We thought that this article from Central Illinois would be a good follow-up to our rant about unreasonable judicial practices and liability for accidents costing Passenger Rail a lot of money. It's about the high-speed corridor from Chicago to St. Louis that has been in the mill for almost a decade now.
The article rightly points out that this line has been ready for an increase in speed for some time. We know this personally, as we have seen the high-speed protection gates and other amenities that were added in the late 90s. Still there are no high-speed trains. Not even higher-speed trains.
Besides costs related to high insurance rates and unreasonably high settlements and/or judgments, this is another way that unreasonable claims hurt Passenger Rail. The operators and the government have to be way too careful because of the possibility of lawsuits if there is an accident.
Competing standards for automatic train stop do not help here either. Competing designs are great for free enterprise, but pick the wrong one and you are stuck with a Betamax or an 8-track. (And perhaps with a Blu-ray.) So there are reasons to be careful in making a choice, but to delay a choice because to not have a standard would leave you open to liability is just pathetic.
A reader posts a point that 79mph or 110mph in a collision probably does not make one helluva difference. We agree. So while waiting for competing standards to resolve, the real reason for the wait is probably political, not safety as stated. "Safety" just gives the politician a good excuse.
Some other reader comments are informative, though some are just plain stupid. There's one from a NIMBY that doesn't make any sense, and some suggesting that drivers that attempt going around gates get what they deserve. That's stupid, too. Do passengers get what they deserve if the train derails at high speed when Dumbo does it around the gates?
There is one perceptive comment from The Emperor Has No Clothes that goes back to what we have been proposing in these blog posts. But let's not just give Passenger Rail priority, let's separate freight from passenger. There will be no true next-generation, high-speed or not, if we don't separate freight from passenger. The Illinois project isn't going to do that, and it is just a revamp.
REVAMP NOTHING!
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
Who's At Fault?
In our real profession - the one that pays the bills - we had to be in Federal District Court on mediation of a lawsuit involving a car and a semi tractor-trailer rig. If your gut reaction was that the truck driver was at fault, don't read any further. You do the transportation industry a disservice by your attitude and we don't need any more readers like you.
However, any reasonably sane person, one without pre-conceived ideas about truckers who get away with murder, would have looked at this case and seen that the trucker was absolutely not at fault for the accident. It got us thinking about how the railroad industry and Passenger Rail in particular gets a bum rap whenever something goes wrong.
Put a trespasser on the tracks and let him get hit by Amtrak and you can bet there will be a lawsuit against Amtrak. Why? We don't really know, because the trespasser knew he/she was trespassing and there is no constitutional right to walk in the middle of a busy rail line. We think it is immaterial whether Amtrak was on or off schedule, whether the engine crew sounded the horn, whether there was adequate control of speed, and whether or not the brakes were applied soon enough, if at all. Get off the d--- tracks!
But that's not the way the judicial system sees it, and that's one reason why it costs more today than ever before to subsidize passenger rail. You look at all the passenger-miles (or ton-miles for freight/cargo) that are put in every single day, and you have to conclude that the system works and that there are only a microscopic percentage of personnel on railroads who are negligent and/or wilful about the performance of their jobs.
We are researching the figures, and may have more to say at a later date, but the point is this: Passenger Rail is daily paying the costs of this warped judicial system in insurance premiums and in unnecessary settlements. These are settlements where the transportation company is looking at spending high five- and six-figure sums to defend a lawsuit that no judge has the stones to throw out of court because it may take a different turn if a so-called "fact-finder" (read member of the jury) doesn't like the cut of the transportation company's jib.
It's not entirely the judge's fault, because he/she is bound by precedent that says this is what you have to do, and hamstrung by a general impotency in the legislatures of this land to stand up and do anything about it.
We rant, but here's one of those things that could help make Passenger Rail solvent (hear us well, Misters Kummant and Bush), and every day it is just business as usual. Who's at fault? Often it is NOT the railroad.
Next time you see a trespasser on railroad property, tell that person to GET OFF THE D--- TRACKS!
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
However, any reasonably sane person, one without pre-conceived ideas about truckers who get away with murder, would have looked at this case and seen that the trucker was absolutely not at fault for the accident. It got us thinking about how the railroad industry and Passenger Rail in particular gets a bum rap whenever something goes wrong.
Put a trespasser on the tracks and let him get hit by Amtrak and you can bet there will be a lawsuit against Amtrak. Why? We don't really know, because the trespasser knew he/she was trespassing and there is no constitutional right to walk in the middle of a busy rail line. We think it is immaterial whether Amtrak was on or off schedule, whether the engine crew sounded the horn, whether there was adequate control of speed, and whether or not the brakes were applied soon enough, if at all. Get off the d--- tracks!
But that's not the way the judicial system sees it, and that's one reason why it costs more today than ever before to subsidize passenger rail. You look at all the passenger-miles (or ton-miles for freight/cargo) that are put in every single day, and you have to conclude that the system works and that there are only a microscopic percentage of personnel on railroads who are negligent and/or wilful about the performance of their jobs.
We are researching the figures, and may have more to say at a later date, but the point is this: Passenger Rail is daily paying the costs of this warped judicial system in insurance premiums and in unnecessary settlements. These are settlements where the transportation company is looking at spending high five- and six-figure sums to defend a lawsuit that no judge has the stones to throw out of court because it may take a different turn if a so-called "fact-finder" (read member of the jury) doesn't like the cut of the transportation company's jib.
It's not entirely the judge's fault, because he/she is bound by precedent that says this is what you have to do, and hamstrung by a general impotency in the legislatures of this land to stand up and do anything about it.
We rant, but here's one of those things that could help make Passenger Rail solvent (hear us well, Misters Kummant and Bush), and every day it is just business as usual. Who's at fault? Often it is NOT the railroad.
Next time you see a trespasser on railroad property, tell that person to GET OFF THE D--- TRACKS!
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Technical Difficulties
As a result of technical difficulties, the blog post originally scheduled for today will be posted on Monday, September 25, 2006.
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Monday, September 18, 2006
Does U.S. Passenger Rail Compare to Anything?
We'd like to thank Christopher Parker for his thoughtful comments on or previous post Conservative Logic on Passenger Rail. We once had a long discussion about this with a railfan and patriot who spent time working for SNCF, the French national railways. He saw absolutely no comparison to French rail anywhere in the United States.
But it got us thinking. Is there a comparison to U.S. Passenger Rail anywhere in the world? We are not talking about comparing Amtrak to anything else. We are talking about track, route miles or potential route miles, structure, demographics and potential for growth.
But it got us thinking. Is there a comparison to U.S. Passenger Rail anywhere in the world? We are not talking about comparing Amtrak to anything else. We are talking about track, route miles or potential route miles, structure, demographics and potential for growth.
Right out of the gate, the comparison would have to be in a developed country with a Western or westernized society. This would leave out most of Central and South America, Africa, the Middle East, much of Central Asia and all of Antarctica and Greenland. As island nations go, most would also have to be eliminated, but England, Japan and New Zealand would continue to qualify for this round.
Next, the comparison would have to have lengthy coastal areas with population centers clustered on the coasts and inland only in areas of high commercial/agricultural interest. The island nations no longer qualify. Neither does most of Europe. Russia and China still fit, as do Australia and Northern Europe - Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden.
Let's talk track. The gauge has to be Standard Gauge. Anybody want to guess which of the above are disqualified? Russia and Finland are out. Many other potential candidates would have been out on this one, too.
China and Australia are the only comparisons left with enough route miles or potential ones for Passenger Rail. We are stretching the term "westernized" for China. We also don't see a demographic comparison for Australia. Large portions of the interior are still primitive. Nothing like the U.S.
Oh, Canada, you say? We saw you in the back of the room with your hand raised. We thought you needed to go to the bathroom. Canada has less than half the route miles and it has a virtually useless northern coastal area with absolutely no population centers. No, Canada doesn't fit.
We would like to hear from readers on their opinion as to a comparison for U.S. Passenger Rail anywhere in the world.
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Passenger Rail and Security - Who Is and Who Isn't
Five years and counting.
Much has been made in the weeks leading up to the 9/11 fifth remembrance of the question: "Are we safer now?" We have written previous posts on this blog about Passenger Rail and security. With this post, we would like to look at answers to this question from several different sources.
Amtrak passenger: Amtrak always felt like one of the safer modes of travel. You didn't have to walk through scanners, baggage handling was loosely organized, and coach seating was not assigned. Not much has changed in this respect, so the "feel" of Amtrak is comfortable and easy. Sweeps for drugs and the unexpected "departure" of drunk and abusive passengers have been going on for years. The heightened awareness of post-9/11 and the station and on-board personnel security measures have made an already safe Amtrak safer.
Big city commuter: We are much safer now, because there is a station presence of security that wasn't there before and there are even some searches. Even if these aren't deterring terrorists, they are deterring common criminals that used to prey on commuter riders. Commuters are safer.
Medium city commuter: Not much has changed, and there doesn't seem to be much more that has to be done. Not a high priority target. These trains are just as safe as before.
Transit rider: Some of the same kinds of security measures that work on commuter rail have also been applied to transit. The massive movement of riders to and from unpredictable and unticketed stops makes transit a target ripe for abuse. Security cameras, both on and off trains, along with living, breathing guards are our best security measures. We are probably somewhat safer.
Tourist rail rider: Sucks that we have to pay more to cover insurance, but it doesn't seem like tourist rail is doing much in the way of security against attack. Perhaps just the heightened awareness of everybody concerned is making us safer.
Much has been made in the weeks leading up to the 9/11 fifth remembrance of the question: "Are we safer now?" We have written previous posts on this blog about Passenger Rail and security. With this post, we would like to look at answers to this question from several different sources.
Amtrak passenger: Amtrak always felt like one of the safer modes of travel. You didn't have to walk through scanners, baggage handling was loosely organized, and coach seating was not assigned. Not much has changed in this respect, so the "feel" of Amtrak is comfortable and easy. Sweeps for drugs and the unexpected "departure" of drunk and abusive passengers have been going on for years. The heightened awareness of post-9/11 and the station and on-board personnel security measures have made an already safe Amtrak safer.
Big city commuter: We are much safer now, because there is a station presence of security that wasn't there before and there are even some searches. Even if these aren't deterring terrorists, they are deterring common criminals that used to prey on commuter riders. Commuters are safer.
Medium city commuter: Not much has changed, and there doesn't seem to be much more that has to be done. Not a high priority target. These trains are just as safe as before.
Transit rider: Some of the same kinds of security measures that work on commuter rail have also been applied to transit. The massive movement of riders to and from unpredictable and unticketed stops makes transit a target ripe for abuse. Security cameras, both on and off trains, along with living, breathing guards are our best security measures. We are probably somewhat safer.
Tourist rail rider: Sucks that we have to pay more to cover insurance, but it doesn't seem like tourist rail is doing much in the way of security against attack. Perhaps just the heightened awareness of everybody concerned is making us safer.
Rail cruise rider: Don't think we are paying that much more for insurance and we don't see any real evidence of increased security. But you can only do one of these once every few years, unless you are rich. They cost so much. So it's possible that there was less security before 9/11. Just don't know.
Railfan: The security measures encountered by railfans and photographers are laughable. Railroad security is spending too much time making us safe from ourselves and keeping us from enjoying our hobby. I suppose it is good to see more and vigilant railroad people around when we are near the tracks, but to questions a citizen on public property trying to take a photographs is just too much. I don't think we are any safer.
Are we safer? There have been no Passenger Rail related terror attacks on US soil since 9/11, so we would have to say yes.
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Monday, September 11, 2006
Conservative Logic On Passenger Rail
Please read this article and our previous blog post, then please read this post for more about Dr. Utt's article.
To summarize, Dr. Utt - we are told this is the correct form of address for a Ph.D. - doesn't much like the way Amtrak is run, and doesn't much like the way he thinks Congress is going to run it. He would have us believe that any increase in federal subsidy for Amtrak is too much and that all of Amtrak's current woes have nothing to do with the fact that it has never been given enough of a subsidy to accomplish its mission and gain the holy grail of profitably, however defined by the accountants.
Dr. Utt's solution to the problem, summed up in less words than it takes to abstract an article from a medical journal: Let the states take up the burden, and privatize the rest.
We agree that this would lessen the burden on the federal treasury. But what about the states? What about private enterprise?
We will state the basic premise of this blog again: Historically, without the accounting tricks that Dr. Utt decries when used by Amtrak, Passenger Rail has never made a penny of profit for the railroads. As always, we are talking about regularly scheduled common carrier Passenger Rail routes, not tourist rail and definitely not rail cruise operations.
Nonetheless, Dr. Utt wants to use rail cruise operators as an example of Passenger Rail that turns a profit. But first let us laugh at his other examples of profitable operations.
Japan, UK, and Germany are poor examples, because nowhere in the United States do the population density, the proximity of major cities and the demographics compare with any of these locations. The gross contrasts increase in the western United States.
Canada is a better comparison, except that politics in Canada differ so greatly from politics in the United States that the mission of VIA cannot be compared to that of Amtrak.
Yes, Los Angeles, Boston and California - last time we looked Los Angeles was part of California - have privatized some services previously provided by Amtrak. But again, we are talking about densely populated urbanized areas where higher population makes for higher numbers of riders.
LOL. There's more to come, for Dr. Utt wants us to come out of our fantasy world when it comes to Amtrak.
Fair Share of Public Subsidy. The highway program is solvent. Ha! Using Dr. Utt's example, the highway program is solvent because it can tax fuel. How is this not a government subsidy? Using this logic, Amtrak should be able to become solvent by taxing something it happens to use a lot of to stay solvent. OK, we've got it. Since Amtrak uses a lot of rail, made of steel, let's tax every pound of steel that is sold in this country. Every penny of the tax should go to Passenger Rail, and Passenger Rail will, we guarantee, be solvent. By Dr. Utt's definition of solvency.
And then, oops! The FAA trust fund failed to make a profit. Imagine that! People don't want to ride in metal tubes facing forward so much any more. No so much. Airlines use a lot of air. Maybe the FAA trust fund should tax air.
We get off the track when we are facing ridiculous arguments.
REVAMP NOTHING! Frankly, we would like to see the entire premise and mission of a national passenger rail system changed. New trains, new tracks, and new routes, with new sources of funding and little reliance on the old. Dr. Utt does have it right when he says that the old model for Amtrak is archaic. We disagree that it is socialist. It is merely outdated.
But, and this is a big but, if we are to have a true National Passenger Rail network, one that serves all regions, there must be long distance routes. If we cannot figure out a good way to fund them, and find the political resolve to do so, then we get what we deserve. Oh, wait. We already have it, and it is Amtrak.
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
To summarize, Dr. Utt - we are told this is the correct form of address for a Ph.D. - doesn't much like the way Amtrak is run, and doesn't much like the way he thinks Congress is going to run it. He would have us believe that any increase in federal subsidy for Amtrak is too much and that all of Amtrak's current woes have nothing to do with the fact that it has never been given enough of a subsidy to accomplish its mission and gain the holy grail of profitably, however defined by the accountants.
Dr. Utt's solution to the problem, summed up in less words than it takes to abstract an article from a medical journal: Let the states take up the burden, and privatize the rest.
We agree that this would lessen the burden on the federal treasury. But what about the states? What about private enterprise?
We will state the basic premise of this blog again: Historically, without the accounting tricks that Dr. Utt decries when used by Amtrak, Passenger Rail has never made a penny of profit for the railroads. As always, we are talking about regularly scheduled common carrier Passenger Rail routes, not tourist rail and definitely not rail cruise operations.
Nonetheless, Dr. Utt wants to use rail cruise operators as an example of Passenger Rail that turns a profit. But first let us laugh at his other examples of profitable operations.
Japan, UK, and Germany are poor examples, because nowhere in the United States do the population density, the proximity of major cities and the demographics compare with any of these locations. The gross contrasts increase in the western United States.
Canada is a better comparison, except that politics in Canada differ so greatly from politics in the United States that the mission of VIA cannot be compared to that of Amtrak.
Yes, Los Angeles, Boston and California - last time we looked Los Angeles was part of California - have privatized some services previously provided by Amtrak. But again, we are talking about densely populated urbanized areas where higher population makes for higher numbers of riders.
LOL. There's more to come, for Dr. Utt wants us to come out of our fantasy world when it comes to Amtrak.
Fair Share of Public Subsidy. The highway program is solvent. Ha! Using Dr. Utt's example, the highway program is solvent because it can tax fuel. How is this not a government subsidy? Using this logic, Amtrak should be able to become solvent by taxing something it happens to use a lot of to stay solvent. OK, we've got it. Since Amtrak uses a lot of rail, made of steel, let's tax every pound of steel that is sold in this country. Every penny of the tax should go to Passenger Rail, and Passenger Rail will, we guarantee, be solvent. By Dr. Utt's definition of solvency.
And then, oops! The FAA trust fund failed to make a profit. Imagine that! People don't want to ride in metal tubes facing forward so much any more. No so much. Airlines use a lot of air. Maybe the FAA trust fund should tax air.
We get off the track when we are facing ridiculous arguments.
REVAMP NOTHING! Frankly, we would like to see the entire premise and mission of a national passenger rail system changed. New trains, new tracks, and new routes, with new sources of funding and little reliance on the old. Dr. Utt does have it right when he says that the old model for Amtrak is archaic. We disagree that it is socialist. It is merely outdated.
But, and this is a big but, if we are to have a true National Passenger Rail network, one that serves all regions, there must be long distance routes. If we cannot figure out a good way to fund them, and find the political resolve to do so, then we get what we deserve. Oh, wait. We already have it, and it is Amtrak.
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Critique Conservatives on Passenger Rail
Usually, when we pick on a point of view - usually somebody else's - we will mention an article or two that needs to be jabbed a bit about the writer's position on this or that subject. This time, we want to particularly critique an article published on-line for The Heritage Foundation. The article is called Will The Senate Raid The Treasury for Amtrak?, and is thoughtfully written by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
First off, Mr. Utt is not a railroader or a businessman. He is a conservative economist steeped in research in a science that many still consider a pseudo-science.
We agree with Mr. Utt, however, on many points. None of this means that we agree with some of his assertions regarding how different modes of transport are subsidized by the public. We also disagree with his assertion that Amtrak's financial failings are the result of squandering its resources.
In fact, this is the same argument the railroads used to justify the demise Passenger Rail back in the 1960s. Let the system go to pot by denying it a fair share of your operating budget, then cry all over the tracks about how its not making money. People won't pay the good money he wants Amtrak to make if they can't ride some good trains. They won't pay any money at all if they have to ride what Amtrak has to offer for much longer.
Then Mr. Utt brings up the old cry about Amtrak breaking Federal Law (caps are mine) by not breaking even on food and beverage service. Various Amtrak boards and managers have fallen on that sword over the years, and it just doesn't die. The truth is that we have never given Amtrak a budget with enough in it to make the food and beverage service the premier experience that it truly could be. When it becomes that, it will also become break-even, or profitable.
OK, Mr. Utt, we get it. You want to eliminate sleepers and diners and possibly go back to stopping for a 12.5 minute Fred Harvey belch-o-rama at the next station, in the name of reducing the government subsidy to Amtrak. Let's turn all transportation into riding in uncomfortable chairs face forward in a metal tube that contains no incentive to get up and walk around for, God knows, you may fall over in the aisle and increase the cost of liability insurance.
We get worked up like this and start to be ashamed of being politically conservative.
Ok, Mr. Utt, we also get it that you think Amtrak should cut off its left nut by eliminating unprofitable long-distance routes. (By the way, they are all unprofitable, so that reduces Amtrak to another commuter agency.)
Next time, we critique Mr. Utt's suggested solutions, and let you know if the White House has invited him to dinner yet.
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
First off, Mr. Utt is not a railroader or a businessman. He is a conservative economist steeped in research in a science that many still consider a pseudo-science.
We agree with Mr. Utt, however, on many points. None of this means that we agree with some of his assertions regarding how different modes of transport are subsidized by the public. We also disagree with his assertion that Amtrak's financial failings are the result of squandering its resources.
In fact, this is the same argument the railroads used to justify the demise Passenger Rail back in the 1960s. Let the system go to pot by denying it a fair share of your operating budget, then cry all over the tracks about how its not making money. People won't pay the good money he wants Amtrak to make if they can't ride some good trains. They won't pay any money at all if they have to ride what Amtrak has to offer for much longer.
Then Mr. Utt brings up the old cry about Amtrak breaking Federal Law (caps are mine) by not breaking even on food and beverage service. Various Amtrak boards and managers have fallen on that sword over the years, and it just doesn't die. The truth is that we have never given Amtrak a budget with enough in it to make the food and beverage service the premier experience that it truly could be. When it becomes that, it will also become break-even, or profitable.
OK, Mr. Utt, we get it. You want to eliminate sleepers and diners and possibly go back to stopping for a 12.5 minute Fred Harvey belch-o-rama at the next station, in the name of reducing the government subsidy to Amtrak. Let's turn all transportation into riding in uncomfortable chairs face forward in a metal tube that contains no incentive to get up and walk around for, God knows, you may fall over in the aisle and increase the cost of liability insurance.
We get worked up like this and start to be ashamed of being politically conservative.
Ok, Mr. Utt, we also get it that you think Amtrak should cut off its left nut by eliminating unprofitable long-distance routes. (By the way, they are all unprofitable, so that reduces Amtrak to another commuter agency.)
Next time, we critique Mr. Utt's suggested solutions, and let you know if the White House has invited him to dinner yet.
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Monday, September 04, 2006
Extend a Hand to Alex Kummant
The appointment of Alexander Kummant as Amtrak CEO and President should be good news. We now have a replacement for David Gunn and there will no longer be ineffective interim operating officers responsible for what happens to Amtrak. Amtrak's board has seen to it. We who are interested in Passenger Rail should welcome Mr. Kummant as a breath of fresh air for the passenger train.
So much for optimism. We have run out of positive points.
Railway Age has already invited Mr. Kummant to be a keynote (if not "the" keynote) at the 13th Annual Passenger Trains of Freight Railroads Conference 10/16-17 in DC. That ought to be a hoot! As Forbes has noted, passenger rail experience is "palpably absent" from his (Mr. Kummant's) resume.
In a previous career - his was currently moving toward selling heavy Japanese equipment - Kummant was responsible for "premium operations" at Union Pacific. Putting the best possible light on this responsibility, he probably did interact with Passenger Rail in a positive way: He was the man most responsible for keeping Amtrak from taking up too much of Union Pacific's time and money by demanding on-time performance for its trains. We guarantee that when Mr. Kummant's premium trains were on the railroad, Amtrak took second, third, or fourth priority. This was positive for Union Pacific's bottom line, not for Amtrak.
So maybe the fox knows how to keep other foxes out of the henhouse. We doubt it.
Another plus is the reportedly heavy Kummant contribution to the Bush re-election. We guess he should have the ear of President Bush, if the contribution was big enough.
Most Internet reports are trying to put a positive spin on Kummant's appointment. Calling him a "veteran" railroad executive, they ignore the fact that "executive" is more important in his career than "railroad." As far as we can see, Kummant has not devoted his career to railroading and has never planned to do so. Further, there is no evidence that Kummant is even a railroad enthusiast. In our humble opinion, it takes at least an enthusiast to run a railroad.
We see a dark future for Amtrak under Kummant.
But let's give him a handshake and a welcome, and let's challenge him to prove us wrong. It could work out. Couldn't it? After all, he is apparently and experienced heavy equipment salesman . . . Uh, oh. . . . . .
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
So much for optimism. We have run out of positive points.
Railway Age has already invited Mr. Kummant to be a keynote (if not "the" keynote) at the 13th Annual Passenger Trains of Freight Railroads Conference 10/16-17 in DC. That ought to be a hoot! As Forbes has noted, passenger rail experience is "palpably absent" from his (Mr. Kummant's) resume.
In a previous career - his was currently moving toward selling heavy Japanese equipment - Kummant was responsible for "premium operations" at Union Pacific. Putting the best possible light on this responsibility, he probably did interact with Passenger Rail in a positive way: He was the man most responsible for keeping Amtrak from taking up too much of Union Pacific's time and money by demanding on-time performance for its trains. We guarantee that when Mr. Kummant's premium trains were on the railroad, Amtrak took second, third, or fourth priority. This was positive for Union Pacific's bottom line, not for Amtrak.
So maybe the fox knows how to keep other foxes out of the henhouse. We doubt it.
Another plus is the reportedly heavy Kummant contribution to the Bush re-election. We guess he should have the ear of President Bush, if the contribution was big enough.
Most Internet reports are trying to put a positive spin on Kummant's appointment. Calling him a "veteran" railroad executive, they ignore the fact that "executive" is more important in his career than "railroad." As far as we can see, Kummant has not devoted his career to railroading and has never planned to do so. Further, there is no evidence that Kummant is even a railroad enthusiast. In our humble opinion, it takes at least an enthusiast to run a railroad.
We see a dark future for Amtrak under Kummant.
But let's give him a handshake and a welcome, and let's challenge him to prove us wrong. It could work out. Couldn't it? After all, he is apparently and experienced heavy equipment salesman . . . Uh, oh. . . . . .
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Out There On The Edge of Control - NGR: Third Section
We were prepared to go into the not-so-nutty nuts and bolts on the signal/dispatch/schedule side of Next Generation Rail, but things intervene.
Much flak has come our way about the concept of Driver Elimination: Trains can be run like a DCC-controlled model train layout with no engineer on board.
First, we are not against any of the Brotherhoods. We see this more as easing the stress of driving a train, reducing it more to monitoring systems somewhat like the flight engineer on a large aircraft.
The biggest argument against Driver Elimination has been economic. Why eliminate engineers (drivers) when we don't need to? This is kind of strange, as reduction of employee rolls is seen by corporate management as a way to increase the bottom line. But most who have approached me see Driver Elimination as costly. "Why invest in all that extra technology when everything works right as it is?"
This is a spurious argument and one that needs closer attention. Why invest in the wheel, when dragging stuff along the ground on sticks works perfectly well? Why invest in fast horses when slow oxen still get us there? Why invest in steam locomotion when horses are adequate to the task? Why fly when you can walk just as far; it just takes longer? Why watch TV when you can get the same information from a newspaper? Have we given this argument the attention it deserves? You bet! It deserves no more.
We don't get progress in any form if we stick our head in a sack. Change is good. What doesn't change, stagnates.
Some have also approached us and said that computer control of locomotives can only be justified from the point of view of safety. Only if we eliminate driver error can we justify the cost. We also disagree with this argument.
Technology has its ups and downs where safety is concerned. In railroading, the historic advances in safety were knuckle couplers, air brakes, and telegraphically controlled signals. Each also came with its own set of potential errors. We think most of our readers know what these were. In general, however, once everybody learned the new technology and how to deal with the new potential errors, the technology made things safer. More importantly, however, each of these advances (and a hundred other technological advances we can name in other forms of transportation - challenge us, please) made for a better transportation system in general. In Passenger Rail, anything that made for a smoother, faster, more on-time and perhaps coincidentally safer ride was well worth the dollars spent. This is true in other modes as well.
Finally, a lot of people have suggested that there is probably no way to fully integrate driverless locomotives into a railroad system where switching and shunting has to be done on or near the same tracks where scheduled service is happening. The cost of segregating these operations becomes high when separate infrastructure has to be provided.
Hogwash!
But the reason it is hogwash has to wait until we get a chance to write about track and signals, and the technology that, we think, could be used to enhance both freight and Passenger Rail and to increase the efficiency of our infracture from three to tenfold.
Watch for our next blog on the subject of Next Generation Rail.
(Our apologies to any readers interested in our other sites and blogs: We just haven't had the time lately. We have kept Passenger Rail as our priority. More soon.)
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Much flak has come our way about the concept of Driver Elimination: Trains can be run like a DCC-controlled model train layout with no engineer on board.
First, we are not against any of the Brotherhoods. We see this more as easing the stress of driving a train, reducing it more to monitoring systems somewhat like the flight engineer on a large aircraft.
The biggest argument against Driver Elimination has been economic. Why eliminate engineers (drivers) when we don't need to? This is kind of strange, as reduction of employee rolls is seen by corporate management as a way to increase the bottom line. But most who have approached me see Driver Elimination as costly. "Why invest in all that extra technology when everything works right as it is?"
This is a spurious argument and one that needs closer attention. Why invest in the wheel, when dragging stuff along the ground on sticks works perfectly well? Why invest in fast horses when slow oxen still get us there? Why invest in steam locomotion when horses are adequate to the task? Why fly when you can walk just as far; it just takes longer? Why watch TV when you can get the same information from a newspaper? Have we given this argument the attention it deserves? You bet! It deserves no more.
We don't get progress in any form if we stick our head in a sack. Change is good. What doesn't change, stagnates.
Some have also approached us and said that computer control of locomotives can only be justified from the point of view of safety. Only if we eliminate driver error can we justify the cost. We also disagree with this argument.
Technology has its ups and downs where safety is concerned. In railroading, the historic advances in safety were knuckle couplers, air brakes, and telegraphically controlled signals. Each also came with its own set of potential errors. We think most of our readers know what these were. In general, however, once everybody learned the new technology and how to deal with the new potential errors, the technology made things safer. More importantly, however, each of these advances (and a hundred other technological advances we can name in other forms of transportation - challenge us, please) made for a better transportation system in general. In Passenger Rail, anything that made for a smoother, faster, more on-time and perhaps coincidentally safer ride was well worth the dollars spent. This is true in other modes as well.
Finally, a lot of people have suggested that there is probably no way to fully integrate driverless locomotives into a railroad system where switching and shunting has to be done on or near the same tracks where scheduled service is happening. The cost of segregating these operations becomes high when separate infrastructure has to be provided.
Hogwash!
But the reason it is hogwash has to wait until we get a chance to write about track and signals, and the technology that, we think, could be used to enhance both freight and Passenger Rail and to increase the efficiency of our infracture from three to tenfold.
Watch for our next blog on the subject of Next Generation Rail.
(Our apologies to any readers interested in our other sites and blogs: We just haven't had the time lately. We have kept Passenger Rail as our priority. More soon.)
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Monday, August 28, 2006
Pathetic
Confession is good for the soul, and confession about passenger trains is good for the soul of Mistertrains.
After watching my family come and go via Amtrak, we stepped back and studied our own use of Passenger Rail in the recent past. There is one word: Pathetic!
The last time we rode Amtrak ourselves was in February 2001. The last time on any commuter rail was that same year when we did a little riding of Metra while visiting near Chicago. Recreational? Non-existent! We visited the Cumbres & Toltec the winter before last while it was shut down. We have done a little train station photography in Las Cruces and Phoenix, and we have watched the New Mexico Rail Runner commuter train go by without riding. Pathetic!
Why? We suppose it is the same problem that most people have in today's world. Not enough time or not enough money. And to get enough money we have to spend way too much time.
The cost of transportation, in general, is out of proportion to the wages earned by a normal individual when compared with the golden age of passenger rail. If you care to argue with that without citing Government Statistics, be our guest. We don't believe the Labor Department, because if the Labor Department Statistics were true, we would be earning $500K per year, and we are not. Nobody we know is. Nowhere near.
So to get enough money to ride, we have to work harder. This is whether that ride is in a car, plane, bus or train. And work harder we do. Getting close to the end of five decades on this planet, we can't remember when we have worked so hard to stay afloat, and when we have spent so much of a percentage of every day doing it.
Makes us wonder if any form of transportation will be affordable in the next decade, or whether we will all have to live in a company town across the street from the call center where we will all be employed 18 hours a day (with no vacations or "self-financed" ones) because all manufacturing jobs will be overseas. Who needs passenger rail then?
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
After watching my family come and go via Amtrak, we stepped back and studied our own use of Passenger Rail in the recent past. There is one word: Pathetic!
The last time we rode Amtrak ourselves was in February 2001. The last time on any commuter rail was that same year when we did a little riding of Metra while visiting near Chicago. Recreational? Non-existent! We visited the Cumbres & Toltec the winter before last while it was shut down. We have done a little train station photography in Las Cruces and Phoenix, and we have watched the New Mexico Rail Runner commuter train go by without riding. Pathetic!
Why? We suppose it is the same problem that most people have in today's world. Not enough time or not enough money. And to get enough money we have to spend way too much time.
The cost of transportation, in general, is out of proportion to the wages earned by a normal individual when compared with the golden age of passenger rail. If you care to argue with that without citing Government Statistics, be our guest. We don't believe the Labor Department, because if the Labor Department Statistics were true, we would be earning $500K per year, and we are not. Nobody we know is. Nowhere near.
So to get enough money to ride, we have to work harder. This is whether that ride is in a car, plane, bus or train. And work harder we do. Getting close to the end of five decades on this planet, we can't remember when we have worked so hard to stay afloat, and when we have spent so much of a percentage of every day doing it.
Makes us wonder if any form of transportation will be affordable in the next decade, or whether we will all have to live in a company town across the street from the call center where we will all be employed 18 hours a day (with no vacations or "self-financed" ones) because all manufacturing jobs will be overseas. Who needs passenger rail then?
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Thursday, August 24, 2006
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
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
Sunday, August 13, 2006
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
Best wishes to all. Our next post will be August 24, 2006.
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Thursday, August 10, 2006
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
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
Monday, August 07, 2006
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
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
Monday, July 31, 2006
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
© 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
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
Thursday, July 27, 2006
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
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
Monday, July 24, 2006
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
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
Thursday, July 20, 2006
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
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
Monday, July 17, 2006
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)