Faster Amtrak trains once sidelined, now gaining suport

Saturday, September 13, 2008 9:52 PM CDT

By Scott Richardson

[email protected]

 

Cutting minutes from a train ride between Normal and Chicago is taking years.

 

In 2002, news reporters joined government officials on an Amtrak passenger train in Normal to race over shiny upgraded rails toward Pontiac at speeds reaching 100 mph and more. The trip was to preview the imminent approach of high-speed rail service in Illinois. Officials promised Amtrak would slash 20 minutes from the trip between the Twin Cities and Chicago.

 

Full story at:

 

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/09/13/news/doc48cc444259157440838195.prt

A New Era for Train Travel?

With high demand for passenger rail service, is it finally Amtrak’s moment to shine?

By James McCommons

americancity.org

 

On a broiling summer afternoon, passengers jammed the tiny Amtrak station in Longview, Texas. Having run out of chairs, they plopped on suitcases, fingered their tickets and looked glum. Outside, away from the air conditioning, more people stood in the shade of the building, smoking cigarettes and fanning themselves with newspapers. The northbound Texas Eagle was three and a haƒlf hours behind schedule, delayed by Union Pacific freight trains, mostly long “intermodals” of four locomotives and 100 cars carrying steel shipping containers stacked two high. Railroaders call these “Wal-Mart Chinese Doo-Dad Trains” because they carry consumer goods manufactured in Asia. 

 

Read more at:

 

http://americancity.org/magazine/article/a-new-era-for-train-travel/

National Association of Railroad Passengers

www.narprail.org

900 Second St., N.E., Suite 308

Washington, DC 20002-3557

Telephone 202-408-8362

 

For Immediate Release (#08-18)

September 16, 2008

Contacts: Ross Capon, David Johnson

 

Railroad Passengers Urge Presidential Candidates to Consider Train Investments

 

As the Presidential election season heats up, the National Association of Railroad Passengers has urged the campaigns of both major parties to make greater federal investments in our national passenger train system a key part of plans to address economic, environmental, and energy challenges.  NARP also asked “the candidates to make the same case to your colleagues on Capitol Hill” and to explain how the candidates, “as president, would ensure greater funding for passenger trains.”

 

In letters to Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ), NARP Executive Director Ross B. Capon noted that, “Passenger trains are one positive response to this confluence of national dilemmas,” of increasing oil prices and economic challenges.

 

“Americans are flocking to trains as airline and private vehicle travel becomes more expensive and less convenient.  July 2008 was the highest ridership month in Amtrak’s 37-year history, with 14% more passengers than in July 2007.  Individual routes recorded up to 43% even as Americans drove and flew less.  Similarly, domestic travel over the Labor Day weekend this year increased on Amtrak but declined on other modes.

 

“Amtrak is reaching capacity limits on its…inadequate fleet.  Federal policy must empower Amtrak to invest in a renewed, expanded fleet.  Amtrak will need at least $1.9 billion in Fiscal Year 2009 – including $100 million to repair sidelined rolling stock – to meet immediate growth needs.”

 

He also noted the superior energy efficiency of passenger trains—even with Amtrak’s aging fleet—and urged rapid expansion of the newly-created federal program to match state intercity passenger train investments. 

 

The letter noted that Congress last week quickly approved putting “$8 billion of general funds into the Highway Trust Fund and now is seriously considering a huge favored lending program for the Big Three [automakers].  Surely, therefore, Congress also can increase intercity passenger train funding by $600 million in fiscal 2009 and send S. 294 to the White House. 

 

“The highway and automaker efforts are understandable…but they reinforce dependence on energy-intensive automobiles and make it even more important for a balancing action that puts people to work building energy-efficient passenger train systems.”

 

The House and Senate both passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, a five-year passenger rail reauthorization, by veto-proof margins.  S. 294 authorizes a longer term funding framework, including more state matching grants.

 

The full text of the letter is available on the Association’s website,

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/to_the_2008_presidential_nominees/

 

About NARP

 

NARP is the largest citizen-based organization advocating for train and rail transit passengers. We have worked since 1967 to expand the quality and quantity of passenger train service in the U.S. Our mission is to work towards a modern, customer-focused national passenger train network that provides a travel choice Americans want. Our work is supported by over 24,000 individual members.

I have trouble understanding how Amtrak isn't more of a priority.  We have something like a 4 trillion dollar budget.  We spend billions in Iraq each week.  We spend billions upon billions on everything else, and Amtrak has to fight for $2 billion a year just to maintain?

 

We ought to give them $10 or $20 billion a year and charge them with expanding service.  Create a new railway boom, increase manufacturing and construction jobs, give us lasting structural advantages, etc.  It's insane that we would dump all of this money into roads and personal vehicles and not put a comparative dime into passenger rail when the demand is there and everyone claims our priorities are to use less oil and move people around more efficiently.

 

I realize I'm mostly preaching to the choir, but it just blows my mind how easy the solution seems and how loathe the pols are to make it happen.

Because good ideas don't necessarily provide much into campaign funds. Only established well-moneyed interests do.

I sent a letter to Jim Jordan, my congressman, about a month ago asking him to support transit funding and asking him why he voted against HR 6003. Here is his response:

 

Dear Mr. Lang:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.

 

H.R. 6003 passed in the House on June 11, 2008 and is presently awaiting a vote in the Senate. The bill increases taxpayer subsidies to Amtrak. Before the bill was passed, Amtrak already received 2 percent of federal transportation spending while carrying less than one half of one percent of the nation's intercity passenger traffic. A study of the per-passenger federal subsidy, as calculated by the U.S. Department of Transportation, demonstrates that Amtrak is subsidized at a rate of $210.31 per passenger per 1,000 miles as compared to $6.18 for commercial airlines.

 

Rather than demanding more efficiency, H.R. 6003 would sharply increase the taxpayer subsidization of Amtrak. Federal Amtrak spending would increase from $1.35 billion in 2008 to $2.2 billion in 2009 and $2.6 billion in 2010. The five-year cost of the legislation would be $12.8 billion, without a significant increase in the number of travelers using the system.

 

As a fiscal conservative, I am focused on restoring fiscal responsibility to Washington D.C. and relieving the tax burden on American families. Part of that equation is reducing wasteful spending from the federal budget. I voted against and Amtrak bill, and would have preferred a reform effort to improve Amtrak's performance rather than increase its subsidy.

 

I hope you will find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any other concerns or questions you may have. You can reach us by phone at (202) 225-2676, or by e-mail through our website at http://jordan.house.gov.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Jim Jordan

Member of Congress

Wow. That letter is so wrong it's unbelievable. These fucking neocons wouldn't know reality if Jesus told them what it was.

In other words: the glide path to poverty.

 

How does he explain more tax-paying Americans riding the rails these days...in record numbers? How, then, can he assume that the investment called for in the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act (now known as S-294) will not result in "a significant increase in the number of travelers using the system.".... when (despite a grossly underfunded budget) Amtrak ridership and rail ridership in general have done nothing but steadily increase at record levels?

 

I love how budget hawks like Cong. Jordan speak of "efficiency" and then refuse to takes steps to invest the greater funding that would enable this nation's passenger rail system to actually grow and become more efficient with better infrastructure, more "efficient" equipment and greater levels of service that would capture and even greater share of the travel market.

 

Worse, he never defines what "efficiencies" he would like to see.  By what standard does he want to see Amtrak's performance improve?  How many more new riders does he want to see stuffed into a passenger rail system that faces such a shortage of new equipment and can not (as a result) offer more and better service?

 

Oh....and what about his constituents who are looking around for options to $4.00 a gallon gasoline and have no choice but to drive?

 

BTW: Thanks for 1) writing Cong. Jordan and 2) sharing his response. 

I was so mad at his response, but I guess I already knew what he was going to say. I really would like to write him back and challenge what he said, but I don't know what to say. Also, Mr. Jordan is no longer my congressman (I moved to Kent and I am registered here). I really hope that he losses his place in congress, but I doubt he will. The man running against him is a former worker at AK Steel,  inexperienced in public policy/politics, and a democrat (the 4th district hasn't elected a democrat since the 1930's).

 

Should I write him back? If so, what should I say?

 

BTW, I believe I pointed out to him that more and more people are relying on public transit as gas prices rise, that the state and federal governments have not invested enough money in public transit, that many people's lives depend on transit, etc. The e-mail I sent him is saved on my home computer, otherwise I would share what I said.

Write a letter to Mike Carroll and have it postmarked on Nov 1st

Absolutely...write him back.  And copy his opponent.

KJP . . . I'm not sure neocons is the right word. In general the governing philosophy of neo-conservatives would support increased investment in rail and similar sorts of things. I think your ire is properly directly at conservatives more purely.

 

Neocon is simply a derogatory code word for Jewish at this point and carries with it a high level of anti-Semitism.

^

That's a new one. I hadn't heard that before and the term "neocon" has been in such wide use I find what you are saying hard to believe.

 

Let's just say that conservatives as a whole have been very slow to grasp the idea of and need for rail passenger service. They tend to think rail passenger service should be self-supporting when every other mode gets enormous subsidies, as witnessed by the $8 billion bailout of the highway trust fund.

 

I think the time is just about here when it won't matter what the policial persuasion is. We will have to invest in rail or the country will come to a standstill. The old paradigm is not working any more.

Quickly - the neo in neocon means new conservative as in they used to be liberals. Most broke with liberalism over anti-Communism and others over a constellation of issues related to the urban crisis - mostly law and order. In general, they are far more friendly to government investment - National Greatness Conservatism of the 90s was mostly supported by neoconservatives. They generally support infrastructure investment and similar ideas.

 

It was dirtied in the most 9/11 era with the issues over fopo rather than domestic policy.

Neocon is simply a derogatory code word for Jewish at this point and carries with it a high level of anti-Semitism.

 

That's a new one on me!

 

Neocon is simply a derogatory code word for Jewish at this point and carries with it a high level of anti-Semitism.

 

:wtf:  I never considered it such a term, but Wikipedia says it is, so it must be.  :) 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon

 

Seriously though, it means waaaayyyyyy more that that paragraph at the end of the article.  And I don't think of Jews when I label certain politicians and/or nitwits as Neocons.

Nor do I.

http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df09152008.shtml#Injured

 

Injured Trespasser Owes Rescuers

 

By Molly Mckay, Editor

 

We agree wholeheartedly with Boston Herald’s editorial “Chutzpah Hits the Rails” (September 13) on the frivolous lawsuit against Amtrak by a trespasser who almost got himself killed (DF: September 8 ). Citizens who love to blame someone else and then get paid for it when their own behavior gets them into trouble, are far too numerous in our litigious society.

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/2008_09_13_Chutzpah_hits_the_rails/srvc=home&position=also

My point remains that neocons are a particular group within in conservatism and not the crowd to cuss about things like funding Amtrak. Cuss libertarian conservatives, cuss paleo-conservatives, cuss conservatives, but the neocon thing just doesn't hold and it doesn't help ones argument.

Eh, conservatives all look/sound/write/opine alike to me....  :-D

This suit is not just frivolous, it is grossly unfair to Amtrak and should be thrown out. Is Amtrak responsible for a trespasser who gets himself so drunk he is not aware that a 25,000 volt wire could kill him?

 

They should hook him back up to the catenary. There are already too many stupid architects; he probably designs strip malls and big-box stores.

Can we dispense with the back and forth about neocons?  It is far off topic.

Unless it relates to their position on Amtrak, which is what we were discussing until we got "sidetracked" (nyuk, nyuk...) on what a neocon is.

Unless it relates to their position on Amtrak, which is what we were discussing until we got "sidetracked" (nyuk, nyuk...) on what a neocon is.

 

Yup! They derail every discussion and make it all about themselves! <giggle-snort>

 

Sorry. I just couldn't help it. I'll stop now.

 

Meanwhile, check out the Amtrak photos that I put in the Lancaster, PA post

Yes, let's get back on board the original train of thought. :roll:

CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION – TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE

Sept. 22, 2008 – 4:03 p.m.

 

Plans Form to Tie Amtrak, Rail Safety Measures

 

By Colby Itkowitz, CQ Staff

 

Senate and House aides are working to combine an Amtrak reauthorization bill and rail safety legislation, with the goal of passing the package before Congress shuts down for election season.

 

·    Complete Coverage: S 294 | HR 2095

 

The negotiators say combining the Amtrak (S 294) and rail safety (HR 2095) measures is the wisest plan for moving them quickly, especially because both chambers’ floor schedules are so crowded with major bills, including a bailout for the financial industry.

 

“There are more predictable things they are trying to get through quickly,” a Senate Democratic aide said.

 

Staff members have been working on a final Amtrak bill since the House passed its version July 22.

 

The rail safety measure, meanwhile, drew new attention after a Sept. 12 rail crash in Los Angeles killed 25 people. The bill is on the House schedule for as early as Tuesday, but aides said it will not be considered until the final package — including Amtrak language — is finished.

 

The biggest holdup on the Amtrak bill was a provision in the House-passed version to allow private companies to bid on construction of a high-speed rail line in the Northeast Corridor.

 

The argument during informal meetings was whether the Northeast, which is Amtrak’s most profitable line, should be bid first. Some senators said it made more sense to allow private companies to invest in struggling corridors elsewhere.

 

The House and Senate bills also have different lengths and funding levels. The House proposed $14.4 billion through 2013, while the Senate proposed $11.4 billion through 2012.

 

An aide said negotiators are near a deal.

 

In response to the California crash, which involved a freight train and a commuter passenger train, the rail safety measure is expected to require rail companies to equip their vehicles with positive-train-control sensors. Experts say such technology would have recognized a red stop signal that the passenger engineer apparently failed to notice.

 

The House passed the railroad safety bill by 377-38 on Oct. 17, 2007. The Senate passed an amended version Aug. 1, 2008.

 

Both versions of the legislation would reauthorize the Federal Railroad Administration, with the House bill reauthorizing it for four years, and the Senate version for six years.

 

The House bill would reorganize the agency, rename it the Federal Railroad Safety Administration and authorize $1.1 billion for its activities.

 

Both versions would increase the number of rail safety inspection and enforcement personnel.

 

They would also modify the hours-of-service requirements for rail workers. The House version would require that employees have at least 10 hours off per day and outlaw work shifts longer than 12 consecutive hours.

 

The Senate bill would require railroads to give time off to employees who are in limbo (such as the time during which workers travel to a point of release after their shift ends) for more than 12 consecutive hours.

 

Source: CQ Today Print Edition

Breaking News from the National Association of Railroad Passengers:

September 24, 2008

 

House and Senate conferees at long last have reached agreement on a combined

rail safety bill (including mandate for Positive Train Control) and Amtrak

re-authorization.  The latter is the Passenger Rail Investment and

Improvement Act featured in our January, June and July newsletters.

 

House passage is expected today, after which the bill (now H.R. 2095) would

go to the Senate, where a motion to concur with the House amendment (bill)

is expected. If an objection is raised (quite possible), 60 votes will be

required for cloture, that is, to end debate and allow a vote. Just to get

floor time to bring this up, therefore, depends on supporters' ability to

show leadership the 60 votes needed to shut off debate and allow a vote.

 

 

Please contact your senators' offices today or first thing tomorrow and

say something like this:   

 

-Please vote for a possible motion to agree with the House rail bill (H.R.

2095) and, if it comes to that, vote for cloture and, of course, also for

final passage.

 

-This legislation is long overdue in light of growing train ridership and

demand for more service, and in light of the terrible September 12

collisions in California. Such collisions likely would never happen again

following implementation of the Positive Train Control mandate in H.R. 2095.

 

 

Please send us an e-mail if your senator(s) is/are Republican(s) who clearly

indicate they will vote with us.

 

As information, the bill keeps many provisions from the House and Senate

bills, including the Senate' studies of restoring the Pioneer (serving

eastern Oregon and southern Idaho) and North Coast Hiawatha (southern

Montana and southern North Dakota) and the House's requirement for a plan

to restore service between New Orleans and Florida.

 

Given the time-sensitive nature of this issue, phone calls are necessary;

e-mails, letters, and faxes will not be relevant.  You may call NARP's

toll-free Congressional Action Hotline at 1-800-679-1581. When prompted

enter NARP's code: 1189.  If you choose to call, be sure do so during

normal Senate business hours, which are generally 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,

Eastern Daylight Time. Otherwise, you are likely to get a recording saying

that the office is closed. 

 

***

All Aboard Ohio note:

Sen. George Voinovich:  202-224-3353

Sen. Sherrod Brown: 202-224-2315

***

 

If you get a busy signal when you call, please hang up and try your call again in a few minutes.

Here is a link to video from today's debate on the House floor on the Amtrak legislation, at the end of which the House approved the Amtrak funding on a voice vote. It is 40 minutes long, which begins in mid-sentence from Transportation Committee Chairman Rep. Oberstar of Minnesota (the video is from 5:52 p.m. to 6:32 p.m.).

 

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/flash/player-time.html?start=2008-09-24%2017:51:40&stop=2008-09-24%2018:31:40&net=1

 

Here is a text summary of what transpired on the House floor, with the oldest information listed last (ie: read from bottom to top).....

 

6:32 P.M. -

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was the question of adoption of motions to suspend the rules which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.

 

H.R. 2095:

to amend title 49, United States Code, to prevent railroad fatalities, injuries, and hazardous materials releases, to authorize the Federal Railroad Safety Administration, and for other purposes

 

House agreed to Senate amendment with an amendment pursuant to H.Res. 1492.

 

H. Res. 1492:

providing for agreement by the House of Representatives to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2095, with an amendment

 

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.

 

 

5:52 P.M. -

DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 1492.

Considered under suspension of the rules.

 

Mr. Oberstar moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.

•Mandates positive train control (PTC) technology on rail main lines by 2015 (i.e., rail lines with passenger/commuter and certain trains carrying deadly hazardous materials).

 

•Authorizes $250 million in federal grants for PTC installation; expands a federal loan guarantee program for PTC and other rail infrastructure.

 

Please note this aspect of the bill. This will likely do away with the federal 79 mph passenger train speed limit on virtually every mainline railroad in the USA. Passenger trains are allowed to exceed 79 mph only where PTC or a similar technology exists. Now, every passenger rail route will have it (as will rail lines over which hazardous materials are shipped -- in other words darn near every rail line of any consequence).

 

After PTC is installed, the only things holding back passenger trains from exceeding 79 mph will be track conditions and the timing of grade crossing devices. Physical track conditions and federal worker safety laws would allow most mainline freight railroads which already host passenger trains to safely achieve top speeds of 90 mph. But road crossing signals (flashers and gates) need new circuitry that's timed for the approach of trains traveling above 79 mph. Also curve superelevation (banking) is often not sufficient to allow passenger trains to comfortably exceed 79 mph through curves. I say comfortably because the trains can go through turns at 79+ mph, but without enough banking, passengers will feel very uncomfortable and lots of stuff (luggage, drinks, etc.) will move laterally.

 

Since curve banking is of little benefit to the track-owning freight railroad, and because maintaining such banking is expensive and would fall entirely on the passenger service, there is another option. Funding is available in the Amtrak bill so Amtrak can order new trains. These trains need to be equipped with "tilt" technology that allows the trains to tilt through curves, providing passengers with the comfort that would otherwise be provided by the banked track.

 

Combined, these aspects could provide significant improvements in services, frequency and speed on U.S. rails in a few short years. Now all we need is the Senate to approve the legislation and Bush to sign it.

 

P.S. Consider the implications just on existing Amtrak services. A 60 mph endpoint-to-endpoint average speed is likely for Amtrak trains which have lots of 90-mph running. Thus, you could see these changes to existing Amtrak services to Ohio:

 

 

Cincinnati-Chicago (318 rail miles)

Current: ranges from 8hrs, 32mins to 10hrs, 25mins.

Potential: could be reduced to 5hrs, 19 mins (60 mph avg speed) to 6hrs, 22mins (50 mph).

 

Cleveland-Chicago (341 rail miles)

Current: ranges from 6hrs, 11mins to 7hrs, 5mins.

Potential: could be reduced to 5hrs, 41mins. (60 mph)

 

Cleveland-Pittsburgh (140 rail miles)

Current: ranges from 2hrs, 46mins to 3hrs, 5mins.

Potential: could be reduced to 2hrs, 20mins. (60 mph)

 

Cleveland-Buffalo (187 rail miles)

Current: ranges from 3hrs, 10mins, to 3hrs, 28mins. (3hrs, 12mins = 60 mph avg speed)

Potential: could be reduced to 2hrs, 52mins. (assumes 65 mph avg speed)

 

Cleveland-New York City (618 rail miles)

Current: ranges from 11hrs, 42mins, to 13hrs, 20mins.

Potential: could be reduced to 10hrs, 18 mins. (60 mph)

 

Amazing stuff. This increases track capacity and reduces operating costs. It could do wonders for Amtrak's bottom line.

Will Bush sign it?  Has there been a statement from the executive level regarding this bill?

Not sure. They hoped for more reforms. Yet none of the reforms reflect reality in a railroad operating environment (ie: they wanted to separate Amtrak's Northeast Corridor railroad right of way owners from Amtrak). The purpose, according Amtrak's previous president (who was fired for opposing Bush and Amtrak board members appointed by Bush), was strip Amtrak of its strongest asset and thus making Amtrak easier to kill.

 

Otherwise, Bush's transportation advisors have slammed Amtrak for its low market share, which they said must be remedied before offering to commit more money to it.

 

That's like the developmentally disabled man who cannot function on his own without expensive surgeries and medications, but the insurer demands he show progress first.

Cincinnati-Chicago (318 rail miles)

Current: ranges from 8hrs, 32mins to 10hrs, 25mins.

Potential: could be reduced to 5hrs, 19 mins (60 mph avg speed) to 6hrs, 22mins (50 mph).

 

I'd definitely take that over driving to Chicago every time.

I'm hearing President Bush will offer to veto the bill, but the veto likely won't stand up. Senator Brown will vote for it, but I'm hearing that Sen. Voinovich is sitting on the fence.

From All Aboard Ohio:

 

Dear Members and Supporters,

 

We still need critical calls into Sen. Voinovich's office to let him know

our support for the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008

and the Rail Safety Provisions passed by the House yesterday.  If you have

not already voiced your support for this important piece of legislation, now

is the time.

 

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 will allow for the

creation of a funding mechanism that provides states with 80% federal

assistance for rail projects.  Currently, no such provisions are available

to states.

 

Here is Sen. Voinovich's number to call: 202-224-3353.

 

This is the best chance we've had in years to improve our state's train

service. Let's make sure Sen. Voinovich knows we want to seize this

opportunity! 

 

 

Thank you,

Andrew Bremer

Executive Director

Will Bush sign it? Has there been a statement from the executive level regarding this bill?

 

Well, I'm not sure if we know a timetable yet on when it'll actually hit the president's desk.  Perhaps it could be January, after the buffoon is out of office?

Cincinnati-Chicago (318 rail miles)

Current: ranges from 8hrs, 32mins to 10hrs, 25mins.

Potential: could be reduced to 5hrs, 19 mins (60 mph avg speed) to 6hrs, 22mins (50 mph).

 

 

I'd definitely take that over driving to Chicago every time.

 

Might put Megabus on the ropes too.

 

Here is Sen. Voinovich's number to call: 202-224-3353.

 

 

Be sure to mention the bill # so they can find it quickly: House Resolution 2095

At minimum, ask for "cloture" then a supportive vote when the bill hits the senate floor. Do this today, please!

If you don't want to make the long distance call Sen Voinovitch's other offices' numbers are;

513-684-3265

216-522-7096

614-468-6697

740-441-6410

419-259-3895

 

I have a letter from his office on another issue on my desk right now and just copied off the bottom of his letterhead.

'Poor' freight-road practices key cause of Amtrak's OTP woes, inspector general says

Progressive Railroading

 

"Improper" dispatching practices and "poor operating disciplines" by host freight railroads are among the key reasons Amtrak is registering lackluster on-time performance (OTP) with some trains, according to a report issued earlier this week by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General.

 

 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news/article.asp?id=18077

Isn't there an issue with train length in some cases that screws up the priority rules?

 

I remember reading someplace that many sidings are now too short to accommodate the long freight trains that are common practice, but long enough to hold a typical passenger train, and that's why Amtrak trains sometimes end up in sidings as opposing freight trains pass.

 

Amtrak has never liked to operate on single-track lines, but the invasion of the bean-counters has resulted in the loss of a lot of double track. The obvious remedy would be to restore the double track, but failing that, creating longer sidings and updating signal systems would bring an improvement.

Not only longer trains, but more of them....and at a time when the US railroad map has undergone decades of shrinkage due to economic factors and consolidation of the railroads themselves.  Ohio had over 8,000 miles of active railroad track as recently as the early 1970's.  Today, it has slightly over 5,000 miles.  There is a huge need to put some of that back to accomodate the increase in freight traffic and create capacity for the critical need to move more pople by rail.

Cincinnati-Chicago (318 rail miles)

Current: ranges from 8hrs, 32mins to 10hrs, 25mins.

Potential: could be reduced to 5hrs, 19 mins (60 mph avg speed) to 6hrs, 22mins (50 mph).

 

I'd definitely take that over driving to Chicago every time.

 

What would the running time be for the 3-C Corridor? I'd bet 4:30 and if so, this would make the route very competitve. Same for every other route.

 

Note that if we add the Cleveland-Chicago and Cleveland-New York running times, we come up with a 16 hour New York-Chicago schedule, in essence going back to the schedules in the "good old days." We could do a lot with these running times.

 

Just imagine four daily 3-C Corridor schedules with this sort of running time!

The distance rail-wise from Cleveland to Cincinnati is 260 miles. So if 60 mph is the average speed, the running time would be 4 hours, 20 minutes. And that's via Dayton.

 

If you could get an average speed of 65 mph, the running time is four hours flat.

 

EDIT: but this is all academic if the Senate fails to invoke cloture and pass HR 2095 by a veto-proof margin. Unlike yesterday, where I got almost almost hourly reports of Senate activity, I haven't heard a peep all day today. That makes me a tad nervous....

Those speeds give increased significance to some numbers I heard years ago. One of my former bosses said that in the post-WWII era he frequently rode the Detroit Arrow between Fort Wayne and Detroit. The "Arrow" was a joint operation by the Wabash and PRR, meant to capture some of the lucrative traffic between Detroit and Chicago that the New York Central and Grand Trunk had pretty well sewed up.

 

The Wabash and PRR mainlines crossed in downtown Fort Wayne with an interchange track connecting them and the respective depots just a block apart, on either side of the interchange. The "Arrow" ran between Chicago and Fort Wayne over the PRR and between Fort Wayne and Detroit over the Wabash, pausing only to load/unload passengers in Fort Wayne while engines and crews were exchanged.

 

My former boss said that the train averaged 75mph portal-to-portal between the two endpoint cities, at the time the fastest passenger train schedule in North America over a comparable distance. That would have involved some blistering speeds through the flat, open countryside of northern Indiana and northwest Ohio.

Sen. Coburn (aka Dr. No) has got to go.....

 

From the NARP hotline:

 

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_572/

 

On Wednesday, the House passed by voice vote H.R. 2095 (technically passed as House Resolution 1492), the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 which includes (as “Division B”) the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008.  It incorporates both House and Senate provisions from S. 294.  Yesterday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) placed a hold on the bill, preventing an up-or-down vote in the Senate without cloture. 

 

Convinced that the bill has more than the needed 60 votes to override Coburn, senators are trying to persuade Coburn to drop his hold to spare everyone the extra time it would take to go through the cloture process.  Please urge your senators (particularly Republicans) to talk to Coburn about this. 

 

Cloture can only be filed for two bills at a time, and two such motions are pending.  After one of them is dealt with, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) may file a motion for cloture if Coburn has not released his hold.  It appears likely that the Senate will reconvene on Wednesday after Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year) so there may still be time to jump through the cloture hoop.  It is believed now that President Bush will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

 

Coburn, incidentally, was quoted in a Wall Street Journal article posted yesterday afternoon saying “Amtrak loses $2 billion a year subsidizing food.” That is a wild overstatement.  Amtrak’s total federal operating grant is only $475 million this year, down from $490 million in FY 06 and 07.  (See today’s blog entry  http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_572/)

 

H.R. 2095 requires installation of Positive Train Control by December 31, 2015, by all Class I railroads and intercity passenger and commuter railroads on all main-line track where passenger trains operate and where toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are transported.  The bill authorizes $250 million to assist with the process.  It directs the National Transportation Safety Board to create a Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance program modeled after a similar aviation disaster program.

 

NARP on Tuesday issued a news release that “called upon Congress and the Bush Administration, regulators, and the railroad industry to move ahead as quickly as possible with implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC).”

 

Other safety provisions in the bill relate to Hours of Service reform, locomotive cab safety, minimum standards for training railroad workers, certification of conductors and study of certification for certain other crafts, and various provisions relating to track, grade crossing and bridge safety.

 

It authorizes $13.06 billion over five years for Amtrak and passenger rail programs, includes the State Capital Grant program, and expands the provision for private bidding to build high-speed rail to potentially apply to any corridor in the country.  It preserves route study provisions from both the House (requiring Amtrak within nine months to submit a plan for restoring service between New Orleans and Florida) and the Senate (compelling Amtrak to study the feasibility of reinstating the North Coast Hiawatha and Pioneer routes).  Amtrak would also have to study increasing frequencies between Princeton Junction, NJ and Philadelphia, and between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, as well as increasing service and/or reducing commuter ticket prices at Cornwells Heights, PA, and reinstating the Capitol Limited stop at Rockwood, PA.

 

Finally, H.R. 2095 authorizes $1.5 billion for ten years of capital funds for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

 

For more information, see the House T&I news release, a bill summary (http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Rail/Summary%20Rail%20Safety%20and%20Amtrak.pdf), and the full bill text (http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Rail/Rail%20Safety.pdf).

 

The Senate, and possibly the House, will be in session this weekend and potentially next week to work on a continuing resolution to fund the government past the end of Fiscal 2008 (which ends September 30) with a continuing resolution, potentially pass a bill dealing with ailing financial markets, and pass other pending bills such as H.R. 2095.

 

A second economic stimulus package failed in the Senate this morning by falling short of the 60 votes needed for cloture.  Had it passed, Amtrak would have received $350 million for capital projects and a slice of $10.8 billion for general infrastructure.  Transit, which also would have qualified for infrastructure funds, would have received $2 billion in addition.

 

The House is still expected to take up its own stimulus bill this week.  It would include $500 million in capital for Amtrak and $3.6 billion for transit.

 

Please urge your Senators and Representative:

 

to approve $1.9 billion for passenger trains in Fiscal 2009—the Amtrak request plus $100 million to put more cars back into service;

to include passenger trains in any new stimulus bill or energy bill; and

to give final approval to H.R. 2095.

 

Go to our Action Alert center for full details...  http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/main/act

Tomorrow is the big day. The amendment to HR 2095 referred to provides for an enactment date for railroad safety legislation. HR 2095 is also the reauthorization of Amtrak with major capital improvements of passenger rail service nationwide, including in Ohio. If you haven't called Senator Voinovich yet to ask him to support cloture on HR 2095, please do so before 12:30 p.m. If cloture isn't invoked, then there will be no Senate vote on the bill. See below....

 

 

http://www.senate.gov/galleries/pdcl/index.htm

 

Message from the House with respect to H. R. 2095 (Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007).  Motion to concur with the House amendment to the Senate amendment.  Sen. Reid filed cloture on the motion to concur with the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill. The vote on the cloture motion will occur at some time on Monday, September 29, 2008.

 

The Senate will convene at 11:00 AM on Monday, September 29, 2009.  The Senate will proceed with a period of Morning Business until 12:00 PM.  The Senate will then resume consideration of the Motion to concur with the House message to H. R. 2095 (Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2007).  At 12:30 PM, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur with the House Message to the bill.

Voinovich's office number: 202-224-3353

Thanks for posting that. You all still have a little bit of time left to call. If you get a busy signal, please call Voinovich's office back.

We may have 62 votes for cloture (60 is needed). I'm holding my breath and crossing my fingers.

The cloture vote on HR 2095 passed with 69 yes votes!!!  The bill will now go to the full Senate for a floor vote.

 

Sen Brown voted "yes"

 

Sen. Voinovich voted "no"