posted
The fellow seems to outdo the late George Warrington when it comes to equivocation. Now he is saying that it would take $50 billion (or $111.1 million per mile, assuming BOS-WAS) to "upgrade the NEC" to "200-mph" operation, all with the goal of shortening a NYP-WAS journey to two hours flat (something that is possible with the Acela Express, should 150-mph running actually become commonplace, because that's an average speed of 112.5 mph).
I suppose the Amtrak BOD pays him to speak nonsense of this nature? Excuses for not engaging in needed spending on the NEC, i.e. beyond those recent rail/tie replacements? Two hours NYP-WAS is "doable" for perhaps less than a tenth of his bloated estimate.
quote:Amtrak President: 200 mph Northeast Corridor shouldn't be a priority
August 8, 2008
Trains Newswire: WASHINGTON — Amtrak President Alex Kummant told the Wall Street Journal he thinks extending service to Richmond, Va., and Charlotte, N.C., should be a higher priority than speeding up the Northeast Corridor. In an interview with the newspaper, he said, "I'm a big fan of doing what's doable."
The barriers to 200 mph running, said Kummant, are the 10 commuter agencies and 50 freight trains that use the corridor daily. "If you really want to go 200 mph, you'd have to grade separate, spend $50 billion, kick everybody else off, and make one stop. It's not the nature of what this is or will ever be," he said. "If you give me $50 billion, I'd say you'd do the country a hell of a lot more good if you build out the base system and created 100 mph service everywhere. The proposal is 2 hours between D.C. and New York, and I kind of say, 'Whoop Dee Doo.'"
Some members of Congress have been pushing for the faster service. However, rising gas prices have led to a push for corridor service in parts of the country that don't currently have it, or expanded service in existing corridors nationwide. Kummant endorsed that as the way Amtrak should be going.
posted
Considering that all the cheap and easy has already been done, as well as a lot of the neither cheap nor easy, this estimate may not be that far off. We would be talking things like a five mile tunnel through Baltimore, some way to develop a straight line throught the Philidelphia area, etc., etc. plus replace all the catenary, widen track centers throughout, etc., etc. This would not be the best use of the money or anywhere close to it.
Two areas where it could be much better spent:
1. The same amount would probably build the California High Speed in total, and that would be service in an area where the population is growing, not shrinking.
2. If spread around the country, such as the extension to Richmond and Charlotte as suggested, it would improve rail access to a lot more people.
I am sure that there are quite a few people that could think of other ways to better use the money to improve rail service to a lot of people that do not have the really good service that already exists in the BOS - WAS corridor.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have to agree with George. I think Kumant is being very realistic in the use and priorities of funds should they become available. As it is now with the 2hr 40 min Acela schedule ridership is off the charts because it is competitive with air travel. Even the 3.5 hr ride NYP to Bos has dbl digit ridership growth. I think he is on the right path, use the funding to bring up the secondary corridors up to be even somewhat close to what the corridor has now and it will benefit sooo many more people.
Posts: 332 | From: Long Island, NY USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering that all the cheap and easy has already been done, as well as a lot of the neither cheap nor easy, this estimate may not be that far off
The "estimate" is for "200-mph" operation "on the NEC". Therefore, since there are no plans to do anything like that, it's mendacious. 200 mph is only necessary if you're looking to run a train between NYP and WAS in 1.5 hours or less.
Why would it cost $111 million per mile to upgrade the operation of tilt trains to an average speed of 112.5 mph? By comparison, how much did it cost Deutsche Bahn to achieve average speeds higher than that on traditional rail corridors, using the ICE-T?
quote:We would be talking things like a five mile tunnel through Baltimore, some way to develop a straight line throught the Philidelphia area, etc., etc. plus replace all the catenary, widen track centers throughout, etc., etc. This would not be the best use of the money or anywhere close to it
Tilt trains are supposed to do away with the need for "straight lines", IINM, especially when your goal is within the bounds of what tilt trains are capable of.
Sorry, but there's no justifying what Kummant is saying here. Inflating costs and creating diversionary scenarios beyond the bounds of reality is not focusing on "doing what's doable", per his own words.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's only so much tilting trains can improve on existing infrastructure. The tilt only really advantages the passengers, not the track/train interface. Yes, on the WCML in the UK the tilting trains can go at 125mph on bends designed for 110mph conventional trains but is that really that much of an improvement? Going from 125mph with conventional trains to 200mph with a tilting train without altering the trackwork is likely to be impossible.
I agree that the figure does sound slightly inflated but I don't know exactly what it entails. If it is a complete track and catenerary renewal, plus easing of bends, then perhaps it's not far off the mark. Knocking down houses and building new track to current standards is not cheap. Remember that the NEC is actually in rather poor shape compared to other railways around the world - to the point of being quite frankly dangerous.
Latter statement sources: - Trains magazine, can't quote which issue, but then-CEO of Amtrak showed a piece of rail with a distinct lack of rail head profile which apparently was prevalent on 100mph+ bends in the NEC. That type of rail profile wouldn't even be allowed on 5mph sidings (yard stubs) in the UK for very good reason. - My boss, track and signalling engineer, had cause to investigate issues on NEC several years ago and was appalled at what he saw.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff put it quite well. To put it another way, probably unnecessarily, if the curve is good for 135 mph, with a tilt train you might get 150 mph or even 155 mph, but nowhere close to 200 mph. If and where track and catenary conditions are the reason for the 135 mph speed limit, tilting trains will do absolutely nothing for you there.
I have not been on it in about 10 years, but I would seriously doubt that the NCE track condition is either in poor shape or dangerous. If it were, the FRA would be all over it. This is the line the congress critters ride. It would never do to put one of these super self impressed buffoons in the ditch. Everyone involved would be sitting in a series of congressional hearings for the next 10 years.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recall that some Congresscritters (John Mica?)were putting pressure on Kummant to get the NEC up to 200 mph. He's just being realistic when he points out that doing so will be darned expensive.
As someone who isn't anywhere near the seven states served by the NEC, I think it is foolish to talk about making the best Amtrak service better when the money would be more effectively used in getting some decent service to the other 41 mainland states. I'm with Kummant on this one.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's only so much tilting trains can improve on existing infrastructure. The tilt only really advantages the passengers, not the track/train interface
The tilt allows the train to go around curves without knocking people out of their seats and/or without making the passengers ill. The benefits where the X2000 and the ICE-T operate are quite real and quite tangible. (The X2000's fastest average speed is 109 mph, which is impressive for a train whose top speed is limited by SJ to 125 mph in spite of the fact that the train can go much faster.)
Is anybody reading what Kummant is saying here? If "the goal" is a two-hour trip between NYP and WAS, the plain fact is that 200-mph operation is not and never has been even necessary, since this can be achieved with 150-mph operation. If Kummant knew his stuff, the first thing he would point out is how insane Mica sounds by pointing out reality, not to attempt to defuse his arguments as though they had any kind of basis.
quote:I agree that the figure does sound slightly inflated but I don't know exactly what it entails
Kummant already said: "If you really want to go 200 mph, you'd have to grade separate, spend $50 billion, kick everybody else off, and make one stop". This neglects to mention that the NEC is already grade separated, has enough track separation between commuter and Amtrak to make a significant difference, and that the Acela Express is not utilized to its full abilities. There is no explanation as to why it should cost so much to rebuild an existing right of way, nor how it relates to a 112.5 mph average speed. Not even new-build HSR corridors cost so much (save the CTRL in England, which cost more, and whose costs were never explained nor justified to the public).
Last year, Kummant said that it would take $7 billion (or $31.1 million per mile) to upgrade the NEC to permit AE to run at a 90-mph average speed, a speed that, frankly, the non-tilt Regionals would be capable of. It seems to me that all Kummant is capable of is groundless hyperbole.
quote:Remember that the NEC is actually in rather poor shape compared to other railways around the world
In reference to what? This would apply mostly to old bridges, I would say (biggest example being Portal). The track is a good deal less than two decades old and is maintained to a way higher standard than tracks elsewhere in the US; Amtrak has been replacing track and ties, recently, as well. The wires on the former PRR are in bad shape (and variable-tension) while the wires between NHV and BOS are new since 1999. The tunnels suffer from deferred maintenance, certainly (New York, Baltimore). Does any of this need investment on the order that Kummant claims, whether then or now?
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't fully explain what the CTRL costs involved but what I do know is: - It involved buying land in the most expensive parts of the UK - including "buying off" residents (ie compulsory purchase on their houses with goodwill payments) - It had to fight off a number of costly public enquiries - It includes several tens of miles of tunnel - Also a couple of miles of major bridges - Realignment of existing rail rights of way
Regarding my comment about the rail profile, I knew that would raise the hackles - hence why I quoted my sources up-front! Possibly the piece was a bit of over-dramatisation in order to get the sympathy vote for more cash to fix it, and the piece of rail shown was the worst example, but if that piece really was chopped out of a 100mph+ running rail then that is track in dangerous condition and it does not take an expert to tell you so. Thinking about it, this article must be several years old now so one would hope the worst has been replaced by now.
Possibly another reason for an inflated figure was quoting to upgrade ALL parallel tracks to high speed. That simply isn't needed - in a four-track railway, for example, you would have fast lines and slow lines. The signalling would obviously have to be re-done to cater for the higher speeds on the fast lines.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have tried to keep it low key, but I will have to say this: The level of ignorance I have seen in European "experts" when it comes to American track is generally astounding. First, US rail metallurgy is head and shoulders above that in the UIC standards, and I can give "chapter and verse" on that. Second, the shape of US sections does a much better job of internal stress distribution than the UIC sections. The tiny head to web radius of the UIC 60 should be rolled with a "break here under heavy axle loads" on it. A read of the discussion of why the 112 and 131 got redesigned into the 115 and 132 tells you that, and even more if you go back to the discussions that occurred at the time. Third, the European concept of "badly worn" on rail is more like the US concept of "barely broke in good". Maybe because of point 2, it has to be that way. But think about your section shape, where you have joints move the bolts back from the end of the rail some, and increase the neutral temperature in your CWR and you can probably greatly increase the life of rail in Europe. Quit disparaging what we do and look into why it works.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
George, I know you're a track expert and I won't argue with that fact. What I will say is that magazine is American, the piece was written by an American, and it shocked American track engineers. You don't appear to have read it so I'll try to explain the profile. If you imagine the top part of the rail head it should be (very roughly) rectangular in cross section. Now do a diagonal chop about 1/3 off that section, less at the bottom, more at the top. The bottom part had worn close to the vertical section. The highest side of the top section was on the outside, thus the risk of the wheel flanges climbing up the slope was high.
European rails must be pretty safe as we don't seem to have so many derailments. I'm not sure why you're saying the life of the rails is not long? I've seen rails marked as 1960s and still in use. Possibly also our tolerances are tighter so they get rejected sooner.
Geoff M.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Mr. Chieftain inferred in the opening posting, Mr. Kummant seems to "have his way" with the media. Here is a non-rail yet "up close and personal" piece that appeared in Sunday's New York Times:
posted
I've seen rails marked in the late 1940's (in 132RE) and still in use. Some of it wasn't really that badly worn, either.
Sounds like the rail in question was pretty severly curve worn. Risk of climb depends upon angle of the worn part. Without seeing and measuring it, it would be impossible to say whether or not it was dangerously worn. 1/3 side wear is pretty severe. Sounds like it needed replacing. Just not sure the drama was either necessary or beneficial.
What I saw in the northeast corridor in the mid 70's that disturbed me more than anything I saw in rail was the tie condition in the turnouts.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
