The most paranoid among us see surface modes of transportation in the same light as air transport when it comes to security. Amtrak has slowly started to roll over for the Homeland Security people, and more and more "exercises" in security are being held on commuter routes - particularly in the East. It seems that we will eventually have to undergo airline-like security checks, at least on Amtrak, if our current terrorism paranoia continues. But is it paranoia? Or is it a necessary response to where our western civilization stands in the world?
Is it logical to need airline-like security measures on Amtrak? The need for air security is grounded, at least in part, on the enormous potential for destruction of property and taking of human life that an airliner in the skies over just about any populated area presents. The airliners themselves are destructive enough, but add chemical, biological, or radiological elements, and the potential is even higher. Good, we've established that this is probably not paranoia, but a real possiblity.
Now let's look at Amtrak. If you could take over a train, you couldn't drive it into any old building. You certainly could do a lot of damage with the train and kill a lot of people, but you probably won't find a building you can bring down. Locomotives don't carry the enormous amounts of combustible fuels that airliners do. In addition, the places where Amtrak routes enter the interior structural elements of massive buildings are few and far between. But they do exist. If you crashed an Amtrak train in there, would you bring down the building? From an engineering standpoint, probably not. As heavy as it is, the total momentum (product of mass times velocity) of an Amtrak train going the fastest it could go without derailing and still get into these places is far lower than the momentum of a flying airliner. (Perhaps a serendipitous side effect of foot-dragging on high speed rail.)
But what if we add biological, chemical, radiologic and/or explosive elements? Again, the potential for spread is greater, but in all cases more confined. The same argument about momentum applies to spread of these elements, and the only other factor for the "large building" scenario is that enough explosives could probably not be physically carried onto Amtrak to do this. Spread of heat and flame would be more retarded in the subterranean confines where most trains enter large buildings. Again, too, there would be destruction and loss of life on board the train.
Some would say that risk is too high to take, so the answer is an unqualified yes. We need airline-style security on Amtrak.
I disagree. Risk must be handled proportionately. For instance, the worse your credit rating, the more interest you pay proportionately for a loan. (Although the current administration may put a stop to this.) If you can stop a ten-pound cannonball with three inches of steel, you don't need three inches of steel to stop a one-pound shell. As Amtrak is proportionately more safe for the public at large, we should be able to be proportionately more free of the restrictions imposed by airline-style security.
That's my opinion.
©2009 C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Where's The Cash?
Too many advocates of new Passenger Rail projects appear to be hanging their hats on stimulus money alone. And, lo and behold, we are 6 months post stimulus and there are reports that over 80% of the cash remains unspent. At the same time, there is some indication that the economy could be - God Bless Us - in a turnaround.
So what happens to all those dependent on stimulus if we also get a turnaround in government attitude? Not so likely with Progressives at the helm you say? What happens to all those new rail projects that expect to get the money? It's possible that the economy will turn around by itself and the government won't need to print all that money.
Well, old bills work just as well as the one's hot off the presses. We can work a little harder to get the money in place, but the plans should still be made. Passenger Rail is a great public work and should never have been given the short shrift while highway and air got all the bucks.
Just don't hang you hat on getting any stimulus money.
©2009 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
So what happens to all those dependent on stimulus if we also get a turnaround in government attitude? Not so likely with Progressives at the helm you say? What happens to all those new rail projects that expect to get the money? It's possible that the economy will turn around by itself and the government won't need to print all that money.
Well, old bills work just as well as the one's hot off the presses. We can work a little harder to get the money in place, but the plans should still be made. Passenger Rail is a great public work and should never have been given the short shrift while highway and air got all the bucks.
Just don't hang you hat on getting any stimulus money.
©2009 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Railroads and The Economy
It's been awhile. I just noticed that my last post was on July 5, and here it is August 9. With the crappy economy, I have less time to write anything, and that includes blog posts. Having to work harder and take less time off to make ends meet (or to keep a job) has kept me away from the keyboard too long.
It got me thinking first about Passenger Rail and the economy. How does it change things?
Economic stimulus has been unleashed for Amtrak, for HSR, and for urban Passenger Rail in general. Is this good? I think so. Capitalizing rail transport in any form is a good idea. It's a job creator that won't go away, because the new rails and routes created won't go away. It's good for economic growth. People able to move from one place to another, economically and without damaging the enviroment, for business or pleasure, can only be good for the economy.
In the short term, with the economy slow, sluggish, or just in the crapper, Amtrak revenue and ridership in most lanes will be down. It's a good time to plan for the future. But people are saving money by using public transportation, and this includes light rail, commuter rail, and rail transit. That should be good in the short term, as heavily subsidized rail in the long term will be needing tax dollars, and more riders will make for more voters willing to open their wallets and purses.
Amtrak is in disarray and needs good leadership right now. I see signs that this is occurring with the Amtrak board, but don't hold your breath. With lots of money to spend, it is going to have to be spent right. The long lead time for new equipment is a bummer, but we have to resist spending it where it won't make a permanent good impression on the rail traveler. And Amtrak has a history of finding more ways to trip over its own rails than the average quasi-government agency. (The Postal Service is next in line.) Finally unfettered by Congress and administrations that had it chained to a post and flogged it every afternoon, Amtrak may just dance around for awhile like the Tin Woodman looking for oil before it finds its balance.
Those of you who have read this blog since the start know that I am a political conservative, but one who believes that there are certain things that government should subsidize. Passenger Rail is one of those things. Let's hope Passenger Rail can come out of this recession looking stronger and better than ever. With the right leadership at all levels, and cooperation from private enterprises that should recognize its importance to a vital economy, it will.
©2009 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
It got me thinking first about Passenger Rail and the economy. How does it change things?
Economic stimulus has been unleashed for Amtrak, for HSR, and for urban Passenger Rail in general. Is this good? I think so. Capitalizing rail transport in any form is a good idea. It's a job creator that won't go away, because the new rails and routes created won't go away. It's good for economic growth. People able to move from one place to another, economically and without damaging the enviroment, for business or pleasure, can only be good for the economy.
In the short term, with the economy slow, sluggish, or just in the crapper, Amtrak revenue and ridership in most lanes will be down. It's a good time to plan for the future. But people are saving money by using public transportation, and this includes light rail, commuter rail, and rail transit. That should be good in the short term, as heavily subsidized rail in the long term will be needing tax dollars, and more riders will make for more voters willing to open their wallets and purses.
Amtrak is in disarray and needs good leadership right now. I see signs that this is occurring with the Amtrak board, but don't hold your breath. With lots of money to spend, it is going to have to be spent right. The long lead time for new equipment is a bummer, but we have to resist spending it where it won't make a permanent good impression on the rail traveler. And Amtrak has a history of finding more ways to trip over its own rails than the average quasi-government agency. (The Postal Service is next in line.) Finally unfettered by Congress and administrations that had it chained to a post and flogged it every afternoon, Amtrak may just dance around for awhile like the Tin Woodman looking for oil before it finds its balance.
Those of you who have read this blog since the start know that I am a political conservative, but one who believes that there are certain things that government should subsidize. Passenger Rail is one of those things. Let's hope Passenger Rail can come out of this recession looking stronger and better than ever. With the right leadership at all levels, and cooperation from private enterprises that should recognize its importance to a vital economy, it will.
©2009 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, July 05, 2009
What Did He Say?
I forget sometimes that words mean different things to different people. Take the last blog on the subject of automation. Note the comment and my return comment.
In my book, and I guess I'm getting too old, automation is anything where a mechanical or electronic system (or a combination of both) intervenes in a process that could be (or once was) done by human hand. We forget that there weren't always signals that detected an occupied block. Those signals that do were invented a century ago and were automation. Now a lot of people think that something is not automated unless it is run by a computer chip.
In the case of the DC Metro wreck, it may be interesting if the final determination is a failure in automation that had nothing to do with computers. But it just makes my point. As automation gets older, it needs maintenance to avoid failure. In most cases, automatic block signals or occupied block detection systems, were designed to fail safe. They did this in a way that assumed that a live engineer (motorman) was operating the train. The operator had certain options (not necessarily only two), in the event of a dark signal. Even those options were supposed to err on the side of safety.
Which brings the question: In the DC wreck, how was the software written to respond to an occupied block (I'm guessing binary zero) or an unoccupied block (binary one), or to the equivalent of a dark signal (maybe neither but probably should also be a zero)? Or did the computer itself have to take the equivalent of a visual position and translate it to digital? Or what?
I'm speculating, because I know nothing about the design of this system - absolutely nothing, binary zero. I do know this: In designing any system of automation, it is better to design the overall system from scratch than to try to wed it to something older, slower, or just not in step with current trends. My point again?
If we are going to spend money to design automated train control systems, especially in the case of dedicated HSR, but also for light rail and transit, we need to go whole hog, or future designers and engineers will be trying to do patches and upgrades that just won't be as safe.
©2009 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
In my book, and I guess I'm getting too old, automation is anything where a mechanical or electronic system (or a combination of both) intervenes in a process that could be (or once was) done by human hand. We forget that there weren't always signals that detected an occupied block. Those signals that do were invented a century ago and were automation. Now a lot of people think that something is not automated unless it is run by a computer chip.
In the case of the DC Metro wreck, it may be interesting if the final determination is a failure in automation that had nothing to do with computers. But it just makes my point. As automation gets older, it needs maintenance to avoid failure. In most cases, automatic block signals or occupied block detection systems, were designed to fail safe. They did this in a way that assumed that a live engineer (motorman) was operating the train. The operator had certain options (not necessarily only two), in the event of a dark signal. Even those options were supposed to err on the side of safety.
Which brings the question: In the DC wreck, how was the software written to respond to an occupied block (I'm guessing binary zero) or an unoccupied block (binary one), or to the equivalent of a dark signal (maybe neither but probably should also be a zero)? Or did the computer itself have to take the equivalent of a visual position and translate it to digital? Or what?
I'm speculating, because I know nothing about the design of this system - absolutely nothing, binary zero. I do know this: In designing any system of automation, it is better to design the overall system from scratch than to try to wed it to something older, slower, or just not in step with current trends. My point again?
If we are going to spend money to design automated train control systems, especially in the case of dedicated HSR, but also for light rail and transit, we need to go whole hog, or future designers and engineers will be trying to do patches and upgrades that just won't be as safe.
©2009 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Automated Railroading
The terrible wreck on the DC Metro last week got me thinking about automated railroading in general.
Let me first say that I have ridden the Metro and I have always been very impressed by it. I have never felt any fear at all that the automated systems were unreliable or would result in such a wreck.
Nonetheless, as we move toward further reliance on automatic train stop and other systems for Passenger Rail, I wonder what will happen when the money runs out. Granted, there is more focus on the lack of reinforced car ends and anticlimber engineering for the cars than there is on the automated system that would have had to fail in order for the DC wreck to happen. These cars didn't have the engineering due to lack of cash. And it remains to be seen whether the system failure was also because of deferred spending.
What happens to our automated systems when the money runs out? It will run out, you know. Someday, the pendulum will swing back in the other direction and nobody will want government to subsidize rail again. The question becomes: Do we spend enough now to design fail-safe systems that will be able to age gracefully? And do we spend enough time to retain the necessary skills among our railroaders so that, when and if the systems fail, we can still run trains the old way?
It's interesting to think of what Passenger Rail in the United States will be like in 20 or 30 years. Hope I'm around to see it, whatever it is like.
©2009 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Let me first say that I have ridden the Metro and I have always been very impressed by it. I have never felt any fear at all that the automated systems were unreliable or would result in such a wreck.
Nonetheless, as we move toward further reliance on automatic train stop and other systems for Passenger Rail, I wonder what will happen when the money runs out. Granted, there is more focus on the lack of reinforced car ends and anticlimber engineering for the cars than there is on the automated system that would have had to fail in order for the DC wreck to happen. These cars didn't have the engineering due to lack of cash. And it remains to be seen whether the system failure was also because of deferred spending.
What happens to our automated systems when the money runs out? It will run out, you know. Someday, the pendulum will swing back in the other direction and nobody will want government to subsidize rail again. The question becomes: Do we spend enough now to design fail-safe systems that will be able to age gracefully? And do we spend enough time to retain the necessary skills among our railroaders so that, when and if the systems fail, we can still run trains the old way?
It's interesting to think of what Passenger Rail in the United States will be like in 20 or 30 years. Hope I'm around to see it, whatever it is like.
©2009 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Chicago to Iowa City - I'd Ride It
If I still lived in the Chicago area.
Getting out to Iowa City used to be one of my favorites. It's a beautiful city with a thriving university campus and sites of historical interest. I used to do it for an overnight or two. Out - overnight - and back.
That's probably how Amtrak service would go. But with a five-hour schedule (one way) it would be possible to spend a 15-hour day and five of those could be for business or shopping in one city or the other.
I'm speaking from the big-city perspective, however. The train would be of even more benefit for Iowans, as they would pick up the brunt of the subsidy, but could look forward to visiting downtown Chicago more often with less headache than driving. If the train is scheduled correctly.
I fear that with a lot of these new proposed startup Amtrak routes, the freight railroads will prevail and the schedules will be adjusted (or crimped by bad or felonious dispatching) into what the host rail wants or needs to get its freight over the road. There will be less incentive as freight traffic (unsubsidized as of today, but bailouts happen) takes it in the shorts from the lousy economy. But if both the economy and the new Amtrak routes come on line at the same time, you know absolutely which will bite the bullet. And it won't be the new route.
But making an overnight isn't so bad in Iowa City or in Chicago - though more expensive in the latter. I'd ride it anyway.
©2009 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Getting out to Iowa City used to be one of my favorites. It's a beautiful city with a thriving university campus and sites of historical interest. I used to do it for an overnight or two. Out - overnight - and back.
That's probably how Amtrak service would go. But with a five-hour schedule (one way) it would be possible to spend a 15-hour day and five of those could be for business or shopping in one city or the other.
I'm speaking from the big-city perspective, however. The train would be of even more benefit for Iowans, as they would pick up the brunt of the subsidy, but could look forward to visiting downtown Chicago more often with less headache than driving. If the train is scheduled correctly.
I fear that with a lot of these new proposed startup Amtrak routes, the freight railroads will prevail and the schedules will be adjusted (or crimped by bad or felonious dispatching) into what the host rail wants or needs to get its freight over the road. There will be less incentive as freight traffic (unsubsidized as of today, but bailouts happen) takes it in the shorts from the lousy economy. But if both the economy and the new Amtrak routes come on line at the same time, you know absolutely which will bite the bullet. And it won't be the new route.
But making an overnight isn't so bad in Iowa City or in Chicago - though more expensive in the latter. I'd ride it anyway.
©2009 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Good Ideas and Bad Ones
The Good: Amtrak is considering the restoration of the Pioneer from Denver to the pacific northwest (see article), and the idea of adding more of the Front Range cities that have some population density is a Good Idea. Amtrak routes need population centers at the ends of routes in order to assure proper utilization of resources throughout the entire route. But it would be damn silly not to add smaller population centers where possible. It’s the no-density towns and marginal cities that need not be served by terminal routes.
The Bad: Congressman Harry of NM wants the Rail Runner, already suffering from marginal density in its Belen terminal, to go to El Paso. (See article.) The reasoning is, and get this, the rest of New Mexico wants commuter options, too. This shows that Mr. Teague has no concept of how to use rail resources and recover revenue. Yes, like my example under “The Good,” El Paso would be a high-density city population, also with potential Mexican passengers (and concomitant border crossing problems like Amtrak’s international trains), but running a train because the other 2/3 of New Mexico has one isn’t a good reason. And the northern end of the route is a marginal terminal (Santa Fe), that even the old namesake railroad didn’t go to.
The Ugly: Not today.
©2009 – C. A. Turek – mistertrains@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
