Democracy means that the state is run by often ignorant and/or uneducated masses. But the masses running the state is not the problem. The problem is that the behavior of these same masses is overwhelmingly being shaped by large corporations ... mostly by various forms of propaganda in the medias. So we have the situation that large corporations are the real decision makers in western democracies.

Undemocratic regimes, if well organized, can offer much more prosperity and progress for their inhabitants because their specter of actions is not confined by public opinion which is on its turn created by the large corporations. So we have the example of China which in couple of years did what the West had done in couple of decades. China is doing much more on developing renewable energy sources than US. Why? Because in the US they have powerful corporations who are turning the people against it via media and blocking the necessary legislation via the so called representatives of the people in the legislative bodies that actually work for them. I believe China's politics is much more influenced by science and experts who know what they are doing and not by the populists elected by the brainwashed people.

:applause:
Thank you. Bravo, very well articulated!

^^ Yeah, in China they censor media, bully Nobel Prize commission, shut up and jail dissidents, crack upon minorities, don't care about individual rights when preempting and taking property but, well, they build nice infrastructure so that is all fine?

Hitler build some very nice infrastructure in Germany too. And his hateful policies were supposedly scientific by the time.

Your argument is very totalitarian, based on an assumption that people cannot think of themselves and need "rulers" to punish them for being "dumb" and knowing "what is best for them" and imposing such policies regardless of everything and, worse, without giving you the right to protest or oppose. Forced social cohesion, done with heavy censorship (Google-affair anyone?), state-controlled press and etc.

Sorry, if you are envy of the evil Chinese government, apply now for a visa to China, then don't complain when you get framed and railroaded by a corrupt local office and shot to death in a made-up allegation. Then the cost of the bullet will be charged to your family here in Europe (assuming you live in Serbia).

If people are brainwashed, it's their fault. In a time of Internet (not censored, in opposition to what happens in China), it's people's own fault if they get brainwashed. Then, if they elect the "wrong" representatives, it is the people's fault, and then they deserve dysfunctional government they might get. If people "couldn't care less" about politics and elections, then, again, they deserve the results - uncontrolled partisanship and gridlock. Information has never been so easily accessible and if people don't want to think, it's their own choice. 30 years ago you'd have night-time newscast and so, today we have Internet

This tolerance of dictatorship governments as a trade-off for a government who "actually put projects forward" is very worrisome for me here on SSC. Never mind the oppressed Chinese, those who had their houses seized without compensation, or other property stolen, or relatives imprisoned by the only crime of disagreeing with a petty government officer cannot speak most of the time... So it seems YOU are the one brainwashed with the evil-rooted success of the Chinese government, which I hope will fail, and fail big and in shame ASAP, like other communists governments did in the late 80's in Eastern Europe.

Undemocratic regimes, if well organized, can offer much more prosperity and progress for their inhabitants because their specter of actions is not confined by public opinion which is on its turn created by the large corporations. So we have the example of China which in couple of years did what the West had done in couple of decades.

What China is doing is not that much different from what the West did when it had just started industrializing. The bulk of the current European and American railway network was build in just a few decades. When you start from way back you can make a lot of progress initially, and China has the advantage of being part of a 21st century world. If technology to run trains at 300kph per hour had been available in 1830 Europe would have had 100000 km of high speed rail by 1860.


China is doing much more on developing renewable energy sources than US.

I doubt that statement is actually true...


Why? Because in the US they have powerful corporations who are turning the people against it via media and blocking the necessary legislation via the so called representatives of the people in the legislative bodies that actually work for them.

I find it always weird to see people with an anti corporation agenda argue in a way that implies they believe they are motivated by everything but making money...

This tolerance of dictatorship governments as a trade-off for a government who "actually put projects forward" is very worrisome for me here on SSC. Never mind the oppressed Chinese, those who had their houses seized without compensation, or other property stolen, or relatives imprisoned by the only crime of disagreeing with a petty government officer cannot speak most of the time... So it seems YOU are the one brainwashed with the evil-rooted success of the Chinese government, which I hope will fail, and fail big and in shame ASAP, like other communists governments did in the late 80's in Eastern Europe.

You know, you've actually managed to post something that I 100% agree with.

^^ Yeah, in China they censor media, bully Nobel Prize commission, shut up and jail dissidents, crack upon minorities, don't care about individual rights when preempting and taking property but, well, they build nice infrastructure so that is all fine?

Hitler build some very nice infrastructure in Germany too. And his hateful policies were supposedly scientific by the time.

Your argument is very totalitarian, based on an assumption that people cannot think of themselves and need "rulers" to punish them for being "dumb" and knowing "what is best for them" and imposing such policies regardless of everything and, worse, without giving you the right to protest or oppose. Forced social cohesion, done with heavy censorship (Google-affair anyone?), state-controlled press and etc.

Sorry, if you are envy of the evil Chinese government, apply now for a visa to China, then don't complain when you get framed and railroaded by a corrupt local office and shot to death in a made-up allegation. Then the cost of the bullet will be charged to your family here in Europe (assuming you live in Serbia).

If people are brainwashed, it's their fault. In a time of Internet (not censored, in opposition to what happens in China), it's people's own fault if they get brainwashed. Then, if they elect the "wrong" representatives, it is the people's fault, and then they deserve dysfunctional government they might get. If people "couldn't care less" about politics and elections, then, again, they deserve the results - uncontrolled partisanship and gridlock. Information has never been so easily accessible and if people don't want to think, it's their own choice. 30 years ago you'd have night-time newscast and so, today we have Internet

This tolerance of dictatorship governments as a trade-off for a government who "actually put projects forward" is very worrisome for me here on SSC. Never mind the oppressed Chinese, those who had their houses seized without compensation, or other property stolen, or relatives imprisoned by the only crime of disagreeing with a petty government officer cannot speak most of the time... So it seems YOU are the one brainwashed with the evil-rooted success of the Chinese government, which I hope will fail, and fail big and in shame ASAP, like other communists governments did in the late 80's in Eastern Europe.

I could hardly be brainwashed by the Chinese since I don't follow their media and don't speak the language.

Anyway, although it seams like that , I don't prefer undemocratic regimes and I wouldn't like to see Serbia becoming undemocratic. On the other hand, I would like to see a more active and more responsible state which will make attention from where its inhabitants get information and if that information has a hidden agenda.

As a Serb I know very well how western propaganda works. It doesn't necessarily lie but definitely doesn't say the entire truth. That's how today most people in the West believe that Serbia is a "Nazi Germany of the Balkans" , that only Serbs are war criminals and that Kosovo deserved independence. That's how Americans believed that Iraq had WMD , that they are fighting for "freedom and democracy" etc.

It is interesting that the West always speaks of tolerating the differences ,but when someone thinks or functions differently than them they show all but tolerance. China has its own system and it works very well. It has serious faults but that can be considered a lesser evil. It will become more democratic over time, but only when it is ready and not when the West decides.

As for Nobel Peace Prize ... that is just a show with political nature rewarding persons who lobbied the most for western interests. USA attacks a country every few years yet the presidents ordering these attacks get a "peace prize". Gorbachov got a prize for destroying USSR, Liu and Dalai Liama for sabotaging China etc. None of these persons did anything for world peace.

I find it always weird to see people with an anti corporation agenda argue in a way that implies they believe they are motivated by everything but making money...

I actually do think that they are interested only in making money. That's why creating a consumer mentality suits them well.

Can we please save the US vs. the World or China for another thread......

Over the next few days i will be showing off US systems in Detail....mostly the Northeastern US.....

Now back to US Railway projects.....

Metro North is upgrading the Majority of its stations , Bridges , signals and switches , along with Expanding and restoring a Railways.

Current System size : 156 mi
added miles of Electrified Rail (3rd Rail) : 83 mi
added miles of Diesel Rail : 167 mi

The MNRR has upgraded a few stations on the Harlem , Hudson lines...

Upgraded Station - Dobbs Ferry

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Dobbs_Ferry_train_station.jpg/800px-Dobbs_Ferry_train_station.jpg

Upgraded Tracks

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4766676884_b30ba94592_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/inikhamin/4766676884/sizes/l/in/photostream/

New Train Fleets

Metro North M8

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1375/5179960906_1ac3c57969_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33786891@N02/5179960906/sizes/l/in/photostream/

I don't think GE is technically behind that much, they still have a world class engineering team that Chinese companies can only dream about. CNR or CSR is currently ahead simply because they are in the HSR market, and GE is not, if GE put its mind into it I doubt it'll be too difficult to catch up. Just look at who's pulling trains going to Tibet, it's a fleet of 78 GE NJ2 locomotives.
Yeah, I was probably exaggerating a bit...AFAIK HST R&D from scratch takes about 15 years, whereas starting from a proven technology, as Rotem and CRH have done, takes only a decade. Furthermore, Rotem and CRH have had the benefit of being able to run the off-the-shelf equipment in their captive markets until the new product comes out. In any event, however, the longer it takes to deliver a (quality) product to market the worse off GE will be--remember, most of its major competitors (Alstom, Siemens, Talgo, AnsaldoBreda, Kawasaki, Hitachi, Rotem) all have HSR tech already.

EDIT: To make things worse for GE, they're in the locomotive business, not the railcar business, and since the Siemens Velaro (ICE 3) came out the key innovation in HST has been the replacement of TGV Atlantique-style motorcar-driven coaches in place of EMUs. GE has built EMUs before--back in the '70s--but has not had an EMU offering in some 30 years.

METRO Light Rail in Phoenix AZ

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4121/4763667241_972b4d9102_b_d.jpg

METRO Light Rail in Phoenix AZ

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4121/4763667241_972b4d9102_b_d.jpg

No thats light rail , this thread as i stated is for Regional Rail , Intercity Rail and Trunk line railways....

Upgraded Tracks


Do you have a google maps link to the position of this tracks?

Do you have a google maps link to the position of this tracks?

Yes.....i made a Map of the Complete MNRR Current and Proposed / Planned System.

Diesel Railways - Current and Proposed / Planned
Electrified Railways - Current and Proposed / Planned
Light Rail - Planned

Current System

MNRR Harlem line
MNRR Hudson line
MNRR Port Jervis line
MNRR New Canaan Branch
MNRR Waterbury line
MNRR Danbury Branch

Planned Expansions

MNRR I-287 Rail Corridor
MNRR West Shore line

Proposed Expansions

MNRR Beacon line
MNRR Graham line

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=106428077390771295791.000496b73cabd9916320d&ll=41.296381,-73.734741&spn=1.09779,2.469177&t=p&z=9

Location of pictures

Picture 1 , is located in Dobbs Ferry,NY on the Hudson line

Picture 2 , is located near Beacon,NY on the Hudson line

Picture 3 , is located on the New Haven line near Bridgeport,CT

No thats light rail , this thread as i stated is for Regional Rail , Intercity Rail and Trunk line railways....

You just said "no freight". But whatevs.


The US needed a Rail thread for all the Current & Future projects. This is a Regular Passenger Rail thread , not freight. Regular Rail is anything form 30-120mph in my book anything higher is HSR. There are a ton of projects going on across the country , whether its upgrading or expanding systems or replacing fleets.

You just said "no freight". But whatevs.

Sorry if that came off as rude , i just don't want this thread to go off course anymore then it has. There is no Phoenix Public Transit thread....

Yeah, I was probably exaggerating a bit...AFAIK HST R&D from scratch takes about 15 years, whereas starting from a proven technology, as Rotem and CRH have done, takes only a decade. Furthermore, Rotem and CRH have had the benefit of being able to run the off-the-shelf equipment in their captive markets until the new product comes out. In any event, however, the longer it takes to deliver a (quality) product to market the worse off GE will be--remember, most of its major competitors (Alstom, Siemens, Talgo, AnsaldoBreda, Kawasaki, Hitachi, Rotem) all have HSR tech already.

EDIT: To make things worse for GE, they're in the locomotive business, not the railcar business, and since the Siemens Velaro (ICE 3) came out the key innovation in HST has been the replacement of TGV Atlantique-style motorcar-driven coaches in place of EMUs. GE has built EMUs before--back in the '70s--but has not had an EMU offering in some 30 years.

It's a shame, most of the smaller companies in the HSR business have already been merged with the larger ones (Fiat Ferrovaria, Adtranz) because GE had the money to buy one of them. Now GE is struggling to catch up, and I'm not even sure they really are. GE is going to have to get into the game quickly, perhaps by buying another company such as Talgo or AnsaldoBreda; that's more or less what Bombardier did.

I know it is ridiculous. this whole thing with this country lately is one big laugh. nothing gets done. lots of words and promises and nothing else. we can do shit these days it seems.

It truly is a shame.

One thing that has held US train maufacturers behind is our non-electrification- without the need to produce electric locomotives, we're starting from an even lower base than other country's companies.

Hmm, I wonder just how much older the root design is, coz I saw a such a train (a trans-island service) at Jamaica Center Easter 2002, with a differnent loco, mind you.

The design of the BiLevel coaches is old, goes back to the 70's, if my memory serves me correctly. The manufacturer is Bombardier. :)

The design of the BiLevel coaches is old, goes back to the 70's, if my memory serves me correctly. The manufacturer is Bombardier. :)

The original order of Superliners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superliner_%28railcar%29) was in the late 1970's and was built by Pullman. The Superliner II order was in the mid-90's and was built by Bombadier.

The Superliner design though was heavily based off the 1956 Santa Fe Hi-Level cars. So that's when the design truly originated.

It's a shame, most of the smaller companies in the HSR business have already been merged with the larger ones (Fiat Ferrovaria, Adtranz) because GE had the money to buy one of them. Now GE is struggling to catch up, and I'm not even sure they really are. GE is going to have to get into the game quickly, perhaps by buying another company such as Talgo or AnsaldoBreda; that's more or less what Bombardier did.



It truly is a shame.

One thing that has held US train maufacturers behind is our non-electrification- without the need to produce electric locomotives, we're starting from an even lower base than other country's companies.

Again, GE can take a page from China's play book. "Okay, you wanna enter CAHSR bid, fine, share the tech." With the CSR-GE joint venture on the way, GE can get all the CRH380 tech and innovate on top of it. It'll take probably less than five years for GE to become a true competitor.

Again, GE can take a page from China's play book. "Okay, you wanna enter CAHSR bid, fine, share the tech." With the CSR-GE joint venture on the way, GE can get all the CRH380 tech and innovate on top of it. It'll take probably less than five years for GE to become a true competitor.
Hyundai Rotem took a decade--starting out with Alstom tech.

It's probably most likely that if GE's HSR offering is a flop, they'll actively look to acquire AnsaldoBreda or Talgo (the latter also has equipment running in the US).

Alstom's technology wasn't as good as Siemens or Kawasakis, plus the Koreans really did create a completely new train design.

So once GE gets their hands on an HSR design, I think it'd take 10years if they go with the Korean route, but only 5years if they reuse much of the existing component designs.


Hyundai Rotem took a decade--starting out with Alstom tech.

It's probably most likely that if GE's HSR offering is a flop, they'll actively look to acquire AnsaldoBreda or Talgo (the latter also has equipment running in the US).

A couple of quick Amtrak clips that I found:

S3Z8lRBX1Ng

and

E6oEhNR2nvM

Enjoy!

:popcorn:

Mike

Hyundai Rotem took a decade--starting out with Alstom tech.

It's probably most likely that if GE's HSR offering is a flop, they'll actively look to acquire AnsaldoBreda or Talgo (the latter also has equipment running in the US).

On second thought, probably not AnsaldoBreda as they have the whole Finnemecanica Group behind it, but I can really see GE buying Talgo.

eh

^^ We have a US Freight thread because of how large and important the network is. :)

^^ We have a US Freight thread because of how large and important the network is. :)

Where is it?

^^ Right here. (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=436664)

Don't worry, I'll have the thread finder sorted soon once I have finished merging all the threads. :)

How long did Talgo spend R&Ding their 350 (That's that duckbilled HST set they use on the AVE, btw)?

^^

September 2003

"... the AVE Business Unit of Renfe received the first Talgo 350 train in its AVE version (RENFE S102)."

http://www.talgo.com/index.php/en/nuestra.php

METRO Light Rail in Phoenix AZ

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4121/4763667241_972b4d9102_b_d.jpg

tram ^^

A few Videos form Friday

kPBBVgl6oYI

Qo0DRQql6y0

oBfyBRtepUw

3a64w1t8zW4

2 MBTA videos i took on saturday.

HaE6doFCv2E

qNnmklFHvms

8JJu1fv4VJY&hd=1

071ln7Q2jJo

Grand Central: Rail Fight Stop
27 January 2011
The Wall Street Journal

The fight brewing between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans over Amtrak funding is heading to New York City, which lies at the heart of the rail service's busiest route.

House lawmakers will hold a hearing Thursday at Grand Central Terminal to debate the future of rail service in the country. The hearing comes two days after Mr. Obama used his State of the Union speech to make the case for significantly expanded high-speed rail.

House Republicans have already signaled their intent to block such spending. An influential group of Republican lawmakers have also declared their intent to end annual payments to Amtrak, which amounted to $1.6 billion last year to help keep the trains running.

Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.) the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee which will hold Thursday's hearing, has voiced doubts about whether Amtrak is capable of creating a truly high-speed rail service. Mr. Mica has suggested private companies, rather than a government-supported entity, may do a better job.

"He's very adamant that the private sector has to be significantly involved in any such project for it to be a success and for it not to become a burden to taxpayers,"" said Mr. Mica's spokesman Justin Harclerode.

The Northeast Corridor, stretching from Washington, D.C., through New York to Boston, represents about half of the company's national ridership, and revenue. The Acela Express service between those cities carries more than three million riders a year. Critics of Amtrak say it is a perpetually underperforming enterprise, and that even the Acela has failed to provide truly high-speed rail. Each weekday, Amtrak operates 214 trains through Penn Station, servicing about 30,000 passengers.

Republican critics of the rail service say their cuts would weed out other, money-losing routes around the country, not necessarily the packed trains along the East Coast.

"That never happens," countered Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), "because while a senator from some Western state will vote to cut Amtrak, that same senator will still fight to keep their line running. So the money has to come from someplace else, like the Northeast Corridor."

Manhattan congressman Jerrold Nadler, a senior Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that will hold Thursday's hearing, said if House Republicans are successful in cutting Amtrak funding, it would have unintended spillover effects.

"New York's airports are the most congested in the country, and if we weren't diverting a relatively large number of people to the rail system, those airports would just be completely swamped," said Mr. Nadler, pointing out that delays at LaGuardia routinely cause spillover backups at airports around the nation.

Thursday's hearing will feature testimony from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who have joined forced to advocate for expanded infrastructure spending.

Amtrak has laid out an ambitious long-term plan to upgrade the rails along the Northeast Corridor to make the Acela service faster and more reliable, but it has often found itself caught in a regional tug-of war in Congress between urban, East Coast Democrats and more western and rural Republicans.

"Eliminating the federal investment in America's passenger railroad would deprive our nation of a critical transportation choice," Amtrak's CEO Joe Boardman said in a statement.

---

Andrew Grossman contributed to this article.

4feZ9LGqvEE

v8CwQ-gVAB8

more good news :lol: :|

N.J. senators, Amtrak official to announce new commuter train tunnel project across the Hudson

he "Gateway" tunnel proposed by Amtrak would largely follow the same footprint as the canceled nine-mile Access to the Region’s Core tunnel from Secaucus to New York City, but connect to new tracks in an expanded New York Penn Station instead of dead-ending deep under West 34th Street

Amtrak had intended to build another tunnel to improve capacity in the nation’s most congested rail corridor, but not until 2040. The killing of the ARC tunnel expedited the Gateway tunnel plans.
http://media.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/photo/gateway-tunnel-projectjpg-4e366683f2bd23f8.jpg





http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/nj_senators_to_announce_new_co.html

Top 10 Cities to live in America for using Public Transport (http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/the-10-best-cities-for-public-transportation)

Top 10 Cities to live in America for using Public Transport (http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/the-10-best-cities-for-public-transportation)

That list is flawed and based on bad facts and this is also the wrong thread...

That list is flawed and based on bad facts and this is also the wrong thread...

are you saying that Portland, OR and Salt Lake City, UT are not better cities for public transportation than NY? How can you argue with "data" like this?


Salt Lake City earns its No. 2 spot in large part because of its heavy investment in serving a large suburban and exurban population.

Also, I found this pic on the US DOT blog.

http://usdotblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00e551eea4f588340147e27290fe970b-800wi

Does anyone know why in China their onboard electronic displays show the speed of the train in kph while Amtrak onboard electronic displays show useless crap?

http://usdotblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00e551eea4f588340147e27290fe970b-800wi



"Look, over there, is that a cow?

"Look, over there, is that a cow?

NO, It's SuperMan

[QUOTE=Woonsocket54;72417099]are you saying that Portland, OR and Salt Lake City, UT are not better cities for public transportation than NY? How can you argue with "data" like this?



Also, I found this pic on the US DOT blog.

http://usdotblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00e551eea4f588340147e27290fe970b-800wi

[/QUOTE
It is a car, No!! it is a cow, No!!! its superman Obama.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

^^^ I have noticed in Korea the KTX display only shows the speed when it is over 250kp/h, so it can show off how fast it is. I would rather it was on all the time so I could see the acceleration.

Loxqcb2mp7w

Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858404576134144193260526.html


REVIEW & OUTLOOK
FEBRUARY 14, 2011

Runaway Trains
Obama's high-speed rail plan is a fiscal pipedream.

We suppose every President is entitled to a pipedream, but President Obama's vow in his State of the Union address that 80% of Americans should have access to high-speed rail in 25 years is a doozy. Vice President Joe Biden has followed up by proposing $53 billion in high-speed rail funding over the next six years. Seriously?

On recent evidence, this train is running in reverse. Though the Obama Administration has allocated more than $10 billion for high-speed rail projects the past two years, the new Republican governors of Wisconsin and Ohio, Scott Walker and John Kasich, have rejected the federal money. They don't want to put their taxpayers on the hook for projects destined for Insolvency Junction. Florida Governor Rick Scott is also reconsidering his state's proposed Orlando-Tampa line.

Even California, that famous incubator of pipedreams, is having second thoughts. The state has proposed an 800-mile high-speed rail plan from San Diego to San Francisco. Bay area residents are now protesting that the line will damage property values, while Central Valley farmers complain the line will ruin their land. The greater wonder is how the state will pay for a $43 billion train even as it's facing a $28 billion budget gap over the next 18 months and $20 billion annual deficits four years after that.

Two years ago California taxpayers approved a $9.95 billion bond initiative to fund the train, buying the pitch that it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and attract 94 million riders. The state's high-speed rail authority told voters a one-way ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles would cost $55—about the price of a Southwest flight. They said private equity firms were dying to invest, and that the train would operate without a public subsidy.

Studies by economists and financial consultants Alain Enthoven, William Grindley and William Warren have since debunked the rail authority's claims. Based on the costs of high-speed rail lines in Europe and Japan, the price tag likely will fall between $62 billion and $213 billion. A one-way ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles will cost about $190, which means more people will choose to fly.

Because of uncertainty over costs and ridership forecasts, private equity firms say they won't invest without a revenue guarantee, i.e., an operating subsidy. Even if the state somehow manages to attract $10 billion in private equity, its business plan calls for another $5 billion in local grants and $15 billion more in federal funds. The $15 billion that they want from the feds would be nearly a third of Mr. Biden's $53 billion figure. Maybe high-speed rail is a back-door bailout for California.

Messrs. Obama and Biden argue that the U.S. has to invest in high-speed rail to stay competitive with the world. Only if we're competing in the Debt Bowl. Two high-speed railways in the world have broken even, and those are in densely populated areas of France and Japan where people drive less because gas prices are twice as high as in the U.S., and many foreign intercity highways levy tolls.

The only area of the United States where high-speed rail begins to make sense is along the high-traffic, high-population Northeast Corridor from Washington, D.C., to Boston. Amtrak's Acela peaks at 150 miles per hour but averages only about 70 miles per hour because it has to share tracks with other trains. A truly high-speed rail that runs on its own dedicated track could reach 220 mph and cut the travel time nearly in half.

While such a line might offer benefits for the region's commuters, Amtrak estimates the line would take 25 years to develop and cost $117 billion. According to a 2009 study by the Congressional Research Service, six to nine million riders would need to take the train each year to justify the costs of high-speed rail systems similar to those in other countries. The Acela carried 3.4 million people in 2008.

Until the proponents of high-speed rail solve the problem of runaway costs, we'll stick with the train in Disney's Fantasyland. Who knows, maybe 80% of the country has taken it for a ride by now.


Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/13/AR2011021302203.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


High-speed rail is a fast track to government waste
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, February 14, 2011

Vice President Biden, an avowed friend of good government, is giving it a bad name. With great fanfare, he went to Philadelphia last week to announce that the Obama administration proposes spending $53 billion over six years to construct a "national high-speed rail system." Translation: The administration would pay states $53 billion to build rail networks that would then lose money - lots - thereby aggravating the budget squeezes of the states or federal government, depending on which covered the deficits.

There's something wildly irresponsible about the national government undermining states' already poor long-term budget prospects by plying them with grants that provide short-term jobs. Worse, the rail proposal casts doubt on the administration's commitment to reducing huge budget deficits. The president's 2012 budget is due Monday. How can it subdue deficits if it keeps proposing big spending programs?

High-speed rail would definitely be big. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has estimated the administration's ultimate goal - bringing high-speed rail to 80 percent of the population - could cost $500 billion over 25 years. For this stupendous sum, there would be scant public benefits. Precisely the opposite. Rail subsidies would threaten funding for more pressing public needs: schools, police, defense.

How can we know this? History, for starters.

Passenger rail service inspires wishful thinking. In 1970, when Congress created Amtrak to preserve intercity passenger trains, the idea was that the system would become profitable and self-sustaining after an initial infusion of federal money. This never happened. Amtrak has swallowed $35 billion in subsidies, and they're increasing by more than $1 billion annually.

Despite the subsidies, Amtrak does not provide low-cost transportation. Longtime critic Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute recently planned a trip from Washington to New York. Noting that fares on Amtrak's high-speed Acela start at $139 one-way, he decided to take a private bus service. The roundtrip fare: $21.50. Nor does Amtrak do much to relieve congestion, cut oil use, reduce pollution or eliminate greenhouse gases. Its traffic volumes are simply too small to matter.

In 2010, Amtrak carried 29.1 million passengers for the entire year. That's about about 4 percent of annual air travel (2010 estimate: 725 million passengers). It's also roughly a quarter of daily automobile commuters (124 million in 2008). Measured by passenger-miles traveled, Amtrak represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the national total.

Rail buffs argue that subsidies for passenger service simply offset the huge government support of highways and airways. The subsidies "level the playing field." Wrong. In 2004, the Transportation Department evaluated federal transportation subsidies from 1990 to 2002. It found passenger rail service had the highest subsidy ($186.35 per thousand passenger-miles) followed by mass transit ($118.26 per thousand miles). By contrast, drivers received no net subsidy; their fuel taxes more than covered federal spending. Subsidies for airline passengers were about $5 per thousand miles traveled. (All figures are in inflation-adjusted year 2000 dollars.)

High-speed rail would transform Amtrak's small drain into a much larger drain. Once built, high-speed-rail systems would face a dilemma. To recoup initial capital costs - construction and train purchases - ticket prices would have to be set so high that few people would choose rail. But lower prices, even with favorable passenger loads, might not cover costs. Government would be stuck with huge subsidies. Even without recovering capital costs, high-speed-rail systems would probably run in the red. Most mass-transit systems, despite high ridership, routinely have deficits.

The reasons passenger rail service doesn't work in America are well-known: Interstate highways shorten many trip times; suburbanization has fragmented destination points; air travel is quicker and more flexible for long distances (if fewer people fly from Denver to Los Angeles and more go to Houston, flight schedules simply adjust). Against history and logic is the imagery of high-speed rail as "green" and a cutting-edge technology.

It's a triumph of fancy over fact. Even if ridership increased fifteenfold over Amtrak levels, the effects on congestion, national fuel consumption and emissions would still be trivial. Land-use patterns would change modestly, if at all; cutting 20 minutes off travel times between New York and Philadelphia wouldn't much alter real estate development in either. Nor is high-speed rail a technology where the United States would likely lead; European and Asian firms already dominate the market.

Governing ought to be about making wise choices. What's disheartening about the Obama administration's embrace of high-speed rail is that it ignores history, evidence and logic. The case against it is overwhelming. The case in favor rests on fashionable platitudes. High-speed rail is not an "investment in the future"; it's mostly a waste of money. Good government can't solve all our problems, but it can at least not make them worse.


Worcester (MA) Telegram
http://www.telegram.com/article/20110213/NEWS/102130456/1020


Sunday, February 13, 2011

High-speed illusion
$53B for train network is wrong bet

Among the promises President Obama made in his recent State of the Union address was one to make high-speed rail available to 80 percent of Americans within 25 years. To that end, the administration this past week unveiled plans to spend $53 billion over six years to further construct and upgrade the nation’s rail infrastructure.

But there are good reasons to sound the warning horn and flash the stop signals on massive expansion of the nation’s high-speed rail systems. All commuter rail is heavily subsidized, and while such systems have their place, they continue to serve only a very small percentage of the nation’s commuters.

If government is to play a large role in building further rail infrastructure, it would be far better to spend a fraction of that $53 billion on helping states and regions expand existing commuter-rail service to and between mid-sized cities such as Worcester, Springfield and Providence, as well as extending service to heavily populated suburban bedroom communities.

Bringing high-speed rail up to the truly high speeds envisioned by Mr. Obama would require investments on a scale that would saddle taxpayers with billions of dollars for infrastructure upgrades and annual operating costs, for only modest gains in commuting time and environmental benefits.

Commuter rail does move millions of commuters in highly congested areas, such as the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak’s decade-old Acela service, which operates between Boston and Washington, offers many commuters and business travelers a viable alternative to short-hop air shuttles.

But those benefits come at great cost. Commuter rail remains far and away the most expensive form of mass transit in terms of public subsidies per passenger mile. According to a recent U.S. Department of Transportation study, combined state and federal subsidies amounted to $237.53 per 1,000 passenger miles for Amtrak service, while comparable subsidies for commercial aviation and intercity buses were just $4.23 and $1.50, respectively.

The facts speak for themselves. Each year, commercial aviation carries 100 times the number of passengers as Amtrak, while the nation’s highway network transports 800 times as many people as do trains.

This nation’s size, population distribution, and politics make a nationwide high-speed rail network a practical and economic impossibility. It makes almost no sense to expend billions more dollars to cut commutes between Boston and New York by an hour, while bypassing the needs of places like Worcester. It is unfair, to boot. Most business travelers on the Acela line are relatively affluent, yet enjoy lavish taxpayer subsidies for a service that serves a tiny minority of commuters.

It would be wonderful indeed if more Americans, at all economic levels, could commute more quickly, at less expense, and with less impact on the environment. That can happen when politicians such as Sen. John F. Kerry, a key proponent of high-speed rail, understand that it is not the answer to the needs of most people.

Much more can be achieved — and at far less cost — by strengthening existing road, rail and air links among our small and medium-sized cities and suburbs, and creating new links where possible and warranted. That approach would open our gateway cities wider to the world, allowing people, along with innovation and opportunity, to flow in all directions.


Odessa (TX) American
http://www.oaoa.com/opinion/spending-60220-deficits-many.html

Put brakes on bullet trains
February 13, 2011 6:00 AM

In many states spending deficits are in the billions. In Washington, spending deficits run into the trillions. It’s utterly incredible that plans are moving forward – both in individual states and Washington – to spend billions more on an unnecessary, extravagant high-speed rail system whose potential ridership is more a figment of imagination than result of consumer demand.

California’s high-speed rail project, authorized by an unwise 2008 voter approval to sell $9.9 billion in bonds, is emblematic of what has brought that state and Washington to the brink of fiscal catastrophe.

Now, apparently blind to the harmful effects of runaway government spending, President Barack Obama this week vowed to provide $8 billion more for high-speed rail construction, a large portion of which is expected to be earmarked for California. That is, if Congress gives its blessing.

Reason may yet prevail. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House transportation committee, is skeptical about California’s proposed 520-mile train route linking San Francisco and San Diego.

“It may be able to achieve high speed, but the problem is it may be lacking in ridership and will have to be subsidized for some time,” Mr. Mica said of California’s proposal. “That’s not the best model.”

It’s not even a reasonable model. Ridership on a train traversing our sprawling state is unlikely to ever be high enough to be profitable without heavy, ongoing taxpayer subsidies.
The first leg of California’s route authorized by the state High-Speed Rail Authority underscored this reality. It would connect the sparsely populated Central Valley town of Borden with tiny Corcoran, where the most prominent industry is a state prison. Critics understandably call it the “train to nowhere.”

“If the state sold all of the $9.95 billion in high-speed rail bonds that have been authorized,” observed Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Diamond Bar, “it would consume $676 million per year for 30 years, all paid from the state’s general fund.” That doesn’t include likely ongoing operating subsidies.

President Obama apparently learned little from previous failed attempts to jump-start the economy with government spending. He contends high-speed rail construction will provide countless jobs.

It’s more likely that bullet trains will provide countless cost overruns. California’s project was estimated in 2008 to cost $32 billion but $42 billion in 2009, “suggesting a certain lack of precision,” as columnist Michael Barone charitably put it.

Not every government is addicted to wasting tax money. Governors in Wisconsin and Ohio rejected $616 million in federal funds for high-speed rail. Unsurprisingly, California volunteered to take what they turned down.

We urge Congress to reject the president’s unwise plan to spend even more.


Pittsburgh (PA) Tribune-Review
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_722499.html


No way to run a ...
Sunday, February 13, 2011

If America spends the $53 billion on high-speed rail that Vice President Joe Biden is advocating, it won't get its money's worth.

His plan is like previous federal high-speed rail grants, which U.S. Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., House Transportation Committee chairman, rightly calls failures producing "snail speed trains to nowhere." In fact, the vice president would spend only $8 billion on truly high-speed -- 125 mph-plus -- corridors.

Only two high-speed rail corridors worldwide -- in France and Japan -- cover their costs, according to Ken Button, director of George Mason University's Center for Transportation Policy. U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Blair County, the Railroads Subcommittee chairman, reminds that rail projects must be economically sound.

The best bet for economically sound high-speed rail is the Northeast, America's most congested region, where Rep. Shuster supports expansion. But Mr. Biden's plan isn't the way to go.

It's a piecemeal approach lacking the necessary commitment in terms of resources and technology -- and its benefits wouldn't justify its costs. In short, the Biden plan -- no way to build and run a truly extensive, truly cost-effective, truly high-speed railroad -- would squander $53 billion when Washington must cut spending.

Based on the costs of high-speed rail lines in Europe and Japan, the price tag likely will fall between $62 billion and $213 billion. A one-way ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles will cost about $190, which means more people will choose to fly.

How many km between 2 cities ?

This is a comparaison of HSL costs in Morocco, France and Europe.

The High-Speed Rail Project in Morocco, Pros and Cons (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=64710475&postcount=231)

Les coûts de réalisation des LGV hors matériel roulant


LGV Tanger - Kénitra | 200 km | 1,409 milliards € | 7 M€/km


LGV Rhin-Rhône | 148 km | 2,312 milliards € | 15,62 M€/km

LGV Est européenne | 300 km | 4,193 milliards € | 13,79 M€/km

LGV Méditerranée | 250 km | 4,334 milliards € | 17,336 M€/km

LGV Sud Europe Atlantique | 300 km | 7 milliards € | 23,333 M€/km

LGV Bretagne-Pays de la Loire | 182 km | 4 milliards € | 21,978 M€/km

LGV PACA | 180 km | 7 milliards € | 38,888 M€/km

LGV Bordeaux-Toulouse | 200 km | 3 milliards € | 15 M€/km

LGV Normandie | 450 km | 10 milliards € | 22,222 M€/km

LGV Paris-Orléans-Clermont-Lyon | 410 km | 12 milliards € | 29,268 M€/km



LGV 1 (Belgique) | 88 km | 1,42 milliards € | 16,136 M€/km

LGV Perpignan-Figueras (France-Espagne) | 44,4 km | 1,1 milliards € | 24,774 M€/km

LGV Hanovre - Wurtzbourg (Allemagne) | 327 km | 280 km/h | 6,1 milliards € | 18,654 M€/km

LGV Hanovre - Berlin (Allemagne) | 258 km | 250 km/h | 2,6 milliards € | 10,077 M€/km

LGV Lyon - Turin (France-Italie) | 291 km | 11,8 milliards € | 40,5498 M€/km

LGV High Speed 1 (tunnel sous la manche) (Royaume-Uni) | 108 km | 6.278 milliards € | 58,129 M€/km

Le coût moyen de ces 15 LGV équivaux à ~24,38 M€/km

LGV High Speed 1 (tunnel sous la manche) (Royaume-Uni) | 108 km | 6.278 milliards € | 58,129 M€/km

teh fuck? what's up with that? What makes the cost skyrocket that much? :bash:

I imagine it has something to do with the chunnel...

Are those cost adjusted for inflation btw?

teh fuck? what's up with that? What makes the cost skyrocket that much? :bash:

The fact that it was build in the UK.

^^
no seriously, why is that? I mean, the eurotunnel is already in place and i doubt that it has anything to do with hs1.

Even the Lyon-Turin project is cheaper although they actually have to build a huge base tunnel. I just don't get it :ohno:

A one-way ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles will cost about $190, which means more people will choose to fly.

These mediots never consider that the price of oil will go up over time (unless the oil companies find another shallow ginormous oil field quick). I bet airline tickets will be way more expensive in the future, coz planes don't run on electricity (which can be generated from a variety of non-oil sources) like HSR.

These mediots never consider that the price of oil will go up over time (unless the oil companies find another shallow ginormous oil field quick). I bet airline tickets will be way more expensive in the future, coz planes don't run on electricity (which can be generated from a variety of non-oil sources) like HSR.

good point

It is extremely iritating what spin the media places. There are way too many gross assumptions and until it is built and operating, we really do not know. I am not sure how they were able to accomplish a $213 billion dollar figure. The 50% overbudget figure could make sense though, even though the cost is adjusted into 2020 dollars. Who knows what could happen to the market from here? It is why people get into the stock market, they think they will know what will happen. It is a matter of making sure the project is a) managed well and b) engineered to a design specification that is not changed midway through the project.

It is a matter of making sure the project is a) managed well and b) engineered to a design specification that is not changed midway through the project.

What about costs? Just deal with them as they appear? Like it were a matter or survival in war or some uncharted-waters program like Apolo?

^^
no seriously, why is that? I mean, the eurotunnel is already in place and i doubt that it has anything to do with hs1.

Even the Lyon-Turin project is cheaper although they actually have to build a huge base tunnel. I just don't get it :ohno:

Don't forget that HS1 runs through Kent, a region filled with above average income nimby's...
RFF doesn't usually build LGV's through areas that densely populated, because France isn't the UK. France is actually rather empty between it's big cities.
The UK also requires impact studies for about any affected group imaginable, and even a few unimaginable. In the time the UK needs to compile an "equality impact report" they build the railway in France.

Yes HS1 was overly expensive for a number of reasons. A significant proportion is that construction costs are higher in the UK than anywhere else it seems, this is the cause of much debate all across the UK section of this site, not just for transport. But also the particular route was rather difficult.

There is a 2km tunnel through Ashford town centre, a 2km North Downs tunnel, a 1.2km viaduct over the Medway valley, a 2.5km tunnel under the Thames, a 10km tunnel under the outskirts of London, a 7.5km tunnel into the centre of London, and two stations that are twice the size that is strictly necessary as they have duplicate domestic and international platforms and amenities. Plus the regeneration of St Pancras station is included in the quoted price.

^^ It must be added that, in case of HS1, some of those stations were build with duplicate facilities as they were meant for once-planned extended services over HS1 to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds... services that never saw the daylight as Ryanair and Easyjet were coming to the market by time the Chunnel opened.

If I am not wrong, the trainsets were resold to Canada.

^^ It must be added that, in case of HS1, some of those stations were build with duplicate facilities as they were meant for once-planned extended services over HS1 to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds... services that never saw the daylight as Ryanair and Easyjet were coming to the market by time the Chunnel opened.

No, the reason is different. HS1 is also used by commuter trains, as well as Eurostar. (another example of 200 and 300 kph trains coexisting...). The security theatre HM Government has inflicted on Eurostar however requires different facilities for both services.


If I am not wrong, the trainsets were resold to Canada.
You are wrong. The regional eurostar sets run in France.

It's the night star cars that were sold to Canada.

You are wrong .

That seems to be a common characteristic in all of that knucklehead's posts.

^^ It must be added that, in case of HS1, some of those stations were build with duplicate facilities as they were meant for once-planned extended services over HS1 to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds... services that never saw the daylight as Ryanair and Easyjet were coming to the market by time the Chunnel opened.

.

Those services will see the light of day. Ever hear of HS2? It has the support of all three major political parties in the UK but any major project takes a long time to be built there.

Here's 3 videos i shot form the Harrison Parking Garage....

D3X3hPGsdk4

ODA2StTQUWs

b2-RBB3RmH8

If I am not wrong, the trainsets were resold to Canada.

You are not wrong but you are referring to the sleeper cars (which were never used in Europe), not the normal passenger trains which are still in operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightstar_(train)

If USA high speed rail is fully build, by that time, how the current airline going to survive?

kqYXP-f0YUw

If USA high speed rail is fully build, by that time, how the current airline going to survive?

US is a country of giant proportions, and I'm talking only about lower 48... High-speed rail, even if connecting East and West coasts, will never be a feasible competitor for transcontinental flights (as long as 3.700km in straight line), and not even to connections like Denver-New York. How would stay 11 hours in a train for a flight that takes 2h30?

my last Railway video for at least a week unless i release some unseen vids..

yWolILeppVo

US is a country of giant proportions, and I'm talking only about lower 48... High-speed rail, even if connecting East and West coasts, will never be a feasible competitor for transcontinental flights (as long as 3.700km in straight line), and not even to connections like Denver-New York. How would stay 11 hours in a train for a flight that takes 2h30?

If it is an overnight sleeper train, I think a lot of people would rather do that in 11 hours than do the 2.5 hour flight plus a hotel, especially if the sleeper is comparable in price to flight + hotel. Not enough to do away with the airlines of course, but enough to sustain a bit of train activity.

US is a country of giant proportions, and I'm talking only about lower 48... High-speed rail, even if connecting East and West coasts, will never be a feasible competitor for transcontinental flights (as long as 3.700km in straight line), and not even to connections like Denver-New York. How would stay 11 hours in a train for a flight that takes 2h30?

You conveniently forget that coast to coast network will also serve several cities and metropolitian regions in between unlike a plane which only serves the end points.
A coast to coast network can form when several regional networks grow and ultimately join each other to form a continuous network. This means trains which would otherwise be limited to running on their home region can now serve destinations in the next region or if necessary in those in the region(s) beyond.
A hypothetical Denver-NYC route will also serve Kansas city, St Louis, Indianapolis, Columbus OH, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia metro regions. A train running the whole length will not only serve passenger travelling from NYC to denver but also those travelling between any of the above mentioned cities that lie on the route. In addition to these many trains may only run part of the distance on any section of this route as required by passenger demand.
Also as pointed out by kramerica there could be many passengers who may actually prefer a overnight distance so that they can relax while they reach their destinations refreshed. This is also very efficient for business trips since you are using your otherwise unproductive time for travel.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/MBTA_Commuter_Rail_map.png

Things that are Under Construction...or about to start
New Bedford line
Fall River line (future study will look at Newport restoration)
Wickford JCT
Wachusett / Fitchburg line (future study will look at Greenfield restoration)
Four Corners / Geneva station
South Station expansion
Statewide Detailed Transit / Rail Orientated policy

Proposed MBTA / RIPTA expansions and restorations
Manchester / Nashua / Lowell line
Plaistow / Haverhill line
Portsmouth / Newburyport line
Milford / Forge park line
North - South Railway Tunnel
Cape Cod / Middleborough line
Worcester / Ayer / Lowell line
Manchester / Lawernece line
Woonsocket / Worcester line
New London / Worcester line

MBTA Regional Rail
Location : Eastern Massachusetts , Northern Rhode Island
Daily Ridership : 130,000 (Projected 2030 Daily Ridership : 642,000+)
System size : 368 mi
Stations : 132

Massachusetts

Current system size : 368
added Miles of Intercity Rail : 270
added Miles of Electrified Rail : 102
added Miles of Diesel Rail : 452

Rhode Island

Current system size : 30
added Miles of Electrified Rail : 76
added miles of Diesel Rail : 49

New Hampshire

Current system size : 20
added Miles of Diesel Rail : 150
added miles of Intercity Rail : 74

If USA high speed rail is fully build, by that time, how the current airline going to survive?

If there are no routes left where the airlines are competitive then they'll go out of business. But that won't happen because HSR cannot provide a viable alternative to airlines on all routes. 1000km is around the distance where airlines will keep competitiveness on routes served also by an HSR, but also remember that HSR cannot be built between everywhere, so shorter flights will still win out on the majority of routes. However HSR will be prioritised on the busiest corridors, so in terms of total passenger journeys HSR is likely to win a large percentage of sub-1000km journeys on the routes it does have.

You conveniently forget that coast to coast network will also serve several cities and metropolitian regions in between unlike a plane which only serves the end points.
A coast to coast network can form when several regional networks grow and ultimately join each other to form a continuous network. This means trains which would otherwise be limited to running on their home region can now serve destinations in the next region or if necessary in those in the region(s) beyond.

I agree with your reasoning, in principle. However, if you plot major population centers in US, you will see a HUGE gap near and around the Rockies. There are no major centers at feasible distances there but Denver, Salt Lake City and - if you stretch a bit - Las Vegas, Albuquerque and Phoenix. All of that in half the area of Western Europe and with huge distances between them in what will likely be the most challenging terrain to build truly high-speed rail. Seriously, albeit land is cheaper there and most of it belongs to the federal government (BLM), thin of the costs involving construction of a 320km/h railroad from Las Vegas to Denver with a branch/via Salt Lake City!

So I think it the model they are discussing there (different networks focused on Chicago, Northeast area, Texas) is more sensible. You don't need to spend a hell of money just to guarantee continuity of a network that is not a backbone of transportation like freight railways, airports or the Interstate System.

This is also very efficient for business trips since you are using your otherwise unproductive time for travel.

Most businessmen in jobs paying high enough to afford US$ 2000+ fares a competitive, comfortable (private bathrooms and showers, a decent if small bed, TV, Internet etc) non subsidized overnight service would require are likely not be willing to cramp themselves into a train cabin, but rather spend a night in a real, decent bedroom.

If it is an overnight sleeper train, I think a lot of people would rather do that in 11 hours than do the 2.5 hour flight plus a hotel, especially if the sleeper is comparable in price to flight + hotel. Not enough to do away with the airlines of course, but enough to sustain a bit of train activity.

Overnight HSR trains would bring a lot of problems. One of the key characteristics of HSR-only systems is that all scheduled maintenance and repair are carried overnight, when the tracks are closed for all traffic. Moreover, a COMFORTABLE sleeper (not a 1970's crappy couchette with bunk beds 60cm wide) takes a lot of space to built. A regular TGV unit will have a weight of 0.9 ton/seat. Imagine how much energy would be required to transport passengers in sleepers that would, for sure, not accommodate more than 10 cabins (some with single, some with double beds) with individual toilets cruise-like. I consider that a cruise cabin (a small, standard one) would be the reference in terms of minimum standards of acceptable comfort. Otherwise, the whole conversation of "travelling overnight makes the train cheaper if you factor a hotel" doesn't make any sense.

I agree with your reasoning, in principle. However, if you plot major population centers in US, you will see a HUGE gap near and around the Rockies. There are no major centers at feasible distances there but Denver, Salt Lake City and - if you stretch a bit - Las Vegas, Albuquerque and Phoenix. All of that in half the area of Western Europe and with huge distances between them in what will likely be the most challenging terrain to build truly high-speed rail. Seriously, albeit land is cheaper there and most of it belongs to the federal government (BLM), thin of the costs involving construction of a 320km/h railroad from Las Vegas to Denver with a branch/via Salt Lake City!

So I think it the model they are discussing there (different networks focused on Chicago, Northeast area, Texas) is more sensible. You don't need to spend a hell of money just to guarantee continuity of a network that is not a backbone of transportation like freight railways, airports or the Interstate System.

I think east of Dallas there are a fair no. of metro areas or cities so that if you start building networks from the core hubs like atlanta, DC, NYC, Chicago or orlando some of these line can expand and eventually reach common destinations.
Now west of dallas until maybe albuquerque there is a big gap and then there is phoenix, AZ and Tucson AZ and finally LA region. If HSR networks grow till the edges of this gap (Which I guess coincides with the rockies) then there may be compelling reasons to bridge this gap.
The approach I suggest is that of gradual expansion of the network from selected hubs with a view that in the future it can form a bigger continuous network. Not to start building a coast to coast network from the outset.
And yes once a few successful lines are built and run, more investors will be ready to invest in the expansion of these lines. And yes the public will also be more than willing travel on these trains and will accept the expansion of the HSR lines as a necessary infrastructure investment.
Certainly it took decades of investment and construction to complete the Interstate system. Several interstates also run through the sparsely populated regions in the american west and pacific northwest. Do we know if the govt makes money or loses it by maintaining 4 lane freeways in these regions? What if in the 1950s someone would have obstructed the building of these highways using the same arguments that are being used for HSR?
I think the risks of failure building a coast to coast network of freeways was similar to that of building a continuous network of HSR lines today. Its just that there was greater optimism in the society in general. Today of course there is lesser optimism about anything in general, partly due to misinformation and demagoguery by vested interests who are concerned with furthering their own interests at the cost of the society or country.

Overnight HSR trains would bring a lot of problems. One of the key characteristics of HSR-only systems is that all scheduled maintenance and repair are carried overnight, when the tracks are closed for all traffic.

Except of course where they aren't...
There is no reason why a HSL needs to be closed every night. There is no reason why maintenance can't be done one one track only, with a temporary speed restriction on a section of the parallel track.


Moreover, a COMFORTABLE sleeper (not a 1970's crappy couchette with bunk beds 60cm wide) takes a lot of space to built. A regular TGV unit will have a weight of 0.9 ton/seat. Imagine how much energy would be required to transport passengers in sleepers that would, for sure, not accommodate more than 10 cabins (some with single, some with double beds) with individual toilets cruise-like.

Most conventional sleepers now have only around 10 cabins anyway. The Talgo sleepers even have only 5 cabins per car... Talgo is the place to go to if you want a comfortable sleeper that is light and fast...

MNRR / LIRR

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5281/5304239678_9b83312d2c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottomatic77/5304239678/)
Metro-North southbound at Bronxville, NY, 2010 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottomatic77/5304239678/) by ovondrak (http://www.flickr.com/people/ottomatic77/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3500/4045508704_aa66353e2b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acordova/4045508704/)
LIRR Atlantic Branch (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acordova/4045508704/) by Alan Cordova (http://www.flickr.com/people/acordova/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2792/4314861979_bb0231b9e3_z.jpg?zz=1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39772828@N03/4314861979/)
LIRR (http://www.flickr.com/photos/39772828@N03/4314861979/) by rocketdogphoto (http://www.flickr.com/people/39772828@N03/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/2819788022_c35058fab7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bitchcakes/2819788022/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bitchcakes/2819788022/) by bitchcakesny (http://www.flickr.com/people/bitchcakes/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3239/2819783872_e27945fa55_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bitchcakes/2819783872/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bitchcakes/2819783872/) by bitchcakesny (http://www.flickr.com/people/bitchcakes/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5086/5346097882_ed493b9e6a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milantram/5346097882/)
METRO-NORTH--4254 appr Croton Falls IB (http://www.flickr.com/photos/milantram/5346097882/) by milantram (http://www.flickr.com/people/milantram/), on Flickr

Septa

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5466679742_aef6f328e1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacorbett70/5466679742/)
IMG_3281 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacorbett70/5466679742/) by jacorbett70 (http://www.flickr.com/people/jacorbett70/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5018/5466677012_f5a4540d02_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacorbett70/5466677012/)
IMG_3255 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacorbett70/5466677012/) by jacorbett70 (http://www.flickr.com/people/jacorbett70/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2189/2209416375_cc8b92f02e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/signalpad/2209416375/)
Outbound Signal R5 Lansdale (http://www.flickr.com/photos/signalpad/2209416375/) by SignalPAD (http://www.flickr.com/people/signalpad/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/5168596944_4924313eb4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacorbett70/5168596944/)
IMG_1092 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacorbett70/5168596944/) by jacorbett70 (http://www.flickr.com/people/jacorbett70/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4861522631_762fd28970_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacorbett70/4861522631/)
IMG_0646 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacorbett70/4861522631/) by jacorbett70 (http://www.flickr.com/people/jacorbett70/), on Flickr

MARC

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2699/4439177081_0a4b2e7e84_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skabat169/4439177081/)
P1020133 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skabat169/4439177081/) by skabat169 (http://www.flickr.com/people/skabat169/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2787/4343795954_8d5c131c70_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rstavely/4343795954/)
HHP-8 x2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rstavely/4343795954/) by Ryan Stavely (http://www.flickr.com/people/rstavely/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5128/5352784709_cccebdd970_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31824398@N02/5352784709/)
MARC 69 on the 5 o'clock train (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31824398@N02/5352784709/) by normandiecow (http://www.flickr.com/people/31824398@N02/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2235/2237242681_25af533e22_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimtav/2237242681/)
Brunswick 015 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimtav/2237242681/) by v1rotate (http://www.flickr.com/people/jimtav/), on Flickr

There is no reason why a HSL needs to be closed every night. There is no reason why maintenance can't be done one one track only, with a temporary speed restriction on a section of the parallel track.

This is true, but depending on the frequencies/headways on said HSL, this would be detrimental in running a reliable service. Especially for a business traveler, convenience and on-time performance are paramount, as time, rather than money is what is at a premium.

This is true, but depending on the frequencies/headways on said HSL, this would be detrimental in running a reliable service. Especially for a business traveler, convenience and on-time performance are paramount, as time, rather than money is what is at a premium.

Can we not have the HSR chat in the Railway forum?

NJ Transit...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3462/3796291630_3ce8b8c6ff_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7119320@N05/3796291630/)
Interstate 280 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7119320@N05/3796291630/) by Sean_Marshall (http://www.flickr.com/people/7119320@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/178/402898845_568140bec8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianphotogallery/402898845/)
WOW whitch way george (http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianphotogallery/402898845/) by Brian's Photo Gallery (http://www.flickr.com/people/brianphotogallery/), on Flickr

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/226/492044278_19fd8d72ab_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vogelium/492044278/)
Jersey_City_08 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vogelium/492044278/) by Pro-Zak (http://www.flickr.com/people/vogelium/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/2397106717_4b01ce0abd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40142450@N00/2397106717/)
Summit Train Station (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40142450@N00/2397106717/) by rjseg1 (http://www.flickr.com/people/40142450@N00/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/2874983163_bb84244b5e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10916839@N04/2874983163/)
Bridge from Snake Hill (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10916839@N04/2874983163/) by KCEDERMARK (http://www.flickr.com/people/10916839@N04/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4719189326_1496bd2431_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cnj774/4719189326/)
NJT 4000 heading south in Brielle, NJ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cnj774/4719189326/) by CNJ774 (http://www.flickr.com/people/cnj774/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5130/5232823809_c2907a8dc9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreamyshade/5232823809/)
P1060944 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dreamyshade/5232823809/) by dreamyshade (http://www.flickr.com/people/dreamyshade/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3579/3342728752_c459a15429_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/peet/3342728752/)
NJT ALP-46 4622 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/peet/3342728752/) by PeetThePhotographer (http://www.flickr.com/people/peet/), on Flickr

Especially for a business traveler, convenience and on-time performance are paramount, as time, rather than money is what is at a premium.

....and is precisely the reason why bi-directional running is standard on many HSLs to allow engineering work to take place without closing the route. One track is enough for 2 or 3 trains in each direction - fine for the middle of the night in most circumstances.

....and is precisely the reason why bi-directional running is standard on many HSLs to allow engineering work to take place without closing the route. One track is enough for 2 or 3 trains in each direction - fine for the middle of the night in most circumstances.

You don't want a crew to perform engineering works while trains pass them 1m away at 270km/h. Not even at 200km/h. The speed reduction needed means long acceleration spans and degraded average speed. It is better to shut down the whole system for 4-5 hours a day so all work can be performed in optimal conditions.

Apprently i never showed this hear....

KYr_5lXQXCA

You don't want a crew to perform engineering works while trains pass them 1m away at 270km/h. Not even at 200km/h. The speed reduction needed means long acceleration spans and degraded average speed. It is better to shut down the whole system for 4-5 hours a day so all work can be performed in optimal conditions.

Slowing down to 160km/h costs about 3 minutes. In many circumstances this is a performance impact that is operationally acceptable at night when the line is lightly used.

Closing down an entire line for 'optimal conditions' is only required when those 'optimal conditions' are required. Obvious I would have thought but apparently not.

Typically you are condensing all situations down to one particular Suburbanist view and contriving a one-size-fits-all solution. However, we aren't discussing unicorns here, we are discussing things that actually exist and actually happen. You can choose to accept what actually happens on actual railways throughout the world, or not.

Bi-directional operation on nearly all HSLs worldwide is utilised for.......?

AFAIK, HSL in France, Belgium, Italy and France all get "black-out" periods.

So what? I didn't say they didn't, and I didn't say total possessions weren't used for engineering.

Typical yet again, misunderstanding the point.

Now, having rebutted your straw man, repeat


Closing down an entire line for 'optimal conditions' is only required when those 'optimal conditions' are required. Obvious I would have thought but apparently not.

Typically you are condensing all situations down to one particular Suburbanist view and contriving a one-size-fits-all solution. However, we aren't discussing unicorns here, we are discussing things that actually exist and actually happen. You can choose to accept what actually happens on actual railways throughout the world, or not.
Bi-directional operation on nearly all HSLs worldwide is utilised for.......?

Why is Hoboken station still low platform?

Why is Hoboken station still low platform?

Too expensive to raise them , it would destroy the historic canopy...

AFAIK, HSL in France, Belgium, Italy and France all get "black-out" periods.

They even have maintenance windows during the day. Which means that in Paris Nord, which is supposedly one of the busiest stations in Europe there are no departures whatsoever for 1 1/2 hours over lunchtime. It really boggles the mind that SNCF chooses to run it's railway like that.
Closing down at night every night is not needed either. It's a sign of how much the French and Italian railways are still stuck in the 19th century that they do this.
(Belgium to a certain extent also suffers from this French Disease...)

This is true, but depending on the frequencies/headways on said HSL, this would be detrimental in running a reliable service. Especially for a business traveler, convenience and on-time performance are paramount, as time, rather than money is what is at a premium.

And because punctuality and reliability are paramount trains are scheduled with some recovery time included, so that one maintenance related slow zone doesn't affect on time performance.

And because punctuality and reliability are paramount trains are scheduled with some recovery time included, so that one maintenance related slow zone doesn't affect on time performance.

Not always true, the Tokaido shinkansen has only about 5 minute lead time between trains making it impossible for maintenance related slow zone to work without effecting the entire schedule.
They do maintenance in the night between 11PM and 5AM with brute manpower.

They even have maintenance windows during the day. Which means that in Paris Nord, which is supposedly one of the busiest stations in Europe there are no departures whatsoever for 1 1/2 hours over lunchtime. It really boggles the mind that SNCF chooses to run it's railway like that.
Closing down at night every night is not needed either. It's a sign of how much the French and Italian railways are still stuck in the 19th century that they do this.
(Belgium to a certain extent also suffers from this French Disease...)

Yeah they even did that on HS2 in the UK until the domestic services started (at which point the the incumbent UK operator SouthEastern and everyone obviously spat out their coffee when they were informed the line is shut for 1 and a half hours in the middle of the day, and said, don't be bloody stupid, what for?

To inspect the track.

Can't you do that at night?

Actually, yes.

And so the silly practice was overturned.)

MBTA Commuter Rail....

There are plans for more Electrification and EMU's for a few lines...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5009/5335271709_41114cec67_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/54690684@N07/5335271709/)
P1000721 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/54690684@N07/5335271709/) by t55z (http://www.flickr.com/people/54690684@N07/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5051/5439185093_4483d89274_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/54690684@N07/5439185093/)
crossing the road (http://www.flickr.com/photos/54690684@N07/5439185093/) by t55z (http://www.flickr.com/people/54690684@N07/), on Flickr

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Belmont_Center_MBTA_Station,_MA.jpg/800px-Belmont_Center_MBTA_Station,_MA.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Swampscott_MBTA_Station.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Andersion_regional_transportation_center.jpg

Not always true, the Tokaido shinkansen has only about 5 minute lead time between trains making it impossible for maintenance related slow zone to work without effecting the entire schedule.


And may HSLs run trains at 3 or even 2 minute intervals. But I wasn't suggesting doing maintenance during the busiest hours. I was suggesting doing it at night, when traffic is less intense and closing one track out of two doesn't hamper operations that much. That way the line can stay open and be used for late night trains, overnight trains etc...

BTW, a slow zone doesn't affect line capacity on a HSL. With 5 minutes between trains you run 12 trains per hour, regardless whether your speed is 160 or 300. A slow zone doesn't affect capacity. Closing one track however does...

And may HSLs run trains at 3 or even 2 minute intervals. But I wasn't suggesting doing maintenance during the busiest hours. I was suggesting doing it at night, when traffic is less intense and closing one track out of two doesn't hamper operations that much. That way the line can stay open and be used for late night trains, overnight trains etc...

BTW, a slow zone doesn't affect line capacity on a HSL. With 5 minutes between trains you run 12 trains per hour, regardless whether your speed is 160 or 300. A slow zone doesn't affect capacity. Closing one track however does...

You really do not understand what you are talking about.
If distance between point A and point B is C Km and you need 10Km safety distance then you can put X amount of trains within the two points at an average speed of Y but if you create a bottle neck between point A and B throttling speed then you need to reduce the X amount of trains so to maintain safety distance while maintaining average speed Y so you can keep up with the time table if not then the time table goes out of whack affecting capacity.
At the end capacity is total amount of people traveling between Point A and Point B at a given time so if there is a reduction of speed then naturally capacity will be affected.

Why do a lot of U.S. passenger cars look like heavy armoured tanks? Is that legal requirements?

Why do a lot of U.S. passenger cars look like heavy armoured tanks? Is that legal requirements?

sort of. They are required by law to be able to withstand a head on collision with a freight train.

Why do a lot of U.S. passenger cars look like heavy armoured tanks? Is that legal requirements?

I suppose this is because of the different weight requirement in the US. See, the US has a entirely different policy regarding rail-street-crossings. Trains must be heavy enough so they can easily push any truck or car off the tracks without derailing or having the passengers being affected.

This require most of the trains to be i think something like 40-50% heavier than for example european trains.

But i don't know about head on collision with freight trains, that doesn't sound much plausible to me.
Perhaps someones knows more and can enlighten us :)

To Nexis: Commuter Rail is going to run electric trains?

I always thought they still retained their "trains need to run anywhere at anytime" excuse for not purchasing electrics and multiple units.

It would seem to me that running electrics on electrified lines would only be possible if Amtrak was the one operating Commuter Rail.

To Nexis: Commuter Rail is going to run electric trains?

I always thought they still retained their "trains need to run anywhere at anytime" excuse for not purchasing electrics and multiple units.

It would seem to me that running electrics on electrified lines would only be possible if Amtrak was the one operating Commuter Rail.

Amtrak wants the MBTA to buy and use EMU's on the Providence line , Amtrak also is looking into restoring the Cape Cod line and that would be electrified..... So a Few MBTA lines sometime in the 2020s will be electrified......if a private investor comes along the MBTA would like to Electrify its entire South Station network.

Trenton Transit Center.... Serves : Amtrak , NJT Northeast Corridor , Septa Trenton line , RiverLine (Future West Trenton / Statehouse Riverline Extension)
Daily Usage : 30,000

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5250/5342073002_bf8cf0ecf8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342073002/)
IMG_3754.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342073002/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5043/5341457781_1280bce465_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5341457781/)
IMG_3740.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5341457781/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5245/5342071942_2eb9138fef_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342071942/)
IMG_3753.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342071942/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5250/5342071048_e41331a6c9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342071048/)
IMG_3750.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342071048/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5342069996_f6a5e23cf3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342069996/)
IMG_3747.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342069996/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5088/5342068048_486ab399b1_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342068048/)
IMG_3739.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342068048/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5341456015_613ec7fdf1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5341456015/)
IMG_3737.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5341456015/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5341445009_1d9abf8974_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5341445009/)
IMG_3736.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5341445009/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5248/5341443949_c204cf6fcd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5341443949/)
IMG_3735.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5341443949/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5342073994_7953b535ae_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342073994/)
IMG_3755.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342073994/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5168/5341464035_53efc75eb5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5341464035/)
IMG_3759.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5341464035/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3386/3550702244_ae9857f080_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29923994@N03/3550702244/)
The River Line Center in Trenton (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29923994@N03/3550702244/) by sameold2010 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29923994@N03/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2452/3549901489_e18c8ae811_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29923994@N03/3549901489/)
Trenton Transit Center 1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29923994@N03/3549901489/) by sameold2010 (http://www.flickr.com/people/29923994@N03/), on Flickr

uxpL5DP8HF4

KbT4csByb_8

tuM46dqaiSQ

Trenton is a nice little station. In my top 10 for sure, in favorite stations.

Amtrak wants the MBTA to buy and use EMU's on the Providence line , Amtrak also is looking into restoring the Cape Cod line and that would be electrified..... So a Few MBTA lines sometime in the 2020s will be electrified......if a private investor comes along the MBTA would like to Electrify its entire South Station network.

If Amtrak has a lot of influence over Commuter Rail then sure, that could be a possibility.

As for electrification of the railway in the Cape, that is definitely not going to happen. The NIMBY resistance would be unprecedented.

If Amtrak has a lot of influence over Commuter Rail then sure, that could be a possibility.

As for electrification of the railway in the Cape, that is definitely not going to happen. The NIMBY resistance would be unprecedented.

Hehe , Amtrak will override the NIMBY's.....i doubt they'll be alot of NIMBYs towards this project since it would inject more $$$ into the Region....

Metropark
Serves : NJT Northeast Corridor (Future Freehold Branch) , & Amtrak
Daily Usage : 7,000

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/5432063333_c1029160c3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432063333/)
IMG_5069.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432063333/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/5432067761_eff96bdc81_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432067761/)
IMG_5086.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432067761/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5014/5432678226_a208ca897e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432678226/)
IMG_5088.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432678226/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/5432069839_bef6a13a97_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432069839/)
IMG_5095.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432069839/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5013/5432070625_1deb70371a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432070625/)
IMG_5099.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432070625/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/5432072021_5895e5dd00_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432072021/)
IMG_5103.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432072021/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5176/5432682650_5228ae7444_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432682650/)
IMG_5104.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432682650/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5133/5432683446_66027085fa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432683446/)
IMG_5105.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432683446/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5092/5432074791_4676d60d66_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432074791/)
IMG_5110.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432074791/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/5432687032_d19165307a_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432687032/)
IMG_5116.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5432687032/) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/), on Flickr

i saw on the news today that the new Kawasaki trains are now in service in metro north (new haven)...:okay:

i saw on the news today that the new Kawasaki trains are now in service in metro north (new haven)...:okay:

Yes they are...going to the New Rolling stock thread...

Jamaica Station
Serves : Belmont Park Branch , Ronkonkoma Branch , Port Jefferson Branch , Oyster Bay Branch , Hempstead Branch , Far Rockaway Branch , Long Beach Branch , Montuak Branch , West Hempstead Branch , Babylon Branch (Future : Far Rockaway Beach line , Hempstead line , Sag Harbor Branch , Wading River Branch)

Daily Usage : 200,000

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/2878682782_aa509a3a6c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/radunzel/2878682782/)
Jamaica Station Along the Track (http://www.flickr.com/photos/radunzel/2878682782/) by LI Refugee (http://www.flickr.com/people/radunzel/), on Flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4412063437_96fb631394_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/happybeau/4412063437/)
Jamaica LIRR Station (http://www.flickr.com/photos/happybeau/4412063437/) by beau-dog (http://www.flickr.com/people/happybeau/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2649/3894810462_28eea26401_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbell1975/3894810462/)
New York - LIRR Jamaica Train Station (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbell1975/3894810462/) by mbell1975 (http://www.flickr.com/people/mbell1975/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2602/3996434515_8019a7b5b3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/batalvi/3996434515/)
Jamaica LIRR station. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/batalvi/3996434515/) by Vivek.Kumar (http://www.flickr.com/people/batalvi/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/4087593123_491692bf87_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photos_by_rc/4087593123/)
LIRR Jamaica Station (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photos_by_rc/4087593123/) by Richards Albums (http://www.flickr.com/people/photos_by_rc/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/4088350380_5c46216925_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photos_by_rc/4088350380/)
LIRR @ Jamaica (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photos_by_rc/4088350380/) by Richards Albums (http://www.flickr.com/people/photos_by_rc/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2744/4087592981_8c6d9598d7_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photos_by_rc/4087592981/)
LIRR @ Jamaica (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photos_by_rc/4087592981/) by Richards Albums (http://www.flickr.com/people/photos_by_rc/), on Flickr

photo cut out...

XS7OHIlV7YE

A Recently Railway Washout...along the Danbury line...

http://www.goacre.com/Washout%20003.jpg

http://www.goacre.com/Washout%20005.jpg

http://www.goacre.com/Washout%20002.jpg

http://www.goacre.com/Washout%20006.jpg

http://www.goacre.com/Washout%20016.jpg

My Recent Railway Videos....

FJsf3dwut1o

Jetg5d185Oc

Hey Nexis, do you know what the method that NJ Transit uses to heat their track switches during the winter? I noticed that they have a flame constantly heating them, which I've never seen used before elsewhere. Is there a proper name for this method? They seem to be more effective than hot air blowers that GO Transit uses.
Thanks in advance for replying.

Hey Nexis, do you know what the method that NJ Transit uses to heat their track switches during the winter? I noticed that they have a flame constantly heating them, which I've never seen used before elsewhere. Is there a proper name for this method? They seem to be more effective than hot air blowers that GO Transit uses.
Thanks in advance for replying.

I don't know the English term or anything about NJ Transit, but translated from Dutch this would be a "Burner Pipe" switch heating system, and it is the most used switch heating system in The Netherlands.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Branderpijp_systeem.jpg/800px-Branderpijp_systeem.jpg
source: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisselverwarming

The Major lines use Gas or Electric Heaters , the minor lines don't use heaters but i think that will change later this decade.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/4806481104_b4ba37be76_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/roadgeek/4806481104/)
PICT1538 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/roadgeek/4806481104/) by Roadgeek Adam (http://www.flickr.com/people/roadgeek/), on Flickr

Here in NE Wisconsin, CTC-controlled switches used propane flame lines along the rails (similar to what is shown on the above NJT image), but after SOO LINE sold of those lines to Wisconsin Central, they were replaced with blowers. Canadian National has been maintaining those since they took over WC about ten years ago.

Mike

All of my states Railway projects for the next 3 decades....

New Jersey

Projects to be completed by 2020

New Arrow Fleet
ALP 45DP's
Arrow Refurbishment
Perth Amboy Station upgrade
Wesmont station
New Brunswick station overhaul
Full North Jersey Coast line electrification
More Double Decker cars
Northeast Corridor wire replacement
Raritan Valley line / Northeast Corridor Grade Separation
More Sidings added to the Atlantic , Pascack Valley lines
LED Departure boards @ Trenton , Hoboken , Newark , Secaucus
Hawthorne Transit Center
Cross County line
MOM Rail network
Lackawanna line
West Trenton line
West Trenton Riverline Extension
Hudson Bergen Light Rail > Northern Branch Corridor
Glassboro Light Rail line
Pennsuaken Transit Center
PATH extension to EWR
NJT Hudson Bergen Light Rail 440 Extension
Hoboken Ferry Terminal Overhaul
Hoboken PATH Terminal Overhaul
New Brunswick Station platform overhaul
Linden Station Overhaul
Elizabeth Station Overhaul
Newark Embankment Overhaul
Dock , Delair , PATH Hackensack River Bridge repainting
New Portal Bridge
New Meadowlands Yard
Restoration of Ampere station
Restoration of Harrison Station
Ridgewood station overhaul
Newark Light Rail stations overhaul
Walter Rand Transportation center overhaul
Journal SQ PATH Station Overhaul
Harrison PATH station overhaul
PATH system signal upgrades
PATH Track replacement
PATCO car refurbishment
Franklin SQ PATCO station restoration
PATH PA-5 Full purchase


Large Scale Rail Projects

Project : West Trenton line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 4
Projected Ridership : 10-20,000


Project : MOM Network
Number of lines : 2-3
Stations : 8-12
Projected Ridership : 120,000

Project : Lackawanna line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3-4
Projected Ridership : 25,000

Project : Philpsburg Connections
Number of lines : 2-3
Stations : 5-12
Projected Ridership : 45,000


Project : Passaic - Bergen Light Rail
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 12
Projected Ridership : 8,000


Project : Northern Branch Light Rail
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 9
Projected Ridership : 25,000


Project : PATH extension to EWR
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 2
Projected Ridership : ?


Project : Pennsuaken Transit Center
Number of lines : 2
Stations : 1
Projected Ridership : ?


Project : Glassboro Light Rail
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 15
Projected Ridership : 25,000


Project : West Shore line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 21
Projected Ridership : 60,000


Project : Sparta line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 13
Projected Ridership : 28,000


Project : Pompton Branch
Number of lines :
Stations : 5
Projected Ridership : 12,000


Project : North Newark - JSQ - Downtown Jersey City Light Rail
Number of lines : 1-2
Stations : 17
Projected Ridership : 30-40,000


Project : Newark - Paterson Light Rail
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 22
Projected Ridership : 50,000


Project : PATH extension to Midtown Elizabeth via Jersey Gardens
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 8
Projected Ridership : 50-70,000


Project : New Brunswick Light Rail
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 13
Projected Ridership : 45-50,000


Project : Cape May line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 7
Projected Ridership : 7-9,000


Project : Pennsville Light Rail line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 7
Projected Ridership : 6,000


Project : Salem Light Rail line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3
Projected Ridership : 4,000


Project : Newark Light Rail Orange Branch
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 5
Projected Ridership : 12,000

Project : Harrison Streetcar
Number of lines : 1-2
Stations : 14
Projected Ridership : 25,000

Project : Newark Light Rail > Kearny Branch
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 4
Projected Ridership : 7,000

Project : Wildwood Branch
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 2
Projected Ridership : Seasonal

Project : Ocean City Branch
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3
Projected Ridership : Seasonal


Project : Millville Extension of the Glassboro line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 9
Projected Ridership : 12,000


Project : West Trenton Riverline extension
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 9
Projected Ridership : 15-20,000


Project : Mt. Holly Light Rail Branch
Number of lines :
Stations : 10
Projected Ridership : 17,000


Current Railway / Light Rail lines

Line : Northeast Corridor
Length : 57 mi
Stations : 17
Ridership : 54,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 65,000)

Line : Morristown line
Length : 57 mi
Stations : 26
Ridership : 50,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 70,000)

Line : Gladstone Branch
Length : 22 mi
Stations : 13
Ridership : 5,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 12,000)

Line : Montclair / Boonton line
Length : ?
Stations : 19
Ridership : 17,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 25,000)

Line : Main line
Length : 30 mi
Stations : 26
Ridership : 9,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 17,000)

Line : Bergen line
Length : 20 mi
Stations : 7
Ridership : 5,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 13,000)

Line : Pascack Valley line
Length : 30 mi
Stations : 18
Ridership : 6,500 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 11,000)

Line : Port Jervis line
Length : 95 mi
Stations : 26
Ridership : 7,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 9,000)

Line : North Jersey Coast line
Length : 65 mi
Stations : 28
Ridership : 18,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 27,000)

Line : Raritan Valley line
Length : ?
Stations : 20
Ridership : 12,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 18,000)

System : RiverLine
Length : 34 mi
Stations : 20
Ridership : 11,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 25,000)

System : Newark Light Rail
Length : 14 mi
Stations : 20
Ridership : 21,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 40,000)

System : Hudson Bergen Light Rail
Length : 21 mi
Stations : 24
Ridership : 40,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 100,000)

System : PATH
Length : 14 mi
Stations : 13
Ridership : 250,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 290,000)

System : PATCO
Length : 14 mi
Stations : 13
Ridership : 40,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 55,000)

Line : Atlantic line
Length : 68 mi
Stations : 8
Ridership : 6,500 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 15,000)

The Major lines use Gas or Electric Heaters , the minor lines don't use heaters but i think that will change later this decade.

The Light Rail does. I'm not sure how they do it, but whenever it snows, the switches are clear.

Massachusetts / Rhode Island

Projects to be completed by 2020

Fall River line
New Bedford line
Fitchburg line extension to Wachusett / Greenfield
New Haven - Springfield line
South Station Capacity Enhancements
Full Providence line triple tracking
Blue line extension to Lynn
Littleton Station upgrade
Back Bay Station upgrade
Providence Station overhaul
Woonsocket line
Pawtucket station restoration


Large Scale Rail Projects

Project : New Bedford line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 7
Projected Ridership : 20,000
Cost : ?
Status : Under Construction

Project : Fall River line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 8
Projected Ridership : 25,000
Cost : ?
Status : Under Construction

Project : Newport extension of the Fall River line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3
Projected Ridership : 12,000
Cost : ?
Status : Study in process

Project : Extension of Newburyport line to Portsmouth
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 5
Projected Ridership : 8,000
Cost : ?
Status : Study in Process

Project : Extension of the Haverhill line to Plaistow
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 2
Projected Ridership : 3,000
Cost : ?
Status : Study in Progress

Project : Extension of the Fitchburg line to Greenfield
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 6
Projected Ridership : 7,000
Cost : ?
Status : Construction underway to Wachusett

Project : Extension of the Lowell line to Concord
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 9
Projected Ridership : 30,000
Cost : ?
Status : Study in Progress

Project : Extension of the Forge Park / 495 line to Milford
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3
Projected Ridership : 10,000
Cost : ?
Status : Study in Progress

Project : Cape Cod line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 10
Projected Ridership : 16,000
Cost : ?
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Woonsocket line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 8
Projected Ridership : 12,000
Cost : ?
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : I395 Rail Corridor
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 7
Projected Ridership : 9,000
Cost : ?
Status : ?

Project : Worcester - Ayer - Lowell line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 9
Projected Ridership : 17,000
Cost : ?
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Extension of the Lawrence line to Manchester
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 6
Projected Ridership : 11,000
Cost : ?
Status : Study Underway

Project : Quonset line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 12
Projected Ridership : 20,000
Cost : ?
Status : Needs to be Studied

Project : Springfield - Battleboro line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 9
Projected Ridership : 15,000
Cost : ?
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Blue line extension to Lynn
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 5
Projected Ridership : 17,000
Cost : ?
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Green line extension to Somerville
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 7
Projected Ridership : 60,000
Cost : ?
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Green line extension to Union SQ
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 1
Projected Ridership : 9,000
Cost : ?
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Mattapan - Ashmont Extension to Hyde Park
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 4
Projected Ridership : 10,000
Cost : ?
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Mattapan - Ashmont extension to Fairmont
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3
Projected Ridership : 4,000
Cost : ?
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Green line extension to Needham JCT
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 8
Projected Ridership : 30,000
Cost : ?
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Green line extension to Airport via Everett
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 12
Projected Ridership : 55,000
Cost : ?
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Green line extension to Everett / Malden line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 8
Projected Ridership : 45,000
Cost : ?
Status : needs to be studied


Current Railway / Light Rail lines


Line : Providence line
Length : 40 mi
Stations : 14
Ridership : 28,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 50,000)

Line : Greenbush line
Length : 18 mi
Stations : 10
Ridership : 5,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 8,600 )

Line : Franklin line
Length : 20 mi
Stations : 16
Ridership : 13,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 19,000 )

Line : Needham line
Length : 9 mi
Stations : 11
Ridership : 8,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 12,000)

Line : Fairmount line
Length : 12 mi
Stations : 5
Ridership : 2,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 7,000)

Line : Old Colony lines
Length : 27 mi
Stations : 17
Ridership : 20,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 40,000)

Line : Worcester line
Length : 45 mi
Stations : 17
Ridership : 18,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 21,000 )

Line : Newburyport / Rockport lines
Length : 50 mi
Stations : 14
Ridership : 18,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 28,000 )

Line : Haverhill line
Length : 55 mi
Stations : 14
Ridership : 10,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 13,000)

Line : Lowell line
Length : 45 mi
Stations : 9
Ridership : 12,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 28,000 )

Line : Fightburg line
Length : 50 mi
Stations : 18
Ridership : 10,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 19,000 )

Line : Blue line
Length : 6 mi
Stations : 12
Ridership : 67,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 85,000 )

Line : Red line
Length : 17 mi
Stations : 18
Ridership : 179,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 200,000 )

Line : Orange line
Length : 11 mi
Stations : 19
Ridership : 181,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 200,000)

Line : Mattapan - Ashmont line
Length : 3 mi
Stations : 8
Ridership : 7,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 15,000)

Line : Green line
Length : 26 mi
Stations : 66
Ridership : 237,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 310,000)

Southeastern PA / Northern Delaware


Projects to be completed by 2020

Septa Regional Rail Wire and Signal overhaul
Trolley Replacement
Board Street car refurbishment / replacement
PATCO car refurbishment
Silverliner V car purchase completed
Norristown HSL extension to KOP / Valley Forge
Reading line Restoration
Newton line restoration
Waterfront LRT
Franklin SQ reopening
BSL Extension to Navy Yards
Navy Yards LRT
Mutiple Station upgrades
High Level Platforms on Amtrak routes

Large Scale Rail Projects

Project : Newtown line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 11
Projected Ridership : 20,000
Status : Awaiting funding

Project : Reading line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 10
Projected Ridership : 40,000
Status : Awaiting Funding


Project : West Chester line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 1 , 6 to West Chester
Projected Ridership : 4,000 (WaWa) 12,000 to west Chester
Status : Under Construction to WaWa

Project : Stony Branch / Cynwyd line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 10
Projected Ridership : 10,000
Status : Study underway

Project : Allentown line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 36
Projected Ridership : 40,000
Status : Study underway

Project : New Hope line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 5
Projected Ridership : 12,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : Coatesville / Wilmington line
Number of lines :
Stations : 7
Projected Ridership : 5,000
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Oxford line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 6
Projected Ridership : 4,000
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Newark / Boothywn line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 15
Projected Ridership : 30,000
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Sports line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3
Projected Ridership : 6,000
Status : needs to be Studied

Project : PATCO extension to 30th Street
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 2
Projected Ridership : 25,000
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Roosevelt Boulevard Subway
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 12
Projected Ridership : 90,000
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Naval Yards LRT
Number of lines : 3
Stations : 7
Projected Ridership : 25,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : Waterfront LRT
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 12
Projected Ridership : 40,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : MFL extension to RS line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 2
Projected Ridership : 15,000
Status : Awaiting funding

Project : Restoration of Trolley 56
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 22
Projected Ridership : 50,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : Restoration of Trolley 23
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 15
Projected Ridership : 55,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : Restoration of Trolley 103
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 9
Projected Ridership : 12,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : Grays / Washington Ave Trolley
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 10
Projected Ridership : 60,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : 22nd / Snyder / 6th / City Hall Trolley
Number of lines : 4
Stations : 20
Projected Ridership : 70,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : City Branch LRT
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 9
Projected Ridership : 20,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : Cross County LRT
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 12
Projected Ridership : 30,000
Status : Needs to be studied


Project : Norristown HSL extension to KOP
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 6
Projected Ridership : 12,000
Status : Awaiting funding

Current system

Line : Warminster line
Length : 20 mi
Stations : 17
Ridership : 10,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 17,000

Line : West Trenton line
Length : 32 mi
Stations : 24
Ridership : 12,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 15,000

Line : Fox Chase line
Length : 11 mi
Stations : 8
Ridership : 6,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 26,000

Line : Norristown line
Length : 18 mi
Stations : 16
Ridership : 11,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 50,000

Line : Airport line
Length : 9 mi
Stations : 10
Ridership : 7,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 11,000

Line : Chestnut Hill East line
Length : 11 mi
Stations : 12
Ridership : 6,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 9,000

Line : Cynwyd line
Length : 6 mi
Stations : 5
Ridership : 600 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 10,000

Line : Chestnut Hill West line
Length : 11 mi
Stations : 13
Ridership : 6,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 9,000

Line : Lansdale / Doylestown line
Length : 34 mi
Stations : 27
Ridership : 19,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 25,000

Line : Trenton line
Length : 33 mi
Stations : 10
Ridership : 11,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 17,000

Line : Media / Elwyn line
Length : 18 mi
Stations : 19
Ridership : 10,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 22,000

Line : Paoli / Thorndale line
Length : 35 mi
Stations : 26
Ridership : 23,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 40,000

Line : Wilmington / Newark line
Length : 39 mi
Stations : 22
Ridership : 9,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 15,000

Line : Market - Frankford line
Length : 12 mi
Stations : 28
Ridership : 180,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 220,000

Line : PATCO
Length : 14 mi
Stations : 13
Ridership : 38,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 50,000

Line : Board Street line
Length : 12 mi
Stations : 25
Ridership : 137,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 215,000

Line : Subway - Surface Trolleys
Length : 50 mi
Stations : 40
Ridership : 80,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 100,000

Line : Route 15 Trolley
Length : 9 mi
Stations :
Ridership : 10,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 15,000

Line : Norristown HSL
Length : 13 mi
Stations : 22
Ridership : 9,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 20,000

New York / Western Connecticut

Metro North

Projects to be completed by 2020

Electrification of the Hudson line to Poughkeepsie
Replacement of White Plains station
re-electrification of the Danbury line
Croton / New Haven shop upgrades
New Haven Union station canopy over tracks
Spuyten Duyvil Bridge replacement
System wide PTC ingratiation
M8 Car Purchase
M8 Bar / Cafe Car replacement
More Sidings / Signal upgrades added to the Waterbury / Danbury line
Replacement of the New Haven line's wires , bridges and stations
Double Decker Cars for Hudson / Harlem line
Overhaul of Grand Central Terminal platform areas
Downtown Norwalk station
Georgetown Station
West Haven Station
Fairfield Metro Center
East Stamford
New Milford Danbury line extension
Hoboken Terminal Overhaul
Hudson / New Haven line Extension to Penn station

Large Scale Rail Projects

Project : New Haven line extension to Penn Station
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3
Projected Ridership : 60,000


Project : Hudson line extension to Penn Station
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3
Projected Ridership : 30,000


Project : West Shore line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 23
Projected Ridership : 60,000


Project : Restoration of the Main line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 6
Projected Ridership : 8,000


Project : Restoration of the Beacon line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 5
Projected Ridership : 3,000


Project : Restoration of the Maybrook line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 4
Projected Ridership : 2,000


Project : I 287 Light Rail Corridor
Number of lines : 2
Stations : 14
Projected Ridership : 90,000


Project : Extension of the Port Jervis line to Stewart Airport
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 2
Projected Ridership : 2,000


Current System

Line : Pascack Valley line
Length : 30 mi
Stations : 18
Ridership : 6,500 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 11,000

Line : Port Jervis line
Length : 95 mi
Stations : 26
Ridership : 7,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 9,000

Line : New Haven line
Length : 74 mi
Stations : 30
Ridership : 112,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 170,000

Line : New Canaan branch
Length : 8 mi
Stations : 5
Ridership : 4,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 6,000

Line : Danbury Branch
Length : 24 mi
Stations : 8
Ridership : 1,200 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 7,000

Line : Waterbury Branch
Length : 29
Stations : 7
Ridership : 1,500 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 8,000

Line : Hudson line
Length : 74 mi
Stations : 29
Ridership : 47,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 73,000

Line : Harlem line
Length : 82 mi
Stations : 38
Ridership : 43,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 70,000

MARC and VRE are next , the LIRR / NYC Subway after that...

Maryland / Delaware

MARC / Deldot

Projects to be completed by 2020

Upgrading of the Brunswick & Camden lines
Overhaul of the Penn line
Refurbished Penn Station
Added Capacity to Union Station
Downstate line
Hagerstorm extension of the Brunswick line
MTA Red line
MTA Purple line
MTA Corridor Cities Transitway
Replacement of MTA buses and LRT cars
Replacement of HHP-8

Large Scale Rail Projects

Project : Downstate lines
Number of lines : 2
Stations : 16
Type : Trunk line
Projected Ridership : 50,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : Cambridge branch
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 4
Type : Light Passenger Rail / Freight corridor
Projected Ridership : 3,000
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Eastern shore branch
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 8
Type : Light Passenger Rail / Freight Corridor
Projected Ridership : 5,000
Status : needs to studied

Project : Centerville Branch
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3
Type : Light Passenger rail / Freight corridor
Projected Ridership : 1,000
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Chestertown branch
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3
Type : light passenger / freight corridor
Projected Ridership : 2,000
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Northwest line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 15
Projected Ridership : 45,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : Westminster branch
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 4
Projected Ridership : 5,000
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Extension of the Penn line to Newark,DE
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 4
Projected Ridership : 20,000
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Severn line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 11
Projected Ridership : 27,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : Bowie line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 7
Projected Ridership : 14,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : Extension of the Brunswick line to Hagerstorm
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 5
Projected Ridership : 11,000
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Baltimore Red line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 20
Projected Ridership : 60,000
Status : Construction to begin in 2012

Project : MTA Purple line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 21
Projected Ridership : 65,000
Status : Construction to begin in 2012

Project : MTA Corridor cities Transitway
Number of lines : 1-2
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : ?
Status : Study Completed

Project : MTA Yellow line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 46
Projected Ridership : 80,000
Status : Study Completed

Project : MTA Green line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 7
Projected Ridership : 50,000
Status : ?

Current Regional Rail / Light Rail System


Line : Penn line
Length : 87 mi
Stations : 13
Ridership : 20,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 40,000

Line : Camden line
Length : 35 mi
Stations : 12
Ridership : 5,400 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 8,000

Line : Brunswick line
Length : 82 mi
Stations : 19
Ridership : 7,800 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 15,000

Line : MTA Baltimore Light Rail
Length : 30 mi
Stations : 33
Ridership : 35,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 60,000

Line : Baltimore Subway
Length : 15 mi
Stations : 14
Ridership : 57,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 63,000

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VRE / DC Metro

Projects to be completed by 2020

DC Metro Silver line
Anacostia Line
Georgia Avenue Line
K Street Line
H Street NE/Benning Road Line
Maine Avenue Line
DC Union Station Capacity Upgrade
Columbia Pike Streetcar
Crystal City – Potomac Yard Transitway
Newer Metrorail cars
More VRE Rolling Stock

Large Scale Rail Projects

Project : DC Metro Silver line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 11
Projected Ridership : 120,000
Status : Under Construction

Project : 8th Street / MLK Boulevard line
Number of lines : 2
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 45,000
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : MLK / M Street line
Number of lines : 2
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 20,000
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Rhode Island ave line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 23,000
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Calver Street / Michigan ave line
Number of lines : 2
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 19,000
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Minnesota Ave line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 14,000
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : K Street / H Street NE / Benning road line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 20,000
Status : Under Construction

Project : Georgia Avenue line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 24,000
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Anacostia line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 30,000
Status : On-Hold

Project : Maine Avenue line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 50,000
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Haymarket Branch
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 5
Projected Ridership : 15,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : Culpepper line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 10
Projected Ridership : 25,000
Status : Study Underway

Project : Richmond line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 17
Projected Ridership : 50,000
Status : Under Construction

Project : Columbia Pike Streetcar
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 14
Projected Ridership : 45,000
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Crystal City - Potomac Yard Transitway
Number of lines : 1-2
Stations : 22
Projected Ridership : 60,000
Status : Awaiting Funding

Project : Alexandria Streetcar
Number of lines : 2
Stations : 15
Projected Ridership : 48,000
Status : needs to be studied

Project : Arlington Streetcars
Number of lines : 8
Stations : 60+
Projected Ridership : 120,000
Status : needs to be studied

Current System

System : DC Metro
Length : 106 mi
Stations : 86
Ridership : 591,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 1 Million

Line : Fredricksburg line
Length : 55 mi
Stations : 12
Ridership : 10,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 60,000

Line : Manassas line
Length : 35 mi
Stations : 10
Ridership : 7,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 9,000

Connecticut

CTDOT Rail / Transit

Projects to be completed by 2020

re-electrification of the Danbury line
Croton / New Haven shop upgrades
New Haven Union station canopy over tracks
System wide PTC ingratiation
M8 Car Purchase
M8 Bar / Cafe Car replacement
More Sidings / Signal upgrades added to the Waterbury / Danbury line
Replacement of the New Haven line's wires , bridges and stations
Downtown Norwalk station
Georgetown Station
West Haven Station
Fairfield Metro Center
East Stamford Station
New Milford Danbury line extension
New Haven Streetcar
New Britain - Hartford Busway
Stamford Streetcar
New Niantic River Bridge
High Level platforms on all Shore line East stations
New Connecticut River Bridge
Extension of Shore line East services to Westerly
3rd Tracking between Palmers - Groton
4 tracking Devon-New Haven
Replacement of Cos-Cob , Walk , Saga , Devon Bridges

Large Scale Rail / Transit Projects

Project : New Haven - Springfield line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 12
Projected Ridership : 65,000

Project : Torrington Branch
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 2
Projected Ridership : 4,700

Project : Waterbury / Bristol line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 6
Projected Ridership : 12,000

Project : Shore line East extension to Westerly
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 5
Projected Ridership : 3,600

Project : Northeastern line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 8
Projected Ridership : 15,000

Project : Palmer line
Number of lines :
Stations : 5
Projected Ridership : 5,700

Project : Central Manchester line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 6
Projected Ridership : 12,500

Project : Central Middletown line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 4
Projected Ridership : 8,200

Project : Route 9 Rail Corridor
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 6
Projected Ridership : 9,300

Project : Pittsfield line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 9
Projected Ridership : 4,700

Project : Maybrook line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 4
Projected Ridership : 4,000

Project : Stamford Streetcar
Number of lines : 3-5
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 25,000

Project : New Haven Streetcar system
Number of lines : 3-5
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 50,000

Project : Bridgeport Streetcar system
Number of lines : 3-5
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 45,000

Project : Hartford Streetcar system
Number of lines : 3-5
Stations : ?
Projected Ridership : 50,000

Project : New Britain - Hartford Busway
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 11
Projected Ridership : 40,000

Current System...

Line : New Haven line
Length : 74 mi
Stations : 30
Ridership : 112,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 170,000

Line : New Canaan branch
Length : 8 mi
Stations : 5
Ridership : 4,000 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 6,000

Line : Danbury Branch
Length : 24 mi
Stations : 8
Ridership : 1,200 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 7,000

Line : Waterbury Branch
Length : 29 mi
Stations : 7
Ridership : 1,500 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 8,000


Line : Shore line East
Length : 14 mi
Stations : 13
Ridership : 2,500 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 6,300

Line : New Haven - Springfield line (Regional Rail / Intercity Rail)
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3 (Intercity)
Ridership : 1,600 > Projected 2020 Ridership : 4,800

Rhode Island

RIPTA

Projects to be completed by 2020

Wickford JCT
Pawtucket Station
Providence Station Overhaul
Pawtucket BRT
Providence Streetcar network
Woonsocket line
Kennedy Plaza Overhaul
3/4 Tracking Northeast Corridor
New Bus Fleet
Newport / Fall River line

Large Scale Rail / Transit Projects

Project : Providence Streetcar Network
Number of lines : 5
Stations : 20-30
Projected Ridership : 80,000

Project : Woonsocket line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 8
Projected Ridership : 12,000

Project : Quonset line / Quonset Ferry Terminal
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 12
Projected Ridership : 36,000

Project : Wickford JCT / Kingston line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 10
Projected Ridership : 14,000

Project : Pawtucket BRT
Number of lines : 2
Stations : 14
Projected Ridership : 16,000

Project : Newport / Fall River line
Number of lines : 1
Stations : 3
Projected Ridership : 12,000

Current system

System : RIPTA
Routes : 63
Ridership : 68,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 110,000)

Line : Providence line
Length : 40 mi
Stations : 14
Ridership : 28,000 (Projected 2020 Ridership : 50,000)

Two seek to derail high-speed train plan

By Robert J. McCarthy

Two freshman Republicans in Congress aim to derail plans for high-speed trains across New York State as their anti-spending philosophy sparks a new division in the state delegation.

Reps. Tom Reed of Corning and Ann Marie Buerkle of Onondaga Hill both wrote to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood last week, urging him to abandon plans to hike speeds of Amtrak passenger trains, especially to the point that a dedicated corridor would prove necessary. They want to save money on a project they call unneeded and too costly.

"Constructing a high-speed rail line across Western and upstate New York is not practical," Reed and Buerkle wrote. "Fulfilling this requirement would cost tens of billions of dollars.

"We simply must make the tough choices necessary to prioritize our limited resources on projects that are essential and have the potential for long-term self-sufficiency," they added.

The letter reflects the thinking of the 87 freshman Republicans who arrived at the House of Representatives in January, committed to cutting $61 billion in spending from the federal budget.

That poses a major obstacle to the efforts of Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-Fairport, the state's leading advocate of high-speed rail programs in Washington. She wasted no time in countering the new arguments of her upstate colleagues.

"Those who want to abandon high-speed rail in New York are also abandoning thousands of new jobs and economic opportunities for upstate New Yorkers," she said last week.

New York is scheduled to receive $158 million in federal funds to study and eventually implement improvements in the approximately 430-mile Empire Corridor between Niagara Falls and New York City.

A true high-speed rail system would require a dedicated third track through the corridor and cost billions of dollars. Incremental improvements that increase top speeds from 79 to 90 mph between Buffalo and Schenectady are considered possible in the near term. Station improvements along with new track in some areas are also seen as ways to relieve congestion between Amtrak passenger trains and the freights operated by CSX, which owns the railroad.

The two upstate Republicans' efforts to block plans for higher rail speeds in New York come just as the Cuomo administration is seeking to increase its relatively meager allocation of $158 million in federal funds for the high-speed rail. Other states with more advanced plans received far more stimulus money from Washington, but some like Wisconsin and Florida have returned the funds because their governors believe the project will prove too costly.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is asking the federal government to reallocate those returned funds to New York and has received support in Congress from Democrats like Slaughter. The exact amount sought will be determined before the application deadline of next Monday, according to Deborah Sturm Rausch, director of communications for the state Department of Transportation.

She noted that the state has also earmarked $28 million in recently awarded federal funds for track improvements, $86 million for construction of the Moynihan Station in Manhattan and $16 million for a Niagara Falls intermodal facility.

Meanwhile, Slaughter is scrambling to maintain New York's application for an increase in funds and the momentum she created for the project.

"I fully expect to continue our efforts with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Gov. Cuomo to make high-speed rail a reality in New York," she said. "So to those that may think high-speed rail is a stalled project in New York, I would say we're moving forward and are excited to continue doing so."

The issue is also creeping into the special election for the congressional seat formerly held by Republican Chris Lee.

Democratic candidate Kathleen C. Hochul, competing in a conservative GOP-dominated district, said she views the project as a job creator for Western New York. But she did not offer the same enthusiastic support as Slaughter.

"While I support the idea conceptually, we are still analyzing what the fiscal impact will be on New York taxpayers," the Erie County clerk from Hamburg said.

And Republican candidate Jane L. Corwin very much reflects the sentiments of Reed and Buerkle.

"While I am in overall support of the concept of modernizing our passenger railways, with $1.5 trillion deficits we simply cannot afford to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on this project at this time," the assemblywoman from Clarence said. "Instead, I will fight for infrastructure projects that have an immediate and direct return on our economic bottom line."

The controversy sparks a new level of concern among passenger rail advocates. But Democrats like Dan Maffei of DeWitt and Eric J.J. Massa of Corning were replaced by conservative Republicans with far less enthusiasm for the project.

"This is disappointing to see such an effort against high-speed rail in New York State," said Bruce B. Becker of East Amherst, president of the Empire State Passengers Association, "particularly when New York State is poised to take advantage of what the other states are sending back."

He added he is especially surprised at Reed, whose district hosts a significant rail equipment manufacturing presence in Hornell and Elmira Heights, where CAF USA is just starting a new contract to build 130 cars for Amtrak.

But even top economic development leaders like Andrew J. Rudnick, president of the Buffalo Niagara Partnership, question what effect such a costly project would have.

"While I'm intrigued by high-speed rail generally," he said, "I'm not sure that for us, the New York State program is such a big deal."

This week's exchange of news releases between Reed/Buerkle and Slaughter also reflected different versions of the willingness of CSX to cooperate with the project. The Republicans said a high-speed project would prove "disruptive" to CSX freight operations, while Slaughter disagreed.

"To the contrary," she said, "a dedicated track for high-speed rail would allow freight additional track to operate unimpeded by passenger travel."

In the past, CSX has been consistent in its dealings with the state on its right of way. According to news reports, it has agreed to allow speed upgrades from 79 to 90 mph on its existing system. But the state and the railroad are far apart on 110-mph service, which CSX believes should be set at least 30 feet from existing trackage for safety reasons and would, therefore, necessitate major purchases of new right of way as well as other significant infrastructure improvements. Still, upgrades that would allow for 90-mph service and increase average speeds are expected to result in significant time savings in rail service between New York and Niagara Falls.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article378076.ece

This isn't the HSR thread , its the Railway thread...:ohno:

This isn't the HSR thread , its the Railway thread...:ohno:
IMHO, I would retitle this thread as "UNITED STATES | Conventional Passenger", this to differentiate it from both the threads concentrating on 'true' new-ROW high-speed passenger as well as freight services, also retitling the high-speed thread as "UNITED STATES | High-Speed Passenger".

BTW, interestingly, for some-odd reason, the normal word used in the local vernacular here in the USA is 'railroad', not 'railway'.

:nuts:

Mike

This isn't the HSR thread , its the Railway thread...:ohno:

???

Some weeks ago I posted a news article about such a medium speed line in the US HSR thread and people complained that it is not high speed rail, despite the fact that the journalist wrote it is. So it seams impossible to post about medium speed rail?

Now, have you read that the line is going at 90 mph (145 km/h)? That's *not* High Speed Rail. For a comparison, High Speed Rail in the European Union starts at 125 mph (200km/h). 90 mph is so slow that even old comunist lines in eastern europe can achieve such speed. Their idea that 110 mph would require special distance is also laughable, because it's not really particularly faster then 100mph which is the standard top speed of the best railroads built in 1950s anywhere in the world, which operate normally in the last 60 years without such special requisite.

Journalists and politicians put labels in stuff regardless of what they trully are. In Brazil there are tons of "Metro" systems which are in reality just old diesel trains, sometimes Tram-Train system or even sometimes even common bus lines o.O That doesn't really make them rapid transit, does it? Similarly I can see that US journalists and politicians brand stuff which isn't High Speed Rail as HSR because it is more fancy/sells better to say so.

Oh i thought it was higher in the EU , the Northeast defines anything above 120mph as HSR , 80-120mph is Intercity Rail. And Anything below is commuter , but commuter / regional Rail can get up to 120mph.

125mph is high speed rail in europe only if its a conventional upgrade. If its a new line you can't call it high speed until it reaches 155mph.

But yeah I agree with Sekelsenmat - that article is not a high speed rail article. 90-100mph is commuter rail in Europe.

Walker to seek $150 million from feds for high-speed rail

Gov. Scott Walker announced Tuesday he will seek over $150 million in federal funding for upgrades on the Hiawatha line between Milwaukee and Chicago.


"Upgrading the Hiawatha line will save the state money and improve rail service for Wisconsin customers," Walker said in a statement. "The state will save money immediately on capital costs and in the long‐term with lower operating costs. Service improvements will also enable the state to recover more from ticket sales."


Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Walker's competitor during the 2010 gubernatorial race, said the request "makes sense" and that he would speak with the U.S. Department of Transportation to show his support for the proposal.


The announcement went over well with legislators from both sides of the aisle. State Rep. Jeff Stone, R-Glendale, said he supported not only the idea of improving the Hiawatha line, but also Walker's manner of pursuing the funding.


"I believe the way that Governor Walker is going about this request is a logical and responsible way to ensure this corridor has sufficient capacity to move both people and freight," Stone said in a statement. "The fact we can do this for $20 Million less shows excellent leadership."


Walker previously turned down $810 million in federal funding to build a high-speed rail line from Madison to Milwaukee, often referring to it as a "boondoggle."


Democratic lawmakers also supported the idea, but a handful of them, including Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller, D-Madison, and state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, took the announcement as an opportunity to seek funding for a line to Madison.


"Other states around us are competing for these federal funds. Our state capitol is also one of the only capitols in the Midwest that does not have train service," the letter from the lawmakers said. "In order to compete for high wage jobs, we need a high tech transportation system."

http://www.dailycardinal.com/polopoly_fs/1.2130463!/image/3568500430.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_240/3568500430.jpg

http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/walker-to-seek-150-million-from-feds-for-high-speed-rail-1.2130458

Walker really is a tool. That funding he wants was actually included in the original proposal he turned down.

Nexis: Do you have more info about the Sparta Line project.
10 years ago or more, NJTransit was trying to build a train station in Sparta and connect the town with Hoboken and NYC but the town rejected it. I'm just wondering if Transit is trying to go for it one more time. Thanks

Nexis: Do you have more info about the Sparta Line project.
10 years ago or more, NJTransit was trying to build a train station in Sparta and connect the town with Hoboken and NYC but the town rejected it. I'm just wondering if Transit is trying to go for it one more time. Thanks

Not till the 2030s....when a project is held up by a town...it is put off for that decade. But there now safe guards in place by counties to prevent this for happening , all the 2040 county plans have Rail / Transit in them...

fth99VDN_Gg

California's Sierra Nevada mountains are not only an amazing natural resource in the USA, but are also were and remain a formidable barrier to transportation.

The west side of the Sierras are likely best known for snow. Lots of snow. And even more snow. And did I say 'snow'? The 1960 Olympic Winter Games were hosted in that area at a place called Squaw Valley, CA (just a bit east-southeast of Sacramento). And yet, lines of commerce must also flow through that area. Northeastward from Sacramento, CA, I-80 crosses the Sierras, US 50 crosses the Sierras and Union Pacific's ex Southern Pacific, nee Central Pacific mainline (yes, part of the original Transcontinental Railroad), crosses the Sierras, all though the snowiest part, a place called Donner Pass/Donner Summit (look up the 'Donner Party' to see why).

The winter of 2010-2011 has been unusually snowy. Over 18 meters of wet, heavy, sticky snow has fallen at Donner Summit so far this season, over four meters of it within the past week or so. Due to all of this snow clogging up and closing this critically important railroad through the pass, for the first time since 1998, Union Pacific has had to fire up their heaviest snow-fighting artillery - their fleet of rotary snowplows. Think of a single-stage snow thrower on ultra-steroids - that's a rotary.

A couple of days ago, a TV station in Sacramento sent their news helicopter out to get some rare video of one of these impressive machines at work reopening that mainline near Donner Summit. This is truly amazing stuff and it has set North American railfans abuzz. (Note, in addition to large volumes of freight traffic, this line also hosts Amtrak's California Zephyrs.)

http://www.kcra.com/r-video/27364908/detail.html

:okay:

Enjoy!

Mike

K6vgGxbk2cw

zMhJaiJ9vgI

Amtrak seeks nearly $1.3B to improve Northeast Corridor rail traffic
5 April 2011

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Amtrak is seeking nearly $1.3 billion to speed trains between Boston and Washington.

The Record newspaper reports Amtrak is seeking $238 million for preliminary engineering and environmental analysis on two new high-speed tunnels between New Jersey and New York and a new Penn Station South in Manhattan.

The tunnels and station are projected to cost $13.5 billion. Amtrak's president says the project would benefit travelers along the entire Northeast Corridor.

Plans also call for replacing the Portal Bridge in New Jersey with a fixed structure that's tall enough for boats to pass under. Officials say the new span, which will connect Kearny and Secaucus, would ease delays for Amtrak and NJ Transit trains.

New Jersey would have to contribute up to $150 million and Amtrak $570 million toward that project.

------

Information from: The Record, http://www.northjersey.com

0qzURP2IIhU

6XTXX7iBHmI

sC1xFjRMnKc

My 3rd Harrison Video...

uetrjWn74R8

my first LIRR video...

KO-P62bRKFU

TAHC-UjYkzY

-4KJ-qzbVXA

AMTRAK's P42DC #44 leads Train #29 "The Capitol Limited"
Westbound as it arrives at Harpers Ferry Train Station in West Virgina :)


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5021/5659785615_a832a21d06_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nieto_del_jaguar/5659785615/)
Amtrak's Train #29 as it crosses The Potomac River into Harpers Ferry, West Virginia (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nieto_del_jaguar/5659785615/) by Nieto_Del_Jaguar (http://www.flickr.com/people/nieto_del_jaguar/), on Flickr


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5148/5660347820_c2b6d5984f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nieto_del_jaguar/5660347820/)
AMTRAK Train #29 "The Capitol Limited" as it crosses The Potomac River (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nieto_del_jaguar/5660347820/) by Nieto_Del_Jaguar (http://www.flickr.com/people/nieto_del_jaguar/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5061/5656375412_6cfbf4418c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nieto_del_jaguar/5656375412/)
AMTRAK's P42DC #44 leads "The Capitol Limited" Westbound as it arrives at Harpers Ferry Train Station in West Virgina (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nieto_del_jaguar/5656375412/) by Nieto_Del_Jaguar (http://www.flickr.com/people/nieto_del_jaguar/), on Flickr

_sCJGvW5uBA

Wap3MBV9GX8

q8r8U-RP0Ug

vBo_Db83_io

What the US needs is good overnight sleeper trains, which I think could find a market. 30% of Americans, supposedly, refuse to fly. So they drive. If these trains could get 50-70 mph they could do routes such as:
NYC-Washington-Atlanta
NYC-Chicago (21st Century Limited)
Chicago-Detroit-Toronto
NYC-Toronto
NYC-Quebec City
Boston-Halifax
San Francisco-Seattle-Vancouver
etc.

These trains, I imagine, would be double decker, maybe DMU (Talgo's two-passageway layout), and most imporantly, require few changes. Inside my imaginary 10 car train, with a push and pull set up with engine at either end (not DMU)

First Class: Standard Class:
http://www.seat61.com/images/Eastern&Oriental-stateroom2.jpg http://www.seat61.com/images/Austria-obb-sleeper.jpg

Couchettes: Wide reclining seats:
http://www.seat61.com/images/Austria-couchette-6.jpg http://www.seat61.com/images/CNL-seats-reclining.jpg

Restaurant: Bar/Cafe:
http://www.seat61.com/images/Spain-restaurant.jpg http://www.seat61.com/images/Spain-train-bar.jpg

Lounge:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4086/5095563738_e9e7fd0f25.jpg

Images are to give idea of what it would be like, design would be sleek and modern. Standard and 1st would have ensuite bathrooms, 1st showers as well. On-demand entertainment systems. Checked luggage. Breakfast and dinner included.

Layout:

<CONTROL |1 CLASS|1 CLASS|RESTA.| STAND.| STAND.| STAND.| STAND.| CAFE| SEATS| SEATS| CONTROL>
<<ENGINE |1 CLASS|LOUNGE|GALLEY| STAND.| STAND.| STAND.| STAND.| COUCH.| COUCH.| COUCH.| ENGINE>>

1st class- 4 4-person cabins per car (12 overall, 48 people)
Standard class- 6 4 person cabins per car (48 overall, 192 people)
Couchettes-10 6-person cabins per car (30 overall, 180 people)
Seats 62 per car (124 people)

Total: 544 people max, I'd say on average 450.

Not bad. I'd go on it. I see this being a wild sucess if they could get competitive pricing, which European sleepers do. Amtrak has the right idea, but the journeys are too long. I'd market the idea of combining airfare, a hotel room, and two meals.

A few videos:

aRW2I8Sarac

16RkRXWNlC4

Comments?

Comments?

Not going to happen. It is pretty much impossible to have the freight railroads, the owners of rail infrastructure needed to run such services, to collaborate with Amtrak to allow 60mph commercial speed service. The railroads wanted $ 410 million only to adjust and allow the operation of a daily train between Jacksonville and New Orleans.

Moreover, as the big railroads streamline operations, they are increasingly focusing on using less tracks more intensively. It is quite a remarkable success for freight, where they haul 80 very large double-stack daily trains in some sections. However, they work in a non-schedule operations, and the infrastructure is optimized for speeds meant for container cargo, around 40mph-50mph.

Many sectors operate in one direction only for long hours.

Finally, the cost of driving in US is far lower than the cost of driving in Europe. Amtrak long-distance trains (EMpire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief) lose, on each passenger, 35-61% of the revenue they collect. Data is available on Amtrak reports.

If there were a lucrative market for night sleeper trains, the private railroads would have already jumped in to catch that market.

Not going to happen. It is pretty much impossible to have the freight railroads, the owners of rail infrastructure needed to run such services, to collaborate with Amtrak to allow 60mph commercial speed service. The railroads wanted $ 410 million only to adjust and allow the operation of a daily train between Jacksonville and New Orleans.

Moreover, as the big railroads streamline operations, they are increasingly focusing on using less tracks more intensively. It is quite a remarkable success for freight, where they haul 80 very large double-stack daily trains in some sections. However, they work in a non-schedule operations, and the infrastructure is optimized for speeds meant for container cargo, around 40mph-50mph.

Many sectors operate in one direction only for long hours.

Finally, the cost of driving in US is far lower than the cost of driving in Europe. Amtrak long-distance trains (EMpire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief) lose, on each passenger, 35-61% of the revenue they collect. Data is available on Amtrak reports.

If there were a lucrative market for night sleeper trains, the private railroads would have already jumped in to catch that market.

Private railroads? What private (passenger) railroads? Yet the cargo railroads are spending billions in improving their trackage, to increase speeds and add parallel tracks. Anyways, the cargo railroads are legally required to give precedence to passenger trains.

As for the intensive part, these would be trains going long distances at fast speeds, which shouldn't be a problem.

Driving costs less (for now, at least), yes, but flying in Europe costs less as well, yet these trains survive. What sets them apart from their American counterparts is that they travel distances that can be covered in 10-12 hours rather than the transcontinental Amtrak services. They also happen to arrive on time.

I know TONS of people who refuse to fly, and many more who complain of having to spend money on a plane or hotel on a one night trip, or those who can't justify spending money to fly and drive instead. There certainly is a market for these trains.

Private railroads? What private (passenger) railroads? Yet the cargo railroads are spending billions in improving their trackage, to increase speeds and add parallel tracks. Anyways, the cargo railroads are legally required to give precedence to passenger trains.

You know, Amtrak owns little trackage. To run a train to Atlanta, unless you are talking about a multi-billion project of a new ROW, you need to get CXS and NS to let you run them.

As for the precedence, I'm not aware that such requirement exists. If it did, 80% of Amtrak's routing and dispatching problems would be solved.


I know TONS of people who refuse to fly, and many more who complain of having to spend money on a plane or hotel on a one night trip, or those who can't justify spending money to fly and drive instead. There certainly is a market for these trains.

Sure, but you are assuming that everyone who doesn't like to spend money in hotels would be happy about riding a night train that shakes and balances all night long. There is a market, but it is a niche.

I would love to ride a train hotel, but then I am not holding my breath.

Amtrak is getting new viewliners though. Anyone seen renderings, or are they just clones of the old retro ones? Welcome the US, where trains look the same in 2011 as they did in 1981. At the very least, they could toss the fluted steel and have smooth sides with a paint job like acela.

http://www.seat61.com/images/Eastern&Oriental-stateroom2.jpg

I wonder if businessmen with top hats and pipes ride in that car, discussing the exchange rate in Siam and those newfangled motion pictures.

Amtrak is getting new viewliners though. Anyone seen renderings, or are they just clones of the old retro ones? Welcome the US, where trains look the same in 2011 as they did in 1981. At the very least, they could toss the fluted steel and have smooth sides with a paint job like acela.

I wonder if businessmen with top hats and pipes ride in that car, discussing the exchange rate in Siam and those newfangled motion pictures.

Ironically, that's from a train (http://www.seat61.com/Eastern-and-Oriental-Express.htm) that runs from Bangkok to Singapore.

I chose it because I liked the lie-flat, single level seats. The ones I conceive could have bunks come from above, but I like it like this.

Our trains look like garbage.

As for the precedence, I'm not aware that such requirement exists. If it did, 80% of Amtrak's routing and dispatching problems would be solved.

It's barely enforced, so I am told.

Sure, but you are assuming that everyone who doesn't like to spend money in hotels would be happy about riding a night train that shakes and balances all night long. There is a market, but it is a niche.

This, I will admit, is a problem. The old 20th Century Limited from NYC to Chicago solved it by taking a "water-level route" along Lake Erie through Buffalo, which the Lake Shore Limited still follows.

Better driving on a highway all day long regardless.

Better driving on a highway all day long regardless.
Comparison is inadequate. You can talk about a day-time train that offers realistic competition for medium-distance drives. But the commercial speeds of Amtrak services are usually below 50mph, sometimes lower than 40mph. And you have no connections. And you have to deal with transportation to/from station.

Comparison is inadequate. You can talk about a day-time train that offers realistic competition for medium-distance drives. But the commercial speeds of Amtrak services are usually below 50mph, sometimes lower than 40mph. And you have no connections. And you have to deal with transportation to/from station.

There an average of 70-80 on most lines , but some areas are 40-50mph...

NYC - Chicago would be practical as a day train with the latest generation of HSR or better still maglev. If it's good enough for the Japanese...

(CNN) -- A team of federal investigators has been dispatched to the scene of a truck-train collision east of Reno, Nevada, that killed at least two people, the National Transportation Safety Board said.

The investigators were expected to arrive in Nevada late Friday night, hours after a tractor-trailer slammed into an Amtrak train at a public railroad crossing in the town of Lovelock, the NTSB said.

The truck struck the train, which was on its way to Emeryville, California from Chicago, at 11:20 a.m., Amtrak said in a written statement. The train was carrying 204 passengers and 14 crew members, it said.

"Preliminary reports are that there have been fatalities to passengers, an Amtrak train crew member and the operator of the truck," the Amtrak statement said. "There were numerous others transported to area hospitals for treatment of injuries."

Amtrak spokesman Mark Magliari declined to confirm the number of injuries.
Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper Danny Lopez said at least two people, one on the train and one in the truck, were killed in the accident.

Amateur video taken after the crash showed huge plumes of black smoke billowing from the train as a fire burned. Passengers and crew members stood outside.

Firefighters and law enforcement authorities were on the scene, and buses were being sent to pick up stranded passengers, Lopez said.

There an average of 70-80 on most lines , but some areas are 40-50mph... Not really. The country's best, the Acela, only has an average speed of 70 mph from Boston to Washington, D.C. The fastest and most traveled part of that route - New York to Washington, D.C. - still only manages an average of 81 mph. With very few exceptions, like the Keystone, no Amtrak route averages over 60 mph: routes range 40-55 mph. Trains outside the Northeast Corridor do reach 79 mph - the highest allowed by the FRA for tracks without PTC - and the odd route or two have short stretches up to 110 mph, but long station dwell times, poor acceleration, and (especially) delays ruin the running average.

NYC - Chicago would be practical as a day train with the latest generation of HSR or better still maglev. If it's good enough for the Japanese... Assuming the average speed of China's Wuhan-Guangzhou North route (194 mph), it should take no more than 5 hours, depending on alignment - 5 hours assumes 256 miles added to the alignment vs straight-line distance, double the percentage increase the NEC does for distance between Boston and Washington, D.C. Considering that non-stop flights are, at best, 2.5 hours, add in a generous (and generally unlikely) half-hour for both travel to and from the airport to city center plus arriving an hour early for check-in, and you're clocking in at 4.5 hours. Assuming reasonable fares, yeah, HSR would make for a compelling option. Heck, I would take it if for no other reason to skip the ridiculousness of the TSA.

If US gets a HSR, won't TSA start checks there too?

Not really. The country's best, the Acela, only has an average speed of 70 mph from Boston to Washington, D.C. The fastest and most traveled part of that route - New York to Washington, D.C. - still only manages an average of 81 mph. With very few exceptions, like the Keystone, no Amtrak route averages over 60 mph: routes range 40-55 mph. Trains outside the Northeast Corridor do reach 79 mph - the highest allowed by the FRA for tracks without PTC - and the odd route or two have short stretches up to 110 mph, but long station dwell times, poor acceleration, and (especially) delays ruin the running average.

Assuming the average speed of China's Wuhan-Guangzhou North route (194 mph), it should take no more than 5 hours, depending on alignment - 5 hours assumes 256 miles added to the alignment vs straight-line distance, double the percentage increase the NEC does for distance between Boston and Washington, D.C. Considering that non-stop flights are, at best, 2.5 hours, add in a generous (and generally unlikely) half-hour for both travel to and from the airport to city center plus arriving an hour early for check-in, and you're clocking in at 4.5 hours. Assuming reasonable fares, yeah, HSR would make for a compelling option. Heck, I would take it if for no other reason to skip the ridiculousness of the TSA.

The Acela Averages 120mph south of Newark,NJ with some exceptions of 60mph near Philly and Metchun. In New England it averages 150mph , except the snail of a pace of 60mph in most of CT due to construction. Improvements by 2020 will raise this to 110mph in CT.

I still like my idea. :D

If US gets a HSR, won't TSA start checks there too? They would like to but they may or may not be allowed. Not long ago Amtrak kicked the TSA out of their stations so it's possible that it would take an Executive Order with a wide interpretation of existing law or a mandate from Congress to make the TSA a security provider for rail. Honestly though, I'd have to look into the laws because I just don't have definite knowledge of the subject.

The Acela Averages 120mph south of Newark,NJ with some exceptions of 60mph near Philly and Metchun. In New England it averages 150mph , except the snail of a pace of 60mph in most of CT due to construction... There's a slight disconnect in terminology here. Yes, the train does hit the speeds and suffers where you indicated (among others), but that's what constitutes average speed: the highs and the lows over a given time plus stops, the speed the train would run between the ends if it ran non-stop. Certain trips will be faster or slower than others for a given distance - Route 128 to Providence, where the train mostly goes along at 150 mph, is quite zippy while Stamford to New Haven trundles along little faster than Metro-North - but we're talking average system speed. Also, even the amount of track available for high triple-digit speed is in the minority. I think there's only 32 miles worth of 150 mph trackage out of the NEC's 456 miles. There's a fair bit of 100+ mph trackage, but there's quite of lot below, like in Connecticut.
Speeds will go up in the future, like you mentioned, but the average speed can increase substantially without increasing the top speed. For example, train going from Boston to Washington, D.C. have a scheduled stop of 15 minutes in New York; if the train dwelled there no longer than it does at other stations (1-2 minutes), the average speed from end-to-end would go from 70 to 73 mph.

Assuming the average speed of China's Wuhan-Guangzhou North route (194 mph), it should take no more than 5 hours, depending on alignment - 5 hours assumes 256 miles added to the alignment vs straight-line distance, double the percentage increase the NEC does for distance between Boston and Washington, D.C. Considering that non-stop flights are, at best, 2.5 hours, add in a generous (and generally unlikely) half-hour for both travel to and from the airport to city center plus arriving an hour early for check-in, and you're clocking in at 4.5 hours. Assuming reasonable fares, yeah, HSR would make for a compelling option. Heck, I would take it if for no other reason to skip the ridiculousness of the TSA.

The as the crow flies route is about 710 miles, so 800 seems reasonable for a pretty direct route via, say, Pittsburgh. Then 4 hours would be a possibility for HSR, sub 3 for maglev.

^ Yeah, I would think it could be done in a little less than 4.5 hours, but I assumed 5 hour running because it's close to what I estimated as overall flight time between the two cities and because it also offered a very generous margin to work with in terms of either mileage or stops. Really, it will be less than 256 miles to work with because there will never be a straight route west from New York. Building stuff is expensive and to profit (or minimize loss) for any given mile of infrastructure, one would want the maximum number of patrons using it. In this case, Philadelphia is too great a market to ignore and is close to New York, so all train heading to Chicago will make their way through Philadelphia, ferrying passengers between those cities and picking new ones up, before heading west. Assuming an implausibly straight alignment between New York, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, we're already short 26 miles, added an extra stop and added several minutes versus the ideal of a straight New York to Pittsburgh run. We still then have 230 miles to play with in order to keep the average speed up, but with each mile taken and every stop added, we get closer and closer to the 5 hour mark. I can't be sure, but I will say with good conscience that up to 5 hours is competitive with flight-related trip times and that's of significant importance when you're deciding to spend those billions of dollars.
This is all in terms of conventional HSR, of course. Money aside, maglev trains with average speeds above 250 mph would make New York to Chicago an uncompetitive market for flying.

^ Yeah, I would think it could be done in a little less than 4.5 hours, but I assumed 5 hour running because it's close to what I estimated as overall flight time between the two cities and because it also offered a very generous margin to work with in terms of either mileage or stops. Really, it will be less than 256 miles to work with because there will never be a straight route west from New York. Building stuff is expensive and to profit (or minimize loss) for any given mile of infrastructure, one would want the maximum number of patrons using it. In this case, Philadelphia is too great a market to ignore and is close to New York, so all train heading to Chicago will make their way through Philadelphia, ferrying passengers between those cities and picking new ones up, before heading west. Assuming an implausibly straight alignment between New York, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, we're already short 26 miles, added an extra stop and added several minutes versus the ideal of a straight New York to Pittsburgh run. We still then have 230 miles to play with in order to keep the average speed up, but with each mile taken and every stop added, we get closer and closer to the 5 hour mark. I can't be sure, but I will say with good conscience that up to 5 hours is competitive with flight-related trip times and that's of significant importance when you're deciding to spend those billions of dollars.
This is all in terms of conventional HSR, of course. Money aside, maglev trains with average speeds above 250 mph would make New York to Chicago an uncompetitive market for flying.

The terrain between Chicago and Cleveland is very flat, meaning a train could easily surpass 200 mph for most of this segment. East of Cleveland the terrain gets more hilly and almost all of Pennsylvania between Pittsburgh and Philly is mountainous. But if this country could blast a turnpike through this terrain over sixty years ago a HSL would be a piece of cake. The route from Harrisburgh to New York City is already fully grade separated and electrified.

Shanghai to Beijing was going to be 4 hours before the recent political shenanigans, and that's slightly longer.

^ Impressive, but not really comparable: that line is to be a non-stop run, essentially inconceivable for any country today that's not China. The expected slower speed would still have the 819 mile trip completed in 4 hours 48 minutes, a 172 mph average, but that's slower than the (very aggressive) Wuhan-Guangzhou North route's 194 mph average, an average speed I assumed for a worst-case alignment of 970 miles / 5 hour trip between New York and Chicago.

If US gets a HSR, won't TSA start checks there too?

Well, you can't steer a train into a building.


^ Impressive, but not really comparable: that line is to be a non-stop run, essentially inconceivable for any country today that's not China. The expected slower speed would still have the 819 mile trip completed in 4 hours 48 minutes, a 172 mph average, but that's slower than the (very aggressive) Wuhan-Guangzhou North route's 194 mph average, an average speed I assumed for a worst-case alignment of 970 miles / 5 hour trip between New York and Chicago.

Is it really? There are 20-something stations between Beijing South and Shanghai Hongqiao.

^ Impressive, but not really comparable: that line is to be a non-stop run, essentially inconceivable for any country today that's not China. The expected slower speed would still have the 819 mile trip completed in 4 hours 48 minutes, a 172 mph average, but that's slower than the (very aggressive) Wuhan-Guangzhou North route's 194 mph average, an average speed I assumed for a worst-case alignment of 970 miles / 5 hour trip between New York and Chicago.

The new time includes an extra stop at Nanjing on all services. Previously they would have had a 210 mph average speed. It may creep back up (maybe when Bombardier deliver the trains designed for this speed soon).

I checked and there are 107 flights from New York to Chicago tomorrow, using aircraft in the 150-180 seat class. These are non-stop. Capture that market and there is no reason that 30 non-stop trains each way per day won't be required. That's a half hourly schedule.

I very much doubt they'd take the 970 mile water level route of the 20th Century Limited. Tunnelling technology and train horsepower have improved a bit since then :-)

Well, you can't steer a train into a building.

Well, you just need to try harder - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg

:lol:

I checked and there are 107 flights from New York to Chicago tomorrow, using aircraft in the 150-180 seat class. These are non-stop. Capture that market and there is no reason that 30 non-stop trains each way per day won't be required. That's a half hourly schedule.


You are assuming all passengers on those flights are travelling only between two cities, when many are connecting, as both cities are major North American hubs. If you have further fast trains connections, the same principle can work for HSR (ex: capturing part of the New York - Milwaukee market). Other way to make it work is to extend HSR service straight into airports, like some European airports have. That allows a smooth integration of HSR and air offers that increases competitiveness for both rail companies and airlines.

But without both, a Chicago Union - Penn. Station service will not capture all of that air market, not even maybe half of that market. And nothing guarantees airlines will not play hard, slash prices below the cost for the route and make it up with higher prices for other air routes, giving HSR a run for the money.

The terrain between Chicago and Cleveland is very flat, meaning a train could easily surpass 200 mph for most of this segment. East of Cleveland the terrain gets more hilly and almost all of Pennsylvania between Pittsburgh and Philly is mountainous. But if this country could blast a turnpike through this terrain over sixty years ago a HSL would be a piece of cake. The route from Harrisburgh to New York City is already fully grade separated and electrified.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike has curve radii as low as 600 yards and grades as high as 7,1%. You can't run a HSR under those parameters. Sure, you can blast a turnpike, but it will require lots of long tunnels and high viaducts if you want to retain high-speeds.

(CNN) -- Six people were killed when a tractor-trailer truck slammed into a Chicago-to-California Amtrak passenger train at a railroad crossing east of Reno, Nevada, authorities said late Saturday.

The death toll was released just as federal authorities said they were trying to account for passengers missing from the passenger train that was struck Friday at a railroad crossing near Lovelock, Nevada.

"No names are being released pending positive identification and notification of families," the Churchill County, Nevada, sheriff's department said in a written statement.

The National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating, is trying to account for passengers listed on the manifest but not located after the crash, Earl Weener of the NTSB told reporters during a news conference late Saturday night in Sparks, Nevada.

In some cases, it is believed people got off the train earlier or bought a ticket but did not take the train, he said.

"There are a number of reasons that the manifest and that number don't jibe," Weener said.

The 10-car train, which was on its way to Emeryville, California, was carrying 204 passengers and 14 crew members, Amtrak said in a statement released Friday.

It was not immediately clear how many people were injured. Amtrak said that numerous people aboard the train had been taken to area hospitals for treatment.

Amateur video taken after the crash showed huge plumes of black smoke billowing from the train as a fire burned. Passengers and crew members stood outside.

One voice on the video can be heard telling people to get away from the smoke. Another tells a woman, out of view, to "hang and jump." A third voice asks someone, "Are you OK?"

"Next thing I know, we get hit by something. A big ball of fire comes in. I jumped out the window," passenger Justin Rhine told CNN affiliate KOLO-TV in Reno. "I saw people flying on the other side of the train."

Skid marks show the driver of the truck slammed on his brakes, sliding more than 300 feet before hitting the train, sparking a fire, Weener said. The fire burned the truck and two train cars, he said.

The initial investigation found the signal light and crossing guard arms were working, and that there was good visibility of the train tracks from the road, he said.

The truck was the lead in a three-truck convoy as it approached the train tracks, Weener said.

The two following saw the train signal and slowed to stop, "waiting for him to come to stop," he said.

Though the driver of the truck has not been identified, Weener said the truck belonged to John Davies Trucking of Battle Mountain, Nevada.

The trucking company, which advertises itself as family-owned business that hauls concrete, did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/US/06/26/nevada.amtrak.crash/t1larg.nevada.amtrak.jpg

^^ Strange accident. Signs were working, and the truck slammed itself into the train, not the other way.

Yet, the strong crashworthiness requirements from FRA proved once again valuable: the train card didn't roll over, and the train remained more or less impact if not by the fire, allowing more people to escape.

You are assuming all passengers on those flights are travelling only between two cities, when many are connecting, as both cities are major North American hubs. If you have further fast trains connections, the same principle can work for HSR (ex: capturing part of the New York - Milwaukee market). Other way to make it work is to extend HSR service straight into airports, like some European airports have. That allows a smooth integration of HSR and air offers that increases competitiveness for both rail companies and airlines.

But without both, a Chicago Union - Penn. Station service will not capture all of that air market, not even maybe half of that market. And nothing guarantees airlines will not play hard, slash prices below the cost for the route and make it up with higher prices for other air routes, giving HSR a run for the money.
On the Chicago-NY Penn route as you pointed out that passengers taking flights between these two cities are often travelling/connecting from other cities thereby making it uncompetitve vis-vis airlines. However all high speed train between these cities will not be non-stop trains. There are several cities like toledo, cleveland, pittsburgh, philadelphia which can be served by these trains this routes. Additionally many trains need not run the whole distance. The high speed trains can still be competitive on this sector even if they cannot capture all the airline passengers.
Coming to the airlines, they are probably being stretched now even without competition from other modes. Did we forget the extra baggage fee and a few days ago a "boarding pass fee". So even if the airlines fought back with lower fares on competitive routes and higher ones on non competitive ones, it is possible the math would not work in their favor. And if it did work there would be an public uproar in the non-competitive areas where they would be having monopolies/market domination.
However I agree that there has to be smooth integration for both HSR and airlines. The major international/hub airports should be a part of the HSR network (assuming a network is being built in their vicinity) and the airlines should be made partners in running the train services (connecting or otherwise)

Is it really? There are 20-something stations between Beijing South and Shanghai Hongqiao. Oops! I misread a bit regarding that line: I took one of the supposed scheduled nonstop trains as representative for all trains. All said and done, the average running speed for the Shanghai-Beijing route is only 8% faster than the Wuhan-Guangzhou North so the initial basic premise we've batting around wouldn't substantially change; another station allowed, a cheaper (longer) route or so, but if it couldn't be achieved at an average of 194 mph, it probably couldn't be achieved at 210 mph.

I checked and there are 107 flights from New York to Chicago tomorrow, using aircraft in the 150-180 seat class. These are non-stop. Capture that market and there is no reason that 30 non-stop trains each way per day won't be required. That's a half hourly schedule.

I very much doubt they'd take the 970 mile water level route of the 20th Century Limited. Tunnelling technology and train horsepower have improved a bit since then :-)
More or less what Suburbanist said, but also that if you were building this route, it's competing with existing airlines and that needs to be taken into account. New York to Chicago is on the long side of conventional HSR reach (again assuming ~200 mph average) so to just begin justifying that level of expenditure against an established mode of transport one needs to maximize patronage, hence utilizing a NY to Philly route before hitting a major spot like Pittsburgh on the way to the Windy City. Plenty of people with go nonstop, but the intermediary passengers will be of significant importance.
Are we derailing this thread? Should we move the discussion to the US HSR thread?

More or less what Suburbanist said, but also that if you were building this route, it's competing with existing airlines and that needs to be taken into account. New York to Chicago is on the long side of conventional HSR reach (again assuming ~200 mph average) so to just begin justifying that level of expenditure against an established mode of transport one needs to maximize patronage, hence utilizing a NY to Philly route before hitting a major spot like Pittsburgh on the way to the Windy City. Plenty of people with go nonstop, but the intermediary passengers will be of significant importance.
Are we derailing this thread? Should we move the discussion to the US HSR thread?

I am curious to know how many days has Chicago had average delays of more than an hour or two? Sure while the air trip would beat the train most days, when thunderstorms force planes to divert, having an HSR system could allow a reasonable diversion and get passengers to their destinations from other airports. I see it as a redundancy incase of severe storms since lightning does not effect HSR trains. (AFAIK) I do wonder about how much of the traffic is O&D and how much is connecting. I do know there are many shuttle flights with 100 seat aircraft from NYC-Chicago during the weekdays so it can attract buisness customers. I think it is a wait and see of how viable Chicago-NYC via HSR will be since you would need a high-speed connection and the most direct route to Pittsburg, a Pittsburg-Harrisburg high-speed line, the a new branch from Harrisburg-NYC. Is it really worth it? At this point, who knows? Realistically, we need more information.

^^ Strange accident. Signs were working, and the truck slammed itself into the train, not the other way.

Yet, the strong crashworthiness requirements from FRA proved once again valuable: the train card didn't roll over, and the train remained more or less impact if not by the fire, allowing more people to escape.

Rather, a reason for more grade separation.

^^ Research commissioned by Caltrain favours modern European trainsets with crumple zones over the more rigid FRA-compliant rolling stock (http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/02/caltrain-waiver-details.html?showComment=1267466650228#c1284900375192832496). An FRA-compliant passenger car failed a computer simulation of a European crash test because of its inadequate crumple zone.

^^ Research commissioned by Caltrain favours modern European trainsets with crumple zones over the more rigid FRA-compliant rolling stock (http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/02/caltrain-waiver-details.html?showComment=1267466650228#c1284900375192832496). An FRA-compliant passenger car failed a computer simulation of a European crash test because of its inadequate crumple zone. Well, I believe rolling stock are not designed to resist powerful strikes from sides. 99% accidents come from the rear or front of car, so I suppose they are the zones actually protected by train design.

According to above, I assume European car wouldn't be better in a such situation.

Correct me, if I'm wrong.

Mp4S2xdusXg

BJXesYIrALs

fWEaFy0-jCE

The Pennsylvania Turnpike has curve radii as low as 600 yards and grades as high as 7,1%. You can't run a HSR under those parameters. Sure, you can blast a turnpike, but it will require lots of long tunnels and high viaducts if you want to retain high-speeds.

The turnpike requires lots of tunnels moron. I've driven it many times. Try learning about something before pontificating with your warped road whore ideology.

The turnpike requires lots of tunnels moron. I've driven it many times. Try learning about something before pontificating with your warped road whore ideology.

First, there is no reason for personal insults.

Second, I'm discussing engineering, not ideology. Any road, by design, can cope with much tighter curves and higher grades because of the inherent technical characteristics of road vehicles (power, traction etc. etc).

Sure PA Turnpike and many roads have tunnels, but they are usually further apart and fewer than a similar design speed railroad.

That has nothing to do with ideology, or the convenience of lack thereof to build railways. It is just an explanation for hilly/mountainous terrain is usually more "road friendly" than "rail friendly" for construction in terms of costs. It says nothing about whether mountainous railways should be built or not.

Some places have high-performance railroad despite mountains, others don't. This is especially concerning regional systems in areas like the Appalachians, where old alignments were originally designed for no more than 30mph in many sectors. To improve such sector to be able to carry rail traffic at 50mph, for instance, it might take a lot of money, not usually feasible in a context of less populated areas.

Just a short little aside, and maybe to address MarneGator's concern, I'd agree with the general implication that a Chicago-NYC HSR route seems obvious, if a bit on the long side using conventional technology, but before we could really even consider such a service, we'd have to get people comfortable with using passenger rail service on less ambitious (and economically-crucial) routes. Therefore, it makes more sense to focus on regional improvements rather than new interregional trains at present.

...Was that a good segue to the general railways topic?

Just a short little aside, and maybe to address MarneGator's concern, I'd agree with the general implication that a Chicago-NYC HSR route seems obvious, if a bit on the long side using conventional technology, but before we could really even consider such a service, we'd have to get people comfortable with using passenger rail service on less ambitious (and economically-crucial) routes. Therefore, it makes more sense to focus on regional improvements rather than new interregional trains at present.

Regional trains in US is mostly about commuter traffic (lots of AM outer cities => central city trains, lots of PM central city => outer city services).

Fast(er) mid-distance rail could be more cheaply implemented on routes from Chicago to other directions than East, like Minneapolis, St. Louis, maybe Kansas City etc. Texas offer good terrain for cheap rail upgrades and new construction of small sectors/bypasses: mostly flat terrain, plenty of space to design railway bypasses or to widen ROWs of freight railways etc.

Indeed, many Mid-Western ROWs are very wide, but there is an intricate set of FRA rules and liability-avoidance policies from UP, BNSF and the likes requiring that should any parallel passenger rail be constructed for fast traffic alongside freight railways, very wide spacing should ensue (to prevent that a derailment of a freight train running parallel under far less advanced signaling protocols get hit by a fast-passing, in-cab, PTI-only 120mph passenger train.

Florida also has cheap construction costs, but no good original rail alignments and then there was all the political situation surrounding HSR Tampa-Orlando.

First, there is no reason for personal insults.

Second, I'm discussing engineering, not ideology. Any road, by design, can cope with much tighter curves and higher grades because of the inherent technical characteristics of road vehicles (power, traction etc. etc).


Yes there are. Your incessant ass kissing of all things that burn oil and have rubber tires is not only foolish, but not objectively sustainable by ANY MEASURE.

I have no tolerance for insanity.

You are discussing ideology when you promote absurdly expensive and technologically difficult to construct road projects but shun similar RAIL projects. Your advocacy for the road is incompatible with peak oil, clean air, clean water, and conservation of resources- which must occur if humanity is to survive.

Regional trains in US is mostly about commuter traffic (lots of AM outer cities => central city trains, lots of PM central city => outer city services).

Fast(er) mid-distance rail could be more cheaply implemented on routes from Chicago to other directions than East, like Minneapolis, St. Louis, maybe Kansas City etc. Texas offer good terrain for cheap rail upgrades and new construction of small sectors/bypasses: mostly flat terrain, plenty of space to design railway bypasses or to widen ROWs of freight railways etc.

The Chicago-St. Louis line is in the process of being upgraded right now, is it not?

Indeed, many Mid-Western ROWs are very wide, but there is an intricate set of FRA rules and liability-avoidance policies from UP, BNSF and the likes requiring that should any parallel passenger rail be constructed for fast traffic alongside freight railways, very wide spacing should ensue (to prevent that a derailment of a freight train running parallel under far less advanced signaling protocols get hit by a fast-passing, in-cab, PTI-only 120mph passenger train.

Florida also has cheap construction costs, but no good original rail alignments and then there was all the political situation surrounding HSR Tampa-Orlando.

^^Out of curiosity, do you (or anyone else) know why the Orlando-Miami route wasn't first up? It does seem like HSR from Tampa to Orlando would mostly be a tourist attraction.

I know there's a separate regional rail thread for the U.S., but that leaves me thinking, (is this off topic?): what exactly is this thread here to discuss?

I suppose I should have phrased it differently; I was just thinking that because Chicago to NYC is a long distance for a contemporary HSR line to cover and be competitive with air, it'd make sense to focus on the sort of corridors that are more feasible in terms of distance, especially on some place like the NEC where there's already a rider base, even taking into consideration the expense of ensuring true 150mph operation across that particular line.

It still seems backwards to me that we're not willing/able to put forward the required funding just to pull ROW out from most freight co's hands. That aside, it's painful just how obvious it is that a lot of the regulation hasn't even been touched in 50-60 years.

^^Out of curiosity, do you (or anyone else) know why the Orlando-Miami route wasn't first up?

Because Tampa-Orlando was "shovel ready" and there were no approved plans, or money needed to complete an Orlando-Miami link.

The Detroit News
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110813/METRO02/108130370/1409/metro/Pontiac%E2%80%99s-train-station-downsizes--but-upgrades


Last Updated: August 13. 2011 1:00AM
Pontiac's train station downsizes, but upgrades
MDOT announces track improvements for high-speed rail
Tom Greenwood/ The Detroit News

Pontiac — Pontiac officials hope the new $1.4 million Pontiac Transit Center, which opened this week, will help boost the struggling city's business center.

Amtrak hopes the new facility will attract even more riders to its growing rail service to Chicago.

The state-funded facility, which also serves Greyhound and SMART buses, was opened this week by the Michigan Department of Transportation to replace an oversize and dilapidated terminal downtown.

MDOT also announced an agreement with Norfolk Southern Railway to improve 135 miles of railroad, allowing the speed limit to be raised between Ypsilanti and Kalamazoo from 30 mph in some areas to 60 mph.

The agreement is intended to help pave the way for high-speed rail from Detroit to Chicago.

Mayor Leon Jukowski said the opening of the new center — in the 51000 block of Woodward, near the Phoenix Plaza Amphitheater — would help boost the image of the city, beset by crime and financial trouble.

"Anyone who was familiar with our old building would agree that it clearly needed to be torn down," Jukowski said.

"I think it will help improve the business climate, but it's not the silver bullet we need," he said. "It's clearly an upgrade, but it is only a part of the puzzle."

The 4,500-square-foot facility includes a passenger lobby with indoor ticket booth, seating and restrooms and canopies at both the bus and train platforms.

The $1.4 million for the facility is from the state's Comprehensive Transportation Fund.

Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said the rail carrier's Wolverine Service, with three daily round trips between Pontiac and Chicago, is gaining popularity.

"We're up about 9 percent for October 2010 through July 2011," he said. In fiscal year 2010, nearly 16,000 people traveled by Amtrak in Pontiac, up 10 percent over 2009. Through July, more than 12,000 passengers used Amtrak.

Magliari said the new transit center was needed. "The old one was oversized and clearly didn't work," he said.

Greyhound spokesman Tim Stokes said the company is happy about the new terminal but has no plans to increase the number of routes from the center.

Greyhound runs two buses daily from the transit center and up to eight buses on the weekend. In June, Norfolk Southern said it would drop the speed that Amtrak could run on its rails between Ypsilanti and Kalamazoo to as low as 30 mph.

Amtrak told its passengers the drop in speed could generate delays of up to 90 minutes between Pontiac and Chicago. But the agreement between MDOT and Norfolk Southern will allow speeds on the section to be raised.

"Once the tracks are upgraded, Amtrak passenger trains can go back up to speeds as high as 60 mph," said Jeff Cranson, director of communications for MDOT.

tgreenwood@detnews.com

(313) 222-2023

http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20110813&Category=METRO02&ArtNo=108130370&Ref=AR&Profile=1409
Officials hope the new $1.4 million Pontiac Transit Center will bring more people to the city and stimulate its central business district. (Charles V. Tines / The Detroit News

http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20110813&Category=METRO02&ArtNo=108130370&Ref=V2&Profile=1409

MDOT also announced an agreement with Norfolk Southern Railway to improve 135 miles of railroad, allowing the speed limit to be raised between Ypsilanti and Kalamazoo from 30 mph in some areas to 60 mph.

Isn't this the reversal of the downgrade and speed reduction the line suffered when Norfolk Southern decided to declassify the sector as a Classe-1 railway?

Amtrak Northeastern Divison

Current / Proposed , Planned , Under Construction Stations

Northeast Regional - Main line
Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay Station
Route 128
Providence
Kingston
Westerly (Limited)
Mystic (Limited)
New London
Old Saybrook (Limited)
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport (Limited)
Metropark
New Brunswick (Overnight)
Princeton JCT (Overnight)
Trenton
Cornwells Heights (limited)
North Philadelphia (Limted)
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Newark
Aberdeen
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station
Alexandria
Woodbridge
Quantico
Fredricksburg
Ashland
Richmond Staples Mill Road
Richmond Main Street
Williamsburg
Newport News

Northeast Regional - Springfield Shuttle
Springfield
Windsor Locks
Windsor
Hartford
Berlin
Meriden
Wallingford
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport
Metropark
New Brunswick
Princeton JCT
Trenton
Cornwells Heights
North Philadelphia
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Newark
Aberdeen
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station

Northeast Regional - Lynchburg Branch
Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay Station
Route 128
Providence
Kingston
Westerly
Mystic
New London
Old Saybrook
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport
Metropark
New Brunswick
Princeton JCT
Trenton
Cornwells Heights
North Philadelphia
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Newark
Aberdeen
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station
Alexandria
Burke Centre
Manassas
Culpepper
Charlottesville
Lynchburg
Roanoke
Bristol

Vermonter
St. Albans
Burlington-Essex Junction
Waterbury-Stowe
Montpelier-Barre
Randolph
White River Junction
Windsor-Mt. Ascutney
Claremont
Bellows Falls
Brattleboro
Greenfield
Northampton
Holyoke
Springfield
Windsor Locks
Windsor
Hartford
Berlin
Meriden
Wallingford
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Metropark (weekends only)
Trenton
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station

Acela Express
Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay
Route 128
Providence
New London
New Haven
Stamford
New York Penn Station
Newark Penn station
Metropark
Philadelphia
Wilmington
Baltimore Penn station
BWI Airport
DC Union Station

Keystone Service
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport (Limited)
Metropark
New Brunswick (Overnight)
Princeton JCT (Overnight)
Trenton
Cornwells Heights (limited)
North Philadelphia (Limted)
30th Street Station
Ardmore
Paoli
Exton
Downingtown
Coatesville
Parkersburg
Lancaster
Mount Joy
Elizabethtown
Middletown
Harrisburg

Pennsylvanian
New York Penn Station
Newark Penn station
Trenton
30th Street Station
Ardmore (train 44 only)
Paoli
Exton (trains 42 & 44 only)
Downingtown (train 44 only)
Lancaster
Mount Joy
Elizabethtown
Middletown
Harrisburg
Lewistown
Huntingdon
Tyrone
Altoona
Johnstown
Latrobe
Greensburg
Pittsburgh

Empire Service
New York Penn station
Yonkers
Croton Harmon
Poughkeepsie
Rhinecliff-Kingston
Hudson
Albany-Rensselaer
Schenectady
Amsterdam
Utica
Rome
Syracuse
Rochester
Buffalo-Depew
Buffalo-Exchange St.
Niagara Falls

Downeaster Service
Boston North Station
Woburn
Haverhill
Exeter
Durham
Dover
Wells
Saco-Biddeford
Old Orchard Beach
Portland
Freeport
Brunswick

Proposed / Planned lines

Lackawanna line
New York Penn Station
Newark Board Street Station
Summit
Morristown
Dover
Delaware Water Gap
East Stroudsburg
Analomink
Pocono Mountain
Tobyhanna
Scranton
Binghamton

Cape Cod Service
New York Penn station
New Rochelle
Stamford
Bridgeport
New Haven
New London
Westerly
Kingston
Providence
Pawtucket
Taunton
Buzzards Bay
Barnstable

Norfolk Service
Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay Station
Route 128
Providence
Kingston
New London
New Haven Union Station
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty International Airport (Limited)
Metropark
New Brunswick (Overnight)
Princeton JCT (Overnight)
Trenton
Cornwells Heights (limited)
North Philadelphia (Limted)
30th Street Station
Wilmington
Newark
Aberdeen
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station
Alexandria
Woodbridge
Quantico
Fredricksburg
Ashland
Richmond Staples Mill Road
Richmond Main Street
Chester
Petersburg
Suffolk
Norfolk

Lehigh Line
New York Penn station
Newark Penn Station
Phillipsburg
Easton
Bethlehem
Allentown
Emmaus
Macungie
Lyons-Kutztown
Fleetwood
Reading
Wyomissing
Lebanon
Annville
Hershey
Harrisburg

Hi forummers, public radio have recently broadcast this fun piece on rail maps:
http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/aug/15/wheres-amtrak-display-map-penn-station/

And here is the book spoken about:
http://www.amazon.com/Railway-Maps-World-Mark-Ovenden/dp/0670022659
:)
Mark

How is Lehigh line in anyway shape or form feasible?

How is Lehigh line in anyway shape or form feasible?

It runs along a Freight line which runs through one of the fastest growing areas of NE , NJT hopes to have service Philpsburg restored sometime before 2030 and then to Allentown after that tapping into a huge ridership base. Amtrak or a different Rail agency will operate past Allentown connecting to the planned Septa Reading line and to Harrisburg. There is an Estimated 40,000 that would use the service if it were pulled back to Philpsburg , and up to 60,000 with Allentown. 2 or 3 lines would meet in Philpsburg connecting all the High Employment areas of NJ and NY with PA.

Isnt Harrisburg too far away for this line to work? I can see the potential ridership up to Allentown though.

Isnt Harrisburg too far away for this line to work? I can see the potential ridership up to Allentown though.

No , because after Allentown the line hits the University of Kutztown , Reading and Hershey all growing areas with alot of people commuting or traveling to NJ or NY or from NJ to PA for tourism & work. Its also going to be an Intercity line , a commuter line will share the tracks between New York / Newark to Allentown and from Reading to Wyomissing. So it will be similar to the popular Keystone service in the southern part of PA or Northeast Regional.

Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/amtrak-acela-to-get-4-5m-per-second-upgrade.html


Amtrak Acela to Get $4.5M Per-Second Upgrade
By Angela Greiling Keane - Aug 22, 2011 4:58 PM ET

Amtrak's Acela trains may travel up to 160 miles per hour (257 kph) along 24 miles of track in New Jersey after improvements financed by $450 million in U.S. grants that House Republicans wanted to use for flood relief.

Trains on the stretch of revamped track between Trenton and New Brunswick, New Jersey, south of New York, will be able to exceed today’s maximum 135 mph, the Federal Railroad Administration said today in an e-mailed statement announcing $745 million in grants for Northeast Corridor work.

Going 160 miles per hour on that 24-mile segment compared with 135 mph would save about a minute and 40 seconds, meaning $4.5 million would be spent for each second of improvement.

“With our population expected to grow by 100 million more people between now and 2050, we are investing in a high-speed rail system that connects to other modes of transportation, reduces congestion and improves the efficiency and reliability of travel in America,” Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph C. Szabo said in the statement.

Amtrak trains could reach 186 mph on the improved stretch with new locomotives and passenger cars, the rail administration said.

Another $295 million will be spent on a junction in Queens to separate Amtrak trains traveling between New York and Boston from Long Island Railroad, Metro-North and New Jersey Transit commuter trains.

Florida Grant

The money for both projects benefiting Amtrak, the U.S. taxpayer-supported passenger railroad, comes from $2.4 billion in high-speed rail grants awarded to Florida from the 2009 economic stimulus package. Florida sent the money back earlier this year, and the U.S. government said in May it would redistribute the money, including $450 million to Amtrak.

The spending announced today is the first step to allowing 220-mph train service on the Northeast Corridor, and will improve service reliability on the tracks that also carry New Jersey Transit and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority trains, Steve Kulm, an Amtrak spokesman, said.

“This is a piece of the first segment of our high-speed rail improvement program to get us to 220” miles an hour, Kulm said in an interview. “You need some additional work to be done to get the real time savings.”

Other projects along the corridor to increase speeds include improving tunnels and stations and adding track capacity, he said.

A U.S. House proposal passed last month would have diverted some of the high-speed rail stimulus money that states rejected to Midwest flood-relief efforts.

To contact the reporter on this story: Angela Greiling Keane in Washington at agreilingkea@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Bernard Kohn at bkohn2@bloomberg.net

Interesting, high speed rail money actually being spent on the closest thing we have to high speed rail. Will wonders never cease.

Nice shot at Republicans in that first sentence. Gotta love the media.

^^Um, if anything, it sounds more like a shot at the Dems. After all, which sounds like an easier sell to the general American public, disaster relief funds or incremental increases in passenger rail speed?

No news here about the railtunnel from russia to the USA that has been approved?

^Whos building it? Russians or US or both?

^Whos building it? Russians or US or both?

Both.

The Tunnel wil be 100 km long and it will become possible to travel from London all the way to south-america by train.:nuts:

There is a thread here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=464566&page=3

But for one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the past 10 years it's not very busy there...

Both.

The Tunnel wil be 100 km long and it will become possible to travel from London all the way to south-america by train.:nuts:

There is a thread here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=464566&page=3

But for one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the past 10 years it's not very busy there...

How long will that journey take if I'm going, say, from Inverness to Buenos Aires?

^^ LOL!

Kind of forgetting the Darien Gap, aren't we?

No , because after Allentown the line hits the University of Kutztown , Reading and Hershey all growing areas with alot of people commuting or traveling to NJ or NY or from NJ to PA for tourism & work. Its also going to be an Intercity line , a commuter line will share the tracks between New York / Newark to Allentown and from Reading to Wyomissing. So it will be similar to the popular Keystone service in the southern part of PA or Northeast Regional.

Sounds pretty epic to me! :)

The environmentalist in me is glad the Darien Gap is essentially unmolested, but then again, a truly pan-American road would be awesome:D.

@ Trenton Transit Center

TpTqbjzZv3A

lKbrQ8NTClk

fQ9o42RNZZM

f0HQ0o3-aek

Ey-M_QEIwwE

kTlcqw0ySlM

1erXNEILxms

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6129/6198951709_c46c11b5aa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6198951709/)
DSC07019 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6198951709/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6170/6199467952_0ca40e7f5f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6199467952/)
DSC07017 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6199467952/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

(CNN) (http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/13/us/california-trains-collide/index.html?hpt=us_c2) -- Two Amtrak trains collided in northern California, sending emergency crews rushing to the scene,authorities said late Wednesday.
Multiple injuries were reported in the collision that occurred in Oakland late Wednesday, police said.
Oakland police, emergency personnel and Amtrak authorities have responded to the scene.
No more information was immediately available.

^^
The collision was between the Coast Starlight, and a San Joaquin train. One train was stopped at the station, when the other rammed into it. Collision speed was 15~20 mph, which an Amtrak spokesman called "low speed", though when you have a massive locomotive at the front, even low speeds produce enormous kinetic energy. A positive train control system, of course, would have prevented such an accident. I suspect the engineer of the moving train ignored the red signal.

Some of my Amtrak shots , yes i know my Camera is having issues...

75ro4rJGFLA

2I1HnCoA2kI

EhpEXtlbiw0

fgqyyOIasfo

sIIZ0kU6DlA

Harrison

D5RQN6589CU

(CNN) (http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/13/us/california-trains-collide/index.html?hpt=us_c2) -- Two Amtrak trains collided in northern California, sending emergency crews rushing to the scene,authorities said late Wednesday.
Multiple injuries were reported in the collision that occurred in Oakland late Wednesday, police said.
Oakland police, emergency personnel and Amtrak authorities have responded to the scene.
No more information was immediately available.

Are you going to start posting news stories about every car accident? That would only be fair. Plus there are far more of them and they KILL far more people.

Are you going to start posting news stories about every car accident? That would only be fair. Plus there are far more of them and they KILL far more people.

Where have I mentioned cars in regard of that accident?

That would be the same of arguing air crashes should not be commented because they are statistically rare and airplanes are safer than any other mode of transportation including walking.

On average, walking ADDS to your lifespan.

(Probably doesn't seem that way to a "man" afraid of his own shadow of course.)

uu1p_DnQRsA

I've never known a train where you can take your shoes off to walk around it :lol:

Where have I mentioned cars in regard of that accident?

That would be the same of arguing air crashes should not be commented because they are statistically rare and airplanes are safer than any other mode of transportation including walking.

I think the issue here is, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this, that you seem to be the only one who consistently posts train crash news. Not that you don't contribute otherwise, but I'm not sure this is the right place to post these sorts of news items. From my perspective, it just seems as though your trying to make trains look unsafe. I may be wrong, it just seems that way to me.

uu1p_DnQRsA

I've never known a train where you can take your shoes off to walk around it :lol:
Well, you do have to realize that:

-1- the USA is a far, far, far more VAST nation than is the UK;
-2- the Sunset Limited (trains 1 and 2) is one of Amtrak's long-distance train pairs, currently operating between Los Angeles and New Orleans (service between New Orleans and Orlando, FL was suspended indefinitely in late summer of 2005 due to Hurricane Katrina); and
-3- according to Amtrak's published timetables, it take a few minutes short of two full days for the train to make the Los Angeles <-> New Orleans trip one-way.

I would suspect that during that 48 hours, one would be most tempted to kick off his or her shoes, sit back and relax for a while.

:yes:

Mike

Well, i still prefer to keep my shoes on, when leaving sleiaping compatment on such trains, so many other people, i supose.
It's a pity a can't watch a video for a some reason - flash seems to be misinstalled or something :-/

Blatantly stole this link from a thread on SkyscraperPage...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6120/6325705559_c0090183ca_b.jpg
(Blatantly stolen from http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=195076)

Freshwater Railway (http://www.fwrail.org/index.htm) is an enormous and well-designed site for a fictitious transit agency serving the Detroit metropolitan area.

It's also worth it to get the link to the meta-website (http://project.fwrail.org/).

I don't know if a system that relied heavily on transferring to local buses to get riders anywhere useful would be successful. Just based on past experience in cities like Miami.

OTOH there is no good rail or rail-ready easement from either Michigan Central or New Center into downtown Detroit. But Detroit's main growth avenue would seem to be to the northwest, along Woodward Avenue (much as Philadelphia's is west, along Market, and New York's north, along Broadway). And yet Michigan Central is at a maximally efficient point for rail connectivity: it's the closest mainline routing to downtown proper, and it also lies on the natural routing for any international service e.g. Montréal-Chicago via Ottawa, Toronto, and Detroit.

Dealing with this is tough.

This is major. A new station will open in Fairfield, CT next month. This is a brand new station, not a reconstruction or a move from somewhere else. Something new where nothing existed before. A rare event for commuter rail in the United States.

This will be the third station in Fairfield, a suburban town of about 55,000 people (including students at 2 Catholic universities) next to Connecticut's largest city Bridgeport. Like the other 2 stations, this one will be served by Metro North New Haven Line running between Grand Central Terminal (New York City) and New Haven, CT. Amtrak trains will pass through without stopping. Some Amtrak trains call at the next station to the northeast, Bridgeport station.

Now for the catch:
There have been many dates given before, including October and November 2011. Don't be surprised if the first train doesn't run until 7 Jan 2012, the date that Metro North schedules are supposed to change. The schedule that goes into effect on 19 Nov 2011 is supposed to expire on 6 Jan 2012:

http://www.mta.info/mnr/html/planning/schedules/pdf/NH%20SS%2011%2019%202011.pdf

In the past, Metro North and Connecticut DOT have put out new schedules before the old schedules expired, so there is at least some hope that Fairfield Metro Center station will open in December.

Fairfield Citizen
http://www.fairfieldcitizenonline.com/news/article/DOT-First-train-rolls-into-Fairfield-Metro-2272672.php


DOT: First train rolls into Fairfield Metro station Dec. 5
Genevieve Reilly, Staff Writer
Published 04:40 p.m., Wednesday, November 16, 2011

After more than a decade of planning and controversy that nearly caused the project to derail, state transportation officials said this week the train service is expected to begin at the new Fairfield Metro station on Monday, Dec. 5.

Judd Everhart, a spokesman for the state Department of Transportation, confirmed the opening date in an email to the Fairfield Citizen.

"All work, including bridge and catenary repairs, will be completed by then," Everhart wrote. He said the state expects to arrange an event to formally mark the opening of the town's third depot on Metro-North Railroad's New Haven Line sometime late in the week of Nov. 28.

The station off lower Black Rock Turnpike was a private-public partnership between the town, the state and a private developer, Blackrock Realty. The journey to the train station's completion began over 10 years ago and was plagued with planning delays, financing problems, a dispute over environmental oversight that sparked a lawsuit, foreclosure on the private developer's share of the property and, most recently, that construction costs had ballooned $7.5 million over budget.

The cost overruns became the town's responsibility under a modified contract with the state negotiated by former First Selectman Kenneth Flatto. Those agreements over the last few months were the subject of sometimes-heated scrutiny by town boards, including a financial audit and review by independent counsel that found the changes were not properly approved.

First Selectman Mike Tetreau worked out an agreement with the state, however, to get up to an additional $3 million -- on top of $19.1 million the state allocated last year -- for the town to complete its share of the project.

"Details are being finalized with the town," Everhart said regarding extra funding, adding he didn't have any more details on that deal.

"Regardless, the station will open Dec. 5," he said.

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/11/light-rails-early-success-means-city-paying-less

Because I am big enough to admit when I am wrong. Norfolk's light rail is up, and running, and doing fabulously. I never thouught it would.

I never thouught it would.

That doesn't surprise me. You are clueless when it comes to the value and importance of public investment

An individual admits to being wrong and is then reprimanded for being clueless. Sounds like someone just wants to be a jerk.

An individual admits to being wrong and is then reprimanded for being clueless. Sounds like someone just wants to be a jerk.
Yea, I hearya....

I'm often at the receiving end of stuff like that, too, when things that I thought would not work out in fact do work out.

:ohno:

Mike

Thanks for the info

An individual admits to being wrong and is then reprimanded for being clueless. Sounds like someone just wants to be a jerk.

You don't know this knucklehead. Better to keep your mouth shut concerning matters you do not understand.

tea kettle black

The Day before Thanksgiving @ Newark Penn station - Amtrak - NJT - PATH - Newark LRT

k4pmJ31VtEM

Chicago Architecture Blog
http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/2011/12/15/two-new-skyscrapers-otherwise-a-modest-future-for-union-station/


Two New Skyscrapers, Otherwise a Modest Future for Union Station

Dec 15, 2011

Last night Amtrak and the Chicago Department of Transportation detailed plans for the future of Chicago’s Union Station.

Union Station is the last of the historic train stations still active in Chicago. On an average weekday, it handles almost 120,000 local, regional, and long-distance Metra and Amtrak passengers. The station is at capacity, yet Metra wants to run 40% more trains into Union Station in the next 30 years, so expansion is imperative.

In recent years, plans have been floated for a massive intermodal transportation hub with new skyscrapers, subways, and high-speed rail at Union Station. But with the global economy currently pining for the fjords, the plan put together by a cavalcade of state, local, and federal agencies is necessarily yawn-inducing.

The biggest changes that people will likely see are on Canal Street, where traffic chaos is nothing new. If you haven’t been there lately, it’s a life-sized kinetic sculpture made up of honking cab drivers, fanny-packing tourists, lost suburban SUVs, angry CTA buses, clueless commuter coaches, and an increasing number of long-haul gypsy buses disgorging slack-jawed yokels who stop in the middle of the crosswalks to stare at Willis Tower like a sunflower at noon.

The proposed solution is to turn a block of West Jackson Boulevard south of Union Station into a transit center, with three canopied medians and as many as seven bus pick-up lanes.

Also on tap is a plan to eliminate some of the unused baggage platforms in the station concourse. This will allow Amtrak to widen the passenger loading and unloading areas, and also install stairwells to connect Union Station’s concourses directly to the street.

A little further out is a bit of future-proofing for the station. If you’ve ever taken a train across the country (and if you haven’t I fully recommend it), you know that you can’t get from Seattle to New York without changing trains in Chicago. This is part of the city’s legacy as the historic transportation nexus of the nation. But these days, it’s mostly an inconvenience. So Amtrak wants to put in a pair of through-tracks on the east side of the station, along the Chicago River. This will let the train company, theoretically, run trains from Oakland, Seattle, and Los Angeles all the way to New York, Washington, and Boston. More likely, however, will be trains that can do a full Midwestern Minneapolis-Milwaukee-Chicago-Detroit-Cleveland run.

How much of what Amtrak and CDOT want to happen depends on money, so their combined wish list has been broken into short, mid-, and long-term goals. The short term projects have been funded. Everything else is up in the air.

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Screen-Shot-2011-12-15-at-Thursday-15-December-2011-@-8.47.36-pm-Central-Standard-Time.jpg
Proposed Amtrak Tower at 300 South Canal Street

Amtrak able to travel to 110 mph in Indiana, Michigan

February 07, 2012|By Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune reporter

Amtrak passenger trains sped up to 110 mph for the first time Tuesday in western Michigan and northern Indiana on two routes serving Chicago, officials announced.

But the railroad crossings lack safety mechanisms that will be installed on Illinois’ high-speed corridor to prevent vehicle-train collisions.

The faster service, which is the first expansion of regional high-speed trains outside the northeastern U.S., is occurring on about 80 miles of a 97-mile stretch of Amtrak-owned track between Kalamazoo, Mich., and Porter, Ind.

Trains operating on the corridor are the Amtrak Wolverine Service between Pontiac, Mich., and Chicago via Detroit and Ann Arbor, and the Amtrak Blue Water between Port Huron, Mich., and Chicago via East Lansing.

The increase in speed from 95 mph to 110 mph followed the Federal Railroad Administration’s approval of a positive train control system. The technology provides safeguards to override human error and prevent train-to-train collisions, speed-related derailments and accidents caused by track-switching errors or malfunctions, according to the agency.

But the positive train control system installed by Amtrak for the Michigan Department of Transportation does not include vehicle-detection technology to alert train crews about a vehicle stopped on the tracks at a crossing or additional protections, including four-quadrant gates, to prevent vehicles from snaking around lowered crossing gates. It does, however, monitor whether the crossing gates, flashing lights and bells are working, officials said.

Crossings on the system being installed in Illinois on the Chicago-to-St. Louis 110 mph corridor will be outfitted with full four-quadrant gates and an obstacle-intrusion detection system to tell locomotive engineers about vehicles on the tracks with enough advance warning so that the train can stop before the crossing, according to the Illinois Department of Transportation. Amtrak service at up to 110 mph is scheduled to begin in 2014 on part of the route, IDOT said. The current top speed is 79 mph.

Using a less-robust crossing system not only increases the risk to vehicle drivers and their passengers, but also to the riders aboard high-speed trains involved in a collision at a crossing, experts said.

On Feb. 1 at a crossing near Jackson, Mich., on the eastern end of Michigan’s 110 mph rail corridor, an Amtrak train derailed when it struck a semitrailer truck that was stuck on the tracks. More than 10 people on board the Chicago-bound train were injured.

Federal railroad officials said the Michigan plan meets all regulations and that it is up to each state to decide on “an acceptable level of grade crossing risk.’’

The Federal Railroad Administration “has every confidence in the Michigan Department of Transportation’s and Amtrak’s ability to determine the appropriate safety mechanisms at their grade crossings,’’ said Mike England, a spokesman for the agency.

Michigan rail officials said the safety system they selected on the 110 mph corridor is the most cost-effective while also being safe.

“This was not a decision we made lightly,’’ said Tim Hoeffner, director of the Office of Rail at the Michigan Department of Transportation. “What you put at the crossing is only one component of grade-crossing safety. You also must have police enforcement and the education piece to go along with the engineering.’’

“One of the most important factors is that we are dealing with the railroad in a part of the state where people understand the issues better and have a better grasp that when the flashing lights, bells and gates go on, the train is going to be there quickly and leave quickly,’’ said Hoeffner, who rode aboard the 110 mph service on Tuesday.

Sustained operations at 110 mph on the 80-mile section in Michigan and Indiana will cut 10 minutes off the 95- mph schedules and about 20 minutes off the 79 mph speed that Amtrak trains operated at as recently as 2001, officials said.

Future steps include expanding 110 mph service from Kalamazoo to central and eastern Michigan, officials said.

What do you think of the new 110mph (177km/h) Amtrak trains in Indiana and Michigan?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-07/news/chi-amtrak-able-to-travel-to-110-mph-in-indiana-michigan-20120207_1_high-speed-trains-chicago-bound-train-positive-train-control-system

Luke

Well, IMHO, incremental upgrades of that sort are the way to go. They are much more cost-effective than diving in head-first on true high-speed while steadily easing the populous back into a rail mindset as a means of short and midrange intercity transport.

Also, Amtrak owns the track in question (one of the very few segments outside of the NEC), so the messing around with the freight carriers that one finds elsewhere will not be a problem here.

Mike

This is an move in the right direction, the most cost effective way to improve service quality.

^^ But Amtrak does not have so many opportunities to be implemented elsewhere. With the current economic situation (high gas prices and more and more freight coming from Asia), the freight railways are booming and they don't want to sell much trackage to Amtrak.

Amtrak had an opportunity to buy dirt-cheap track from railways in the late-1990s, but that window of opportunity closed.

There are some possibilites, though. I read UP is all but halting traffic between NM and KS via La Junta (CO). But that is a sparsely populated area, even if Amtrak acquired tracks, there is not much scope for service.

Well, considering just how obstinate the freight companies have been, and how little incentive they have to be less so, it still seems to me like the best chance for these sorts of speed-ups to continue would be to just build new trackage. Although of course, in that case, it's no longer an upgrade, and all the benefits of upgrading vs. new construction are lost...sigh.

uu1p_DnQRsA

I've never known a train where you can take your shoes off to walk around it :lol:

Great video. The train seems realllly slooowwwww. :ohno:

The Southwest Chief departing Los Angeles Union Station via a different routing than the Sunset Limited above:

cb6ZrKhGY90

Enjoy!

:cheers:

Mike

Valentine's Day 2012 http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/icons/icon1.gif:CN blamed for fatal train derailment in Illinois

Accident in Cherry Valley in 2009 killed 1 person, injured 7

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2012/02/14/li-cnrail-cp-01466911.jpg
^^ clickable... (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/14/cn-rail-derailment-illinois.html)
CN is Canadian :ohno: It used to be a --uhm-- crown corporation.

Booked Amtrak round trip NYC to Chicago.

will have videos and pics up first week of april.

lpjCX56oRC8
Might I be counting more than 3's worth here? :sly:

AsFW9zwN2rQ
largest gathering ever of waterborne trainspotters



oBNXVEaOVzE
impressive speed for such a narrow ROW :)

gvAGPDtl_qg
more like a sapling mangler



si43y6p9uJ8
ambidexterity?

47-car- and 61-car-long passenger trains:

6cY9OE43R_g
mute last ½' :wallbash:


KHMFtS9NyZk
I wonder how long the other passenger(?) unit(s) must be ... also, I thought this production had become extinct
... just how exactly is so little catenary support possible? :?

jykNvMYnZG0
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

47-car- and 61-car-long passenger trains:

KHMFtS9NyZk
I wonder how long the other passenger(?) unit(s) must be ... also, I thought this production had become extinct
... just how exactly is so little catenary support possible? :?[/CENTER]
The Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus ('RBBX' to the railroaders) is very much alive and tours the USA with two separate shows (a 'blue' train and a 'red' train). It is an amazing bit of old-style Americana. Their productions are simply so *BIG* that the only way to cost-effectively transport them all from city to city is by rail.

Mike

Do you know what's considered too excessive a distance from the siding(s) housing their parked trains a performance of theirs would be?

Do you know what's considered too excessive a distance from the siding(s) housing their parked trains a performance of theirs would be?
Well, when they play at Madison Square Garden in NYC, they park the train in a yard across the Hudson River in New Jersey and cart everything, including walking their elephants, though the Holland Tunnel and up Varick St and 7th Ave. They do that during the low-traffic overnight hours.

Mike

Heh heh ... such fanfare, back and forth, must induce reverse tolling to the port authority.

So I guess the private sector is pulling through after all?

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120322005917/en/Florida-East-Coast-Industries-Announces-Plans-Private


MIAMI--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Florida East Coast Industries, Inc. (FECI), the owner of Florida’s premier passenger rail corridor, is developing a privately owned, operated and maintained passenger rail service to connect South Florida and Orlando, which will be operational in 2014. By connecting the most visited city in the United States with South Florida’s business and vacation destinations, the passenger rail project, called All Aboard Florida, is designed to serve Florida’s growing number of business travelers, as well as families and tourists traveling for pleasure.

The All Aboard Florida passenger rail project will connect South Florida to Orlando through a 240-mile route combining 200 miles of existing tracks between Miami and Cocoa and the creation of 40 miles of new track to complete the route to Orlando. Eventually the system could be expanded with connections to Tampa and Jacksonville.


http://mms.businesswire.com/bwapps/mediaserver/ViewMedia?mgid=316781&vid=5&download=1

I won't believe until I see some works on the ground.

What really compels people into subscribing to the notion that private enterprise bear more incentive at deflating intallation costs than the public sector ever c/would, do tell me please?

The Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus ('RBBX' to the railroaders) is very much alive and tours the USA with two separate shows (a 'blue' train and a 'red' train). It is an amazing bit of old-style Americana. Their productions are simply so *BIG* that the only way to cost-effectively transport them all from city to city is by rail.

Mike

The sound of that horn is outstanding !

So this the circus operated by the great great grand children of the legendary PT Barnum?

So how do they fit the elefants into those waggons,they must probably lay down.

Circus-trains are very rare nowadays.

http://www.youtube.com/user/krnboy1009?feature=mhee

My YT page. Has quite a bit of rail shots across the country. Amtrak, commuter rails and metros.

Cheap plug I know.

What really compels people into subscribing to the notion that private enterprise bear more incentive at deflating intallation costs than the public sector ever c/would, do tell me please?

Agency issues and profit-seeking. Private enterprise has more incentives to push costs down because it can capture all the savings as profits (in the case), whereas public entities just need less tax-funded money.