undefinedundefinedundefinedI've worked in the RR for going on 11 years and wants going on is in the 1980's when trucks became the way top haul RR traffic slowed and the took out alot of tracks and know they are trying to get trucks off the roads it has cause conjustion everything is getting backed up. then there is the problem they trying to computorize things and the dust that we have they just don't hold up. more delays.I fell very good way to move freight and travel but in this day and time RR are having trouble keeping up they need just to leave things alone and let them work out and for high speed travel we have so mine roads it would be just about inposable to run trains over 100 mph like in other places. they do not have road crossings.

 

The way I understand it, we can't have high speed rail, because the tracks aren't rigid enough, and that the curves are too sharp.

 

As much as I love long distance passenger rail service, frankly I'm suprised it's still around (with the exception of tourist lines). I would think on the shorter hops they might be competetive with planes, but for long distance stuff - it's much cheaper and quicker to hop on a plane and get there in a few hours. I have traveled long distances using both. I personally don't mind the train, it adds fun to the trip.. but in this day of age I don't see how Amtrak can stay much longer operating passenger rail service. I don't know how good or bad they are doing, I could be wrong (I sure hope I am!!).

Freight on the other hand I feel is important to stay around, in the town nearby they are actually currently reactivating old rail lines.. which is pretty exciting.

I take the train everyday to work. I think commuter lines will always stick around, it's simply faster to take the train into work. It beats driving during rush hour.

 

It would cost way to much money to upgrade the tracks for high speed travel. Look at DM&E, they are going to spend $10 billion to upgrade track from Wyoming to Minn. just to haul coal and freight. If the tracks are upgraded to haul passengers cross country the Feds will have to do it and that means upping your taxes alot. Then you have to have secure crossing barriers so people can't cheat and go around them and get smoked. Here in De Smet DM&E will be going thru anywhere from 20 to 40 miles an hour and we have crossings without even the 'guard gate' type of crossing arms and without even lights. The gas prices in the EU are so high because of punitive taxes. Which they use to pay for the mostly Socialist structure they have.
So I don't forsee any chance of the rail system coming up with any thing but token pax service in select corridors, which are funded by tax dollars. Amtrak needs to go public and sink or swim.

 

Just a couple quick comments-
The freight railroads are doing fine! They represent the most efficient mode of transport for bulk quantity shipping and are eating up the market, as they should. The doublestack intermodal business has finally reached the point where it is economically sound to make large scale improvements to terminals and ports in major cities to increase capacity and maybe even reinstall some of the "obsolete" multiple main tracks that were so intelligently removed in the 70s-90s. Part of this is due to new Federal laws for truckers that turn the tables in favor of the railroads for the first time in years. The interstate 95 corridor should see a drastic reduction in OTR trucking over the next few years.
The REAL problem is Amtrak. The Federal government needs to quit complaining about Amtrak needing federal subsidy to operate. There is NO money to be made in the long-distance passenger train business. The highways, airways, and seaways are all, to an extent, federally funded, either through direct subsidation or taxes. Its time for Amtrak to recieve what it needs to survive. Believe me, without a National Passenger Railroad, things will be much different around here. Especially with so many Americans afraid to fly now.
Oh, and as far as Acela high speed, in 1968 a Clocker ran from Washington Union Station in D.C. to Penn Station in NYC 5 minutes faster than the Acela.
Dave

 

Passenger business has always been a touchy thing. These trains have been described as "the pickiest form of freight", and it's true. High-speed interest has been around for many years here, but most attempts have been publicity stunts. NYC did an experiment in 1966 by strapping a pair of J-47 engines to the top of a Budd RDC, and going 186mph with it. It worked, but they did it as they plotted the murder of their own passenger trains. What is needed really is a campaign to show the plusses of rail vs. air, or car. Rail has the lowest expenses per passenger/mile, the lowest emmisions, and the lowest fatality rate. Maybe we could get somebody like the sierra club, or some other wacko group to take up that cause? I hate going to those people, but using them would be ok.

 

The problem with the acela in the north-east corridor is that there are too many tight turns and they can only hit top speeds for a fraction of the route. Probably poor planning; but to be fair, it's also quite a densely developed area to work with.

The intercity and commuter trains in Spain were excellent. Clean, quiet, economical and reliable (on the intercities, if you arrive more than 5 minutes late, they refund you the price of the ticket...). But, as stated above, it got that way by being heavily funded by the state. Two different state systems, both with their pros and cons.... What would they think of my f150 302 dual floormaster exhaust--a mild truck here...a monster there....

 

If we talkin about passager train on east coast they would run on time most of the time they run 80mph but latly rr they runing on other railroads are delaying them.

 

I would sure love to know where you get your information... As far as your dads truck being empty, welcome to government work.... I agree a train can haul much more goods/frieght than trucks can, I may be wrong here, but isn't that way they where designed? How cost effective is it to load a train with goods going to 20 different locations having to stop at each and unload a couple cars then head on to the next? Common sense would dictate send the goods by rail to 1 location then divide up on trucks...

Since I am a trucker, I make my living with Americas "Have it now" attitude, and have nothing against rails, they are more effective in moving mass goods but how far does that go with needs?

As far as saftey on the highways and interstates, if the 4 wheelers would use some common sense (key word there) and understand a big truck doing 65 mph weighing 80k lbs CAN'T stop on a dime and have 9 cents change. Most accident are the 4 wheelers fault due to lack of "common sense", but thanx to ambulance chasing POS lawyers this country has lost any sense of personal responsibility and the one with the deepest pockets pays the most...


Sorry for the rant, this just hit a sore subject

 

I worked on the railroad for 11 year's. I should be still be there but thay closed the yard were I worked Potomac Yards, Va. For the R.F.& P. R.R. I am a machinist I have seen the RR's take up track's that were used north & south now there is only 1 track carry's all of the the load freight only . We used to get 6-8 coal train's in 24 hour time. We now ship the coal over seas along w/iron ore all trains are going to the port's only to ship out . Now the old southern rr has abandoned alot of rail bed's down in Southern,Va. Heck southern bought up W&OD RR -- Washington , & Old Dommion Rail Road , rent's it out to Va. power large power line's & lone term loan to our pak service for bike trail's . It would have made a great comuter line from Winchester, Va. to Alex., Va
Don Don't get me started !!!

 

It may eventually happen but, construction and operating costs (for quite a while) would have to be federally funded. Construction would run between 2 and 5 million a mile. The best/easiest route would go through Delta Junction and connect with BC Rail in northern British Columbia.

 

"Rigidity" isn't really the issue as heavy haul lines are more than adequate from a track structure standpoint to run high speeds.

The real problem of attaining speeds in excess of 125mph is the cost in building/acquiring dedicated track/right-of-way. The super-elevation needed at these speeds preclude safely running freight trains at lower speeds so the two don't really mix well. Although Amtrak's "tilt train" is trying to get around this problem, I don't see it being the final answer to high speed passenger trains.

 

Hey Yomow,
I used to work for CSXT, the current owner of what used to be PotYard. Something the old timers have been saying since before PY was torn up and I firmly believe it now, CSXT would be much better off now if PY was still there. I have gone off duty on track one at RO interlocking so many times I cannot count them. With no yard there, and no relief crew, there is 1 main track blocked until a new crew can be called. Unfortunately this is the story on railroads nationwide.
Dave

 

My opinion on why trains do not work for us now, we are a society of “have to get there quick” we do everything fast, we never stop and see the world. Trains just do not do that for most.

 

there isn't anything quick about shipping.

If you think that an OTR truck is faster than a train you are gravely mistaken. If it got to you overnight or two day, it went on a plane. I used to work for UPS, and honestly, their trucking system is extrememly efficient, but nothing can touch the speed of the planes. The only organization that is quick about shipping via truck is the USPS. FedEx is close, but their drivers deliver whenever they feel like it. UPS is close, but they are dealing with a lot more aircraft than trucks.