtrak properly and
> had decent leadership we'd have a nice passenger
> train system without the HSR B.S.!
>
> Posted from Android

OMG   I agree with you.

 This is another primary issue right now - are the right people in place now at Amtrak, in terms of leadership ability......Can this current group harvest the money coming Amtrak's way most effectively? Doesnt' Amtrak need a good railroader at the top with an infrastructure bill coming to fruition? Wick Moorman, David Gunn, Graham Claytor - these were people who ran railroaders........Wik perhaps didn't have a proper run, but he did oversee the rebuilding of the NYP track terminal complex.....   

jp1822 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  This is another primary issue right now - are
> the right people in place now at Amtrak, in terms
> of leadership ability......Can this current group
> harvest the money coming Amtrak's way most
> effectively? Doesnt' Amtrak need a good railroader
> at the top with an infrastructure bill coming to
> fruition? Wick Moorman, David Gunn, Graham Claytor
> - these were people who ran railroaders........Wik
> perhaps didn't have a proper run, but he did
> oversee the rebuilding of the NYP track terminal
> complex.....   

One issue any future Amtrak leader will need to consider is "What is Amtrak's mission, and what needs to be done to accomplish it?"

Since there's no clear agreement on "the mission", the squeakiest wheel, and current directives from Congress will drive spending.

pdt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well written, imho.  And I agree...withoiut
> spending nearly as much money, and very little
> disruption, we can build a decent rail travel
> system in this country.    I know some ppl are
> obsessed with speed..not just with trains, but
> with everything.
>
> In this case, i dont think the difference between
> 90 and 150 Mph  is nearly as important as the
> efficient use of time.  A 6 hour trip with the
> ability to get work done and get some real rest,
> is a whole lot better than a 4 hour trek theu
> airports and being crunched into a little seat ,
> next to ppl you'd probably rather not be next
> to.  (and the screaming babies)

This.

As a frequent business traveler I'd opt for rail any chance I could get, if the trains were reliable, on-time (or close to it), comfortable and had a decent degree of onboard service. Air travel sucks these days, so the extra leg and elbow room afforded by the train - combined with the previous three points - should place it in the winning column. The rub is we're indeed a nation obsessed with speed over all other, so we get fast airliners but discount the hours pre and post-flight we're stuck in heavy traffic to and from the airports, queues in the airport terminal, dwell time on the ramp and taxiways, etc. I'd much rather move at a consistent pace, 79-90 mph, and comfortably-so than the current rat-race that is intercity common-carrier (air) travel.

MichiganRailfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pdt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > well written, imho.  And I agree...withoiut
> > spending nearly as much money, and very little
> > disruption, we can build a decent rail travel
> > system in this country.    I know some ppl
> are
> > obsessed with speed..not just with trains, but
> > with everything.
> >
> > In this case, i dont think the difference
> between
> > 90 and 150 Mph  is nearly as important as the
> > efficient use of time.  A 6 hour trip with the
> > ability to get work done and get some real
> rest,
> > is a whole lot better than a 4 hour trek theu
> > airports and being crunched into a little seat
> ,
> > next to ppl you'd probably rather not be next
> > to.  (and the screaming babies)
>
> This.
>
> As a frequent business traveler I'd opt for rail
> any chance I could get, if the trains were
> reliable, on-time (or close to it), comfortable
> and had a decent degree of onboard service. Air
> travel sucks these days, so the extra leg and
> elbow room afforded by the train - combined with
> the previous three points - should place it in the
> winning column. The rub is we're indeed a nation
> obsessed with speed over all other, so we get fast
> airliners but discount the hours pre and
> post-flight we're stuck in heavy traffic to and
> from the airports, queues in the airport terminal,
> dwell time on the ramp and taxiways, etc. I'd much
> rather move at a consistent pace, 79-90 mph, and
> comfortably-so than the current rat-race that is
> intercity common-carrier (air) travel.

Ditto all.

Reliable, on time, and clean with decent amenities and higher speeds. If the tangent that passenger rail was on in the 1930’s had been followed we should have had a fair amount of 90-125 MPH running, especially west of the Mississippi and places like the old NYC, Chicago-NY.
That didn’t happen.

Posted from iPhone

Some interesting points are made in the article, but of course the hectoring and moralizing eventually shows its ugly face:

Part of combating climate change is recalibrating our expectations surrounding our wants and needs. In particular, we as a species and Americans in particular need to abandon the mindset where we do things simply because we can. We have to re-evaluate every aspect of the carbon-based economy and take stock of what I can buy versus what I should buy, what I can do instead of what I should do, and, most importantly, how to use what we already have when it is not perfect but good enough.

So who gets to decide what I should buy, what I should do?  The author?  Biden?  Al Gore?  AOC?  Last I checked, we don't live under a dictatorship where most decisions are decreed from up on high to the great unwashed below, although as 2021 progresses, my anxiety level increases.  When such people as I mention above can't seem to get the citizens of this country to do what they would like them to do, they start restricting the things they can do... 

rbenko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So who gets to decide what I should buy, what I
> should do?  The author?  Biden?  Al Gore?
>  AOC?  Last I checked, we don't live under a
> dictatorship where most decisions are decreed from
> up on high to the great unwashed below, although
> as 2021 progresses, my anxiety level increases.

There are two stories on how the Shinkansen came about in Japan. The story posted in railroad museums and mentioned in "official" documentaries is that Tokaido Corridor was so congested that building a separate ROW for a New Trunk Line (NTL, term often used by Steinzeit here) was the next logical solution.

The less known but very credible story from the technical leads (at the Railway Research Institute) is this: They held a public forum, advertised onboard trains to allow the public to participate. The attendance was well beyond expectations (standing room only), which convinced the technical leads to continue their research in earnest, and later on, they presented their Shinkansen idea to the senior management at government-run JNR (Japan National Railways). There were oppositions to the Shinkansen idea from the JNR rank and file, but JNR ultimately decided to go with the idea, and the rest is history, as the saying goes.

Either story demonstrates the importance of already having an extensive network of trains as part of the infrastructure. In that regard, the author seems to get it when he says, "Let's start with what we have."

California tried to copy what Japan did with Proposition 1A in 2008 (allow the public to vote), but with misinformation and political shenanigans (which I personally witnessed before the vote), it has become the poster child of failure which has created more skeptics. Had they worked on expanding the Amtrak California network instead, maybe they would have eventually had REAL support for HSR?

Infrastructure projects shouldn't be subjected to a deadline imposed by politicians in a rush to create a legacy, or to the well-connected who's in a rush to make a quick buck, damn the project itself.

FYI, there is no dictator to point a finger at, because you're up against a group of powerful and wealthy, some of them evading scrutiny. How ya gonna rebel against the oligopoly you can'y see? It's much worse than you think.
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/21 16:23 by cchan006.