gildone

If this is largely due to weather-related events screwing up Amtrak's equipment utilization, then is it safe to assume that Amtrak doesn't have enough sets of "protect" equipment so they can keep to the schedules? If so, they should be getting some mileage out of this by saying: "Amtrak regrets the inconvenience, but we don't have enough spare equipment to handle such service disruptions. We have requested funding from Congress for 354 new passenger cars to modernize our fleet and help minimize such problems in the future. Affected passengers are encouraged to contact their representatives in Congress and tell them how important Amtrak service is to you" Or something like that...

I guess we're actually saying a similar thing, then. I would guess that Amtrak's crew points for CHI-DET are Chicago and Detroit. After sitting for several hours in Indiana, then waiting again because of a frozen switch, it should have dawned on the dispatchers and managers that the crew was in risk of not making it. As I said, it would have been better to call a relief crew and risk replacing the operating crew at 10 hours (or whatever) rather than wait until they actually outlawed.

^Antiquated in what way? I agree that it's inhumane to have people stuck for 12 hours. There are people at Amtrak who should lose their job over this. It's also inhumane and quite unsafe to have a crew work obscenely long hours. The old rule was 14 hours. In the case of a Chicago-Detroit train, it's well out of the routine that a crew will outlaw. As I said, given the way in which events were unfolding on this particular run, Amtrak should have anticipated that this would have happened. Instead it seemed that they waited until the crew actually outlawed to call in another one. I can't believe there wouldn't have been a pretty clear "point of no return" that would have been obvious to the dispatchers and managers that this crew wasn't going to make it. It would have been better to err on the side of caution and risk having the current crew work only 10 hours (or whatever, pick a number) than to wait until the crew actually outlaws to do anything about it.

Great article here with great pictures. It's long and the pictures go with the narrative, so I'm just posting the link: Life Without Cars http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2008/122108.html Another good one: Idea#1: Slow Towns http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/12/22/Idea1/

The reason trains used to have cabooses was because there weren't motels practically everywhere and easily accessible like today. Therefore, you needed to keep a crew in reserve on the train. However, cabooses were expensive and they were the most dangerous place on a train. Talk to an old time railroader who worked during the caboose era and they will tell you a lot of injuries occurred on them. Another reason they needed cabooses was because in the era before "hot box detectors" and the like, the railroads needed to have a rear brakeman to help keep an eye on the train. Keeping an extra crew on board an Amtrak train would raise their labor costs in no insignificant way. There is no disputing that Amtrak handled this poorly. However, if the problem began with a freight crew that outlawed and Amtrak couldn't be dispatched around the freight, followed by switch problems due to the cold weather (this probably means switches freezing), then it really boils down to piss poor investment in our rail system. For better passenger service in an out of Chicago to the east, the former NYC line through Porter Indiana needs to be rebuilt so that Amtrak can have its own access to Chicago and not suffer freight interference. Also, investment needs to be made in things like switch heaters. This all costs $$$$, which congress has been unwilling to spend. Mytwosense: I don't get what you mean by: "Then the NTSB is to blame for these "crew" no common sense issues" Are you saying it makes no sense to limit a crew's hours to 12? If so, then I repeat, crew fatigue problems are very real and very common and they were much worse before this rule change that actually did improve safety. Otherwise go get a job on a railroad and tell me how easy it is to work even 12 hours. If this isn't what you mean, please clarify. dmerkow: I think Amtrak could have anticipated better that the crew was going to outlaw and had one on call. Instead, it seems that they waited until the crew actually did outlaw to do anything about it. At some point, it should have been more than obvious that the crew wasn't going to make it.

Actually, they didn't. It's a recently updated federal law. The hours of service were reduced to 12 because of several years of data that documented problems with crew fatigue, some of them serious. Granted, it's worse on the freight railroads because most freight trains are unscheduled, but it's still not an easy job. My dad worked on the railroad for 40 years. You're schedule is rarely the same two days in a row. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want the locomotive crew working longer than 12 hours at a stretch. I want them awake and alert enough to catch the signals and operate the train safely. I do wonder if Amtrak could have anticipated better that the crew would outlaw given the situation that was unfolding and had a new crew on standby, but I don't know enough about how such things work.

^that's a tough one. Queensgate Yard is so jammed up that it's going to be difficult to get more passenger trains into Cincinnati Union Terminal without investing $$$ to open up the bottleneck there. Still, CUT may be used, or the train may initially have to terminate in Sharonville until the problems at CUT are dealt with. A few years ago, Cincinnati was looking at a possible site downtown, but I don't know if that's still on the table or not. That's going to take even more $$$.

It also doesn't burn as hot as natural gas, propane, or gasoline. BTW, I've read the 20 Hydrogen Myths paper I posted a few posts up. I encourage others to do so too. RMI makes some valid points.

^I'm not that familiar with this project. What will be done with the bridge over the flats. Will it remain as-is?

I'm not coming down on one side or the other in the hydrogen debate, but I thought I would just post the following to contribute to the discussion: From the Rocky Mountain Institute: Twenty Hydrogen Myths. http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf The one thing that RMI hasn't addressed is the availability of platinum, which is necessary for making fuel cells. Personally, I think fuel cells will be used, but primarily in specialty vehicles, fleets, transit vehicles, locomotives, etc, not as a ubiquitous replacement for all of our personal automobiles. I see a future with a lot less driving and not much that we can do to change it, but that's just my opinion.

^No interfering roots. You just need to be brought up to speed: The 3-C is one corridor in the Ohio Hub: http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/index.html The Ohio Hub (including the 3-C) will use existing rights-of-way and maybe restore part of an abandoned right-of-way or two. Many station sites already exist, though a few need to be determined. As I understand it, 2010 is for just the Cleveland-Columbus (2-C) portion of the 3-C. The Ohio Hub is going to have to be built incrementally. It's too big of a project to go from zero to 8-10 daily 110 mph trains on the proposed corridors. Each corridor will probably start up with 2-3 daily trains at 79 mph, then be improved from there. P.S. Question for Noozer:, what happened to the www.ohiohub.com domain? The one above that replaced it is overly cumbersome.

Since the in-station ticket machines, or at least someof them, aren't working, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people not paying.

I used the corridor on 11/24 and experienced the wind whipping through the shelters too. I huddled in a corner. Another guy huddled between the ticket machine and the corner on the opposite end from me. I'm not an architect, but as narrow as the station platforms are (and I'm not complaining about the width, it's just a design reality), I don't know that very much could have been done. Although, I wonder if the curved roof overhangs as designed funnel wind into the stations. I was more disappointed to see that ticket machines still weren't working, the LED signs in some of the stations weren't providing next arrival information, and that I saw two Health Line buses back to back headed westbound (only a few blocks apart at CSU). (BTW, on my return trip I boarded the Red Line at UC and the LED sign there wasn't even on, and I've noticed sporadic operation of the LED sign at Brook Park RTS too). On the up side, the bus was packed. Standing room only and not much of that.

Blueprint of railways development By Xin Dingding (China Daily) Updated: 2008-11-17 13:50 In September and October, the Ministry of Railways announced eight new railway projects in various parts of the country. Their investment has added up to 405 billion yuan, equaling 78 percent of the total investment that China poured into railway construction from 2003 to 2007. In the past five years, the total investment for the railway infrastructure was 522 billion yuan, Minister Liu Zhijun told a working conference in January... http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-11/17/content_7211104.htm

Falling oil prices making you complacent? Think again... Yemen 'faces crisis as oil ends' By Martin Plaut BBC News Yemen is facing an economic and political crisis as the country's oil resources near exhaustion, a report by a London-based think-tank says. The Royal Institute for International Affairs warns that instability there could expand a zone of lawlessness from northern Kenya to Saudi Arabia... Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7739402.stm Published: 2008/11/20 11:36:35 GMT

^Are they saying what the rail project(s) will be?

Of course, that area of the country had more transit options even in 1989, and when that Oakland incident happened, it had even more. That helps.

^don't forget tires (there's more oil in them than the fluids). Lots of oil goes into the paint and painting process, and the plastic trim, and the upholstery, and all the plastic parts, etc.

Whether or not it's selfish is not what's relevant. It's whether or not it's sustainable, and it's not. I'd very much like to drive less, but there simply aren't other options for me to get to work without taking several hours more out of my day. Eventually, I'll be forced to change my employment as much as I don't want to (I've explained before somewhere on UO that moving closer to my current office location isn't feasible as it will force me to drive a lot more outside of my commute). Unless the governor forces state offices to move to transit-accessible urban cores, I'm screwed for the long term. We'll get oil-free cars, but don't expect any combination of them to allow us to continue driving as much we do now. We're all headed for less driving, like it or not.

Maybe, but he knows how to run a railroad. I'd prefer Skoropowski, but Rob1412 is right, the makeup of the board is going to have to change. I think that's the case even if Skoropowski is going to agree. No one knows when the terms expire?

I seem to recall when earthquake-damaged highways and bridges in California were closed (back in early or mid-1990s, maybe? I can't recall exactly), that they rebuilt them in record time. Construction crews worked 24/7 and the state offered bonuses for early completion. As I recall, they ran the numbers and determined that it was costing the state far more in lost economic activity to have this infrastructure closed that it was costing the state extra for the 24/7 crews and for the bonuses. Most things were re-built in a matter of months. Why couldn't the same approach work here?

When do the terms of the Bush appointees on the Amtrak board expire? My first choice for a replacement would be someone like Gene Skoropowski or Frank Busalacchi as Amtrak's CEO. Although, I wouldn't be opposed to bringing David Gunn back either.

The incoming Obama administration wants your input. Provide your vision for changing America's transportation system (or whatever else is on your mind): http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision

^You're right, but local communities also need to see it too.

^Nice presentation KJP. This presentation needs to go on the road around the state.