Keep Up The Good Work

Meeting Amtrak's Southwest Chief (both 3 and 4) at the miserable excuse of a train station in Albuquerque, NM, this past week has reminded us just how much Amtrak is still doing with the budget whose bottom line is most easily described as "not enough."

Before we go off on what's wrong with the picture, here is what's right:

The trains were reasonably on time. We say reasonably because both delays were none of Amtrak's fault. Train 3 was delayed by a freight train engine failure, and Train 4 by wet roadbed resulting from the record rains in New Mexico.

The trains were reasonably beautiful. This train running behind two or three new diesel electric units still evokes memories of the Super Chief of the 60s with high level cars in all stainless steel. Inside, my visiting family had a family bedroom that was as luxurious as it was expensive and appeared to have been recently refurbished. REVAMP NOTHING!

The personnel we met were courteous and helpful, and my family reported that service enroute was exemplary. Even food service was praiseworthy, and that's saying a mouthful.

Station personnel were equally to be praised. The station agent was happy to describe his understanding of delays, and the baggage clerks were pleasant and communicative. No secrets were being kept, or at least one didn't get that impression. Amtrak take note! These are the loyal personnel of the Albuquerque station.

Now to what Amtrak is doing wrong with the limited budget.

Amtrak needs to break out only a small fraction of what they will spend for locomotive and car maintenance, for track maintenance, and for new equipment over the next few years and spend that money on dunderhead cities like Albuquerque. The station is a disgrace, and the dunderheads that run Albuquerque have seen fit to highlight the disgrace by sandwiching it between the brand new city transit station and the brand new city bus station. Both are less than magnificent unless stood up against Amtrak's hovel. Then they become palatial.

Yes, we know it was about forcing Amtrak's hand, but Amtrak and Albuquerque both dug in for a battle and both lost. Now the arriving passenger gets a bad impression, not of Amtrak, but of the City of Albuquerque, because by the time the passenger gets there, he/she already knows Amtrak is trying.

So get out of your foxhole, Amtrak, and put up a few bucks and build a decent station waiting room, ticket booth and baggage handling area. One that doesn't look like the roaches are going to eat the luggage as soon as the lights are turned off. The dunderheads that run Albuquerque will never do it.

What else? Amtrak should refuse to pay New Mexico to use the tracks until they are upgraded to a standard that doesn't look like a branch line from the 1930s. Now that New Mexico owns the right of way used by the Chief from Raton to Isleta, Amtrak should have the right to demand decent track or withhold enough payment to do it yourself. (The washout wasn't anybody's fault.)

Amtrak, playing second fiddle to state legislators for funding of many of its routes, needs to get some nads and be ready to put some feet to the fire when a state doesn't deliver. We have suggested before that using the right-of-way for free should be New Mexico's contribution to Amtrak's subsidies.

So there you have it. Amtrak is doing a truly remarkable job with the money they have, and they could use some stones, and if they stood up to some of the recalcitrant cities and states once in awhile, they just may have more money to play with. That's what we saw as Trains 3 and 4 rolled to a stop in Albuquerque.

Adios.

©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Second Hiatus of the Month

We regret with joy that we will be putting the blog on hiatus for the second time this month. Regret, because we enjoy doing this blog. Joy because we are going on vacation this time and not just to some meetings.

Best wishes to all. Our next post will be August 24, 2006.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Applause or Just Politics

We direct the reader's attention to this article originating with the Philadelphia Enquirer and posted on djournal.com.

We are not sure that we should trust either of these guys (Lautenberg & Lott would make a good name for a law firm), but their pragmatic and somewhat well informed approach to Amtrak funding makes much more sense than the current admin's "let the states do it" approach.

We say "somewhat well informed," because the Northeast Corridor isn't really high speed rail and won't be until it is ramped up to that status in the distant future. Right now it is just trains running at higher than average speeds on existing right-of-way. The latter has been revamped (REVAMP NOTHING) at some cost, but it is not high speed rail like the French or the Japanese know it.

Perhaps that is some of the problem. If our representatives believe that the Northeast Corridor rises or can rise to the standard of the true HSR trains, then we may not have any hope of reaching that goal.

The second half of their article makes much more sense and advances an argument to include more money for Passenger Rail in our transportation budget. The arguments are the same ones we have been making in this blog. It makes no sense not to have an alternative to air and highways, and it also makes all the sense in the world to have an alternate that is less vulnerable to attack. Though most of those with D after their names would deny it, we are in a war in which we are vulnerable to attack. Mr. Lautenberg appears to be one of the few who may recognize it.

As long as this is not just a way to get the Honerables Lott and Lautenberg into another press release, we applaud their efforts. Just don't follow it up with politics as usual.

©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Cost vs. Benefit - Overstating the Obvious

We thought we'd tackle the first post after Hiatus with an inspiration from the comment to NGR II - Train Control posted by Christopher Parker. Nice shot at cost-benefiting our argument out of existence! (Or is it benefitTing?)

But not so fast.

When we do cost vs. benefit analysis, are we always seeing the big picture? In Chris' case, we think not. He wants to integrate running of trains into signal systems and traffic control. And he wants the spent money to give us some benefit that will justify the expenditure.

For the last half century, the standard method used by industry (make that ANY industry) to reduce cost has been to reduce personnel. Why should it be any different for Next Generation Rail? Automation means reduction in the work force with corresponding reduction in the salaries and benefits that continue on the red side of the ledger until the employee lives out his or her ever lengthening retirement. There's your cost-benefit.

However, bless him, Chris also argues himself into the real reason why we should automate the train handling process. This is a reason we really haven't gotten to talk about in detail yet, and may not now for a few weeks. This reason is the increase in line capacity. (Think outside the box and ignore Chris' need to create rolling blocks and plan meets. Someday, these, too will be a skill needed only by the computer programmer.)

Railroading is a capital intensive business. Transportation industries, in general, are the only businesses where Service is the product but large amounts of capital must be put in place to provide these services. (Think about that: When the product is sold and used up, it is gone. It doesn't exist. It doesn't even have to be taken to the landfill. We can give you the same kind of service at a call center for self-repair of widgets with no more capital than the cost of a telephone system, not the billions of dollars railroads have to spend for land, taxes, track, trains and equipment.)

So the best approach is to get the biggest bang for your buck, and this would be to run the most trains on the least amount of track using the least amount of equipment to do so. We are not saying that only technologizing control systems can this be accomplished. But, if you take the cost of labor out of the equation, the numbers look a lot better. To do this, every other passenger transport segment has to spend way more money than rail. (Airlines would love to figure out how to land and take off without the pilot, and that's all they need him for right now.)

There are other cost-benefits, too. Because, like sending men into space, the development of the technologies leads to spin-offs that give immediate benefit in many areas. We are sure you can think of examples, but write to us if you can't and we will get you some.

Thanks, Chris, for your thoughtful comments.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Hiatus Announcement

We will be on hiatus starting today. Our next post will be Monday, August 7, 2006. Our apologies and best wishes to all.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

A Warning For Denver - Don't Do It Underground!

Denver has grand plans. Why not? It's a grand old city the the gem of the Rocky Mountains.

Sometimes grand plans get too grand.

Case in point: The plans to renovate, rehabilitate, and in general revamp the Denver Union Station area. Twenty years and a prayer that the guys that built the Big Dig in Boston don't get anywhere near this one, and - the plan says - most of the transportation infrastructure will be underground.

When Chicago and the owning railroads decided that the air rights directly over the station concourse of Union Station were too valuable for just a beautiful, skylighted building, they demolished it and left travelers with catacombs that are the envy of any Vatican monk. The (then) Marsh and McLennan building was a stink bomb that had so much asbestos insulation in it . . . well that's another story. Even a more recent revamp of the catacombs has not really left us with a better station, just a slightly better effort at thinking about how to decorate catacombs.

When New York and the railroads decided that the air rights directly over Penn Station were too valuable for just a beautiful skylighted building, they demolished it and . . . same picture, same result, renovations and all. Madison Square Garden is just as much of a stink bomb, too.

Denver, we pray you come to your senses before the project is overdone, overbudget, and underground. It's nice to see the light sometimes.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Maine Plans Far, Far Ahead

Give the people in the lakes region near Portland, ME, some credit. They are thinking and talking about Passenger Rail.

This link is to an article that describes the kind of thinking that has been going on since 2001. The most ambitious plans would include revival of the entire old Mountain Divison into New Hampshire and eventual connection with White River Junction, VT.

The area is growing and luring more tourists, and Passenger Rail would be no worse an idea in a relatively sparse population than it is in New Mexico. (The jury is still out on Rail Runner ridership - we haven't seen any real statistics and the ride is still truncated and free.) But in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, it is much further in the future.

The article rightly points out that government policy has hamstrung the area as far as transportation options. Right now it's "highway or nothing." Expand the scope of this statement and it applies to many, many parts of the United States, both populated and not. Whole segments of the country are "highway or nothing" for passenger travel. Thank God for short lines, or this would be more true for freight/cargo as well.

An aside: We refer to freight railroading. But freight railroads carry cargo. Freight is what you pay to move cargo. Nonetheless, the terms are used more or less interchangably. This writer is an old cargo surveyor. That's a professional who determines suitability for transit in terms of risk of loss or damage, and also who determines damage in the event of accidental loss. We never surveyed freight, only cargo.

In our opinion, shifting us into options where Passenger Rail becomes the primary carrier of surface passengers would be tax dollars well-spent. The people of southwestern Maine are thinking ahead. We have only two words of advice: Revamp nothing! Build for Next Generation Rail!

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

NGR II - Train Control

There are two aspects to Train Control.

The first aspect involves how one goes about getting the train in the right place at the right time without having it get tangled with any other trains, all of which have to also get in the right place at the right time. The second aspect is how one goes about getting and keeping the controller (in most current rail transport modes in the United States, this is the "engineer" or "operator") in control of the train while complying with all the requirements of the first aspect.

For literary convenience, we will refer to the current state of railroading as the Current Mode or CM. Next Generation Rail is NGR.

In CM, the two aspects of train control are not fully integrated, and the stumbling block to full integration is human. In CM, all of the data that is produced and constitutes the first aspect must pass through the human engineer to get to the second aspect. For example, a train order, schedule and/or signal must be obeyed. The engineer, assimilating all the data, must run the train to the best of his ability by manipulating the throttle, automatic brake, dynamic brake and/or engine brake in such a way as to accomplish the task of the first aspect - keep the train in the right place at the right time.

Though there are a few technologies in CM that bypass or at least ignore the human interface - automatic train stop, positive train control, automatic train separation, etc. - none seek to put the needs of the first aspect directly to work on the second aspect.

This part will anger the operating unions: NGR should not need an engineer as a train operator. The only need for an on-board engineer should be to monitor on-board systems and keep the machinery running. The on-board engineer in NGR should be approximately what the fireman was to the steam locomotive, only with a broader knowledge of systems and computers to match NGR's complex locomotives.

Before we talk about the out-there systems that will keep the trains in the right places at the right times, we would like to say a bit about the on-board control systems for NGR.

With today's state of computer science, interoperability of computer components, information technology, communications and micro-electronic control, and with the anticipated future state of these disciplines . . . THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY OPERATING A REAL TRAIN SHOULD BE ANY MORE DIFFICULT THAN THE DCC CONTROL OF A RUNNING MODEL TRAIN. It is simply the entrenchment of the current state of control systems that keeps them en vogue, and the reluctance of manufacturers to take a cutting edge and attempt to slice into sales of CM technology. In a nutshell, NGR technology for the on-board portion of train control already exists.

He's NUTS! No such thing exists!

Yes it does! It exists in many current components and hardware that, if properly brought together can make such a system without any great leaps in hardware or software technology. It also exists on so many drawing boards and in the minds of so many designers. Any one of you who has comprehended what we have said so far and gotten to this argument in this post knows this. Also, think of the current state of remote control locomotives. Though the system is still too complex and adapts to CM instead of offering simplified systems and data, this is a very viable first step.

So the CM aspect of train control that now includes all on-board control systems and the operating engineer will, in NGR, be nothing more than the process of adjusting a DCC control (For the unitiated, this is computerized, digitized model railroading at its current state of the art.) to move the train to where it should be when it should be. But for NGR to work, we've got to get the first aspect of train control, keeping trains where they should be, to interface with the second aspect.

More about NGR and the first aspect of train control in a future blog.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Amtrak and Car Supply

Chuck Merckel writes, "Dining car service was usually good until the late 1980's when budget cuts produced meals on paper plates with plastic utensils. We now see a return to pre-prepared food in order to cut costs. While I have not seen too many adverse reviews of the "simplified dining car service", I wonder exactly what Amtrak intends to do with all their long distance equipment. From what I have read, it seems that Amtrak wants to consolidate all; food service operations into one car per train unless holiday travel warrants two cars. Thus the sightseer lounge car no longer serves as a sightseeing snack car independent from the dining car. If this is the intended arrangement, the possibility exists that the system could expand without the expense of additional lounge and dining cars. Please give me your views."

Our view of all Amtrak car operations is that it is a miracle that they have any operable cars at all. By some accounts, 66 of 479 Superliner cars (13%) are either scrapped or wrecked. There are no plans (read no money) to replace any of them. Diners and lounges have fared better. 14 of 119 are gone. (11%) There have been cars available when states want new routes. However, most of the initial new state routes will probably be sans diners and food service will either be on a snack bar basis or crammed into a corner on coach lower levels.

On Track On Line provides a fine listing of all Amtrak passenger equipment. Superliner I cars have been rebuilt and refurbished (revamped if you will). Stranger things have happened. REVAMP NOTHING!

We know Amtrak continues to this day to look forward and try to visualize a future. If you can't visualize your future, you should not be in the railroad biz. There are always experimental car designs on the table (David Gunn) or under it (when the Bush Admin is not looking). Whether Amtrak ever will have enough money to just buy new cars on a large scale basis is arguable. There will always be money for routes where the money flows (read Northeast Corridor), and there will be less for the long distance routes where a moon rocket is closer to a service center (in terms of time and money) than an Amtrak passenger car. The cars for those long distance routes have to be engineered better (read more money) than Acela trainsets, because once they are out on the rails, there is nobody to fix what goes wrong until they turn around the whole route. We don't see Amtrak building any other shops to supplement Beech Grove.

Chuck, in our opinion, simply throwing another set of cars that happen to be surplus out on the rails is no way to start up additional routes. If that is the only way, then more power to the powers at Amtrak, because we will applaud any (ANY) new passenger routings. We don't know - perhaps some readers do - but we would bet that the first diners or lounges to be withdrawn in the interest of cutting back on dining service were also the oldest, most beaten and dismal examples of what happens to a passenger car when it is run two decades past its reasonable service life. (Again a NASA analogy vis a vis Space Shuttle.) We would hate to think that potential new riders would have to form their opinion of Amtrak travel based on the worst of the worst.

Unlike this writer, most potential Amtrak passengers have no recollection of what it was like to ride a long-distance passenger train before 1971. Oddly enough, we just received advertising from Walthers, a renowned manufacturer and seller of model railroad equipment. This was a blurb, also available on the Internet, for a model of the 1955 Empire Builder trainset. (See also this link.) We witnessed this train's daily summary departure from Chicago along the Burlington Route's rails on more than one occasion. Waiting at LaVergne station about 9 miles out from Chicago Union Station through the interminable advance timed grade-crossing gates that allowed this beautiful train to zip through the suburbs at 60+ miles per and then watching all 14 of its perfectly matched cars pass on the middle track and fade off into the west as the CTC signals flipped their gels to red behind it - this was a rolling incentive to ride the train.

Compare what we just described to the last Amtrak train you watched going past. Is the incentive comparable? Is it even close?

Please, though it would do our hearts good to see new Passenger Rail routes, let's not encourage the management to re-use the diners and lounges. They will hurt themselves (and us) trying.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

The Rail Runner Starts Up

We had planned a blog about Amtrak and car supply that was triggered by an email from blog reader Chuck Merckel of Livonia, MI. Rest assured, we will post our comments about Amtrak's car supply with a coming post.

Today, we have to announce our thrill that Rail Runner, the commuter rail service for New Mexico and particularly Albuquerque and (eventually) Santa Fe has started up. The Friday, July 14 start was about nine months later than the originally planned October 2005 startup, but was also only two years after the idea was first put before the public by Gov. Bill Richardson and the Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments. That's a quick startup by any measure, and a commendable one.

Never mind that the train is only running from Albuquerque to Bernalillo (NM 550) and back, and never mind that it will run for free for three months. Local newspapers and television stations report that riders loved it.

As there are so many adults who were born post-Amtrak Day and who never had a chance to ride on short, inter-city hops such as Albuquerque to Las Cruces or El Paso and/or Albuquerque to Santa Fe, the education of these riders is going to require some love of the train ride.

By the way, we just returned from a weekend and Las Cruces, NM, and we took a few pics of the old Santa Fe depot there. This is where the doodlebugs from Albuquerque would have stopped. It is nicely restored and we will post one of the pics on the blog.

Also, glad to see that some of our readers are starting to read with enough interest to start disagreeing with us. (See comments on recent post about the budget and politics.) Please disagree all you want. We will let you know if we disagree with your disagreement. If you really want to argue, give us specifics and references or links to references. We will push back other subjects to clarify any topic, if there is enough interest. Please don't start with liberal political talking points, however. We can get enough of that in the Old Media. So we hope that Anonymous wasn't just trying to let our readers know that he/she thinks Mr. Bush is doing something unconstitutional.

Happy train riding!

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Mineta Legacy - Must We Go On?

We are still praying for a Secretary of Transportation with a railroad background. We have received several suggestions that David Gunn would make the best choice. We agree that he would be a good choice for those of us who advocate a strong Passenger Rail system. We do not agree that he would be a good political choice.

Why play politics? The answer should be clear to any voter. Politics drives the engine that gets public money into transportation projects.

David Gunn, though an extremely confident administrator, railroader, and executive, does not have the political confidence of anybody inside the Beltway. He is damaged goods, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. (It took Bill Richardson getting elected NM Governor twice to quench the taint - blow off the stink, if you will - of what happened in the national labs during his tenure as Bill Clinton's Secretary of Energy. And believe us when we say that all the stink ain't gone yet.)

The next Transportation Secretary probably will be in the position for less than 3 years, potentially much less if he doesn't play by the rules of the Bush Admin. Cabinet posts rarely carry over from one admin to the next. (Proof.) He/she will have to deal with the Mineta Legacy before ever moving forward with public projects that make sense.

What is the Mineta Legacy in transportation? First and foremost, it is a shortsighted view of how the various modes of transportation fit into the larger picture. Mr. Mineta's tendency to favor road projects over all others suggest this if nothing else does. Second, it is the old song of politics as usual with respect to Amtrak in particular and railroading (including freight) in general. It is an inability to factor in the ways in which spending money on certain modes may yield greater public good than on others. Dollars spent on rail transport, for instance, versus equal dollars spent on trying to maintain the Antique Interstates. Or dollars spent on bolstering the (almost equally antique) airlines that have instead stifled innovation that could, perhaps, still save the airlines.

Must we go on? If any of our readers have other suggestions for The Mineta Legacy, please comment and we will be glad to post a longer list.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

The Rockford Files - Illinois' Winning Hand

In a fit of uncharacteristic foresight, Amtrak is reported by the Chicago Tribune to be in agreement with the Illinois DOT on the re-establishment of rail service between Chicago and Rockford. Rockford is the largest small city in Northern Illinois that is not a suburb of Chicago. It lost passenger service in 1981, so we refuse to call this 25-year suspension of service a hiatus. Perhaps we should not even call it re-establishment. (See our blog entry about MoDOT's hopes for rail service.) Hopefully, it will not be a revamp of what used to exist either pre-Amtrak or at the time it was suspended.

Chicago's Metra already makes it beyond Elgin, to a decidedly non-railroad place name called Big Timber. We say non-railroad because, as far as we know, it never appeared on any railroad timetable before Metra. The contemporary station was just named for Big Timber Road. The point is that the most likely starting point is as an extension of this Metra line.

We are sure that Illinois and Amtrak will work out the details over the coming months. Illinois will have to pay to build some track connections, if the routing is going to be efficient. We would like to see the trains get right into Rockford's old downtown, and hope that the long-standing theory that says it's OK if the route just makes it to another travel connection (like an airport) doesn't prevail.

But it is noteworthy that Illinois has made a committment to Passenger Rail and recognizes that this is one of those high-benefit routes that can take a lot of passenger car traffic off the highways. In this case, the benefitting highway would be the Northwest Tollway (Interstate 90). This brings to mind other questions, such as how can a state that hopes to sell its tollway system to private enterprise justify using state money to take traffic off the tollway system? But we digress.

This is yet another route we would like to ride, because we never had a chance when it was either an Amtrak route or the old CNW Blackhawk service. Not quite as scenic as MoDOT's St. Louis-Springfield, this route would be a fun ride nonetheless; particularly the whole shebang from downtown Chicago (Union Station) to Rockford. Highlights would be the old Bensenville Yard of Milwaukee Road fame, crossing the Fox River at Elgin, the northern rolling farmlands of Winnebago County, Belvedere and Rockford (another river town: Rock Ford on the Rock River).

Kudos to Illinois DOT and the paying citizens of that great state.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

How About A Next Generation Rail Transport System

Revamp Nothing!

Simply explained, the philosophy of this blog is that you cannot achieve a true breakthrough in Passenger Rail transport by upgrading The Old on a limited budget. For instance, VIA Rail chose to revamp cars originally built for Chunnel service. They are nice cars and are being used on the service to the Maritimes. But with European buff strength (below North American standards) and with only moderately appealing amenities, they are nothing more than revamped Chunnel cars.

So how are we going to get to a Next Generation Rail (NGR) transport system?

Like the advent of rail transportation itself, NGR must be such a forward step in surface transportation that it outdoes anything else. Yet we at Passenger Rail believe that NGR, while it must be a forward step, cannot be a quantum leap. Neither can it be a revamp of current equipment.

In the 1830s, a quantum leap would have been going from horses pulling carts on rutted roads to internal combustion rail travel all in one step. None of the theory was unknown in the 1830s, but the technology was too complicated to be practical. In the 2000s, maglev comes to mind as a quantum leap.

So what can we do? Well, first we must realize that some of the boldest steps forward are based on simple engineering. We tend to throw technology at problems these days, and the end result isn't always well thought out. High speed rail is a good idea only if we do it simply. NGR will have to be steel wheel on steel rail. The concept of fixed guideways routing vehicles where needed with minimal friction/drag and with a minimum of computer intervention AND the possibility of falling back to the "all mechanical" mode when things fail - this concept cannot be beat. We dare you to try.

Second, we must also realize that the mingling of passenger and freight is a bad idea - an idea whose time has come and gone. We are not saying that they cannot share the same right-of-way, just that they cannot share the same track. Not even for a few hundred yards.

What we envision is similar to the concept of the limited access superhighway, a concept that, for road transport, is past its prime. It is a concept that hasn't yet been tried in any robust form for rail. Passenger Rail has only to reach passenger stations, while freight must reach customers where and when they are. So we can see a system with high-speed Passenger Rail on the inside of a wide easement, and freight rail on the outside. No crossovers touch Passenger Rails. It's either over or under to get to the other side, and in heavy traffic areas it could be double decked with passenger on top. (Remembering a freeway in Oakland and a bad earthquake, we hasten to add that proper structural safeguards must be installed.)

Revamp nothing: These should be new routes with newly laid track and contemporary engineering that uses all the advances that materials engineering has to offer. We allow for reuse of rights-of-way and easements, but don't just plop the passenger lines in the middle of old freight rails that were laid during the Truman Administration.

In future blogs: NGR as it applies to signals and control systems, passenger cars, and motive power.

We will soon have some thoughts about Positive Train Control posted on our sister blog, The Railroad.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

What Part Our Budget Don't You Understand?

We will never understand the political process. Or perhaps, we understand it too well.

We understand what it says in The Constitution without too much difficulty. Even though it was written over 200 years ago, it is clear and concise, and you get a real feel for what The Founding Fathers were thinking. The Supreme Court should be a real easy job. Just read The Constitution.

But we still don't understand the political process. When Amtrak says it needs $X for the next year's budget, Congress always gives it a number $Y that is $X minus $A, where $A is an arbitrary number. There also seems to be some rule that says when a Republican administration is in office, $A has to be more than 50% of $X.

We suppose it is because the Constitution doesn't really account for government subsidy of Passenger Rail. Viable railroads were nearly a half century in the future for The Framers. In those days, it was hard to imagine a private enterprise that would one day be so important to the National Welfare that government would consider a subsidy to establish, advance and run it. About as close as it comes would be the need, recognized in The Constitution, for Federal Government to support and maintain a standing army. That was about as large as enterprises had grown, and the first large railroad corporations were patterned along military lines.

It's too bad that The Constitution doesn't say, "In recognition of the Fact that Anything Worth Doing By Government is Worth Doing Well, it shall be the Duty of Congress to fully fund all Government Enterprise." We would also like it to say, under a chapter titled "Waste and Deception," that, "All government waste and deception discovered by audit or other devise shall be subject to a rebate in taxes to all payers equal to twice the amount of deception or waste."

Back to Amtrak budgets.

We run about waving our hands and yelling that Congress is intentionally trying to bankrupt Amtrak and it will have to be liquidated. (There are times when we see this as a good thing.) Nonetheless, we have to recognize that this is more likely, absent Constitutional clauses to the contrary, politics as usual. Congress doesn't want to bankrupt Amtrak any more than it wants to push elderly ladies into the Potomac. It just wasn't given any specific directions to the contrary.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Greasing The Wheels

In another shocking development, the Albuquerque Journal, with its June 28 issue, reports that the Democratic Governor's Association, lead by Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and his own campaign committee received a total of $57,500 from BNSF Railway. The Guv you luv to laugh at doesn't see a conflict, even though New Mexico was just sold a railroad for $75 million by the BNSF. For those of you without a calculator, that's not even a 1% rebate.

So we would have to say that the fifty-seven grand is more like some grease in the journal box (no reflection on the Albuquerque Journal) for progress in the matter of getting Passenger Rail going in New Mexico. If the Guv and his politicos (that's right, there's no e in politicos) had really wanted kickbacks, the percentages would have been a lot higher and the amount going straight to the Democrat party would have been a lot less.

This just gives some exposure to a fact of life: The political wheels must be greased if there is to be money spent on Passenger Rail.

This may be something that escapes a Republican. Because Democrats have historically been the masters of graft and the use of questionable funds to get things done, it doesn't mean that Republicans can't learn the art. Mr. Richardson is the most republican Democrat we can bring to mind, and that says something for consensus.

At the risk of repeating The Fact that sits like the elephant in the living room that nobody wants to admit is there: If we want to improve, expand, and modernize Passenger Rail, there will have to be some political Give and some political Take. That's why we can't really criticize Bill Richardson for doing it to get the job done. (And when we say modernize, we don't mean new "streamliners." That's art deco post modernism bullshit from the 1930s. It's great for nostalgia, and we love nostalgia, but it doesn't get the job done, either.)

Here's the Give: Amtrak (or whatever entity succeeds it), in order to grow long-distance Passenger Rail, needs a subsidy from Congress and from the States. Congress needs to stop shutting out the states and Give them matching funds. The States need to stop whining about shrinking budgets and Give the people local, intrastate services that need to be established.

Here's the Take: Take away some of the shortsighted money that is thrown into roads every year. Take away some of the money from air transport. The system is shrinking anyway, so stop trying to grow it by throwing Federal dollars at it. Put about 60 percent of this new-old money into Passenger Rail at the local level, and put the rest into upgrading the freight rail system. (These two aren't necessarily going to remain the same if this plan works.)

Now here's the political aspect: This money becomes local money, spent with local contractors, benefiting local business and local politicians. (We are even open to a little graft here.) When the intrastate systems get big enough, they join the Federal system (perhaps still called Amtrak). The Federal System should have only one function when we eventually reach this point, and that function is to run interstate trains on long distance routes that both coordinate with and take advantage of the successful and already fully funded intrastate infrastructure. (Too many words starting with "I" in that sentence.)

We guess you could say we are thinking along the lines of States Rights and reverting to the way the Framers envisioned the Federal system, then applying it to Passenger Rail.

Okay, here's the Challenge: We believe that in these blogs we have thrown out three or four alternate ways of looking at funding for long- and short-distance passenger rail. We have also presented our opinion on a number of proposals to expand or modify existing plans. If you want to help push any of these ideas through the political process, or know somebody who can help do that, please write us.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Bye, Norm!

Pardon us for laughing uncontrollably. We had a different subject scheduled for today, but we just couldn't help commenting on Mr. Mineta's exit from DOT as of last Friday. Citing the need for "other challenges," he walks away from DOT having never taken Transportation as a challenge, in our opinion, to begin with.

Perhaps rightfully focused on air transport since 9-11, he has nonetheless made some pretty crappy moves on Amtrak.

His resignation comes less than a month after suggesting that private enterprise will have to invest in the aviation infrastructure that has traditionally been government owned and financed. This appears to be a take on, "Let the States finance it," when it comes to Amtrak. As a Google search reveals, he has, thank God, kept his hands off Amtrak and its funding battles for the past couple of months.

Mr. Mineta has, instead, spent his time appearing at events where he could give speeches demonstrating just how much he does not know about any mode other than air transport.

If Mr. Bush performs to recent character, he will pick another transportation executive with some credentials in something other than transportation. Let's hope he takes a good look at the booming railroad industry and picks an executive who has enough vision to see the pitfalls of shutting Amtrak out of the transportation budget. Alternatively, perhaps he could pick somebody closer to the ground floor, as in commuter rail executive. Some commuter rail agencies move more passenger-miles in a year than any airline.

Finally, and this is just a selfish thought on our part, Mr. Bush could pick Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Bill is an ex-congressperson (one qualification), ex-cabinet member (that's two), and he has been a staunch supporter of Passenger Rail transportation in his home state (that's three). He is already a railroad administrator, as the state owns the BNSF Railway line from Belen, NM, to Raton. Here's the selfish part: This would take Mr. Richardson out of the running for another term as governor and would probably end his democrat presidential hopes for '08.

We can dream, can't we?

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

MoDOT Thinking About More Rail

Articles in several Missouri newspapers and appearing on the Web attest to the sincerity of Missouri DOT and Amtrak endeavors to bring Passenger Rail Service to Springfield, MO, after a hiatus of almost 40 years. (They've got us doing it now! That's not a hiatus, that's outright termination of service! That's pre-Amtrak era!) See this link.

So what's wrong with bringing service back to Springfield? Nothing if, like us, you want to see Passenger Rail established, re-established and growing in every corner of the United States.

Amtrak, despite it's ever-present financial woes and dependence on taxpayer dollars to support every route mile, has the right idea in trying to establish routes that didn't even exist when Amtrak was born. The demographics have changed mightily since then, and to open only routes that return us to 1971 misses the big picture.

The arguments in favor of establishing this Passenger Rail route are many. The route goes through some beautiful scenic areas. The auto traffic on parallel Interstate 44 is horrendous, so anything should be done to put some of those passengers on the rails is good. Also, Springfield is close to Branson, Missouri. Branson wasn't even thought of in the context of tourism when the last passenger train left Springfield, MO. Now, the music halls of Branson could be a day trip or an overnight destination for thousands of St. Louis Area residents. It makes one question why MoDOT is not also thinking about Kansas City - Springfield. Unfortunately, it looks like the only existing tracks to Branson come up from the south. But maybe some tour operator will see the wisdom in light rail or even Maglev to Branson from Springfield.

Now the bad part. The WTBAW part. (What The Bush Administration Wants) The state would have to foot the full subsidy for the St. Louis - Springfield service. This may or may not happen, but it is politically difficult, nonetheless.

The worst part? The track needed for this service may need significant improvements, though described as "in good shape," by MoDOT. More subsidy.

Let's hope the people of Missouri are serious about Passenger Rail. We would like to ride this one some day.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Chicago's Circle IV - What To Do About The North Side

Check the Recent Posts at left, or go to this link to catch up on the previous numbers in this series about the proposed rapid transit Chicago's Circle line.

We have talked about the section that would take the old Douglas Park "L" north to Lake Street on what used to be the Metropolitan West Side Elevated but is now known as the Paulina Connector. We have also talked about the section that would be new track from the south end of the north-south leg of the Douglas Park "L" south to Ashland-Archer on the Orange (Midway) Line. We have even talked about our suggested extension of this service to the old Stock Yards to Kenwood ROW along 40th Street to complete a true connection with most South Side transit routes.

The North Side section, as originally proposed, seems the most problematic to us. (Problematic means that to choose this option means you will automatically have problems.)

This proposal calls for the first two sections to link to the Red Line (State Street Subway) at North and Clybourn, a subway stop. The way to get there, according to the plan, is to build a subway from Ashland and Lake to North, then east to North and Clybourn.

We get queasy when we try to think of how the planners are going to get trains from the "L" structure level at Paulina down to subway levels at Ashland, a distance of approximately 1/10 mile, but stranger things have been done in Chicago. (About a 60 foot drop in 530 feet is a whopping 11% grade.) That is, unless the planners are just going to stub-end the subway at Lake and make the passengers ride an escalator down.

This part of the plan has the same problem that the South Side section has: It doesn't get anyone to the lakefront.

It has another problem: We don't like riding trains in tubes.

So far all of the rest of the line is on elevated ROW.

How about re-using the original ROW of the north leg of the old Metropolitan "L", but continue north in the Paulina ROW where it could cross the Kennedy Expressway into relatively undeveloped industrial land, and cross the North Branch of the Chicago River right about where there is a current railroad bridge. Perhaps a new double decker would be good there. Then, we suggest, an elevated structure could swing east into the alleys between Fullerton and Montana. Making a super-station connection with the current Brown Line (North Side "L") and serving DePaul University to the east would be another plus.

We would like to see it continue on elevated structure all the way to the lake. Wouldn't it be neat to burst out of the wall of high-rises on Lake View and ride with an overhead view of the north end of Lincoln Park before you get off your train within walking distance of the lake front at Fullerton and Lake Shore Drive?

We think only a routing like this would satisfy the objectives of building Chicago's Circle Line in the first place.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Privatization a Trend?

Around these parts, government has almost always built roads. Government has rarely built railroads, although it financed the early transcons.

The trend for 60 years of the last century (1910s to 1970s) has always been for government to take over and/or subsidize more and more in the way of railroads. The granddaddy being Conrail, formed from Penn Central (itself a merger of New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroad) and multiple bankrupt eastern railroads, and the grandmama being Amtrak.

All the little siblings in the subsidy or takeover family were the middling to large commuter rail and transit companies that grew together under government sponsorship starting post-WWII.

Nonetheless, the trand was to governmental subsidy, control and/or operation.

Until now.

The harbinger may have been the public sale of stock in Conrail circa 1987. The public got to buy what the public had already bought through taxes. In any case, this was followed by a period of prosperity for Conrail so great that major solvent railroads fought over control of it.

It's a pity that Conrail wasn't formed before Amtrak. If it were, there could now exist a major eastern network of solvent Passenger Rail operations. But we can't change history.

When government agencies get too big for government to successfully control their budgets, one of today's pat solutions is to privatize. We therefore predict a spate of such things as we are seeing with the sale of the Illinois Tollway system to private investors.

With government as big and bloated as it is today, it is almost a given that private enterprise can find a way to do the same job more efficiently. We predict that Amtrak will not be the first target of such bids from private enterprise. The commuter railroads of the west coast or the largely successful small commuter operations of mid-sized cities will be first. If that turns a profit for investors, look to see several of them team up for a run at Amtrak. And don't be surprised if some of them are railroads.

The government subsidies will always remain, of course. The efficient privatized passenger operations of the future will be operating companies (like the original Amtrak). The government will still provide subsidies in the form of rights-of-way or cash to maintain them. That's the only way it will work, because, remember our mantra, passenger rail never has been profitable without a subsidy.

Does anybody but us want to form a company and buy Amtrak?

Please read our sister blog, The Railroad.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com

Let's Participate In The TTC

The TTC is something called the Trans-Texas Corridor, and, like Chicago's Circle line for rapid transit, it has several forms as initially proposed.

We suppose that we are dealing with Texas here. (Most of those Texans still think that our side of the Rio Grande - we live in Albuquerque's Northeast Heights - belongs to Texas.) So a Texas Corridor is a particularly wide transportation corridor.

We quote the Dallas Star-Telegram of May 21: Some stretches of TTC-35 might include -- within a broad corridor up to 1,200 feet wide -- separate lanes for passenger vehicles, 18-wheelers, freight trains and high-speed passenger rail and conduits for water lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission of electricity and broadband. Motorists would pay tolls to travel on the higher-speed corridor.

TTC-35 would be the north-south corridor designed to relieve traffic along Interstate 35 and in and around Dallas, Waco, Austin, and San Antonio. It would begin at the Oklahoma border and run to the Mexican border. An east-west TTC is also proposed, possibly running north or south of Dallas, but in any event from New Mexico to Louisiana or Arkansas.

What happens at the borders? We don't know, but try to imagine. A quarter mile's width of semis, trains, and pipelines would have to squeeze into some pretty narrow rights of way.

That's why we propose that New Mexico, at least, participate in the TTC. We could call it the Trans-New Mexico Texas Corridor or TNMTC. Somehow, we just don't want all that traffic piled up in Clovis, Roswell, or San Jon. Okay, maybe Tucumcari, which is possibly the world's most populated ghost town, but not San Jon. (San Jon is a great little town in eastern New Mexico south of Interstate 40 on a 4-lane that used to be Route 66.)

Then when the traffic gets to Arizona, it can just spill out onto the desert and stay there.

In any case, Trans-Whatever Texas-Sized corridors are the next big thing, and passenger rail will be better for them. If they catch on, they could be as abundant as Interstate highways (whether that is a good thing or not) and abundantly more useful if properly designed. That means designed with the hindsight to see that the Interstate Highway System, designed in the 1950s to take automobile transport into the next century, only barely made it; and most had to be extensively rebuilt before 2001; and those probably won't make it to 2020.

So let's put at least two Trans-State (lets call them Texas-Style, for their size) Corridors in each state: one north-south and one east-west. And let's reserve a high-speed, well-signaled, double track main line for Passenger Rail on each and every one of them. (You know we will have to shoot or hang all the NIMBYs and the BANANAs or send them to France to do this, don't you?)

And if we had our 'druthers, we wouldn't build a single square inch of asphalt on 'em for the truckers. Give them the Ancient Interstates and let the truckers maintain 'em from revenues for awhile.

Everybody will start to appreciate rail tranportation, and Passenger Rail, a whole lot more.

Please read and participate in our sister blog, The Railroad.

© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com