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 February 22nd, 2009, 08:52 AM   #841
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 47

This is exactly why we need some sort of transportation infrastructure renaissance NOW
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 22nd, 2009, 08:56 AM   #842
Micrav
Live!
 
Micrav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere between Paris and Riga
Posts: 698
Likes (Received): 16

Now I understand a bit better.
Then I believe Amtrak should go HSL and build their own new lines. And show those freight lines that Amtrak can be independent and if they don't comply to their requirements to use those freight lines, may they stay alone (Amtrak must be able to negociate business like). I believe also that freight companies have all interest to invest in new tracks, even investing as shareholders in HSL and receive %. They know the business of railway...
In France, the National Post Office runs TGVs to deliver goods!!!
As you can see on this picture, now windows, only cargo.

In Belgium, new HSL terminals are built to carry goods by TGV too.
Imagine containers travelling High Speed by railway?
Micrav no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2009, 09:39 AM   #843
perthgazer
Registered User
 
perthgazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 3,810
Likes (Received): 1009

Obama plots huge railroad expansion

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18924.html

The $787.2 billion economic recovery bill — to be signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday — dedicates $8 billion to high-speed rail, most of which was added in the final closed-door bargaining at the instigation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

It’s a sum that far surpasses anything before attempted in the United States — and more is coming. Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years.
perthgazer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 01:15 AM   #844
CrazyAboutCities
Registered User
 
CrazyAboutCities's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 8,549
Likes (Received): 240

That is great start! I am afraid that 8 billion dollars will not be enough to build high speed rail. We would need around 500 billion dollars to build entire high speed rail system in USA.
CrazyAboutCities no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 01:59 AM   #845
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 47

That was signed this Tuesday. Days ago... lol

I was talking about this very thing on another forum... Thanks a lot for bringing up the photo of La Poste .

Quote:
Originally Posted by davsot View Post
I brought it up because on Wikipedia I was reading about MagLev logistics and was thinking why it had never been brought up with conventional HSR.

And I'm not talking about coal either. No, I'm talking about USPS and UPS and FedEx, you know, people sending each other letters and buying stuff from Amazon.com and having the package arrive through a less oil-consuming process.

Could you imagine a train with a FedEx label on it?


The logo in the back is of Trade Winds Cargo...
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 06:02 AM   #846
Brice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,642
Likes (Received): 168

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micrav View Post
Maybe there is need to let Amtrak bankrupt or take care only of tracks and let new companies take care of running the cars. Like in the good old days of the gold rush! This would give a good dynamic to the country and focus the budget on infrastructure and let the dynamic fuys run the transport. I know I will have criticism, but if Amtrak is in so desesperate shape... Sometimes, it is better to restart on fresh bases!
Stupid idea. Read that :

HSR: Public or Private?

22 December 2008

We talk a lot about high-speed rail on this site. We’re convinced it would dramatically improve transportation in the United States, providing a useful alternative for travelling distances up to around 600 miles. Not only are high-speed trains far more ecologically sensitive than automobiles or airplanes, but if well designed and implemented, they are faster than both of the other modes in downtown-to-downtown travel. An intensive effort to bring high-speed rail to the United States would therefore act as a stimulus for inner-city development, something for which we should be pushing if we are to act now in the fight against climate change.

So the question of whether or not we should have high-speed rail is answered - in more than a dozen corridors around the U.S., such services would be both useful and well-used. If we know that we want such services, then, how should we implement them? How are high-speed trains managed in other countries, and what would make the most sense in America?

The heart of the debate is whether or not to privatize ownership of the rail infrastructure, and whether to privatize service in a competitive environment. In his recent high-speed rail bill, Congressman John Mica introduced a resolution that called for the Department of Transportation to solicit private parties for the renovation of the Northeast Corridor or the construction of a new parallel line, with the intent of providing a privately-run train that can travel between New York City and Washington in two hours or less. Mr. Mica’s argument - typical among economic conservatives - was that the private industry, working in a competitive environment, would be more effective in developing such a service than would the government such as under Amtrak management.

Rest of the article:

http://thetransportpolitic.com/2008/...=sphere_search
Brice no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 08:05 AM   #847
Kramerica
Hey Buddy
 
Kramerica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Berlin, WI
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 75

Railroad ownership structure

I think we should move the US railroad system toward the model of highways and airplanes. That is, the government owns and operates the infrastructure (i.e. track, just like they own highways and airports), while private industry owns and operates the vehicles and provides the service (i.e. freight trains and passenger trains, just like cars and trucks and airplanes are private). I don't think this will happen, but I think it would be the best for our country. It would also level the playing field for the three modes of transportation.

The government (not sure if it should be the states or the feds) would own the track. They'd probably pay someone to keep the track up to certain standards. Companies would bid on multi-year contracts for this work, keeping prices competitive. Those companies would probably be spin-offs of the current RRs, since they don't need to maintain track anymore.

Under this system, the government could build new lines where needed using eminent domain.

Dispatching of trains would be done by a private contractor, most likely spin-offs of current RRs, since they don't need dispatching either. The nation would be split up into many zones and bidding would take place on multi-year contracts to dispatch those zones.

The beauty of central dispatching is that no one company would have control of a certain rail line. Let's say you own a lumber company on a RR line. Under this system, all the freight RRs would be able to bid on your freight business, since the line isn't owned by a freight RR anymore. That's just like the highway freight business.

For passengers, that means there could be many operators on a single line, competing on travel time, time of day, number of stops, amenities, and of course price. That's good for the public.

This is all assuming the RR network we have now, at conventional speeds. But this system expands easily over true high speed rail lines. Companies will bid for the right to use these lines. And freight RRs will be able to use them too, given they can make acceptable speed.

I just think that going to this model will be the only way to put rails on an even playing field with highways and airplanes.
Kramerica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 10:30 PM   #848
G5man
High Speed Rail fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 337
Likes (Received): 37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kramerica View Post

The government (not sure if it should be the states or the feds) would own the track. They'd probably pay someone to keep the track up to certain standards. Companies would bid on multi-year contracts for this work, keeping prices competitive. Those companies would probably be spin-offs of the current RRs, since they don't need to maintain track anymore.
Interstate commerce would have to go through the feds. That has been the duty of Congress, to regulate interstate commerce since the Interstate Commerce Act from the 1800s
G5man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2009, 03:42 AM   #849
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,451
Likes (Received): 63

If you have private companies running the trains on the track, they would shut down unprofitable routes leaving many communities high and dry with no rail access. That is why the government should run the trains and own the track so that the profit motive does not come into play and more communities have access to rail transit.

If private companies owned the interstate highway system, you would see MANY routes closed down because they weren't "profitable" and the mobility and welfare of the country would suffer greatly.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2009, 03:47 AM   #850
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kramerica View Post
I think we should move the US railroad system toward the model of highways and airplanes. That is, the government owns and operates the infrastructure (i.e. track, just like they own highways and airports), while private industry owns and operates the vehicles and provides the service (i.e. freight trains and passenger trains, just like cars and trucks and airplanes are private). I don't think this will happen, but I think it would be the best for our country. It would also level the playing field for the three modes of transportation.

The government (not sure if it should be the states or the feds) would own the track. They'd probably pay someone to keep the track up to certain standards. Companies would bid on multi-year contracts for this work, keeping prices competitive. Those companies would probably be spin-offs of the current RRs, since they don't need to maintain track anymore.

Under this system, the government could build new lines where needed using eminent domain.

Dispatching of trains would be done by a private contractor, most likely spin-offs of current RRs, since they don't need dispatching either. The nation would be split up into many zones and bidding would take place on multi-year contracts to dispatch those zones.

The beauty of central dispatching is that no one company would have control of a certain rail line. Let's say you own a lumber company on a RR line. Under this system, all the freight RRs would be able to bid on your freight business, since the line isn't owned by a freight RR anymore. That's just like the highway freight business.

For passengers, that means there could be many operators on a single line, competing on travel time, time of day, number of stops, amenities, and of course price. That's good for the public.

This is all assuming the RR network we have now, at conventional speeds. But this system expands easily over true high speed rail lines. Companies will bid for the right to use these lines. And freight RRs will be able to use them too, given they can make acceptable speed.

I just think that going to this model will be the only way to put rails on an even playing field with highways and airplanes.
Honestly, I thought we should have done this a long time ago. Surprised it hasn't crossed the government's mind yet. Them and their cars
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2009, 03:55 AM   #851
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 47

It's the end of the world!!!!!

Miles of Idled Boxcars Leave Towns Singing the Freight-Train Blues

NEW CASTLE, Ind. -- Folks here figured the mile-long stretch of a hundred-plus yellow rail cars, which divides this small town like a graffiti-covered wall, would leave soon after it arrived.

That was a year ago.

"They stayed and they stayed and they stayed," says Bruce Atkinson, a local resident. "Then more moved in."

Tens of thousands of boxcars are sitting idle all over the country, parked indefinitely by railroads whose freight volumes have plummeted along with the economy. And residents of the communities stuck with these newly immobile objects, like the people of New Castle, are hopping mad about it.

Rail cars, idled by the slump in shipping caused by the recession, have sat for months on tracks in New Castle, Ind. Residents complain the cars cast shadows over homes that sit as close as 10 feet from the tracks.
Before February 2008, boxcars were a fleeting sight in this hamlet of 17,500 people 50 miles east of Indianapolis. For decades, no more than one or two trains a day traveled down the sleepy short-haul line that cuts through town.

Then rail cars -- 20-foot-tall yellow behemoths covered with the sort of spray-painted artwork once associated with New York City subway cars -- started rolling in by the dozens and grinding to a halt.

Now an elementary-school playground sits only feet from a line of rail cars covered with curse words. Someone with a paintball gun opened fire on one of the cars but missed, pelting a house instead. The looming cars have been blamed for casting shadows over homes that sit as close as 10 feet from the tracks. One woman says the lack of sunlight has turned her backyard into a mud pit.

One of the more visible manifestations of the global recession is the idling of vehicles used to move everything from scrap metal produced in the U.S. to sneakers made in China. Ocean-shipping companies have taken scores of ships out of service, anchoring them in or near ports around the world. The parking lots of trucking companies are clogged with trailers that in better times were rolling on highways.


Idle Rail Cars Frustrate Residents
2:22
People in New Castle, Ind., see a string of rail cars sitting unused in their town as a nuisance and an eyesore.
Railroads, which have seen shipping volumes drop by double-digit percentages in recent months, face a particularly vexing problem. The nation's five largest railroads have put more than 30% of their boxcars -- 206,000 in all -- into storage, according to the Association of American Railroads. Placed end-to-end, the cars would stretch from New York to Salt Lake City.

No Space
The railroads simply don't have enough space in their yards to store all the idled cars. So they look for convenient, out-of-the-way places to park them -- usually dormant tracks and rail sidings that are rarely used.

In December, residents in southern New Jersey were confused by the sight of a two-mile-long line of rail cars resting on a largely unused rail line in Cape May County. Some of the cars were parked only a few feet from houses. Rumors began spreading that the cars were tankers filled with hazardous materials. The mayors of two local townships assured the public that the cars were empty and posed no danger.

In December, Union Pacific Corp. parked a three-mile-long string of cars in the small town of Thornton, Colo. After staring at the idled cars for a month or so, local residents revolted. The railroad eventually agreed to move the cars to a less-populated area.

Dennis Duffy, Union Pacific's executive vice president of operations, says that in a healthy economy, the railroad might have 5,000 to 8,000 cars in storage. At the moment, it has 48,000 idle cars, he says, forcing it to come up with "unconventional solutions." It has parked them on 60 sidings around the country.

Few places, if any, have been forced to endure this spectacle for as long as New Castle, a town of 10 square miles surrounded by sprawling farmland. Scenes from the basketball movie "Hoosiers" were filmed at a high-school gym a few miles down the road.

DAVSOT: and much much more in the full article....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1235...d=rss_Page_One
The link may not work forever so take advantage
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2009, 05:49 AM   #852
Kramerica
Hey Buddy
 
Kramerica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Berlin, WI
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 75

Quote:
Originally Posted by G5man View Post
Interstate commerce would have to go through the feds. That has been the duty of Congress, to regulate interstate commerce since the Interstate Commerce Act from the 1800s
You're wrong. The States currently own all the highways, including the Interstates and US Highways. The same principle would apply to the tracks: The States would own the tracks and independent operators (just like trucking lines or bus lines) would run the vehicles. The only difference is that on the RR there would have to be dispatching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
If you have private companies running the trains on the track, they would shut down unprofitable routes leaving many communities high and dry with no rail access. That is why the government should run the trains and own the track so that the profit motive does not come into play and more communities have access to rail transit.
Um, private companies currently own the tracks. And those same private companies currently run the freight trains. So I'm sure they've pretty much shut down all the unprofitable routes already.

Under my plan, the tracks would be owned by the government and all freight RR carriers would be given an equal chance at access to customers along those routes. That would be good for competition and since the unprofitable freight lines have been shut down already, there should be bidders for these customers.

The beauty of the government owning the track is that then the government could build more lines; lines that might be unprofitable to build but be profitable to operate. That should INCREASE rail access.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
If private companies owned the interstate highway system, you would see MANY routes closed down because they weren't "profitable" and the mobility and welfare of the country would suffer greatly.
If you're worried about passenger trains and private operators not wanting to run on some of the lesser-populated routes, here's my thought: Those routes aren't being run right now anyway. Have you seen the bare-bones skeleton of our passenger rail system?

But, based on what some other countries do, there would probably have to be a government-run passenger train company to do the routes that don't have as many passengers, but are warranted to keep more people connected and to increase the overall efficiency of the national network by including as many potential passengers as possible. But leave the profitable routes to the private companies, so they can compete and drive up service and efficiency.
Kramerica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2009, 05:59 AM   #853
UD2
A very cool person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,294
Likes (Received): 31

Entire system in NA is messed up.

Passangers should always have pirority to freight. That seems to be the case in most countries that is advenced in railroad travel.
__________________
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed" - President Eisenhower
UD2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2009, 10:46 AM   #854
dachacon
Registered User
 
dachacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 834
Likes (Received): 164



most countries have 2 separate corridors one for passengers and one for freight

the u.s. had a great passenger service train system, but with the debut of airplanes, flying became the new sexy way of traveling so other modes of transportation, such as trains, and cruise ships lost significant business. that started the slow death of the private sector. with the government realizing that there needed to be some sort of passenger railway, so it created amtrak. you will not see any form of private rail company carrying passengers until you see amtrak make a profit. that is why freight gets priority over passengers. freight makes money. passengers don't, not to mention when you own the tracks, you have priority over anyone else using them.
dachacon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2009, 11:24 PM   #855
Facial
Seeking truth from facts
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Los Angeles / San Diego
Posts: 636
Likes (Received): 10

I like the idea of nationalizing the railroads' property, because that way a lot of more sensible things can be done, like grade separations, adding more tracks, etc. without the delay and arbitrary decisions between public and private sectors.

Once a status of "bidirectional freight, bidirectional passenger" 4-tracks are complete, some of the property can be eventually returned to the freight railroads and the passenger lines kept as Amtrak's.
Facial no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2009, 05:38 AM   #856
zaphod
PRESIDENT OF SPACE
 
zaphod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,176
Likes (Received): 1678

I disagree, freight is a profitable business that has a large economic and positive environmental impact, compared to whatever tiny role today's Amtrak plays, so it shouldn't be potentially penalized

Amtrak to come back really just needs it's own lines in the corridors shown on that map. I say buy redundant freight mainlines now used as secondary routes, which there are definitely plenty of in the Midwest.
zaphod no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2009, 07:20 AM   #857
sequoias
Registered User
 
sequoias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midwest US
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 14

I think Amtrak would be a huge improvement if they had their own dedicated lines, better signaling systems, higher speeds, newer rolling stock and all that..but we don't have the money for it.
sequoias no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2009, 07:21 AM   #858
He Named Thor
Just kidding.
 
He Named Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Beautiful Sheboygan, WI
Posts: 673
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by sequoias View Post
I think Amtrak would be a huge improvement if they had their own dedicated lines, better signaling systems, higher speeds, newer rolling stock and all that..but we don't have the money for it.
We have had the money for that before, we just refuse to use it for that for some reason.
He Named Thor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2009, 07:26 AM   #859
sequoias
Registered User
 
sequoias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midwest US
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by He Named Thor View Post
We have had the money for that before, we just refuse to use it for that for some reason.
Yeah, that was the time of auto dependence in revolution. The planes spew the most pollution in terms of traveling, so I think high speed train is the way to go. It may cost a lot, but cleaner in the long run.
sequoias no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2009, 08:46 AM   #860
UD2
A very cool person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,294
Likes (Received): 31

China has been running passanger freight mixed lines for the known history of that country and it have done and is doing a great job at it.

It is not impossible, you just have to be willing.

Now combining passanger and freight with the passangers taking pirority will definately hurt freight. With the tracks being owned by freight companies it isn't a wonder why they don't want to do it. But it is very possible.

Also passanger service can be very profitable, but it involves huge investment to improve what is the poor excuse of an extensive railroad system in North America. I'm sure investors wouldn't want to inject their money into something that is so "unfashionable".

So back to buying cars and collecting air miles.
__________________
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed" - President Eisenhower
UD2 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 06:20 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