daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 21st, 2008, 07:29 AM   #301
Kramerica
Hey Buddy
 
Kramerica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Berlin, WI
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 75

Quote:
Originally Posted by xote View Post
The problem is I think Amtrak knows that doing so will lead to a more visible mildly profitable regional service but disastrously unprofitable long distance service.

I say that we simply get rid of the delusion of having a national passenger network and simply just have regional networks centered on major cities. What I think remains to be debated is what constitutes as "regional." IMO, if it under 4 hours from a major city by train, it can fall under a regional service.

Obviously though, improving the infrastructure means that this network could be extended further by way of increase speeds. Amtrak should concentrate on doing this, using money to improve regional services, as opposed to running long distance, even sleeper services that lose money just for the sake of having them.
You should read the following:
http://www.midwesthsr.org/pdfs/MRR12n3.pdf

That newsletter hits on the three points you mention above. You might be surprised at the conclusions.
-Long-distance trains DO make sense (page 6)
-Networks are very important (page 10)
-Sleeper services are money makers (page 3)
Kramerica no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 21st, 2008, 03:22 PM   #302
Trainman Dave
systems rule!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 499
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyson View Post
To my knowledge the NE Corridor for example is not used for freights?
Yes it is used by freight at night and during the daytime to a limited extent. This usage is distribution from terminals to businesses who are beside the NEC. I cannot find any evidence of long distance freight traffic from, for example, Washington to Boston.
__________________
The "rest of the story" is buried in the details

Last edited by Trainman Dave; January 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 PM.
Trainman Dave no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2008, 05:11 PM   #303
jpIllInoIs
Registered User
 
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 649
Likes (Received): 48

Congress call for Gas Tax to fund Rail infrastructure. Of course Bush doesn't see the need to support this. His sock puppets, Rep. John Mica (R) Fla and US House Transportation Secretary blast the study and funding for rails.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classi...7641694.column
jpIllInoIs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 12:14 AM   #304
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainman Dave View Post
Its not very complicated!

We, The People, chose to build a first world highways system and support a first world airtravel network instead.
I think Europe has better of both. I've only once encountered major congestion on an Autobahn, and the speed through the airports in Europe is a lot better than those here.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 02:22 AM   #305
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
I think Europe has better of both. I've only once encountered major congestion on an Autobahn, and the speed through the airports in Europe is a lot better than those here.
That's because there is a third choice.
In other words, if traffic is dispersed to three options rather then two then each option will have less traffic.(On the black board anyways.)
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 03:55 AM   #306
Songoten2554
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Miami Florida
Posts: 1,063
Likes (Received): 87

oh man it should have been implanted with Electrifitcation because it brings alot of great benefits

but Electrification should be implanted on busy Corridors i am saying that all the Railways should be electrified i am saying about the busy Railways Corridors not the less busy ones the more busy ones that need to be Electrified
Songoten2554 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 12:50 PM   #307
Trainman Dave
systems rule!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 499
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
I think Europe has better of both. I've only once encountered major congestion on an Autobahn, and the speed through the airports in Europe is a lot better than those here.
Over the last five years, I have not noticed any difference between the airports in the US and in Europe. They are all over crowed and the skies are seriously congested
__________________
The "rest of the story" is buried in the details
Trainman Dave no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 06:28 PM   #308
xote
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,198
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kramerica View Post
You should read the following:
http://www.midwesthsr.org/pdfs/MRR12n3.pdf

That newsletter hits on the three points you mention above. You might be surprised at the conclusions.
-Long-distance trains DO make sense (page 6)
-Networks are very important (page 10)
-Sleeper services are money makers (page 3)
IMO Amtrak should be using public funds to build six HSR corridors:

(1) NORTHEAST CORRIDORS:
HUB: NEW YORK CITY
(a) New York City - Hartford - Providence - Boston
(b) New York City - Newark - Philadelphia - Wilmington - Baltimore - Washington
(c) New York City - Albany - MONTREAL-QUEBEC
(d) New York City - Albany - Buffalo - TORONTO-ONTARIO

(2) MIDWEST CORRIDORS:
HUB: CHICAGO
(a) Chicago - Gary - Toledo - Detroit - WINDSOR ONTARIO
(b) Chicago - Gary - Indianapolis - Louisville - Frankfort
(c) Chicago - Springfield - St. Louis - Jefferson City
(d) Chicago - Iowa City - Des Moines
(e) Chicago - Milwaukee - Madison - Minneapolis St. Paul

(3) NORTHWEST CORRIDORS:
HUB: SEATTLE
(a) Seattle - VANCOUVER-BRITISH COLOMBIA
(b) Seattle - Portland - Salem - Eugene

(4) SOUTHWEST CORRIDORS:
HUB: LOS ANGELES
(a) LA - Bakersfield - Fresno - San Jose - San Francisco
(b) LA - Bakersfield - Fresno - San Jose - Sacramento
(c) LA - San Diego
(d) LA - Las Vegas

(5) SOUTHERN CORRIDORS:
HUB: AUSTIN
(a) Austin - Dallas - Fort Worth
(b) Austin - San Antonio
(c) Austin - Houston - Galveston
(d) Austin - Houston - Baton Rouge - New Orleans

(6) SOUTHEAST CORRIDORS:
HUB: ORLANDO
(a) Orlando - Palm Beach - Miami
(b) Orlando - Tampa - Saint Petersburg
(c) Orlando - Jacksonville

I know this is a pipe dream, but I think this would be a useful beginnings of networks, then for it to be extended to other states as deemed necessary and once popular support is available.
xote no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 06:41 PM   #309
Jonesy55
Mooderator
 
Jonesy55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Floreat Salopia
Posts: 14,205
Likes (Received): 20280

Quote:
Originally Posted by xote View Post
IMO Amtrak should be using public funds to build six HSR corridors:

(1) NORTHEAST CORRIDORS:
HUB: NEW YORK CITY
(a) New York City - Hartford - Providence - Boston
(b) New York City - Newark - Philadelphia - Wilmington - Baltimore - Washington
(c) New York City - Albany - MONTREAL-QUEBEC
(d) New York City - Albany - Buffalo - TORONTO-ONTARIO

(2) MIDWEST CORRIDORS:
HUB: CHICAGO
(a) Chicago - Gary - Toledo - Detroit - WINDSOR ONTARIO
(b) Chicago - Gary - Indianapolis - Louisville - Frankfort
(c) Chicago - Springfield - St. Louis - Jefferson City
(d) Chicago - Iowa City - Des Moines
(e) Chicago - Milwaukee - Madison - Minneapolis St. Paul
If you're going to build these two networks, you might as well link them in a couple of places to make one big network.

For example:

Toronto-Windsor
Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Charleston-Washington
Washington-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Detroit/Chicago
Jonesy55 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 06:45 PM   #310
xote
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,198
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesy55 View Post
If you're going to build these two networks, you might as well link them in a couple of places to make one big network.

For example:

Toronto-Windsor
Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Charleston-Washington
Washington-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Detroit/Chicago
I was speaking from a mindset of US construction, mentioning the closet international connection. But I agree with you entirely.

In addition, I think especially a link between "Midwest" and "Northeast" by way of Windsor Ontario would be ideal:

NORTHEAST - Toronto - Windsor - Detroit - MIDWEST

The US equivalent I think would be a little to messy and roundabout: NORTHEAST - Buffalo - Erie - Cleveland - Toledo - MIDWEST
xote no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 07:59 PM   #311
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainman Dave View Post
Over the last five years, I have not noticed any difference between the airports in the US and in Europe. They are all over crowed and the skies are seriously congested
Airport delay rankings consistently put Asia and Europe way above the US. I fly internationally every 1-2 months and see a distinct difference. Frankfurt and Schiphol are my most common hubs, and they're far better than even DIA.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 07:59 PM   #312
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
That's because there is a third choice.
In other words, if traffic is dispersed to three options rather then two then each option will have less traffic.(On the black board anyways.)
Absolutely. Urban development patterns change too.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2008, 07:07 PM   #313
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,172
Likes (Received): 10385

Quote:
Originally Posted by xote View Post
IMO Amtrak should be using public funds to build six HSR corridors:

(1) NORTHEAST CORRIDORS:
HUB: NEW YORK CITY
(a) New York City - Hartford - Providence - Boston
(b) New York City - Newark - Philadelphia - Wilmington - Baltimore - Washington
(c) New York City - Albany - MONTREAL-QUEBEC
(d) New York City - Albany - Buffalo - TORONTO-ONTARIO
.
That would definitely be a no brainer, but as pathetic as it sounds, Hartford and Providence are not directly connected by rail (or highway, for that matter). There are rail lines between the cities indirectly, but they are mostly abandoned or taken out. I wish it was possible though.
Xusein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2008, 07:10 PM   #314
xote
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,198
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10ROT View Post
That would definitely be a no brainer, but as pathetic as it sounds, Hartford and Providence are not directly connected by rail (or highway, for that matter). There are rail lines between the cities indirectly, but they are mostly abandoned or taken out. I wish it was possible though.
I am talking about newly constructed dedicated lines.

If anything, going from Hartford and Providence would be better for precisely the reason you mentiones, as a new HSR line on this corridor would be easier and cheaper to build due to it being less densely populated than the coast.
xote no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2008, 09:33 PM   #315
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by xote View Post
I am talking about newly constructed dedicated lines.

If anything, going from Hartford and Providence would be better for precisely the reason you mentiones, as a new HSR line on this corridor would be easier and cheaper to build due to it being less densely populated than the coast.
We have to upgrade the corridors we have before we build new. CA is an exception in only a short part - most of the right of way already exists.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2008, 09:34 PM   #316
xote
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,198
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
We have to upgrade the corridors we have before we build new. CA is an exception in only a short part - most of the right of way already exists.
Incorrect. Upgrading corridors and building new ones are not mutually exclusive. Often, they go hand in hand in most countries.
xote no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2008, 12:00 AM   #317
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by xote View Post
Incorrect. Upgrading corridors and building new ones are not mutually exclusive. Often, they go hand in hand in most countries.
This isn't most countries. The ONLY thing that's happened here in the last 50 years are small corridor upgrades. I mean, seriously, we don't even have urban rail in most of our cities. Starting big means failures cause 20 year delays.

Last edited by UrbanBen; January 24th, 2008 at 12:24 AM.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2008, 12:29 AM   #318
xote
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,198
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
This isn't most countries. The ONLY thing that's happened here in the last 50 years are small corridor upgrades. I mean, seriously, we don't even have urban rail in most of our cities. Starting big means failures cause 20 year delays.
Having unambitious goals means that nothing will get done. Once you reach for the stars, reaching for the sky is still pretty damn far.
xote no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2008, 01:04 AM   #319
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by xote View Post
Having unambitious goals means that nothing will get done. Once you reach for the stars, reaching for the sky is still pretty damn far.
Yeah, so the last 30 years of high speed rail planning in the US? Hasn't really gotten anywhere. The work on Amtrak Cascades by the state of Washington, however, has made incremental time decreases and service increases possible. CalTrain has served millions. Urban rail projects are cropping up everywhere. That stuff is *necessary* for HSR anyway, because it's how people who use it do their last-mile travel.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2008, 01:09 AM   #320
xote
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,198
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
Yeah, so the last 30 years of high speed rail planning in the US? Hasn't really gotten anywhere.
Ever heard of the Acela?

Quote:
The work on Amtrak Cascades by the state of Washington, however, has made incremental time decreases and service increases possible. CalTrain has served millions. Urban rail projects are cropping up everywhere. That stuff is *necessary* for HSR anyway, because it's how people who use it do their last-mile travel.
Fantabulous. But for 90% of the trip, HSR is incompatible with conventional rail. So I repeat, the two are not mutually exclusive, as they serve largely different needs with different infrastructure.

Frankly, I don't really care about the rest of the country when it comes to rail; I am more concerned about what happens in my neck of the woods, the Northeastern US. If the car-dependent West Coast can't get its act together, there is no need for us to suffer.

We already have conventional rail in the NEC that is as good as it gets by way of the ACELA service. The only logical improvement in the NEC is a dedicated HSR line.
xote no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
marc, rail, train

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium