Amtrak Bill Has Passed The Senate!

[RooRocz]

Oh god, I've created a monster. Help me before the posts run into multiple pages.

I for one have not run into 1 person go UGH I wish this darned train go faster,never once have I heard that.

Because those sorts of people don't use the trains because they are so slow.

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.

A train is a form of transportation, not a fairground ride. It is a way to get from point A to point B.

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.

I have been on high-speed trains before. You can see the scenery quite clearly from the train, and you certainly aren't about to get sick.

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.

Airline travel will NOT go away simply because of airlines going out of business. Pan-Am was unimaginably huge when it went under... and look! The airline industry still exists! And it will continue to exist. And no amount of corporate shenanigans are going to stop people using the airlines.

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.

Well, those people just want to get rid of Amtrak all together, or at least privatize it and let it get on with its life (my view). It's a business, not a government-sponsored tour of american scenery.

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.

See above. Speed does not equal sickness, acceleration does. I assure you that the trains will not go 0 to 186 in twelve seconds.

Notice how people don't get sick from airline travel, even though there you in fact ARE going from 0 to 186 in twelve seconds. And then traveling at 500+ for nine hours.

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.

Speak for yourself. I'd kill to have the VRE get me home faster after school. It'd let me get more work done at home.

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.

What.

Right, highly densely populated megalopoli (plural of megalopolis)(I think) like the Northeast Corridor are EXACTLY the place to put high-speed rail. A typical run between city centers of about 30 miles allows for the train to get up to top speed and decelerate in time to stop at the next station. Also, you get no passengers when you're trying to run high-speed trains out in the sticks.

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.

There has been exactly one high-speed rail collision that resulted in fatalities, and I'll give you that it was a hell of a doozy. (the Eschede train disaster) But given this, one could argue that high-speed rail is the safest form of transportation in the history of mankind.

One thing I would like to really point out to you: High Speed Rail ACTUALLY EXISTS AND WORKS. Look at Europe. Look at Japan. Hell, even the Chinese have it now. They don't have motion sickness problems or people clamoring over lost scenery. They do, however, have working rail networks that actually make money.

 

[Tokkyu40]

Oh god, I've created a monster. Help me before the posts run into multiple pages...

Too late.

It's a business, not a government-sponsored tour of American scenery...

If it's a business, they should run it like one. It acts like an overgrown heritage line.

... Speed does not equal sickness, acceleration does. I assure you that the trains will not go 0 to 186 in twelve seconds...

I think it's the oscillation that kills you. Fast lateral maneuvers or turbulence, things that disturb the inner ear faster than it can compensate for. Trains aren't subject to heavy turbulence, so the effect should be no worse than riding in a car. Better, in my experience. By the way, which high speed train did you ride? I took the Tohoku Shinkansen to Sendai. It was both scenic and convenient.

... High Speed Rail ACTUALLY EXISTS AND WORKS. Look at Europe. Look at Japan. Hell, even the Chinese have it now. They don't have motion sickness problems or people clamoring over lost scenery. They do, however, have working rail networks that actually make money.

Unfair comparison. Not only is China a modern industrial nation, they have a government that wants the rails to succeed. They're currently ahead of us on both accounts.
Do they make money on the high speed rail? I know France and Japan are running at a profit.

Claude

 

[RooRocz]

Too late.
I think it's the oscillation that kills you. Fast lateral maneuvers or turbulence, things that disturb the inner ear faster than it can compensate for. Trains aren't subject to heavy turbulence, so the efeect should be no worse than riding in a car. Better, in my experience. By the way, which high speed train did you ride?

ICE from Bern to Interlaken... actually that wasn't terribly high-speed... but it was a helluva nice train.

 

[Isaacg]

Unfair comparison. Not only is China a modern industrial nation, they have a government that wants the rails to succeed. They're currently ahead of us on both acounts.
Do they make money on the high speed rail? I know France and Japan are running at a profit.

Thats because our nation is run by conservatives and progressive. Not to get tooo political, My kind of progressive isn't around anymore(AKA Eisenhower, Lincoln, and Ted Roosevelt). Which makes it extremely hard to pass any sort of progressive bill and its gotten to be such a stereotype. If only a Progressive from the GOP would emerge... Maybe, then we'd get somewhere

Anyways, The US treats Amtrak like a decorated freight railway with converted hoppers and tankers as the passenger stock. The US made Japan what it is today, and now they are one of the most modern and progressive nations outside Europe. Until this notion of tradition, ultra-conservatism, and religion+government(its there, but you can't see it), then we should be fine.

The Progressive Right/GOP Side of Isaac

PS If anyone thinks this is tooo political, then just give me a bell, and I'll water the post up or just get rid of it altogether. Its kind of hard not to talk about Railpax funding and management without getting Uncle Sam involved.

 

[paulzmay]

Now where's that popcorn smiley when you need it... this is turning out to be quite a debate.

It's interesting watching the debate from my perspective, as a Brit living in Australia, who has also travelled a little in the US.

It certainly seems that the status quo at Amtrak is unsustainable (outside the NEC at least). Why should taxpayers fund a system that is barely faster than Greyhound and costs massively more? If it's just to look at the view, then it's a tourist attraction, and not worthy of the subsidy. There is an obvious parallel with Australia here, where most long distance rail travel is the equivalent of a Cruise on land - very expensive and totally irrelevant as a means of actually getting anywhere. These services are privately owned by GSR, and make their money from tourists. There are other inter-city services, such as the XPT from Sydney to Melbourne and other destinations, but these suffer from the same problem as Amtrak - sharing with heavy freight on antiquated infrastructure.

At the moment, Amtrak is irrelevant to most travellers. It's not that cheap, and it's not on the same planet as air travel for journey time or frequency of service. When travelling on business in the States I've often looked to see if Amtrak is a suitable alternative, but typically a journey of a couple of hours by air seems to wind up being over 20 hours by train. I looked at Kingman AZ to LA, for instance, and I couldn't believe how long a supposed 4-5 hour drive woud take by train (I drove to Las Vegas and then flew in the end).

It seems to me that speed is the answer. Anywhere else in the world, speed increases ridership and also improves train utilisation. Speed is also mostly a one-off investment cost that provides dividends in the long run. Most of the world's high speed lines either turn an operating profit, or require a subsidy that is small compared to how useful they are. The investment costs are high, but frankly the world needs to pump-prime it's economy at the moment, and civil engineering projects can't be shipped in containers from China.
Higher speed doesn't have to be all 200mph either. For shorter distances, where the major competition is the car, 100-125mph services with a regular and frequent service pattern work very well in the UK (which has almost no true high speed rail). For longer distances (e.g. LA-SF) only the full 200mph will compete with the airlines (and also provide connections into longer haul flights); anything less over these distances will be wasted money.

I'll have to take issue with IsaacG about UK privatisation. It was a political move, intended to save taxpayer's money, basd on the false premise that BR was wasteful. BR at the time had become highly effective at running an underfunded creaking railway on the lowest subsidy in Europe. What it needed was long term investment that didn't change more often than the government. What it got was a fragmentation into over 50 seperate companies, most of whom had no assets (operators leased trains and rented track space). It also got the infamous RailTrack, who managed the railway like a property portfolio, and did the minimum in maintenance, and never looked like investing in the future. The high capital cost of rail re-openings (common prior to privatisation) were always difficult to fund on the open market, as the paybacks are slow on investments that may be good for 100 years. Only governments can really underwrite these kind of schemes, and as a result the UK's railways are probably better marketed than under BR, but the extra ridership has only seen higher fares and not more capacity.

And on train sickness - the only case I've ever heard of related to high speed rail was the UK's prototype tilting APT, which tilted too much, and made people feel nauseaous. The only time I've ever felt sick on a train it was going about 40-50mph on very old jointed track in Cardiff, Wales.

Anyway, that's just my view as a Limey/Pom/Aussie...

Paul

 

[crman123]

I was inspired by PerRock's map on a good US intercity network to make my own. I tried my hardest to route trains where tracks exist, but some of the lines are a bit arbitrary.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...d=106739524106757948022.00045f8d0d862264139dc

The Blue lines are existing Amtrak routes, the Green Lines are new intermediate or regional lines, the Red lines are new long distance lines and international joint services are Purple.

The are many places where the lines overlap (they'll be darker than the rest) like I said this is a work in progress...

Notable additions

Nashville is now a major hub with multiple LD and regionals converging there.

I named a few of the new LD routes, I'll outline the new ones...

Seattle to Chicago via South Montana etc. The North Coast Limited (ex NP)

Miami to Chicago The Floridian (Amtrak discontinued this train in 1979 I think)

New Orleans to Cleveland The Hummingbird (L&N named train which ran from N.O. to Cincinnati)

The Desert Wind and Pioneer are reinstated

The Heartland Flyer is extended all the way to Minneapolis via Kansas City, Omaha etc.

Fort Worth to Chicago via Oklahoma City, Tulsa The Texas Chief (Named after the Santa Fe train)

New York to Chicago via Pittsburgh The Broadway Limited (running just south of the Lake Shore Limited on NS trackage)

The unnamed LD services are El Paso to Minneapolis via Albuquerque, Denver, and Cheyenne, Fort Worth to New York City via Nashville, and New York to Myrtle Beach along the Carolina Coast

All this (borrowing track conditions etc) could be possible given a MAJOR investment in new locomotives, rolling stock, staff etc.

Just some fuel to this Amtrak debate fire

 

[Isaacg]

It was a political move, intended to save taxpayer's money, based on the false premise that BR was wasteful.

Hehe, what isn't these days? Anyways, I agree that BR wasn't wasteful, as opposed to RailPax/NPRC/Amtrak. I really don't see why they had to necessarily do it, but it beats me. Most statesmen/politicans want to rid Amtrak(Dems included, most likely), handing it over to the private sector/free market. I don't mind Amtrak being a tax-subsidized corporation, but to some it bothers them. Most conservative politicans that go in try to cut funding off altogether, saying the airlines and interstates are the most prefered way to travel. Being an American from the Deep-ish South(Florida is on its own now, it used to be apart of the south though), I know from experience. The first time I heard about what a train is, I was 6. Thats pretty sad isnt it? Thats a horrible rant isnt it?

Isaac

 

[biblenet]

I'm not a debater... but I must agree that I could not believe this bill got passed. The US has been behind in rail travel for too long. But range is still a problem. I looked up tickets to go from San Antonio to Atlanta or Jacksonville. I would have to board the train in San Antonio go to Chicago and then to Atlanta - a 3 day trip.... almost $2500.00. I could not believe this. I just wanted to go visit my friends and relatives in GA! A plane ticket, $180 and there in 2.5 hours. I would like to see MAGLEV technologies here in the states take off. But the overseas countries are already beta testing and I don't think we even have a track of it here in the states.
How much would it cost to build a concrete seperate line from Washington to Phil so amtrak could open the throttle on it's fastest trains? There would have to be stations (new), concrete ties and rails, power lines. I'm sure the profits would far outweigh the cost of building. Then create a rail system connecting every major city in the US. Maybe each city wanting to be connected could pitch in? Most states are getting Gov money too!
Think about all the jobs this would create! America could be back on top with a fast growing economy again and like the before... THE RAILROAD DID IT!

 

[Isaacg]

Well, I doubt much would happen until we have an AVID Pro-Rail/Amtrak person in office. Amtrak and Railways aren't that high on the President-Elect's priorities. Next, you can NOT create the stuff you mentioned, Biblenet, until you have reformed the way Amtrak operates and manages its operations and staff/employees. To do this, Amtrak needs to go the extra mile, and re-zone, and create smaller headquarters in different Regions:

L.A. or any Californian/Western City(West and Pacific Northwest)
Washington D.C.(Northeast and National)
Tampa/Atlanta or any other Floridian/Southern City(Florida and the South)
St. Louis or any other Midwestern City(American Heartland and MidAmerica)
Colombus or any other City in IL, IN, or OH(Great Lakes)
Chicago(National and Equipment/Rolling Stock)

Also, here is a map of each sector/unit that could be operated in the US with Amtrak:

Amtrak InterCity
Amtrak South(Florida Included in different Circumstances)
Amtrak West(California Included in different Circumstances)
Amtrak Florida
Amtrak California
Amtrak Heartland(Chicago Hub Included)
Amtrak Great Lakes(Chicago Hub Included)
Amtrak Northeast(New England, Cape Cod, Maritimes, and Mid Atlantic)

Map:

Corridors Include:
Pioneer Corridor (Chicago to Seatle
Great Lakes Corridor
SF-Bakersfield Corridor
International Corridor
Frontier Corridor
Southeastern Corridor
Northeastern Corridor
Gulfcoast Corridor
Southwestern Corridor
Chicago Network Hub
MidAmerican Corridor
Empire Corridor
Western Corridor

Map:

and

 

[biblenet]

whoa.... you've done some homework. You could open up your own railroad line! Forget AMTRAK we'll just back your vision!

 

[Tokkyu40]

We just need a few visionary billionaires willing to wait a decade or two for the really big profits to start rolling in.

Claude

 

[crman123]

I think the Texas segment of that Divisional map is not going to work. The best bet would be to Assign the DFW metroplex, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston into its own sector. Those three urban areas form what I've heard called the "Golden Triangle" and comprise most of the State's population. It would be foolish in my opinion to have DFW in one sector whilst Houston and San Antonio are in completely different sectors


Just this Texan's humble opinion...