I'll bet my new Acelas start running before your relaxed FRA regulations are approved. :)

I'll bet my new Acelas start running before your relaxed FRA regulations are approved. :)

 

I bet you $100 they will be changed by then. 

Not as long as the freight railroads and the rail unions run the STB and FRA.

I'll bet my new Acelas start running before your relaxed FRA regulations are approved. :)

 

From what I've read the Acela II's are going to be developed pretty much concurrently with the next Tier of FRA crash standards. The goal of the new standards is to allow Amtrak to buy more of an off-the-shelf high speed train set without all the expensive structural modifications.

The weight is important, but what is even more important to me is whether these trains can fully use their tilt mechanisms. The extra-wide Acela trains prevent their full use and was a major construction flaw. Ironically, Amtrak wanted the trains to be a certain width, but did not discover they were four inches too wide until the trains were under construction. Too late. That cost Amtrak the ability to travel between New York and Boston in less than three hours. Most Acelas travel Boston-New York in 3 hours, 35 minutes.....

 

Amtrak must provide Boston-to-New York service in under three hours. It was more than an arbitrary benchmark. Marketing experts said that travelers would consistently choose to fly, even with the added costs and inconveniences of traveling to airports and waiting for flights, over train rides lasting longer than three hours. And bankers demanded that Amtrak reduce its train times to receive financing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/national/24acela.html?pagewanted=print&position=&_r=0

Nice story (video) by Bloomberg TV on Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman....and a great message from Boardman that we have to stop thinking small when it comes to the development of passenger rail in the United States.

 

Watch the video at:  http://www.bloomberg.com/video/the-man-keeping-amtrak-on-track-d7uk1TuISNyWvw_aMlexqQ.html

Not as long as the freight railroads and the rail unions run the STB and FRA.

 

Alot of Rail Union leaders Ive spoke with hate the Regulations as they hurt the smaller RR's and Passenger , alot of workers hate them aswell.    Big Freight really isn't the problem , its typical Washington BS...  If these rules were Europeanized then the smaller companies would be allowed to grow and get back into Passenger , and other things same with big freight.

Alot of Rail Union leaders Ive spoke with hate the Regulations as they hurt the smaller RR's and Passenger , alot of workers hate them aswell.    Big Freight really isn't the problem , its typical Washington BS...  If these rules were Europeanized then the smaller companies would be allowed to grow and get back into Passenger , and other things same with big freight.

 

And a lot of the rail labor unions I've spoken with don't like lightweight trains, especially self-propelled trains (or even push-pull trains) where their control cabs are exposed to heavy damage from collisions with trucks at grade crossings. They prefer locomotives that have a nose and front windshield that is recessed behind an indent in that nose. Furthermore, they want the locomotive cab to be a reinforced cage surrounded by crumple zones so engineers can survive all sorts of impacts.

I'll bet my new Acelas start running before your relaxed FRA regulations are approved. :)

 

From what I've read the Acela II's are going to be developed pretty much concurrently with the next Tier of FRA crash standards. The goal of the new standards is to allow Amtrak to buy more of an off-the-shelf high speed train set without all the expensive structural modifications.

 

exactly.

Not as long as the freight railroads and the rail unions run the STB and FRA.

 

the NEC is Amtrak owned ROW, why would freight railroads have a say in what runs on it. 

 

It is time for the FRA to move into the 21st century and realize that the best way to survive a train collision is to avoid it.  Lighter higher performance rolling stock means reduce stopping distances.  If we redo the mistakes with Acela again, We risk being stuck with expensive and under performing rolling stock for another 20 years.

 

 

Amtrak doesn't own all of the NEC. The State of New York owns the section from Shell Junction at New Rochelle, NY east to the state line. And Connecticut owns the section from the state line to New Haven, CT. And even on the portions Amtrak does own, the freight railroads will continue to operate over the NEC because there are freight customers to serve. Amtrak can't block them out, although they do charge NS and other freight carriers exorbitant trackage rights fees to get all of the through freights off the NEC, but that's moreso to ensure ride quality. As long as some freight is allowed on the NEC, Amtrak must run trains that can survive a collision with them. It would be great if we could guarantee a failsafe system to avoid train collisions. But that system will never exist.

 

Perhaps the best option is to require freight trains to stay below a certain weight. Amtrak charges freight railroads by the car-mile. So NS and other railroads load their freight cars to the max, making them heavier. A better option might be for Amtrak to charge by the ton-mile. Or better still, by tonnage per axle which could be measured by trackside equipment. That could encourage freight railroads to run lighter trains, thereby reducing the need to survive collisions with extra-heavy freight trains while also ensuring good ride quality for high-speed passenger trains.

Amtrak doesn't own all of the NEC. The State of New York owns the section from Shell Junction at New Rochelle, NY east to the state line. And Connecticut owns the section from the state line to New Haven, CT. And even on the portions Amtrak does own, the freight railroads will continue to operate over the NEC because there are freight customers to serve. Amtrak can't block them out, although they do charge NS and other freight carriers exorbitant trackage rights fees to get all of the through freights off the NEC, but that's moreso to ensure ride quality. As long as some freight is allowed on the NEC, Amtrak must run trains that can survive a collision with them. It would be great if we could guarantee a failsafe system to avoid train collisions. But that system will never exist.

 

Perhaps the best option is to require freight trains to stay below a certain weight. Amtrak charges freight railroads by the car-mile. So NS and other railroads load their freight cars to the max, making them heavier. A better option might be for Amtrak to charge by the ton-mile. Or better still, by tonnage per axle which could be measured by trackside equipment. That could encourage freight railroads to run lighter trains, thereby reducing the need to survive collisions with extra-heavy freight trains while also ensuring good ride quality for high-speed passenger trains.

 

we cannot go on like this, this must chnage.

 

We don't build airplanes to survive crashes into larger airplanes, we built systems to prevent the crashes from taking place.

 

With PTC that can prevent crashes why must we continue to build trains for an era hat no longer exists.

 

If this continues what will California do with the mix traffic of diesel Amtrak trains built to FRA Bluff standards, and the high-speed trains which should be off the shelf high speed trains to keep cost down and meet the acceleration requirements.

 

we have had this conversation before the stadards are stupid, they don't increase safety, they just increase cost, a boon for train manufactures.

we cannot go on like this, this must chnage.

 

We don't build airplanes to survive crashes into larger airplanes, we built systems to prevent the crashes from taking place.

 

That's a little different than a train, which doesn't need to get airborne. And when a plane goes from 500 mph to 0, there is no chance of anyone surviving no matter how strong you build the plane around them. So why bother trying to build a plane that will require a 10-mile runway and thousands of gallons of diesel fuel to get airborne?

 

But you can address crashes by trains into each other (which can be reduced but never 100% prevented as ATS systems fail, brakes fail, other equipment fails). And then crazy things happen that require stronger trains, including on high-speed lines:

> crashing into fixed objects (see the German ICE Eschede bridge crash in 1998, or when an ICE hit a large herd of sheep in a tunnel and derailed in 2008 -- yes sheep!);

> natural disasters (like the Chinese high speed train in 2011 that was halted on a bridge by a lightning strike that shorted out the signal system and caused a second train to crash into it -- yes lightning!), or landslides which are destructive by themselves, but imagine if this happened on a double-track section when Amtrak's Empire Builder or Cascadia trains or one of Sounder's commuter trains rolled by this derailing freight train (the fun starts at 1:00)....

 

 

So we build trains tough because there's always something strange and bizarre that can cause a train crash...

 

With PTC that can prevent crashes why must we continue to build trains for an era hat no longer exists.

 

As long as humans build and operate trains, there will be crashes, collisions and accidents. Humans are factories of the next unthinkable mistake.

we cannot go on like this, this must chnage.

 

We don't build airplanes to survive crashes into larger airplanes, we built systems to prevent the crashes from taking place.

 

That's a little different than a train, which doesn't need to get airborne. And when a plane goes from 500 mph to 0, there is no chance of anyone surviving no matter how strong you build the plane around them. So why bother trying to build a plane that will require a 10-mile runway and thousands of gallons of diesel fuel to get airborne?

 

But you can address crashes by trains into each other (which can be reduced but never 100% prevented as ATS systems fail, brakes fail, other equipment fails). And then crazy things happen that require stronger trains, including on high-speed lines:

> crashing into fixed objects (see the German ICE Eschede bridge crash in 1998, or when an ICE hit a large herd of sheep in a tunnel and derailed in 2008 -- yes sheep!);

> natural disasters (like the Chinese high speed train in 2011 that was halted on a bridge by a lightning strike that shorted out the signal system and caused a second train to crash into it -- yes lightning!), or landslides which are destructive by themselves, but imagine if this happened on a double-track section when Amtrak's Empire Builder or Cascadia trains or one of Sounder's commuter trains rolled by this derailing freight train (the fun starts at 1:00)....

 

 

So we build trains tough because there's always something strange and bizarre that can cause a train crash...

 

With PTC that can prevent crashes why must we continue to build trains for an era hat no longer exists.

 

As long as humans build and operate trains, there will be crashes, collisions and accidents. Humans are factories of the next unthinkable mistake.

 

FRA Standards may have actually made both crashes ( china 2011, Germany 1998) Worse not better. first all passive used by FRa relyis on brut foce to protect passensger and

 

Here is an interesting link on what FRA standards do.

 

http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/03/fra-standards-and-historical-crash.html

 

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/fra-stonewalling/

 

the idea is that mass of 700ton passenger train is better off than a 500 ton passenger train vs a 15,000 ton coal train.  furthermore the idea that heavier can substitute for a well designed impact management system.

 

the irony is that those lighter passenger train do a better jobs dissipating crash energy than the FRA standards mandate.

 

 

here is what modern crash protection can do in a car.

 

 

If FRA rules were so effective why doesn't the US have a better safety record, than China? becuase in comparative rail safety chins has one death per 55.3 billion passenger-km while the US has one death per 3.4 billion passenger-km.

 

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/comparative-rail-safety/

 

all this begs the question do these standards make Us safer, or simply waste money that could be better spent on things like PTC and better braking performance, not simply buff strength. 

 

 

 

FRA standards don't apply in China or Europe. What kinds of accidents are included in the data you cited and are they consistent between countries? And are we sure that everything gets reported openly and accurately in China?

 

I don't want to keep arguing this because it's really not an issue for me. That doesn't mean it's not an issue, but it's just not one for me. In the battle for better passenger rail service, there are many fights in front of us. This is not one of them as other states have moved forward in spite of this issue. I think we can too. So once we have a rail service with imperfections, then we fix them.

The reality is that the FRA standards are enshined as a safety measure. Virtually no official would want to change them and have some accident occur on his or her watch. It's important to also note that the 800,000 lb. buff strength test and anti climbers were a result of a tragic series of accidents where cars telescoped into each other, causing a massive loss of life in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

 

That said, we have to be careful that regulation don't become even more stringent, pushing up costs and weight of the cars. One recommendation that came out of a grade crossing accident in Nevada, where a trucker crashed into a train at 83 mph, killing 5 passengers, because of driver inattention, was that railcars should be made stronger to withstand side impacts (which would make the even heavier and costlier). How about keeping dumb truck drivers off the tracks?

Check out this White House-provided petition and share the link with others too...

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/modernize-rail-network-high-capacity-grade-separated-electrified-system-serve-freight-and-passengers/q7K7YTNy

 

The reality is that the FRA standards are enshined as a safety measure. Virtually no official would want to change them and have some accident occur on his or her watch. It's important to also note that the 800,000 lb. buff strength test and anti climbers were a result of a tragic series of accidents where cars telescoped into each other, causing a massive loss of life in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

 

but in practice the Fatality Rates of US passenger Trains is still much higher than every other industrialized country.

 

 

the numbers just don't proof that addition buff strength saves lives. going by the data if they don't save lives why shouldn't change the standards.

 

That said, we have to be careful that regulation don't become even more stringent, pushing up costs and weight of the cars. One recommendation that came out of a grade crossing accident in Nevada, where a trucker crashed into a train at 83 mph, killing 5 passengers, because of driver inattention, was that railcars should be made stronger to withstand side impacts (which would make the even heavier and costlier). How about keeping dumb truck drivers off the tracks?

 

with 79mph plus speeds the law mandates intrusion detectors  and full perimeter gates at every grade level crossing, and higher than 125mph all grade level crossing be removed.  On the TGV there are sensors along the line to detect intrusion and if intrusion is detected the PTC causes the train to stop. Within minimum stopping distances of the rolling stock.

 

The irony of FRA standard are that on train like Acela, each car has two bogies, not the more common shared bogie configuration in other countries, his has two effects increases weight and increase the likely hood of lateral buckling or jackknifing during collisions, which in turn creates the need for Anti jackknifing reinforcement for the train which increase weight far in excess of simply using a shared bogie.

 

for some reason Americans think they have the market cornered on train safety, and are un yielding on getting those standards in line with countries with much better safety

records.

The reality is that the FRA standards are enshined as a safety measure. Virtually no official would want to change them and have some accident occur on his or her watch. It's important to also note that the 800,000 lb. buff strength test and anti climbers were a result of a tragic series of accidents where cars telescoped into each other, causing a massive loss of life in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

 

but in practice the Fatality Rates of US passenger Trains is still much higher than every other industrialized country.

 

 

the numbers just don't proof that addition buff strength saves lives. going by the data if they don't save lives why shouldn't change the standards.

 

That said, we have to be careful that regulation don't become even more stringent, pushing up costs and weight of the cars. One recommendation that came out of a grade crossing accident in Nevada, where a trucker crashed into a train at 83 mph, killing 5 passengers, because of driver inattention, was that railcars should be made stronger to withstand side impacts (which would make the even heavier and costlier). How about keeping dumb truck drivers off the tracks?

 

with 79mph plus speeds the law mandates intrusion detectors  and full perimeter gates at every grade level crossing, and higher than 125mph all grade level crossing be removed.  On the TGV there are sensors along the line to detect intrusion and if intrusion is detected the PTC causes the train to stop. Within minimum stopping distances of the rolling stock.

 

The irony of FRA standard are that on train like Acela, each car has two bogies, not the more common shared bogie configuration in other countries, his has two effects increases weight and increase the likely hood of lateral buckling or jackknifing during collisions, which in turn creates the need for Anti jackknifing reinforcement for the train which increase weight far in excess of simply using a shared bogie.

 

for some reason Americans think they have the market cornered on train safety, and are un yielding on getting those standards in line with countries with much better safety

records.

 

Yep. Good luck changing the situation.

The reality is that the FRA standards are enshined as a safety measure. Virtually no official would want to change them and have some accident occur on his or her watch. It's important to also note that the 800,000 lb. buff strength test and anti climbers were a result of a tragic series of accidents where cars telescoped into each other, causing a massive loss of life in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

 

but in practice the Fatality Rates of US passenger Trains is still much higher than every other industrialized country.

 

 

the numbers just don't proof that addition buff strength saves lives. going by the data if they don't save lives why shouldn't change the standards.

 

That said, we have to be careful that regulation don't become even more stringent, pushing up costs and weight of the cars. One recommendation that came out of a grade crossing accident in Nevada, where a trucker crashed into a train at 83 mph, killing 5 passengers, because of driver inattention, was that railcars should be made stronger to withstand side impacts (which would make the even heavier and costlier). How about keeping dumb truck drivers off the tracks?

 

with 79mph plus speeds the law mandates intrusion detectors  and full perimeter gates at every grade level crossing, and higher than 125mph all grade level crossing be removed.  On the TGV there are sensors along the line to detect intrusion and if intrusion is detected the PTC causes the train to stop. Within minimum stopping distances of the rolling stock.

 

The irony of FRA standard are that on train like Acela, each car has two bogies, not the more common shared bogie configuration in other countries, his has two effects increases weight and increase the likely hood of lateral buckling or jackknifing during collisions, which in turn creates the need for Anti jackknifing reinforcement for the train which increase weight far in excess of simply using a shared bogie.

 

for some reason Americans think they have the market cornered on train safety, and are un yielding on getting those standards in line with countries with much better safety

records.

 

Yep. Good luck changing the situation.

 

thank you. I'm am confident things will change.

The reality is that the FRA standards are enshined as a safety measure. Virtually no official would want to change them and have some accident occur on his or her watch. It's important to also note that the 800,000 lb. buff strength test and anti climbers were a result of a tragic series of accidents where cars telescoped into each other, causing a massive loss of life in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

 

but in practice the Fatality Rates of US passenger Trains is still much higher than every other industrialized country.

 

 

the numbers just don't proof that addition buff strength saves lives. going by the data if they don't save lives why shouldn't change the standards.

 

That said, we have to be careful that regulation don't become even more stringent, pushing up costs and weight of the cars. One recommendation that came out of a grade crossing accident in Nevada, where a trucker crashed into a train at 83 mph, killing 5 passengers, because of driver inattention, was that railcars should be made stronger to withstand side impacts (which would make the even heavier and costlier). How about keeping dumb truck drivers off the tracks?

 

with 79mph plus speeds the law mandates intrusion detectors  and full perimeter gates at every grade level crossing, and higher than 125mph all grade level crossing be removed.  On the TGV there are sensors along the line to detect intrusion and if intrusion is detected the PTC causes the train to stop. Within minimum stopping distances of the rolling stock.

 

The irony of FRA standard are that on train like Acela, each car has two bogies, not the more common shared bogie configuration in other countries, his has two effects increases weight and increase the likely hood of lateral buckling or jackknifing during collisions, which in turn creates the need for Anti jackknifing reinforcement for the train which increase weight far in excess of simply using a shared bogie.

 

for some reason Americans think they have the market cornered on train safety, and are un yielding on getting those standards in line with countries with much better safety

records.

 

Yep. Good luck changing the situation.

 

thank you. I'm am confident things will change.

 

I hope you are right. I just hope we don't go in the wrong direction with regs that add costs and weight to rolling stock (again, referring to that crash in Nevada).

 

Hotel developers eye high-speed rail hubs

19 December 2012

By Alissa Ponchione

Editor

[email protected]

 

REPORT FROM THE U.S.—While the development of a high-speed rail system in the U.S. is still in the beginning stages, the project—once completed—is likely to enhance connectivity, grow the economy and increase travel, sparking interest from hotel developers who will be looking to accommodate the inevitable influx of travelers across the rails.

 

Nancy Johnson, executive VP of development at Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group, said high-speed rail would be responsible for the “evolution of hotel locations,” connecting airport locations and high-speed rail stations to urban centers and suburban or rural locations along the track.

 

Johnson said hotel development that follows the evolution of high-speed rail could parallel Kemmons Wilson’s creation of the Holiday Inn hotels in the 1950s. By taking advantage of the then-budding U.S. highway system, Wilson put up hotels in areas that were once inaccessible to travelers. Johnson said the she predicts the same could happen for high-speed rail.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/articles.aspx/9583/Hotel-developers-eye-high-speed-rail-hubs

Bloomberg: Amtrak Seeks Safety Changes to Allow U.S. Bullet Trains

 

 

Amtrak will recommend new U.S. rail- safety regulations to allow it to replace its Acela trains in the Northeast U.S. with lighter, faster equipment, Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman said.

 

U.S. crashworthiness standards force Amtrak to use trains that have locomotives on both ends and are slower and heavier than bullet trains used in Europe and Asia, Boardman said in an interview. Those standards reflect that U.S. passenger trains often share tracks with freight railroads rather than operating on their own lines.

 

Amtrak Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman said, “What we’re really looking for is a performance specification here.” Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

 

Existing standards apply to trains traveling as much as 150 miles per hour (241 kilometers per hour). Writing new rules that relax railcar structural-strength requirements for faster trains “would allow for less use of fuel, quicker acceleration, a different performance profile,” Boardman, 64, said. “What we’re really looking for is a performance specification here.”

 

This is probably bigger news out of that article:

 

Amtrak will be up for reauthorization by Congress in 2013, as the railroad’s chief critic in the House, Florida Republican John Mica, relinquishes his seat as chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee due to term limits.

 

Representative Bill Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican who has said taxpayer subsidies for Amtrak are inevitable, will assume the panel’s chairmanship this month.

This is probably bigger news out of that article:

 

Amtrak will be up for reauthorization by Congress in 2013, as the railroad’s chief critic in the House, Florida Republican John Mica, relinquishes his seat as chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee due to term limits.

 

Representative Bill Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican who has said taxpayer subsidies for Amtrak are inevitable, will assume the panel’s chairmanship this month.

 

Politicians come and go, but these FRA rules have been around for almost a century.

 

the thing is most people become fixated on people when the real changes in passenger the last 5 years has been reforming the procurement process of Amtrak, the standardization of rolling between Amtrak and other rail operators has allowed even regional railroads to save on procurement costs which make increases in service possible.

 

When you look at the FRA rules, these rules were developed by the bureaucrats with very little influence from politicians.  these rules on high speed trainsets are deal breakers they could double or triple the cost of each trainset over international rates, plus the maintenance rules for DMU or EMUs are overburdensome and ineffective in some cases at improving safety.

 

Amtrak with acela, purchased a train that failed to meet the performance objectives, has maintenance issues, and comfort issues, fundamentally  if advanced HSR is going to come to the USA, We have to change the way we write rules for passenger trains.  If we don't we will never be able to afford the system we desire, and people like mica will have won.

The U.S. Senate confirmed Christopher Beall and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke as new members of Amtrak's board, Amtrak announced today. They will serve five-year terms.

 

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Senate-confirms-two-Amtrak-board-members--34649

 

http://www.rollcall.com/news/shuster_strengthen_our_transportation_network-220493-1.html

 

Shuster: Strengthen Our Transportation Network

An efficient infrastructure allows U.S. businesses to be competitive in the global marketplace

By Rep. Bill Shuster

Jan. 2, 2013, 7:37 p.m.

 

Federal passenger and freight rail safety programs expire in 2013. This reauthorization will provide an opportunity to look for more cost-effective and innovative approaches to delivering modern and efficient passenger rail service. Our success will require Amtrak, labor and Congress Republicans and Democrats coming to the table and working together. If done right, what has been a liability in the past can become an asset generating American jobs and economic development in the future.

This is probably bigger news out of that article:

 

Amtrak will be up for reauthorization by Congress in 2013, as the railroads chief critic in the House, Florida Republican John Mica, relinquishes his seat as chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee due to term limits.

 

Representative Bill Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican who has said taxpayer subsidies for Amtrak are inevitable, will assume the panels chairmanship this month.

 

Politicians come and go, but these FRA rules have been around for almost a century.

 

the thing is most people become fixated on people when the real changes in passenger the last 5 years has been reforming the procurement process of Amtrak, the standardization of rolling between Amtrak and other rail operators has allowed even regional railroads to save on procurement costs which make increases in service possible.

 

When you look at the FRA rules, these rules were developed by the bureaucrats with very little influence from politicians.  these rules on high speed trainsets are deal breakers they could double or triple the cost of each trainset over international rates, plus the maintenance rules for DMU or EMUs are overburdensome and ineffective in some cases at improving safety.

 

Amtrak with acela, purchased a train that failed to meet the performance objectives, has maintenance issues, and comfort issues, fundamentally  if advanced HSR is going to come to the USA, We have to change the way we write rules for passenger trains.  If we don't we will never be able to afford the system we desire, and people like mica will have won.

 

I'd suggest that you write to the Federal railroad Administration with your concerns. I'm sure they are aware of this problem and might be looking at solutions. No question, this is a problem that pushes up costs. The trick is balancing these concerns with public safety.

 

It's no coincidence that some wags call the Acela the "Lead Sled." It was overweight, overpowered for their short consists and was built three inches too wide, which meant it could not tilt as much as it would have otherwise, for fear of hitting a train on a parallel track or high level platforms.

Biker16...I'd futher suggest that you talk to Ross Capon at National Association of Railroad Passengers...he may have some insights for you.

Ask and ye shall recieve!!! See the link:

 

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/high-speed/amtrak-to-seek-fra-approval-for-lightweight-high-speed-trains.html?channel=523

1/10/2013 10:00:00 AM   

 

Amtrak's 2013 agenda features infrastructure, equipment and high-speed upgrades

 

Today, Amtrak officials outlined the railroad's agenda for 2013, which includes infrastructure upgrades, new equipment and high-speed rail advancements.

 

The projects will include completion of the Northeast Corridor's (NEC) Niantic River moveable bridge replacement; delivery of the first units of new equipment orders for 70 electric locomotives and 130 single-level long-distance passenger cars; expansion of Acela Express high-speed service; and the initiation of a process to acquire next-generation high-speed train sets, Amtrak officials said in a prepared statement.

 

"Amtrak continues to advance and invest in projects that provide both near-term benefits and long-term improvements for the effective delivery and reliability of intercity passenger rail service," said Amtrak President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman.

 

Read more at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/prdailynews/news.asp?id=34817

Since Amtrak's first full year, ridership has doubled (from 15.8m to 31.2m) and subsidies are halved (from $800m to $416m, adjusted for inflation)! Meanwhile federal highways received $53.3 billion in Congressional bailouts since 2008.....

 

Amtrak's annual losses at lowest level since 1975

JOAN LOWY , THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

POSTED: Thursday, January 10, 2013, 11:46 AM

 

WASHINGTON - Amtrak's fiscal 2012 operating loss was the lowest in nearly 38 years, which is a sign of progress, Joseph Boardman, the railroad's president and CEO, said Thursday.

 

The $361 million loss for the year ending Sept. 30 was down 19 percent from the previous year. The last time Amtrak losses were less was 1975.

 

In a conference call with reporters, Boardman also laid out an agenda for this year that includes delivery of the first of 70 new electric locomotives and 130 long-distance passenger cars, expansion of the Acela Express high-speed service in the Northeast with an additional New York-Washington round trip, and beginning the work necessary to acquire new high-speed trains.

 

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20130110_ap_amtraksannuallossesatlowestlevelsince1975.html#ixzz2Hgrjq4JK

Advisory group hopes to keep Lafayette Amtrak going

Updated: Monday, 21 Jan 2013, 10:27 AM EST

 

LAFAYETTE, Ind. (WLFI-TV) - Some community members continue to work to make sure a rail line that stops in Lafayette doesn't disappear later this year.

 

The federal government announced last year it would stop funding shortfalls on rail lines that are less than 750 miles long. This means the Hoosier State Line, an Amtrak line running daily between Chicago and Indianapolis with a stop in Lafayette, could stop running in October.

 

The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) was expected to pick up the slack in funding, but has not agreed to do that yet. But, INDOT has agreed to conduct a study.

 

Read more at:  http://www.wlfi.com/dpp/news/local/advisory-group-hopes-to-keep-lafayette-amtrak-going

CNN’s Vermont rail story went way on the wrong track

by Jon Margolis | January 31, 2013

 

Editor’s note: Jon Margolis is VTDigger’s political columnist.

 

Thanks to CNN, Vermont got a journalism lesson this week as the cable network devoted eight minutes and 38 seconds to a special report on the state’s stimulus-funded rail improvement project, one of the regular “keeping them honest” features on the “Anderson Cooper 360” program.

 

Alas, it was a very bad journalism lesson because it was very bad journalism presented by people apparently unaware of the irony of claiming to be “keeping them honest” dishonestly.

 

Which is not to say that its point of view was incorrect. Points of view may be wise or unwise, but almost by definition they are not incorrect. The segment’s bias was obvious, but biased journalism can be defended. Its advocates prefer to call it “advocacy journalism,” and there is a place for it.

 

CNN has not generally been considered one of those places, but that’s the network’s business. If it wants to undertake an ideological crusade – in this case arguing that the $10 billion spent nationally (about $52 million in Vermont) to improve passenger rail service is a boondoggle – more power to it. In this case, a responsible, accurate, honest report might have been persuasive. But a responsible, accurate, honest report was nowhere to be found.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://vtdigger.org/2013/01/31/cnns-vermont-rail-story-went-way-on-the-wrong-track/

BTW, I that article is worth sharing. Sadly this same M.O. went on during the 3C rail debate, and few Ohioans learned that there was a private sector partner willing to provide the operating subsidy. The same thing is going on today on with the Cincinnati streetcar project, where lies are spread unchecked and context is missing. As someone who has a 20-year career in journalism, I know we can do better.

Saturday, February 02, 2013

Competitive bidding for corridor passenger rail service in play

Written by  Frank N. Wilner

 

Among priorities of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee is reauthorization of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), portions of which are a growth hormone for state-subsidized intercity passenger rail corridors that are separate from Amtrak’s long-distance network, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, and commuter rail operations.

 

State-subsidized passenger rail corridors currently number 27 in 19 states—all fewer than 750 miles long and all now operated by Amtrak under contract with states.

 

PRIIA, intended to remediate highway congestion, allows states to apply for federal grants (primarily from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) of up to 80% of the cost of corridor capital improvements—infrastructure and equipment—to increase train speeds and improve passenger train service quality.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/frank-n-wilner/competitive-bidding-for-corridor-passenger-rail-service-in-play.html?channel=&utm_source=WhatCounts+Publicaster+Edition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CN%2c+CP+end+litigation%2c+Indian+freight+corridor+contract+awarded&utm_content=Full+Blog

Let's make this happen STAT!

 

https://sites.google.com/site/californiarailmap/us-high-speed-rail-system

Visualizing How Poorly Amtrak's Route Network Serves Most of the U.S.

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/02/visualizing-how-poorly-amtraks-route-network-serves-most-us/4620/

 

Other states suffer from a similar routing problem. Ohio, though crossed by regional routes on its northern and southern borders, has no train at all connecting the state's major cities. It has one-fifth the passenger train traffic of neighboring Michigan

 

Looking at this positively, the juxtaposition indicates some areas (Ohio, Texas) ripe for additional rail travel. It also makes it clear why the Obama administration has tried to garner support for a high-speed rail proposal in Florida, whose population density ought to make it the East Coast mirror of the Seattle-Portland line. In the future, the Atlanta-Raleigh corridor could be another potential target.

 

And then there are cities like Houston or Cincinnati that have train stations, but are stuck with second-rate service and third-rate connections.

Remember this "Ohio -- In The Dark Of It All" map I made? The travel times through Ohio haven't changed much since 2006....

 

 

 

And why hasn't the above map changed since 2006, and why won't it change much in the next couple of years?

 

NOTE: the lighter-colored states haven't received any federal grants for developing or planning passenger rail improvements. The darker-colored states have.

Amtrak to drop free coach pillows

By Bob Johnston

Published: July 15, 2013

 

WASHINGTON – Beginning Aug. 1, Amtrak will no longer offer complimentary pillows to overnight long-distance train coach passengers. Instead, the company will sell a “passenger comfort kit” in café cars for $8. The kits, which an internal passenger service advisory says would be marketed as a “keepsake,” will include an inflatable pillow, blanket, earplugs, and an eyeshade.

 

Though railroads usually supplied pillows to coach passengers on premier overnight trains, most carriers imposed reserved coach seat service charges (Southern Pacific tacked on “pillow service” at a “nominal charge” as another extra fee). Once Amtrak began assimilating the disparate operating practices, extra charges were dropped, but pillows remained. In 1976, an Amtrak coach attendant who worked the overnight New York-Montreal Montrealer remembers passing out full-size sleeping car pillows with paper pillowcases, but these were replaced with smaller airline-style pillows a few years later. Free distribution has continued until now.

 

With virtually all long-distance trains sold-out, most passengers cannot spread out over more than one seat and find it hard to maneuver the tiny pillow currently offered into a position where it actually provides some support. The reusable inflatable pillow, mask, ear plugs, and blanket are better suited to today’s crowded coach conditions (where air conditioning often blasts away), but succumbing to the temptation to withdraw the free pillow option especially in peak season now puts Amtrak squarely in the airlines’ extra-charges camp.

 

The decision to sell the kits in café cars will also exacerbate the chronic lack of on board storage situation. Too often, the lead service attendant has paperwork spread out over one table and supplies on another, while conductors commandeer a third, all at the expense of lounge space that is especially important to passengers when trains are jammed. On some Amfleet II cars configured for “diner lite” operation, only two tables are routinely available. Perhaps a better option would be to assign the items to coach attendants that could dispense them at all hours, but this would run afoul of Amtrak Inspector General Ted Alves, who recently told a Congressional panel that Amtrak should drop all cash sales and establish tighter inventory controls.

 

The company can point to this initiative as a way it is trimming costs just as the U.S. House is crafting an Amtrak reauthorization proposal. Presumably, any logistical issues will be worked out over the initial implementation period, but withdrawing free pillows as the first tangible operating change to long-distance trains is an inauspicious beginning for transitioning to a new structure that separates them from other services.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/07/Amtrak%20to%20drop%20free%20coach%20pillows.aspx

Thursday, July 18, 2013   

 

Amtrak gains riders with disabilities in first half, acknowledges need for more accessibility improvements

 

Amtrak's ridership among passengers with disabilities increased 20 percent in the fiscal year through June compared with the same FY2012 period.

 

Since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law in July 1990, Amtrak has taken "significant steps" to improve the travel experience for riders with disabilities, from trip planning to purchasing tickets to stations to equipment and onboard services, Amtrak officials said in a press release.

 

In addition, over the past four years, Amtrak has improved accessibility at more than 200 stations, including repairs and upgrades to platforms, ramps and sidewalks, and renovated entrance ways and restrooms.

 

Other Amtrak accommodations for passengers with disabilities include accessible seating and restrooms, and bedrooms in all long-distance trains. Also, Amtrak is the only mode of intercity transportation that provides a discount to passengers with disabilities and their companions, railroad officials said.

 

Read more at:  http://www.progressiverailroading.com/prdailynews/news.asp?id=36864

Criticism of Amtrak's new engines as being heavier and slower than necessary.  Some of the commenters to the story strongly disagree, however.

 

http://observer.com/2013/07/amtraks-fat-expensive-and-slow-new-northeast-corridor-locomotives-arrive-for-testing/

 

Criticism of Amtrak's new engines as being heavier and slower than necessary.  Some of the commenters to the story strongly disagree, however.

 

http://observer.com/2013/07/amtraks-fat-expensive-and-slow-new-northeast-corridor-locomotives-arrive-for-testing/

 

 

This is really a BS article. The guy complains about heavier electric locomotives for the Northeast Corridor than European versions and rants about our more stringent crash standards. A freight train in Europe is very light, about 30 small cars, while a US freight can be a mile long and weigh 10,000 tons. We have to be careful about relaxing our standards, tho it could be done.

 

This article pretty much flies in the face of critics (Cong. Mica, et al) who off-handedly slam long distance trains by saying no one rides them.  The oil-field workers in Montana might disagree.

 

Number of train passengers rises with the oil boom

 

LARRY MAYER/Gazette Staff

 

Riding the train to work used to be a big-city, East Coast deal.

 

Now it’s the commuting choice of hundreds of oil workers along the Hi-Line of Montana heading to high-paying jobs in the Bakken oil fields.

 

“The people who ride the Empire Builder to work the Bakken come from as far west as Spokane and as far East as Minneapolis,” said retired Amtrak engineer Chuck McMillan of Helena, who keeps close tabs on trains crossing Montana.

 

Ridership on Amtrak’s famed Empire Builder into and out of Williston, N.D., the epicenter of the boom, increased from 29,920 in 2011 to 54,324 last year. That’s a jump of of 82 percent.

 

However, those numbers aren’t clear comparisons because severe flooding in 2011, especially in Minot and Devils Lake, N.D., stopped the Empire Builder for days at a time, cutting deeply into passenger counts.

 

 

 

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/business/number-of-train-passengers-rises-with-the-oil-boom/article_9e6effef-e6c5-551b-a3c5-ba69a3909bbc.html#ixzz2a4ntmhOq

Criticism of Amtrak's new engines as being heavier and slower than necessary.  Some of the commenters to the story strongly disagree, however.

 

http://observer.com/2013/07/amtraks-fat-expensive-and-slow-new-northeast-corridor-locomotives-arrive-for-testing/

 

 

This is really a BS article. The guy complains about heavier electric locomotives for the Northeast Corridor than European versions and rants about our more stringent crash standards. A freight train in Europe is very light, about 30 small cars, while a US freight can be a mile long and weigh 10,000 tons. We have to be careful about relaxing our standards, tho it could be done.

 

 

FWIW, the article specifically addresses this, pointing out that the US rules apply even where freight traffic is sparse or non-existent (e.g., the LIRR).  The locos in this article are for the NEC and Keystone.  I don't know about the Keystone, but are there lots of long freight trains on shared NEC tracks during passenger running hours?  I certainly don't see many north of NYC, but maybe there are some south of NYC.

FWIW, the article specifically addresses this, pointing out that the US rules apply even where freight traffic is sparse or non-existent (e.g., the LIRR).  The locos in this article are for the NEC and Keystone.  I don't know about the Keystone, but are there lots of long freight trains on shared NEC tracks during passenger running hours?  I certainly don't see many north of NYC, but maybe there are some south of NYC.

 

Much freight traffic south of New York runs at night. I have seen freight trains in daylight hours north of New York -- especially Providence & Worcester although CSX is common on the Hell Gate line as CSX has Oak Point Yard east of the bridge.

 

Indiana can’t afford to let Amtrak derail

Indiana is facing a decision that must be made very soon, one that will impact our economic health and business climate for manyyears.

 

At stake is the fate of passenger rail service between Indianapolis and Chicago. Gov. Mike Pence soon will be deciding if Indiana will invest in continued regional connectivity and increased opportunity, or revert to an increased dependence on auto travel.

 

Congress is requiring that Amtrak discontinue its shortdistance routes unless the affected states pay for them. All of the states with shortdistance routes have agreed to do so, except Indiana.

 

Every aspect of commerce in Indiana is increasingly connected outside of our borders, with markets, trade, job creation, and financial activity linked in ways that affect consumers and the businesses that employ them. Research is clear that transportation improvements can improve economic growth by leveraging access to out-of-state markets.

 

Read full editorial at: http://indianapolisstar.in.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=0ae1d27b7

Pretty cool video of the latest locomotives that will soon join the Amtrak fleet.

 

I finally uploaded a video I shot on my phone at Kingston, Rhode Island while on my New England vacation a couple weeks ago....

 

Yawn. Another monthly ridership record......

 

Amtrak Sets Monthly Ridership Record

POSTED BY RYAN HOLEYWELL | AUGUST 14, 2013

 

Amtrak officials announced today that it set an all-time monthly ridership record in July, with more than 2.9 million passengers riding its trains.

 

The milestone was the second time in just four months that it set a monthly record. Previously, it's busiest month ever was March, when it had just over 2.8 million riders.

 

"Amtrak is delivering record ridership across the country and serving as an economic engine to help local communities grow and prosper," Amtrak President and CEO Joe Boardman said in a statement.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.governing.com/blogs/fedwatch/gov-amtrak-sets-monthly-ridership-record.html