Amtrak Bill Has Passed The Senate!

[Tokkyu40]

To run 500 kph reliably you would have to convert to maglev.
Current trains can hit 500 for short stunts on specially prepared rail, but they're close to the technical limits.
The Chuo Shinkansen will have a service speed of 500kph, including stops, so the peak normal operating speeds will have to be between 600-700 kph. In America, that could almost make air travel obsolete.

Claude

 

[rjhowie]

Just a pity that America is so far behind Gt Britain and Europe in passenger rail travel especially when you consider the former history of trains over there.

 

[JCitron]

Just a pity that America is so far behind Gt Britain and Europe in passenger rail travel especially when you consider the former history of trains over there.

That's because the country did first what Britian started to do under BR, and that was to start eliminating and discouraging service. Now that we've ripped up tracks, severely cut back services and lines, ruined everything through severe budget shortfalls, people are now prorail. If they had left everything like it was, and helped the railroads instead of discouraging them, we would still have decent service.

IMO it's all too little and too late to bring Amtrak up to modern standards like th rest of the world has.

John

 

[rjhowie]

Much truth in what you say there JCitron.

Even with the savage cuts when the railways were State run via BR we still managed to come out a bit better nationally than across the pond. Really is quite sad when you see the level of passenger services in the States due to plane and car, etc. Even more so when you look at what used to be it is a terrible reduction. Everywhere else is seems that rail is on the progresive way and the US lagging well beind. The only other place that has had savage loss and is a tiny country is Ulster which lost nearly 80% of it's rail due to the takeover being run decades ago by bus orientated people in the then UTA. The present day N.I.R. is doing a good job with what is left and has seen numbers up 34% due to more trains and more modern ones at that. Rail seems to have been treated as a poor relation to be put up with in America. Here in Scotland the railway has well over 2,000 passenger trains a day and lines re-opened.

 

[illinoiscentral]

How about highspeed between Chicago & St.Louis, we all know Dick Durbin wants it Obama will too.

 

[PerRock]

I'd take a DTW-->CHI-->STL

peter

 

[Ferrous]

DTW=Detroit?

But I agree, CHI-STL needs to be a high-speed corridor.

 

[PerRock]

DTW = Detroit. I only say that really because I would live on that line.

My thoughts on Amtrak Lines

peter

Edit: I should mention that I made that map a while ago and after looking at it; there are some big changes in it I wish to do...

 

[kmothersil]

I decided to bring this back from the dead, even though it's only been a couple of weeks.

 

[Klinger]

DTW = Detroit. I only say that really because I would live on that line.

My thoughts on Amtrak Lines

peter

Edit: I should mention that I made that map a while ago and after looking at it; there are some big changes in it I wish to do...

Run the route that comes up through Denver (heading North) all the way to through Fort Collins, to Cheyenne. Might even be worth while to run it West to Laramie, which is a College town

 

[Gandalf0444]

Although the U.S. is lagging behind in times as far as Railroading goes,I could really careless about speed,and for our railroads are just fine,for me I'd rather be able to see the train to take pictures of it other then at stations,and if I was on it I would like to be able to see what we are passing. And for me we DO NOT need to go 200mph,sure it's a cool feeling and everything,but it will ruin the feel of train travel forever. Trains are meant to run slow(especially though the beautiful areas) so you can take in the scenery and just travel back in time. If we are going 200mph+ how can we take advantage of that? And honestly sad that we get looked down upon for it,what if we didn't give a damn and liked it the way it was? And much of us didn't care about it until gas prices went through the roof,and economy fell through the floor.

 

[Isaacg]

I can tell you why.... First of all, before my grandad retired from B&O, he knew way before the collapse of privatised railways that, it would be hard to get back with it. We might need to look at other scenarios and other nations who experienced similar tragedies.Look at britain's history, its similar to what we've been going through. They've overcome those problems now, and the whole system is privatised now, something that the USGOV wants Amtrak to do, but you cant expect it to happen all at once. In Britain, the "Big Four", comprising of LNER, SOU, LMS, and GWR, was on the verge of collapse, and after a while, they merged, and became a nationalized entity. Thats a similar story to Amtrak right? Well, after the railways nationalized, the British Railways were formed. During this time, until about the late 60's/early 70's, the railways were all in one. Then, during the 80s, thats when British Rail and Intercity services, and the advancement of crosscountry rail travel was born. After a while, the system split into different departments, and became sectorized. After a while, the national railways became more stable. Then after the late 80s/early 90s, they were healty enough to become private entities again, and they've had no problems ever since.

On the topic of speed gandalf, I can't agree so much with that. My neighbour has been on the Shanghai Maglev, and she was surprised that it was rather clear. Yes, scenery may go by faster, but speed is needed in order to keep in the business to compete with airlines. Its a total difference if you were to have a scenic railway or preservation line go slow, as its for tourism efforts. Unforunately, I'm a more progressive person, which I get a dark shadow casted upon, cause I'm not that open to traditions and stuff

Anyways, thats my 2 cents for the time being. I think Amtrak should put a bid up for a contract on a DMU for more regional services like in California, Florida, Illinois, and places like that and have a more "provincial" service on the side. Though, to have a provincial/state service, you need a balanced national system as well, to keep the structure up. Which is where my family(many of them railway engineers) gets the term National or Nothing.

 

[Gandalf0444]

On the topic of speed gandalf, I can't agree so much with that. My neighbour has been on the Shanghai Maglev, and she was surprised that it was rather clear. Yes, scenery may go by faster, but speed is needed in order to keep in the business to compete with airlines. Its a total difference if you were to have a scenic railway or preservation line go slow, as its for tourism efforts. Unforunately, I'm a more progressive person, which I get a dark shadow casted upon, cause I'm not that open to traditions and stuff

You also have to look at a lot of outside factors,for example is a person gonna pay 75 bucks,or 500? Most people these days are trying to save money,so therefore traveling by railroad is less money. Yes if your going cross country by train it may take awhile,but so what,it will save you money in the long run. Not to mention you will get to see all the beautiful parts of the US at a decent speed,that you will never see by traveling by air. Trains simply don't need to go 200mph to compete with airlines,period. With all the airlines falling due to the lack of ridership,which in turn brings in less money,will make any company crumble. And since the next fastest way to travel is by train,trains will pick up the revenue. Of course you will have the people who want it to go faster,but if you want to go faster,just simply lay out the money to get on a plane,like the saying goes "you get what you pay for."
And I can't really see how going 200mph and still say your view is "Clear". Even though you may be able to see something,your not seeing every detail,which is what makes train travel special. Not to mention that your brain is filling in the gaps in the scenery because you know what it is supposed to look like,as opposed to the semi-blur on the other side of the glass.

 

[illinoiscentral]

Express mail by train is a little slow, isn't it? Since the mail is all sorted by machines at the post office, it's probably better to send it by plane.
They can use the cash to build their own track so they can improve passenger service, but they probably won't. They'll probably buy a few new cars and keep the same inconvenient service.
I wish I could travel by train, but I have to get where I'm going in a reasonable time, so I drive my car.

Claude

My dad used to drive a truck for the USPS and it worked well, funding railmail is a huge mistake! High speed between Chicago and St.Louis is wise! Or California, why is there still no highspeed in Cali? Because the Northeast corridor runs into D.C. I think you get the point, I'll stop befre I break the CoC.

 

[titaniclover]

I agree with Gandalf0444.

I took a train trip down to NYC a few days ago and my dad had a radio with him to listen to the frequences while riding down. We passed about seven hotbox detectors and I didn't relieze until it mentioned the speed that we were going was pretty fast, around 90 MPH. I thought we were going somewhat slower, around 70 MPH.

You get so ingrosed into things along the way, be work, looking a scenery and what not, you don't notice just how fast the train is really going.

The point is not to get from Point A to Point B in a lot of cases, instead it's to take the trip and enjoy it. The main reason people want to go fast is because they think the end of the world is right around the corner. So what big deal.

My opinion is to stay normal speeds around 100 MPH (10 MPH's more or less) and enjoy the ride instead of breaking the speed of sound/light.

My 2 cents on the subject.

Cheers,
Adam

 

[RooRocz]

Although the U.S. is lagging behind in times as far as Railroading goes,I could really careless about speed,and for our railroads are just fine,for me I'd rather be able to see the train to take pictures of it other then at stations,and if I was on it I would like to be able to see what we are passing. And for me we DO NOT need to go 200mph,sure it's a cool feeling and everything,but it will ruin the feel of train travel forever. Trains are meant to run slow(especially though the beautiful areas) so you can take in the scenery and just travel back in time. If we are going 200mph+ how can we take advantage of that? And honestly sad that we get looked down upon for it,what if we didn't give a damn and liked it the way it was? And much of us didn't care about it until gas prices went through the roof,and economy fell through the floor.

....

Well...

People don't use transportation because they want to look at the scenery on the way. People use transportation to get from point A to point B in the fastest and cheapest way possible. Trains are not "meant to runs slow." Look at Europe. Look at Japan. Look at the old Milwaukee Road's Hiawatha. Their major selling point is (was) not scenery, not laid-back relaxed travel. The reason people take (took) them is for the sheer speed and cost-effectiveness.
Also, you'd have to be mad to think that Amtrak is fine the way it is. First off, it's costing the taxpayer money. Amtrak is not profitable, even though it has the potential to be if it were deregulated. Amtrak is a railroad, not a public service, and should be run as such.

...Trains simply don't need to go 200mph to compete with airlines,period. With all the airlines falling due to the lack of ridership,which in turn brings in less money,will make any company crumble. And since the next fastest way to travel is by train,trains will pick up the revenue. Of course you will have the people who want it to go faster,but if you want to go faster,just simply lay out the money to get on a plane,like the saying goes "you get what you pay for."

wat.

Right... lemme take this one one sentence at a time...

With all the airlines falling due to the lack of ridership,which in turn brings in less money,will make any company crumble.

But they aren't. Low-cost no-frills airlines are making huge money, and ridership isn't declining any more than you might normally see in an economic situation like this.

And since the next fastest way to travel is by train,trains will pick up the revenue.

Not necessarily true. Often driving is the next fastest way to travel long distances, and before you stop me to say "well then you have to concentrate the whole time while you're driving", consider why Greyhound buses aren't picking up those airline customers.

Also you've got the (mostly true, actually) stigma that Amtrak trains are always late, turning off potential riders.

What you're arguing for, Gandalf, is that it is the people who have to change and not the railroad. This. Never. Happens. Amtrak has to be run like a business, and in order to do so profitably we have to invest in these major 200mph+ trains and infrastructure.

(or we could just let it terminate all its unprofitable lines and let it start making money now...)

EDIT: spotted another one.

Because the Northeast corridor runs into D.C. I think you get the point, I'll stop befre I break the CoC.

I live in DC. I use the trains regularly. The only congressman who uses Amtrak regularly is Joe Biden. Surely he couldn't have single-handedly voted the NEC into existence for his personal gain?

The only reason the NEC exists is because the Pennsy built it to extremely good specs that can still (sort of) hold their own today, 70 years later, and that the line was handed over to Amtrak and not Conrail in the early 70s. It did not require huge-ass from-scratch infrastructure construction to get it to run the way it does now. All that was done was some minor track re-alingment.

 

[springtransit]

I can tell you why.... First of all, before my grandad retired from B&O, he knew way before the collapse of privatised railways that, it would be hard to get back with it. We might need to look at other scenarios and other nations who experienced similar tragedies.Look at britain's history, its similar to what we've been going through. They've overcome those problems now, and the whole system is privatised now, something that the USGOV wants Amtrak to do, but you cant expect it to happen all at once. In Britain, the "Big Four", comprising of LNER, SOU, LMS, and GWR, was on the verge of collapse, and after a while, they merged, and became a nationalized entity. Thats a similar story to Amtrak right? Well, after the railways nationalized, the British Railways were formed. During this time, until about the late 60's/early 70's, the railways were all in one. Then, during the 80s, thats when British Rail and Intercity services, and the advancement of crosscountry rail travel was born. After a while, the system split into different departments, and became sectorized. After a while, the national railways became more stable. Then after the late 80s/early 90s, they were healty enough to become private entities again, and they've had no problems ever since.
quote]

I agree with that. The problem with Amtrak is, in addition to being a government railroad, that they manage passenger lines and facilities all across the US. As such, they tend to really fix up some areas while completely ignoring other areas. I think, therefore, that maybe they should divide it up. Have separate companies manage and maintain the different corridors, but Amtrak should still have the NEC, and be the parent company.

 

[Gandalf0444]

....

Well...

People don't use transportation because they want to look at the scenery on the way. People use transportation to get from point A to point B in the fastest and cheapest way possible. Trains are not "meant to runs slow." Look at Europe. Look at Japan. Look at the old Milwaukee Road's Hiawatha. Their major selling point is (was) not scenery, not laid-back relaxed travel. The reason people take (took) them is for the sheer speed and cost-effectiveness.
Also, you'd have to be mad to think that Amtrak is fine the way it is. First off, it's costing the taxpayer money. Amtrak is not profitable, even though it has the potential to be if it were deregulated. Amtrak is a railroad, not a public service, and should be run as such.

wat.

Right... lemme take this one one sentence at a time...
But they aren't. Low-cost no-frills airlines are making huge money, and ridership isn't declining any more than you might normally see in an economic situation like this.

Not necessarily true. Often driving is the next fastest way to travel long distances, and before you stop me to say "well then you have to concentrate the whole time while you're driving", consider why Greyhound buses aren't picking up those airline customers.

Also you've got the (mostly true, actually) stigma that Amtrak trains are always late, turning off potential riders.

What you're arguing for, Gandalf, is that it is the people who have to change and not the railroad. This. Never. Happens. Amtrak has to be run like a business, and in order to do so profitably we have to invest in these major 200mph+ trains and infrastructure.

(or we could just let it terminate all its unprofitable lines and let it start making money now...)

I for one have not run into 1 person go UGH I wish this darned train go faster,never once have I heard that. And the reason is,why you don't hear it,is because the people want time to just relax,and take a step outside of the normal world and watch the scenery roll by. If the train goes an upward of 200mph,how can you accomplish that? You can look out of the same window and do the same thing, hell some people may even become sick because of it.
And no airlines are suffering BADLY. They are either on the verge of going under,many have filed for chapter 11,and others are talking about a merge between to very large companies(which usually doesn't happen) just to stay afloat. I would like to see your sources saying that these airlines are bringing in HUGE profits. I means sure this time of year,maybe,but after it calms down after the holidays I can guarantee you won't see the amount of people getting on a plane as we did a year to 2 or 3 years ago.
But what I can agree with is that people are not going to change. And I never wanted you to get that impression. I may have just worded it wrong... But a lot of the people do NOT want the trains to go faster for many reasons. 1. Tax money! No one wants to pay it. 2. If you do get on a train some people WILL get sick because of the speed,so Amtrak should have some barf bags in each seat. 3. Even the most stuck up employee who commutes to New York in the morning,might not want it changed to get there FASTER FASTER FASTER because he may,want to just have a few hours to get there,to just sit there and read the paper,maybe catch up on some work he should have done the night before etc. So there are people who want it,yes I'll give you that,but A LOT of people do NOT want to go 200mph or faster.
I frankly think that the East Coast of the US is not the place to do it. Simply because of all the dense population,and its not like just a small portion of the Northeast is densely populated,the whole thing is. And if you would notice that the high speed lines travel into a Major Hub,like many trains do. But also travel through very large open areas,which help the train "open up" so to speak.
And if 1 unfortunate disaster does happen where the train derails(known to happen since they are trains and all) I would LIKE the chance to be able to walk away from the thing,rather then be killed on impact,if I wanted to do that I would just get on a plane and smash into the ground. It simply makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[rwk]

Per Rock, were you thinking about Amtrak go from Newark, NJ through Phillipsburg, NJ, Easton, PA, Bethlehem, PA, Allentown, PA, Reading, PA to Harrisburg, PA? That would require running on very busy Norfolk Southern tracks (previously Conrail, and Lehigh Valley and Reading until April 1976) and I'm not sure if NS would like regular passenger trains on that route. But, the Lehigh Valley, PA has been wthout passenger train service since June 30, 1981 from Bethlehem to Philadelphia (Conrail-operated commuter service under contract with SEPTA) and 1984 from Phillipsburg to Newark (NJT) Raritan Valley Line cut back to High Bridge. People are moving to LV, PA from NJ, NY due to cheaper housing and taxes, but there's no train service to NY or Philly from this area. You have to drive to the nearest rail station 30 miles south or 40 miles east. Or, take a bus, or I-78 or PA turnpike. There are proposals to restore rail service from north of Quakertown to Lansdale, (the overgrown tracks were just removed from Coopersburg to Hellertown for a trail but SEPTA reserves the right to rebuild the tracks if there's a demand to extend the service back to Bethlehem) and extend the Raritan Valley Line back to Phillipsburg and possibly into PA.

 

[kmothersil]

Will it be possible to extend the Palmetto from Savanna all the way to Miami again, via Ocala, Florida? Plus with this hopefully we will see other services restored like the Desert Wind and Pioneer.​