posted
Good WSJ page 1 article with factual information and interactive flash maps about where freight RR have been upgrading their lines: "New Era Dawns for Rail Building"
This article raises lots of questions about national transportation expansion policy and coordinating private sector investment with larger national objectives, including promoting energy independence by converting from petroleum to coal with electrification, a goal not pursued by the private RRs.
I have to ask where have Amtrak and NARP been in this process. Not involved apparently.
Some of the expanded lines look like good Amtrak expansions. But I hear no discussion of this from Amtrak or NARP. In particular, the CSX corridor looks awful good to me for a Chicago Florida train. The T&P part of the UP Sunset corridor looks like a good alternative for the Eagle. The I-81 corridor looks good for reviving the Tennessean between Memphis and New York.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Supporter, as I've noted elsewhere in discussion regarding the referenced Wall Street Journal article, the railroads are not committing investor capital to benefit the passenger class of service.
There could be favorable 'fallout' from better performance of existing trains (and in the process earning more Amtrak performance payments), but if any passenger train advocacy group starts ranting around 'they made all these improvements so why can't we have more trains', they would be met with swift and effective railroad industry resistance.
I know that there has been much discussion regarding public funding of rail infrastructure improvements. However "Earmarks" (that seems to be newspeak for pork barrel) such as "and passenger' could easily find their way into such legislation, and your scenario immediately above could find itself forced upon any road agreeing to accept such public funding.
Other "earmarks' such as (God forbid) rereg of traffic moving over the publicly funded lines, could also find its way into law.
It should be noted that most likely the largest rail expansion project presently being undertaken is the double tracking to the Union Pacific Sunset Route. That is being financed solely by internally generated funds.
My personal reaction to that is "wonder why!!!!".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by amtraksupporter: In particular, the CSX corridor looks awful good to me for a Chicago Florida train. The T&P part of the UP Sunset corridor looks like a good alternative for the Eagle. The I-81 corridor looks good for reviving the Tennessean between Memphis and New York.
Most of the improvements are capacity related, and not really speed related except in the sense of upgraded track. Other than the relatively straight T&P route across Texas, on the particular routes named, look at the 1950's passenger train times and compare that with 2008 driving times. Without massive investment in straightened alignments through the Appalachians, the run times on these routes will not provide for viable passenger service.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Concerning a specific point in the article:
"Mr. Keith says his trips between Meridian and Vicksburg now take six or seven hours, compared with 11 or 12 before the upgrades. He says he saved 30 minutes on a recent run by pulling onto a newly lengthened siding in Meehan, Miss., to pass another train."
This is still not fast. Meridian - Vicksburg is 141 miles, so 6 hours is an average of 23.5 mph on a relatively straight but somewhat hilly piece of railroad. (12 hours was 11.8 mph.) The best ICRR passenger train time was around 3.5 hours, an averge of 40.3 mph, not counting a fairly long stop in Jackson, Miss, but on parallel I-20, you can, without stopping, probably make it in 2 hours fairly consistently.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After looking at the map some more, it dawned on me that the map did not show the CN upgrading any routes. It shows only the American RRs.
Is this correct? I thought they were upgrading like the others. Or, are they operating their US route as cash cows?
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
This article raises lots of questions about national transportation expansion policy and coordinating private sector investment with larger national objectives, including promoting energy independence by converting from petroleum to coal with electrification, a goal not pursued by the private RRs.
I have to ask where have Amtrak and NARP been in this process. Not involved apparently
Plese tell me how Amtrak has unlimited funds to be proactive in "this process" as herein outlined. Also, please describe how NARP is a large-enough lobbying force (at an estimated 23,000 members, or 0.0076 percent of the current estimated US population) to get politicians to listen to such an agenda.
As far as "energy independence" goes, there are the alternate routes of coal liquefaction for fuel and use of vegetable oil and its derivatives for diesel fuel. Increased electrification would be quite the capital burden in the short run if the goal is solely energy independence from hostile nations that sell us oil for transportation fuel and other purposes.
Amtrak is forced to worry about merely having its trains run, regardless of motive power. If NARP published one to several papers touting electrification over freight railroads, they'd be more ridiculed by their foes than they are now, especially in light of overhead clearances required for catenary wire (if under-bridge clearance for double-stackers is 23 feet right now, consider how much higher high-voltage wire at 25kV 60Hz would have to be placed in order to prevent current arc). Also, since electrification is associated (psychologically) with increased speed, for passenger service at least, having continued service at 79 mph and slower would make the investment unworthy in the eyes of most of the public.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Please tell me how Amtrak has unlimited funds to be proactive in "this process" as herein outlined.
In Washington, DC, nothing is cheaper than talk. Articulating ideas doesn't cost money. Anybody with a PC and web access can declare themselves a "think tank." Back in 2003, a few dissidents with such resources called the occupation of Iraq a mistake. Now the leading candidate for president agrees in public.
Getting listened to is another problem. Amtrak could get listened to if it had anything to say.
quote: Also, please describe how NARP is a large-enough lobbying force (at an estimated 23,000 members, or 0.0076 percent of the current estimated US population) to get politicians to listen to such an agenda.
Getting "politicians to listen" isn't really the problem. Note the Senate vote on the Lautenberg-Lott Amtrak Reauthorization: 70-22, veto proof. Widespread general political support for passenger trains exists on Capitol Hill. Leadership, focus, and concentration are the missing qualities.
NARP does enjoy credibility in Washington. The NARP political strategy of defending and maintaining the status quo and not ruffling anyone's feathers with ideas they don't like has merit: when NARP talks, it gets listened to in a lot of quarters. I just wish it would talk more.
On most all passenger rail related issues, somebody on the NARP board knows what they are talking about. You sure can't say that about top management at Amtrak.
Also, NARP can also get listened to because no one else is talking. There is a big vacuum.
quote: As far as "energy independence" goes, there are the alternate routes of coal liquefaction for fuel and use of vegetable oil and its derivatives for diesel fuel. Increased electrification would be quite the capital burden in the short run if the goal is solely energy independence from hostile nations that sell us oil for transportation fuel and other purposes.
Reducing the consumption of liquid petroleum is an independent national security objective in and of itself. President Bush stated:
Two years ago I was pleased to stand with members -- many of whom are here -- to sign a bill that was the first major energy security legislation in more than a decade. At the time I recognized that we needed to go even further. And so in my State of the Union I proposed an aggressive plan to reduce oil consumption of gasoline by 20 percent over 10 years.
"President Bush Signs H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007"
The President did not declare reducing petroleum consumption a national security goal to reduce costs. Goals cost money. Costs do not matter for national security, at least not according to Dick Cheney. The cost of capital for electrification is a cost we must pay for this goal.
If you don't like Bush, here's Obama:
You'd think by now we'd get the point on energy dependence. Never has the failure to take on a single challenge so detrimentally affected nearly every aspect of our well-being as a nation. And never have the possible solutions had the potential to do so much good for so many generations to come.
Of course, many Americans have gotten this point, and it's true that the call for energy independence is now coming from an amazingly diverse coalition of interests. From farmers and businesses, military leaders and CIA officials, scientists and Evangelical Christians, auto executives and unions, and politicians of almost every political persuasion, people are realizing that an oil future is not a secure future for this country.
"Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet"
This position contradicts free market economic theory. The Milton Friedman people say the market, not government, should determine where energy comes from.
Rudy said, "America possesses 27% of the world's coal. We must commercialize clean coal technologies, including carbon sequestration, so we can utilize this vast domestic resource."
I would admit a historic record of variance between what this Administration does and what is says. But, nonetheless, what it says it says.
In no other petroleum using sector except railroads could the country relatively easily shift, using proven, well understood risk free technology, much of a sector from liquid to domestic fuels like coal, nuclear, wind, etc. This could go a long way towards the goal of reducing imported oil.
See "Railroad Electrification: An Alternative For Petroleum Savings"
Unfortunately the strongest single special interest that might have an interest in electrification, GE, enjoys economic profits on its diesel locomotives. Electrification would open competition to European manufacturers and end its oligopoly profits on diesels. GE doesn't want that.
And the railroads do have some market power vis a vis the oil companies and don't get jacked around as bad as motorists are.
This is not how a free market economy is supposed to work to maximize utilization of resources.
Liquification of coal goes back to before WWII with the Fisher-Tropsch synthesis. Hitler used it in the war. The process requires energy to break down tightly bonded carbon crystal structures into tiny chains of 13 - 25 carbon atoms. It's hardly energy efficient. The efficient way to get energy out of coal remains burning it.
quote: Amtrak is forced to worry about merely having its trains run, regardless of motive power. If NARP published one to several papers touting electrification over freight railroads, they'd be more ridiculed by their foes than they are now
The purpose of rail electrification is national security, not transportation policy or air quality. Those are secondary benefits.
Are you suggesting that someone somewhere might ridicule those who advocate the national security of the United States by reducing petroleum imports, the defense of our values, and the protection of our children, as stated by no less than Bush himself?
I don't think so. But maybe some such people do exist, somewhere.
President Bush put it well, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20, 2001,
quote:In Washington, DC, nothing is cheaper than talk. Articulating ideas doesn't cost money. Anybody with a PC and web access can declare themselves a "think tank." Back in 2003, a few dissidents with such resources called the occupation of Iraq a mistake. Now the leading candidate for president agrees in public.
Getting listened to is another problem. Amtrak could get listened to if it had anything to say
You didn't make any sense here. Amtrak has had a succession of presidents, all with different things to say. How many of them got listened to? Gunn got fired for telling the truth. Kummant is putting OTP over infrastructure investment, and he's starting to suffer for it (catenary problems, cracking concrete ties, and who knows what's going to come down the pike in the future).
I agree that talk is cheap; therefore, what do you think that Amtrak can "say" that you believe holds a guarantee that the politicians in DC will heed? Let's hear the words that ought to be the ultimate message from Amtrak that will draw the attention of Congress and the POTUS and make them act unilaterally in Amtrak's favor.
And let's not bring in the so-called "war on terror" to this discussion. That is a war that's not being fought, so long as Iran remains untouched; and I'll say no more on the subject.
quote:In no other petroleum using sector except railroads could the country relatively easily shift, using proven, well understood risk free technology, much of a sector from liquid to domestic fuels like coal, nuclear, wind, etc. This could go a long way towards the goal of reducing imported oil.
Unfortunately the strongest single special interest that might have an interest in electrification, GE, enjoys economic profits on its diesel locomotives. Electrification would open competition to European manufacturers and end its oligopoly profits on diesels. GE doesn't want that.
And the railroads do have some market power vis a vis the oil companies and don't get jacked around as bad as motorists are.
This is not how a free market economy is supposed to work to maximize utilization of resources.
First of all, what defines the so-called "free market economy"?
And second of all, railroads consume about 2½ percent of all US petroleum-based fuel consumed. Spend the money to electrify all the railroads around the country (let's say the estimated 200,000 miles of track in the US, which if really low-balled to the $1 million-per-mile mark puts the total cost at a whopping $200 billion, but of late electrification has cost far higher than that) and it wouldn't make a dent in other US fuel consumption, unless you start transferring a huge chunk of passenger travel out of automobiles and planes and into trains. But this is something that can be achieved without electrifying. Getting people into diesel-powered trains, and this means making said trains operate at speeds that would make them highly competitive when running intercity (consider what a 6,000-horsepower diesel locomotive would be capable of at the right gearing), would make a huge dent in the 13 billion gallons of jet fuel burned for domestic flights annually. The answer is to make more trains for people to ride versus electrifying existing rail infrastructure; the latter would be politically "justifiable" with more passenger traffic on the rails, but electric trains running intercity at 40-mph average speeds would not draw the attention of polticians.
GE would not benefit from railroad electrification as much as you postulate. They are not an electric utility business; they are in the business of making machines that operate by using electric motors. Diesel-electric locomotives very much fall into that category. Now if you are concerned that GE needs to compete with Bombardier and Siemens, then that's a separate issue that primarily lies outside our borders.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Helpful hint: When making links with looooooooooong URL's, it really helps to use the URL feature below the posting form so that the words don't run off the edge of the screen and I have to keep scrolling back and forth to read each line. With the URL button you can paste the URL (using CTRL-V), then enter a short bit of text describing it. So instead of this http://www.railforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=ubb_code_page you can do this. Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess everything I said went ignored. "Widespread electrification of freight railroads" would cut total fuel consumption in the USA by a mere 2½ percent, as I already noted. It'll make consumption of other oil products go up to power those new overhead grids (thus canceling out any reduction in consumption), unless we start ignoring the environmental alarmists and go back to coal-fired electric power generation in earnest.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Widespread electrification of freight railroads" would cut total fuel consumption in the USA by a mere 2½ percent,
I will take your word on the 2 1/2 percent figure. 2 1/2 percent is a significant step towards that goal, especially considering that Bush administration progress on that goal so far has been around zero.
Sure, the government could tomorrow make it a felony to drive your SUV and that might reduce consumption even more. But the country is not at that point yet.
quote:It'll make consumption of other oil products go up to power those new overhead grids (thus canceling out any reduction in consumption), unless we start ignoring the environmental alarmists and go back to coal-fired electric power generation in earnest.
Electricity can some from non liquid fuels, such as coal, nuclear, natural gas, thermal, and wind. It can also some from regenerative breaking of electric locomotives. That's the point of electricity: it doesn't require liquid fuels.
Coal is an unavoidable part of the future. Coal is the energy that we have in relative abundance here. Rudy established that point in the his quote above.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
