KJP,

 

79 mph is very high speed when compared to the 30-35MPH amtrak system that currently exists.

 

 

The map showing North Carolina isn't accurate. It doesn't show the existing Charlotte-Raleigh-Carey route. And the second route (proposed) between Charlotte-Raleigh would be a direct high-speed route serving primarily the endpoint cities to complement the existing, circuitous route (albeit enhanced with more frequencies and higher speeds) which serves numerous population centers along the way.

 

North Carolina gets what North Carolina is willing to do -- and to pay for. And so far, since 1995, they've spent $200 million in local, state and federal funds on improving and expanding passenger rail services in their state. Except for a few station projects, Ohio has spent nothing on expanding train services. Hopefully that will change under the Strickland Administration. But we still have a general assembly that greatly concerns me.

KJP,

 

79 mph is very high speed when compared to the 30-35MPH amtrak system that currently exists.

 

Huh??? Only in mountainous regions are Amtrak trains restricted to such lows speeds for any appreciable distance. Even here in Ohio, the normal cruising speed for Amtrak trains is 79 mph. Please earn your opinions.

KJP.... I have no idea on what basis they decided Ohio's corridors are rated no higher than 79mph.  All of the parties involved in the Working Group are well aware that the Hub Plan calls for 110-mph max speeds.

 

All... keep in mind that this is a proposal aimed at putting pressure on Congress and the Administration to seriosuly undertake development of a national passenger rail policy. So let's not fret over what is and isn't said in this.  The good news is that this group stood up (despite, I'm told, considerable pressure from the Administration and USDOT to play down the role of rail) and made a powerful public statement about why more and better passenger rail service is needed and a suggested strategy for getting there.

 

It is the cumulative voices adding to the chorus that will make the decision-makers in DC realize that significant action needs to be taken and to do anything less is not an option.

^

I would not get too hung up on those timelines. Things have a way of changing and this is a conceptual broad brush call for more passenger service. Meantime, you can bet the neocons will do their best to kill the plan or water it down with a flock of new busways or some other assorted nonsense.

 

 

One other thing about the report that I notice is the emphasis on certain corridors, with the assumption that most long distance or mid-range routes would remain basically unchanged. Possibly, this is the result of the report being driven by the states, without a real federal presence (just conjecture after having hastily skimmed the report).

 

I can't imagine that we would see the same once-a-day frequency on long haul routes when nearby corridors are developed. The New York-Chicago Lake Shore route for one, is a trunk route and if the 3-C Corridor is started, we will see calls for added service between Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago, as well as to the east, along with a development of overhead traffic.

 

One other comment on the timeline...will I really have to wait until 2050 for the rest of Ohio to get service??? I'll 101 by then!!!  :-D

KJP,

 

79 mph is very high speed when compared to the 30-35MPH amtrak system that currently exists.

Huh??? Only in mountainous regions are Amtrak trains restricted to such lows speeds for any appreciable distance. Even here in Ohio, the normal cruising speed for Amtrak trains is 79 mph. Please earn your opinions.

 

I think the disparity may be the difference between track speed limits and the average speed of trains from terminal to terminal. Even if a train runs on-time and makes the 79mph on most of the route, station dwell times for passenger loading and baggage handling, along with slower approach speeds through yards and terminal tracks, can really knock down the average speed.

 

And when passenger trains sit in sidings because of freight congestion, of course, that knocks the crap out of average speeds.

 

Service like topping off passenger-car water tanks or fueling locomotives can affect the average speed, too. When the Amtrak still ran on the B&O line across Indiana, they used to fuel the locomotives from a tank truck at Garrett. I think it had something to do with simplifying terminal logistics and power turnaround in Chicago, but did create a significant delay en route.

 

When watching corridor trains at Baltimore, I was impressed by how brief the dwell times were. The passengers seemed accustomed to moving quickly, and the conductors put the hurry-up on anyone who dawdled. It was quite a contrast with what I was accustomed to in the midwest, where boarding ten or twelve people seemed to take an eternity as they shuffled and bumbled around. Of course, the low-level, sometimes uneven, platforms don't help.

I read the report a bit more closely and while it is a huge step forward, there is a lack of national focus. One thing that should have been done was to identify long and medium distance corridors of national interest.

 

Here's a couple:

 

New York-Buffalo-Cleveland-Chicago

New York-Washington-N. Carolina/Florida

 

Note that these are really just a series of short distance corridors end to end, yet they tie together at least four of the mega-regions identified in the report, giving a start to a true national network.

The lack of a national focus is due to the lack of a national policy, which is the underlying message in what's being proposed by the Working Group.  Remember, the members of the group are largely from the states that are now either working on rail plans or actively running trains.  The working group's Chair, Frank Busallachi is Wisconsin DOT's Director and also the National Chair of States for Passenger Rail.  Gene Skoropowski of California's Captial Corridors is also a member of the groups, as is Patrick Simmons from North Carolina's DOT rail division.

 

I've contended all along that the reason you are seeing so much rail planning activity bubbling up from the states is at least due in part to decades of a lack of action on the part of successive Administrations, Congresses and USDOT's.  All they did was offer up Amtrak in 1971: good intentions but lousy execution and (sadly) that has become the "standard" for what passes for passenger rail in this country.

 

What the Working Group is saying is simply that we can, should and must do better. 

I think the disparity may be the difference between track speed limits and the average speed of trains from terminal to terminal.

 

I understand, Rob. But if you (or anyone) sit down and calculate all of Amtrak's trains in non-mountainous/rugged terrain, the long hauls (500 miles +) tend to average a bit more than 50 mph endpoint to endpoit. One of the exceptions is the westbound Southwest Chief, which averages 58 mph. Here's how Ohio's daily trains fare:

 

> Lake Shore Limited (NYC-CLE-CHI): 79-90 mph top speeds; 51.4 mph avg speed;

> Capitol Limited (WDC-CLE-CHI): 79 mph top speeds; 43.7 mph avg speed (non-mountainous half west of Pittsburgh has 50 mph avg speed);

 

Not stellar, but not 30-35 mph either. The maddening thing about train-riding in the U.S. is how often trains speed up and slow down BETWEEN stations. Even in Canada, when your train reaches top speed (typically 95 mph on short-haul corridors), they stay at or near top speed.

 

Some of the short-haul routes in the U.S. do better than the long-hauls with their endpoint-to-endpoint average speeds (routine top cruising speeds are in parenthesis)...

 

New York-Buffalo--55 mph (79 mph top speed);

Chicago-Carbondale--56 (79);

Chicago-Milwaukee--57 (79);

New York-Albany--60 (79/90);

Chicago-Quincy-- 61 (79);

Philadelphia-Harrisburg--65 (110);

Boston-New York (Acela)--66 (110/150);

New York-Washington DC (Regional)--67 (110);

New York-Washington DC (Acela)--80 (135);

 

That's why I took exception to the poster's statement. It has no basis.

I've contended all along that the reason you are seeing so much rail planning activity bubbling up from the states is at least due in part to decades of a lack of action on the part of successive Administrations, Congresses and USDOT's.  All they did was offer up Amtrak in 1971: good intentions but lousy execution and (sadly) that has become the "standard" for what passes for passenger rail in this country.

 

The saddest part is that the feds did the same thing with highways and then with airports/air traffic control -- take decades to catch up to what the state and local governments were doing with those modes to improve, modernize and expand their infrastructure. The first federal highway program was barely a blip on the railroads' radarin 1916 (not so coincidentally the same year the private railroad industry reached its peak route mileage) -- it would be another 40 years before the feds caught up to the turnpike projects in the Midwest/Northeast and the many local, short-distance and disconnected expressways built nationwide.

 

And even though commercial aviation grew exponentially after World War II, it wouldn't be until 1970 before the feds created the Airport & Airways Trust Fund to support a disconnected, uncoordinated network of air traffic control that resulted in a number of mid-air collisions in the 1960s.

 

I realize you know all this stuff, Noozer. I'm pointing this out to the other readers out there who wonder why our federal government is so slow to catch on with all the good things that an increasing number of local and state governments are doing with passenger rail development.

 

The answer is:  they're slow at damn near everything.

The lack of a national focus is due to the lack of a national policy, which is the underlying message in what's being proposed by the Working Group. 

 

Exactly. That's what concerns me. I know the background of those who put this report out and they have my admiration for doing it in spite of the idiots in the White House and their ideologue friends.

 

I'm just saying that even tho they represent states, they should think nationally and weave these corridors into a seamless multimodal system.

 

Another intersting thing for me is that the report gives us some idea of the magnitude of the task, which is especially relevant when we start talking about peak oil scenarios. In that case, we'd have to have a crash program to get the trains running much more quickly than the 2050 scenario the report has.

Another intersting thing for me is that the report gives us some idea of the magnitude of the task, which is especially relevant when we start talking about peak oil scenarios. In that case, we'd have to have a crash program to get the trains running much more quickly than the 2050 scenario the report has.

 

I agree. Our economy runs on oil, and as oil becomes more expensive, the money to pay for new and improved rail infrastructure will be harder to find. If we wait until oil availability reaches a crisis, we won't be able to afford the infrastructure to reduce our oil dependency.

New York-Buffalo--55 mph (79 mph top speed);

Chicago-Carbondale--56 (79);

Chicago-Milwaukee--57 (79);

New York-Albany--60 (79/90);

Chicago-Quincy-- 61 (79);

Philadelphia-Harrisburg--65 (110);

Boston-New York (Acela)--66 (110/150);

New York-Washington DC (Regional)--67 (110);

New York-Washington DC (Acela)--80 (135);

 

Thanks KJP, for this info in particular- very interesting.  Definitely not as slow as a lot of folks think.  Though not so competitive with other modes either.  That NY-Bos Acela run in particular is so frustrating- so few stops and still slower than off-peak driving, and not much faster than some of the non-Acela routes.

Even here in Ohio' date=' the normal cruising speed for Amtrak trains is 79 mph. Please earn your opinions.[/quote']

 

My only ride on the Amtrak was from Seattle to Vancouver and the average speed was around 35 MPH.  I'm sorry if I angered you, almighty KJP (grand wizard of the amtrak forum) with my ignorance.  I will stay out of your forum from here on out.

What the California Department of Transportation and Amtrak discovered was that a fast schedule wasn't the biggest factor in causing ridership to rise. Instead, it was the number of departure choices available. I'm not saying that CalTrans and Amtrak don't consider speed as unimportant. It just wasn't the biggest factor for travelers.

 

Consider that LA-San Diego travel time is about 2 hours, 45 minutes for a 128-mile route for an average speed of 46.5 mph. There are up to 9 enroute stations but 11 trains in each direction each day. Six trains per day each way travel beyond LA to Santa Barbara and three to San Louis Obispo (222 miles, at 5 hours and 35-40 minutes, for an average speed of 39 mph through some rugged terrain especially north of Santa Barbara).

 

Or, Bay Area-Sacramento travel time is about 2 hours for a 90-mile route and an average speed of 45 mph. There are up to 6 enroute stations but 16 trains in each direction each weekday (and 11 trains each way each weekend). Seven trains each way each day travel 43 miles south of Oakland to San Jose, covering that distance in an hour.

My only ride on the Amtrak was from Seattle to Vancouver and the average speed was around 35 MPH.  I'm sorry if I angered you, almighty KJP (grand wizard of the amtrak forum) with my ignorance.  I will stay out of your forum from here on out.

 

And so you assumed that, based on your experience on this one route, meant trains on the entire Amtrak system must operate at such low speeds? Good approach.

OK.... let me put my Moderator hat on here.  Let's cool it off a bit. We all know that everyone's got different perspectives on the subject and different experiences to draw from as far as Amtrak and how well or how poorly it performs.  Let's keep the dicsussion civil.

 

 

Got to keep the facts straight.

What the California Department of Transportation and Amtrak discovered was that a fast schedule wasn't the biggest factor in causing ridership to rise. Instead, it was the number of departure choices available ...

 

I agree. On-time performance is important, too, and it's achievable on corridor-type operations. Provide frequency and reliability, and the ridership will fill up just about all the capacity you can run.

 

There are some city pairs involving similar distances that have potential for strong ridership, but they're served only as segments of long-distance trains with poor on-time performance. I'm thinking of my own case, Fort Wayne - Chicago.

 

I make frequent Chicago trips, and despite the sparse service, higher prices and sometimes-inconvenient times, I'd still prefer to drive 20 miles to Waterloo for a comfortable ride on Amtrak than to drive a hundred miles in unpredictable winter weather to South Bend for a merely tolerable 2 1/2-hour ride on a South Shore commuter train. I'm working around scheduled appointments, though, and I know the South Shore trains will be within a few minutes of the timetable.

 

When Amtrak is late, the waiting room at Waterloo is your car in the ballast-rock-surfaced parking strip beside the low-level asphalt platform. Keep a mason jar in the car, 'cause there ain't no bathroom - not even a porta potty.

 

Yeah, I'm just grumbling.

And now the AAR does us (and them!) no favors with this kind of response.....

 

Dec. 7, 2007

AAR sees passenger rail plan as threat to freight

 

A statement by the Association of American Railroads, which is dominated by freight carriers, is harshly critical of a new federal report which it said "rests the future of passenger rail on the freight rail system."

 

"Piggybacking on privately owned and operated freight railroad assets will give America a third-rate passenger rail system, one that is not attractive to passengers or competitive with automotive and air travel," said AAR President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger. "It will place limits on the capacity of freight trail operations, creating delays for freight customers, forcing more freight onto our already overcrowded highways, and harming our economic and global competitiveness."

 

Hamberger added: "We support the development of high speed passenger rail like Europe and Japan, where dedicated high speed passenger rail corridors separate 200-mph passenger trains from 50-mph freight trains ... While we appreciate the study group's efforts, we hope that changes will be made that do not hinder the operations of America's highly productive, world class freight rail system."

 

The AAR statement responded to a report released yesterday by the Passenger Rail Working Group of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, chaired by U.S. DOT Secretary Mary Peters. The report proposed the investment of $8.1 billion a year for 45 years (a total of $357.2 billion) for improvements to the U.S. passenger rail system.

Not a huge surprise coming from the AAR.  But it is in stark contrast to what has been a steadily changing attitude from the individual freight railroads, most notably the NS, CSX and BNSF... which have not only become more passenger friendly but both NS and CSX issued letters of support for the Ohio Hub Plan. 

 

Hamberger has been around as long the "hamburger" and represents an old-order attitude toward passenger rail. The railroads are wanting infrastructure tax credits from Congress and are already fighting attempts at re-regulation.  Just my take, but they better be willing to show something in return and that something ought to be sharing and expanding corridors for moving more PEOPLE as well as freight.

If the AAR is supposed to be representing the railroads, then I hope the railroads give Hamberger "what for" on his reaction. But I can see the idealogues using Hamberger's statement to galvanize their opposition to supporting rail investments.

 

We (passenger rail, transit, new urbanism folks) must be having some success because I've sensed a lot of unease from the highway, oil, sprawl interests based on all the angry comments they've made in recent months.

I agree that we need a medium to long range plan for European-style high speed rail.  However, in you have to start incrementally with projects like the Ohio Hub in the short run.  It gets us usable service now and it starts changing travel behaviors before you start spending the big bucks on dedicated rights-of-way.  As you say, BuckeyeB --  the answer is in the middle. 

 

And you're right, it won't be cheap.  You get what you pay for.  I find it a colossal blunder that we're squandering the nation's treasure on a futile foreign policy financed by debt.  I mentioned once before in one of these threads that the $600 billion we've wasted in the Middle East the past 5 years would have built 24,000 miles of european-style high speed rail here at home  The economic activity generated by it would be immense and the energy security gained priceless.  I fear we won't learn until after we careen off the cliff into the abyss in which all empires eventually fall.   

Having ridden high-speed trains in four European nations, I'd love nothing better than to have that here. But the high-speed rail network comprises a very small portion of Europe's overall passenger rail network. Much of it shares tracks with freight trains, commuter trains and even local rail transit (light rail in some German cities, metro/subway in Greater London, etc.). If we're going to restrict passenger trains only to passenger rail-only rights of way, most of the United States will never be part of a passenger train renaissance. Unless there's a dozen or more round trips a day on a route, it's just not going to be economically feasible to have dedicated rights of way.

My sense is that there is still quite a bit of ROW no longer in service out there that could, with some investment, be used for passenger rail. Even if an ROW is not ideal it might be worth looking at to get the reliability that dedicated lines allow for. 

Actually there isn't as much stand-alone abandoned rail corridors as you might think.  Even the Rails to Trails Conservancy is acknowledging that and aiming their efforts at trails adjacent to rail corridors.  What's left is generally too cut up and redeveloped to be of any use.

 

That's why most plans for establishing or expanding passenger rail service are relying on the use of existing freight rail corridors, which (in many cases) don't have as much track as they once did, but the land is still intact to lay new track.

^we seem to have no qualms about buying up land to build and expand highways.  we need to start thinking the same way about rail.  Many former lines are cut up, but at some point, we're going to have to come to the realization that, for those former lines that are most useful for expanding passenger rail, we'll have to do what it takes to restore them.

I don't disagree, but we'd better go into it knowing that buying back some of this old and/or reclaimed right of way isn't going to be cheap.  A good case in point is the former Pandhanle Line going West from Columbus toward Inidanapolis, and especially through Richmond, Indiana to Indy itself.  Most of it's been bulldozed over or otherwise encrtoached upon.

^a situation like that probably would require looking for a new route.  And, of course it's not cheap.  Neither is buying up land for highways, but we keep doing it.  I'm just saying that we're going to reach a point where we're going to have to accept the cost-- provided the country doesn't go bankrupt first.

 

Having ridden high-speed trains in four European nations, I'd love nothing better than to have that here. But the high-speed rail network comprises a very small portion of Europe's overall passenger rail network. Much of it shares tracks with freight trains, commuter trains and even local rail transit (light rail in some German cities, metro/subway in Greater London, etc.). If we're going to restrict passenger trains only to passenger rail-only rights of way, most of the United States will never be part of a passenger train renaissance. Unless there's a dozen or more round trips a day on a route, it's just not going to be economically feasible to have dedicated rights of way.

 

I'm not saying we should have all dedicated rights of way.  I agree with BuckeyeB who said the answer is in the middle compared to what the AAR said in their release. 

A couple of additional points:

 

I view the state's proposal as a good starting point. That said, there are questions that should be resolved in a serious discussion about what a national rail passenger system should look like.

 

AAR overreacted to be sure, but looking at it from their point of view.."Oh Gawd, they want to live in MY house and they haven't even talked to me about it!" I can see where that are coming from. Let's not let their knee-jerk reaction color our views and reactions. They have their concerns. It's their house, so we have to take their views into account.

 

That was and is the beauty of the Ohio Hub plan. It makes partners of the railroads and that is the approach that should be taken when developing any national system.

 

 

Actually there isn't as much stand-alone abandoned rail corridors as you might think.  Even the Rails to Trails Conservancy is acknowledging that and aiming their efforts at trails adjacent to rail corridors.  What's left is generally too cut up and redeveloped to be of any use.

 

That's why most plans for establishing or expanding passenger rail service are relying on the use of existing freight rail corridors, which (in many cases) don't have as much track as they once did, but the land is still intact to lay new track.

 

That might be true in some cases, but not all. We have to flexible enough to adapt to any given situation. For instance, the abandoned Erie-lackawanna lines in NE Ohio could form the nucleus for a rail passenger network in that part of the state. In others, we will have no choice but to resort to enhanced, joint use freight/passenger corridors. In still others, we'll have build new. It just depends on the situation.

 

As far as dedicated tracks go, only a handful of lines would qualify for that, but they would form the trunk from which the other lines will grow. Among them:

 

> The Northeast Corridor

> New York-Buffalo-Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago

> (New York-Philadelphia-Harrisburg)-Pittsburgh-Cleveland and Toledo-Detroit

 

And maybe:

 

> Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati

> Chicago-Detroit

> Chicago-St.Louis

 

One thing that could be done would be to bring the railroads on as partners to develop high speed intermodal freight, thus taking on the truckers. Likewise, we could see a public/private partnership develop overnight business/coach/mail and express.

 

 

Dedicated intercity rail can easily be laid parallel to the interstate highways through the countryside.  If it's 100-200 feet to the east or west, overpass approaches but not the overpasses themselves have to be rebuilt.  At interchanges, buying out rural gas stations and fast food restaurants will not be especially controversial or expensive.  Even superchurches and large businesses situated adjacent to the interstates out in the country can be bought for relatively cheap or more often the line can simply jump to the other side of the highway for a bit.     

 

Approaches through suburbs are where things become much more complicated and where the retaking of old ROW's and running parallel to interstates on land taken by eminent domain becomes more controversial.  Columbus has several lines that run perfectly straight straight into downtown Columbus.  Meanwhile Cincinnati's lines are a congested mess.  There is no obvious low-cost, high speed approach to Cincinnati. 

 

 

Actually, one thing being looked at is diverting some or all freight traffic from one line to another, where possible.  This can also open up corridors for passenger rail.  The idea was actually floated by the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) in 1999-2000, when they proposed swapping the CSX Columbus to Galion rail line, divert that line's traffic through Marion and building CSX an intermodal yard near Marysville.

 

This would have opened that corridor for development of what was then COTA's light rail line with room left for possible future passenger rail service. 

 

The plan fell through, but only because COTA committed a tactical error in not asking anyoner in Marysville if they wanted an intermodal facility in their back yard.  But CSX was in favor of the plan and was ready to do the deal.

 

But let's get real about buying right of way, even if it parallels an Interstate.  Land acuisition is hugely expensive and that cost gets driven up by the cost of environmental mitigation and eminent domain procedure with those landowners who just don't want to sell.  It's nice to float ideas that seem do-able, but the reality is it's much more cost effective to use and expand an existing and active rail right-of-way.....

 

Here's a good example of what happens to abandoned r-o-w's.  The MacDonald's in Plain City sits directly on what used to be the double-track, main line of the Pennsylvania Railroad between Columbus and Indianapolis.  If you look past the sign advertizing the Double Filet of Fish, you can still see the spilt in the tree line where the rails once ran. 

Dedicated intercity rail can easily be laid parallel to the interstate highways through the countryside.

 

I was surprised when riding Eurostar, ICE and Thalys/TGV lines at how much of their rights of ways paralelled existing highways. For example, the line from Lille, France (near where the lines from London and Brussels joined) to Paris, we followed a highway almost the entire way (about 140 miles). When coming into/through cities and towns, I was also surprised how many tunnels were built. Some tunnels were built past small towns just to eliminate noise from the passing trains. But much was also done to build next to existing railroad lines through 2,000-year-old cities, with their land uses and topography that was at least as challenging as what any American city poses.

Land acuisition is hugely expensive and that cost gets driven up by the cost of environmental mitigation and eminent domain procedure with those landowners who just don't want to sell.  It's nice to float ideas that seem do-able, but the reality is it's much more cost effective to use and expand an existing and active rail right-of-way.....

 

Still, there is going to come a time when we're going to have to go with dedicated rights-of-way for some routes, just as Europe has done.  We have to get used to the idea that, yes, it's very expensive, but you get what you pay for.  Think of all the op-ed pieces over the years lamenting that we don't have what Europe has.  Well, Europe has it because they are willing to spend what it takes to have it. 

 

Here, we have to start with plans like the Ohio Hub.  But, that doesn't mean once the Ohio Hub is done, we shouldn't start making bigger plans for certain routes where dedicated right-of-way makes sense. 

 

Given the situation we're facing with peak oil, it is likely that we are going to end up with excess interstate capacity.  That might give us some rights-of-way for rail in some situations. 

 

Add in the problems air travel will face as oil supplies tighten and begin their permanent decline.  A lot of intercity travel is going to return to the rails, as is freight transport.  As these things converge, it's going to be a whole new ball game. 

 

I was surprised when riding Eurostar, ICE and Thalys/TGV lines at how much of their rights of ways paralelled existing highways.

 

Ever noticed that in the US, our highways often parallel current (or former) rail lines? 

>Land acquisition is hugely expensive and that cost gets driven up by the cost of environmental mitigation and eminent domain procedure with those landowners who just don't want to sell.  It's nice to float ideas that seem do-able, but the reality is it's much more cost effective to use and expand an existing and active rail right-of-way.....

 

Eminent domain was practically invented for the purpose of building railroads, any litigation will be much more orderly than the nonsense going on recently where cities have taken properties to sell to developers to build shopping centers. 

 

Obviously double-track railroads that used to be four tracks like what exists in Columbus are the obvious ways to go where they exist.  And if dedicated new intercity rail lines can be combined with new commuter rail service on these new routes then they become much more justifiable.  The TGV only travels at about 40mph max between downtown Paris and the airport station on freight tracks and parallel to commuter lines.  It's doing 150mph almost instantly outside the airport station.   

 

I was on Morse Rd. in Columbus this past summer and saw a modern diesel hauling two antique pullman cars at about 60mph south on the line that parallels I-71.  Luckily I happened to be getting on I-71 south and sped up to catch up with the train, which I followed for the five miles that parallel the interstate.  I had to drive 60-65 to keep up with it, it was exciting to see a train traveling that fast in the city, but heartbreaking at the same time!     

 

The TGV only travels at about 40mph max between downtown Paris and the airport station on freight tracks and parallel to commuter lines.

 

Perhaps you're referring to the TGV line via Orly Airport, because our train, even after the new line from Charles de Gaulle joined the Nord TGV line, was holding steady above 100 mph well into Paris and didn't seem slow to about 40 mph until we reached the throat tracks to Gare du Nord. Several times I've watched the tape I shot all the way into Paris, and our speed is quite evident.

I didn't buy the ticket so I don't know exactly which train I was on.  We definitely were not going fast in the city (although there could have been a delay of some kind).  There was a very long wait at Lyon, maybe 15 minutes (maybe they arrived ahead of time) and south of that point to the Spanish border was slow, hardly ever above 100mph.  I don't think any of that was on dedicated ROW and there were maybe six or eight stops and people appeared to be using it as a local train.  The line between Paris and Lyon of course is spectacular but there aren't any major destinations to the southwest of Lyon which explains the slower service.  I remember there being a large ridge just north of Lyon and the TGV traveled through its only tunnel here.  When you came out of the tunnel the weather and sunlight changed instantly from the dreary northern drizzle to the golden Mediterranean sunlight.  I remember too that the train charged up that grade without a whimper (in fact I've read that due to the high speed the trains mostly coast up these inclines), it was there where the incredible power of these trains was most evident.   

 

The ride between Parpignan, France and Barcelona is low speed (40-50mph) but nevertheless spectacular.  The line travels through about ten tunnels, popping out on cliffs above the Mediterranean Sea.  Tiny fishing towns cling to the hillsides here, totally inaccessible by road.

Ah, now it's making some sense. You approached the Paris metropolitan area on the Southeast Line, switched to a conventional line to Orly, and stayed on conventional tracks into the city. Did you come into Gare de Lyon or Gare Montparnasse?

 

Here's some maps I have that might help. Sorry for the huge images.

 

 

No, I didn't switch trains at all in France.  It was the same TGV train but as that map makes it a bit clearer it runs on conventional tracks along the coast.  So from Montpellier to Perpignan there are many local stops and it doesn't travel fast.  I stayed on the same train at Lyon, there was just a 15 minute stop where I'm assuming people could switch trains and the crew changed.  I wasn't paying close attention.  Right where that #18 is I remember there were these marshes where there were flamingos living out on what I'd describe as sand bars.  It's an arid landscape down there that looked a lot like Southern California.  At Perpignan you have to switch to a different train which is not a high speed and which travels with local stops to Barcelona.   

 

My one complaint about the TGV is the food.  It was incredibly wimpy and they made you carry your food back to your seat in a bag with dainty little handles.  I think it had vertical white and red stripes on it, like a gift bag or a purse.  What I would have given for a gyro wrapped in foil. 

I was referring to the train switching tracks/lines, not you switching trains.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 7, 2007 ATK-08-001

Amtrak Contact: Marc Magliari

312      880.5390

Ill. DOT Contact: Mike Claffey

312 814.3957

Sen. Durbin Contact: Joe Shoemaker

202 224.7028

Cong. Hare Contact: Tim Schlittner

202 225.5905  

 

AMTRAK RELEASES Feasibility STUDY OF STATE-SUPPORTED

RAIL SERVICE TO ILLINOIS QUAD CITIES

 

Host railroad negotiations and funding are needed to advance the plan

CHICAGO – Amtrak has completed a report requested by the Illinois Department of Transportation (Ill. DOT) that evaluates possible passenger train routes between Illinois Quad Cities (Moline-Rock Island) and Chicago.  This “Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, Quad Cities-Chicago” is also in response to a January 2007 town meeting in Rock Island, hosted by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who was joined by Amtrak and Ill. DOT representatives, labor officials and leaders from Illinois and Iowa.

In the report, the approximate cost of upgrading the railroad infrastructure to accommodate passenger train speeds is $14-to-23 million, over the shortest, fastest and least costly of the potential routes.  Not included in this figure are any capital expenses for railcars and locomotives, nor the local costs of providing stations.

Annual ridership on the route is estimated to be nearly 111,000 if improvements are made allowing maximum speeds of 79 mph, based upon two daily round-trips.

The annual state operating cost for the possible routes is in the $6-million range.  Quad Cities-Chicago travel times of about 3 ½ hours are possible and would be competitive with automobile driving, dependant on the choice of routes, agreements with host railroads and required infrastructure improvements.  Excerpts from the report and a map are attached.  An executive summary of the report is now/will be available this week on the Ill. DOT and Amtrak websites.

        “Amtrak and the State of Illinois have seen tremendous growth in passenger rail ridership since Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the Legislature increased funding for state supported routes in 2006," said IDOT Secretary Milton R. Sees. “These gains indicate there is a significant and growing demand for passenger rail service across the state. At a time when everyone is becoming more conscious of the need to conserve fuel, passenger rail moves people efficiently, helps reduce traffic and is good for our environment.”

        "Last year, we held a meeting that showed us that the Quad Cities are committed to bringing Amtrak back to the area,” said Sen. Durbin. “Today, we have a feasibility study that shows us that adding rail service between the Quad Cities and Chicago will give businesses and tourists a time competitive and convenient alternative to driving. Amtrak already provides quick, cost-effective, and reliable public ground transportation to 30 communities in the state – it's time to add the Quad Cities to that list."

        “The first passenger rail train pulled into the Quad Cities more than 150 years ago,” said Congressman Phil Hare (D-Rock Island).  “It’s time for it to return to this area. In addition to providing an affordable method of transportation between the Quad Cities and Chicago, our region could be an important gateway to Iowa City, Des Moines and Omaha as we continue to invest in transportation infrastructure.”

        Amtrak has never operated scheduled trains to the Quad Cities, which lost its Rock Island Railroad passenger rail service in 1978.  The feasibility report found the most promising route between the Quad Cities and Chicago would be over a portion of the former Rock Island Railroad now owned by Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS) from the Quad Cities to a proposed track connection to the BNSF Railway near Wyanet, Ill.

        The cost of restoring the entire former Rocket/Quad Citian route from Rock Island to Chicago via Joliet, Ill., is nearly quadruple the expense of the proposed IAIS/BNSF route.  It would attract an estimated 26,500 fewer passengers and use five carriers on a route estimated to be more than 90 minutes longer than the combination of IAIS and BNSF with Amtrak.

        The choice of the IAIS/BNSF route is also enhanced by taking advantage of recently improved Amtrak stations at Princeton, Mendota and Naperville, Ill.  Station stops would be determined by Ill. DOT, which has been working with Quad Cities leaders and their consultant on the best choice for a station location in the Moline-Rock Island area.

        “We look forward to taking the next step, which would involve negotiations with host railroads, development of detailed capital plans and funding requests,” said Alex Kummant, Amtrak President and CEO.  “This is the same procedure we laid out in the case of last year’s Amtrak report on restoring Ill. DOT-supported service to Rockford and Dubuque (Iowa).”

Later this year, in response to a request from Iowa officials, Amtrak will release a version of this report that considers the feasibility of extending the western terminus of this route from the Quad Cities to Iowa City.  Also this year, Amtrak will fulfill the Ill. DOT request for a feasibility report on providing state-supported service between Peoria and Chicago, which also lost its passenger rail service by the Rock Island Railroad in 1978.

 

        About Amtrak

        Amtrak provides intercity passenger rail service to more than 500 destinations in 46 states on a 21,000-mile route system.  For schedules, fares and information, passengers may call 800-USA-RAIL or visit Amtrak.com.

Train Unions in Accord

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

 

WASHINGTON — Amtrak and nine of its unions have reached a tentative contract agreement, according to industry experts, and plan to announce the settlement on Friday. A strike would have shut down Pennsylvania Station as well as cross-country trains and commuter service in California and the Chicago area.

 

Contracts covering 18,650 workers, about 58 percent of Amtrak employees, expired over several years beginning in the late 1990s. Amtrak and the unions followed steps laid out by railroad labor law, for negotiations, mediation and fact-finding, and the unions would have been free to strike on Jan. 30.

 

The settlement will be based on the findings of the three-member Presidential Emergency Board, issued late last year, according to people close to the negotiations, who declined to be named in advance of the official announcement.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/nyregion/18amtrak.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

Phwww.. that saves a big headache here in NYC..

2008 Passenger Rail Outlook

A shift in power in the White House could mean more dollars flowing into passenger rail coffers.

By Julian Wolinsky, Contributing Editor

railwayage.com

 

 

The future of passenger rail, both intercity and transit, looks bright for the foreseeable future as gasoline prices keep climbing, roads and airports become more congested, and the need to address climate change becomes more acute. The nation may well decide to shift its emphasis from highway building to rail expansion, a goal that can only be achieved with stronger political support, which may come following this year’s Presidential election.

 

http://www.railwayage.com/A/feature2.html

A shift in power in the White House could mean more dollars flowing into passenger rail coffers.

 

Not if McCain gets in.  He hates Amtrak.  Although in the senate he has said that he would go along with the will of congress on the issue. 

Gildone is right. McCain hates Amtrak and has treid to kill it or at least cut it back in the past. We would not see positive leadership on this issue from him and likely not from a couple other Repubs. The Dems are a question mark as well, since this is not a front burner issue with any of them, even tho there might be a vague awareness that we need to do "something."

 

We can't sit back and rely on the benevolence of the next president. We must make this a front-burner issue. Bill Clinton should have been a big supporter, but nothing much happened while he was in office.

 

This is a great article, tho. Well worth reading

David Bear: We must act now to save U.S. train transportation from extinction

Sunday, January 20, 2008

By David Bear, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

 

Is 2008 the year when Americans get back on track?

 

After a half a century of cutthroat competition from the country's highways and skyways, disregard from the federal government and disdain of the traveling public, the U.S. intercity passenger railway system is in tatters.

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08020/850098-51.stm

Update on my attempt to get some answers out of Voinovich regarding his vote on SB 294:

 

It has been a month since I e-mailed his transportation staffer asking again for a specific statement on his position.  I have yet to receive a reply.