Once again, my apologies for not posting to this blog as often as previously.
Plans for a commuter railroad that has many of the characteristics of an interurban or intercity operation keep rolling forward along the east face of the Rocky Mountains. I just finished an article from the Pueblo Chieftain that talks about the plans for Passenger Rail on a north-south route through Denver and Pueblo.
We have blogged about this line in the past. It involves the vision and dream of two entities, the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority and the Colorado Rail Association. In its most basic form, the dream is to use existing right of way – a violation of the basic tenet “revamp nothing” – to schedule passenger service up and down the east slope with a north terminus in Wyoming and a south terminus in New Mexico. To this writer, this basic form alone makes this line an intercity route
This news article is the first in which we have seen an additional proposal to build a parallel freight line along a comparatively flat corridor in the eastern plains. Remember, you Eastern types, that the eastern plains are still high altitude, semi-arid and not as flat as central Illinois.
We suppose that adding the new freight line to the project will answer some of the objections the freight railroads would have to adding passenger trains to their tracks already operating at full capacity. In this case, the objectors would be the BNSF Railway and Union Pacific, owners of the so-called Joint Line between Denver and Pueblo (actually Trinidad, although with BNSF using Raton Pass as little as possible, the Pueblo-Raton segment sees little freight traffic).
This writer knows little about the attitude of the State of Wyoming towards this rail line. But Cheyenne and Laramie are closer to Denver than any point in New Mexico. Cheyenne is as close to Denver as Pueblo. We’d call the Wyoming people damnfools if they aren’t in favor of it. Cheyenne-Laramie to Pueblo makes a great little rail corridor with mileage and population on a par with San Luis Obispo-Los Angeles-San Diego and/or Chicago-Detroit.
We know that New Mexico – following its Governor and Presidentialist Bill Richardson – is in favor of it. (Presidentialist – noun – declared favorite-son presidential primary candidate with not a snowball’s chance of raising enough money to get the nomination, one of many candidates on the presidential list.) New Mexico already owns the BNSF Railway tracks and grade from Belen, NM through Raton to the border with Colorado. And we already have a train planned to go to Santa Fe from Belen. (Rail Runner, but not until 2010, probably.) But Santa Fe is more distant from Pueblo than Pueblo is from Denver, and there is a lot of nothing and slow mountain running between Raton and Santa Fe.
At least one of our blogs has dealt with the question of putting passengers on rail all the way from Santa Fe to El Paso and beyond.
CRA is shooting for an operational route by 2014-2015 when the Denver FasTracks is scheduled to begin.
Our next blog: How about a twist on this idea?
©2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Sunday, March 11, 2007
No Time For Everything
First, we want to apologize for not posting last Sunday. Other responsibilities have required that those activities resulting in the least overall return get the least amount of time. Frankly, folks, you ain't burnin' up the rails with responses to this blog.
We don't intend to stop, and if time and tide permit, we will post more than once a week.
We have noted that New Mexico Rail Runner continues to get good press and a lot of media exposure. The April issue of Trains is a good example. None of the comments in this blog should be interpreted as anything other than constructive criticism. We'd like to see it succeed and continue to grow.
Our bias is clearly showing when we criticize NMRX for choosing a freeway median of all places for its final climb into Santa Fe. (Does anyone know that Santa Fe is the highest altitude state capital in the United States?) If anyone is going to lay down new rail on new right of way for Passenger Rail, we would like it to be more scenic than between 4 lanes of freeway traffic. One of the older unusued rail grades into Santa Fe (on which we have previously commented) would have been much more scenic!
Last time, we tried to point out that, in its infancy at least, NMRX will be something of a tourist railroad as well as a commuter line, and more intercity interurban than urban-suburban. A more scenic line into Santa Fe would aid in ridership.
For anyone interested, this old blogger got most of his first steam railroad ridin' experience on a stretch of the then CB&Q three-track CTC line between Downtown Chicago and the suburban stop at 31st Street and Ridgeland Avenue in Berwyn (MP 9.0 - La Vergne). We are getting close to finishing a virtual representation of this line for the Trainz 2006 Railroad Simulator. (We have it finished up to about a mile and a quarter east of La Vergne.) Anyone interested in getting a copy to run on your simulator should send us an email at mistertrains@gmail.com. We should be able to email you an archive that you can load up using the Trainz 2006 program.
This is the current extent of our model railroading activities.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
We don't intend to stop, and if time and tide permit, we will post more than once a week.
We have noted that New Mexico Rail Runner continues to get good press and a lot of media exposure. The April issue of Trains is a good example. None of the comments in this blog should be interpreted as anything other than constructive criticism. We'd like to see it succeed and continue to grow.
Our bias is clearly showing when we criticize NMRX for choosing a freeway median of all places for its final climb into Santa Fe. (Does anyone know that Santa Fe is the highest altitude state capital in the United States?) If anyone is going to lay down new rail on new right of way for Passenger Rail, we would like it to be more scenic than between 4 lanes of freeway traffic. One of the older unusued rail grades into Santa Fe (on which we have previously commented) would have been much more scenic!
Last time, we tried to point out that, in its infancy at least, NMRX will be something of a tourist railroad as well as a commuter line, and more intercity interurban than urban-suburban. A more scenic line into Santa Fe would aid in ridership.
For anyone interested, this old blogger got most of his first steam railroad ridin' experience on a stretch of the then CB&Q three-track CTC line between Downtown Chicago and the suburban stop at 31st Street and Ridgeland Avenue in Berwyn (MP 9.0 - La Vergne). We are getting close to finishing a virtual representation of this line for the Trainz 2006 Railroad Simulator. (We have it finished up to about a mile and a quarter east of La Vergne.) Anyone interested in getting a copy to run on your simulator should send us an email at mistertrains@gmail.com. We should be able to email you an archive that you can load up using the Trainz 2006 program.
This is the current extent of our model railroading activities.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Following The Santa Fe Trail
More on the subject of New Mexico's Rail Runner commuter/intercity rail experiment and its route into Santa Fe.
All of you can read about this and review the same information we have reviewed by going to the Rail Runner site.
First of all, we are going to start referring to this as an intercity rail project. Why? Because Santa Fe is not a suburb of Albuquerque. This is a commuter project only because the initial customers are likely to be Albuquerque and/or Santa Fe (when it gets there) commuters. But it is (by definition of intercity rail) an intercity rail project. It would be an interurban if it were 1912 and they were stringing catenary or trolly wires above the tracks.
Our review of the initial analysis of the freeway median routing into Santa Fe did not inspire much confidence. We have more to read and review.
But the first thing that struck us was the cavalier way in which the (political entity called) MRCOG compared this project with successful freeway commuter enterprises already in operation. The glaring comparisions used were photographs of Chicago CTA and the Los Angeles Green Line. We say glaring because the comparison targets are both electric rapid transit systems with light cars, power to weight that allows climbing steep grades, and braking systems that are not comparable to Rail Runner. The latter is a diesel heavy rail commuter line more comparable to Chicago Metra than to Chicago CTA - and a Metra train wouldn't be able to run down the Dan Ryan median at rush hour.
The target comparisons are both relatively flat lines on relatively flat highway medians. The Rail Runner is a mountain train and will be running on a mountain freeway median. Just the thought of accounting for the runoff/drainage of the many small streams that are now jumped by simple culverts is a staggering one. Simple culverts will probably not do if you have to fill and wall-retain a two-track right of way on an 80-foot median - particularly if the stream level is at the bottom of the fill. You will also have to support the retaining walls and make sure the alluvial soils that underlie most of the right of way is not ready to make a bee-line down to the Rio Grande. (As it already has in some places along I-25.) We see many fancy bridges in the future of Rail Runner - and fancy means expensive.
The next thing that struck was the recent (2/14/07) news release by Augusta Meyers of MRCOG. Ms. Meyers was formerly a talking head for one of the local news stations and is a well qualified journalist who clearly knows nothing about railroads or civil engineering. The release tells the untruth that Rail Runner is on track to get to Santa Fe by the end of 2008.
It is the beginning of March 2007, and there has not been a shovel turned for this freeway-median extension. If we are going to ride this train, we would like the engineers to take more than a month or two to design the project.
It will require at least one tunnel or bridge (near La Bahada Hill - translated as "the hill hill") and another bridge near the cutoff to the Santa Fe Southern line into The City Different. It will require a whole lot of retaining walls and cuts to maintain a grade that is useable by a heavy-rail train, and it will require another whole lot of lane relocations and traffic diversions to get this done - not to mention the above feats of civil engineering design and construction for cuts and fills and water runoff. The tunnel at La Bahada could be a strikingly expensive one.
It ain't gonna happen by December 2008.
More on this at a later date.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
All of you can read about this and review the same information we have reviewed by going to the Rail Runner site.
First of all, we are going to start referring to this as an intercity rail project. Why? Because Santa Fe is not a suburb of Albuquerque. This is a commuter project only because the initial customers are likely to be Albuquerque and/or Santa Fe (when it gets there) commuters. But it is (by definition of intercity rail) an intercity rail project. It would be an interurban if it were 1912 and they were stringing catenary or trolly wires above the tracks.
Our review of the initial analysis of the freeway median routing into Santa Fe did not inspire much confidence. We have more to read and review.
But the first thing that struck us was the cavalier way in which the (political entity called) MRCOG compared this project with successful freeway commuter enterprises already in operation. The glaring comparisions used were photographs of Chicago CTA and the Los Angeles Green Line. We say glaring because the comparison targets are both electric rapid transit systems with light cars, power to weight that allows climbing steep grades, and braking systems that are not comparable to Rail Runner. The latter is a diesel heavy rail commuter line more comparable to Chicago Metra than to Chicago CTA - and a Metra train wouldn't be able to run down the Dan Ryan median at rush hour.
The target comparisons are both relatively flat lines on relatively flat highway medians. The Rail Runner is a mountain train and will be running on a mountain freeway median. Just the thought of accounting for the runoff/drainage of the many small streams that are now jumped by simple culverts is a staggering one. Simple culverts will probably not do if you have to fill and wall-retain a two-track right of way on an 80-foot median - particularly if the stream level is at the bottom of the fill. You will also have to support the retaining walls and make sure the alluvial soils that underlie most of the right of way is not ready to make a bee-line down to the Rio Grande. (As it already has in some places along I-25.) We see many fancy bridges in the future of Rail Runner - and fancy means expensive.
The next thing that struck was the recent (2/14/07) news release by Augusta Meyers of MRCOG. Ms. Meyers was formerly a talking head for one of the local news stations and is a well qualified journalist who clearly knows nothing about railroads or civil engineering. The release tells the untruth that Rail Runner is on track to get to Santa Fe by the end of 2008.
It is the beginning of March 2007, and there has not been a shovel turned for this freeway-median extension. If we are going to ride this train, we would like the engineers to take more than a month or two to design the project.
It will require at least one tunnel or bridge (near La Bahada Hill - translated as "the hill hill") and another bridge near the cutoff to the Santa Fe Southern line into The City Different. It will require a whole lot of retaining walls and cuts to maintain a grade that is useable by a heavy-rail train, and it will require another whole lot of lane relocations and traffic diversions to get this done - not to mention the above feats of civil engineering design and construction for cuts and fills and water runoff. The tunnel at La Bahada could be a strikingly expensive one.
It ain't gonna happen by December 2008.
More on this at a later date.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Mister Trains to States: Put Your Money Where Your Tracks Are
We pray that the Illinois experience holds true. (See this article.) If, indeed, it does, this is just more proof that the transportation user (taxpayer) wants and will use good Passenger Rail transportation if given the chance.
The Illinois example is clear and easy to follow. The rail routes must make sense. (Bill Richardson please listen.) The service must be convenient and timely, and the trains must not be what a C & O railroad president once described as "rolling tenements."
To make sense, the routes are just commuter rail unless the endpoint cities are big enough, have desirable destinations, and have a demographic that understands what public transportation is about.
To be convenient, the service must have station start, stop and endpoint times that the majority of users what to use, and the stations must be located in desirable areas with good public feeders and/or park and ride facilities.
To be timely, the schedules must be followed and the operating railroads must not be willing to prioritize freight over passenger. Amtrak can't do this in most areas.
To be more than rolling tenements, the trains should be new, not refurbished, and certainly not Amtrak hand-me-downs.
We are still studying the newly designated route for the New Mexico Rail Runner, and will have further comments at a later date.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
The Illinois example is clear and easy to follow. The rail routes must make sense. (Bill Richardson please listen.) The service must be convenient and timely, and the trains must not be what a C & O railroad president once described as "rolling tenements."
To make sense, the routes are just commuter rail unless the endpoint cities are big enough, have desirable destinations, and have a demographic that understands what public transportation is about.
To be convenient, the service must have station start, stop and endpoint times that the majority of users what to use, and the stations must be located in desirable areas with good public feeders and/or park and ride facilities.
To be timely, the schedules must be followed and the operating railroads must not be willing to prioritize freight over passenger. Amtrak can't do this in most areas.
To be more than rolling tenements, the trains should be new, not refurbished, and certainly not Amtrak hand-me-downs.
We are still studying the newly designated route for the New Mexico Rail Runner, and will have further comments at a later date.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, February 11, 2007
What Kind of Idiot . . ?
This writer is not a civil engineer, but we know something about civil engineering. That makes us eminently qualified to comment on the following:
The Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments and the State of New Mexico (read presidential candidate Bill Richardson) has chosen the route for NM Rail Runner to get from Bernalillo, Sandoval County to the state capital, Santa Fe.
With a tip of our engineer's hat, we graduate to a higher level of invective - from dunderheads to idiots, because MRCOG has chosen a route up the middle of Interstate 25 to get close enough to downtown Santa Fe.
We have commented on this routing before, and it really does not take a civil engineer to see that construction costs will be higher. They are going to have to build in a right-of-way that wasn't originally designed for rail, let alone heavy rail, and there will be heavy costs in relocating lanes (if only temporarily) and bridging and tunneling.
We will be doing more research to back up our comments, but without having done so, we will only say that we suspect that the lower cost of land acquisition will not offset the higher construction costs. The necessary land to make all new right-of-way until a connection is made with the Santa Fe Southern will be cheap until it gets very close to Santa Fe. And New Mexico has never been bashful in using eminent domain.
Most importantly, Bill Richardson needs this project to be well underway in case he starts winning in the Democrat primaries.
Over the next few weeks, we will re-read the reports and try to do some research so that we can comment further.
For now, our reaction to this choice is and remains, "What kind of idiot?"
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
The Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments and the State of New Mexico (read presidential candidate Bill Richardson) has chosen the route for NM Rail Runner to get from Bernalillo, Sandoval County to the state capital, Santa Fe.
With a tip of our engineer's hat, we graduate to a higher level of invective - from dunderheads to idiots, because MRCOG has chosen a route up the middle of Interstate 25 to get close enough to downtown Santa Fe.
We have commented on this routing before, and it really does not take a civil engineer to see that construction costs will be higher. They are going to have to build in a right-of-way that wasn't originally designed for rail, let alone heavy rail, and there will be heavy costs in relocating lanes (if only temporarily) and bridging and tunneling.
We will be doing more research to back up our comments, but without having done so, we will only say that we suspect that the lower cost of land acquisition will not offset the higher construction costs. The necessary land to make all new right-of-way until a connection is made with the Santa Fe Southern will be cheap until it gets very close to Santa Fe. And New Mexico has never been bashful in using eminent domain.
Most importantly, Bill Richardson needs this project to be well underway in case he starts winning in the Democrat primaries.
Over the next few weeks, we will re-read the reports and try to do some research so that we can comment further.
For now, our reaction to this choice is and remains, "What kind of idiot?"
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Trends
Passenger Rail is trending to:
Less of the Federal funding pie going to intracity transit. Rapid transit and light rail on dedicated right of way will continue to grow, however. Local governmental transit districts will to more of the funding.
Light rail growing as a rebirth of streetcars or the equivalent.
More full-size commuter rail on both owned and shared (with freight rail) right of way.
Commuter rail for cities that never had commuter rail before the freight railroads gave up on passengers.
Electrification.
Computerization. (Big surprise.)
The eventual dissolution or complete restructuring of Amtrak. Alex Kummant will not be able to do anything that drastically different. As we swing into a Democrat political cycle there will just be more of the same. There is no trend to tell us what post-Amtrak heavy passenger rail will look like. But . . .
Interest on behalf of private enterprise running passenger trains. Could we be looking at government owned infrastructure with trains owned and operated by private enterprise under franchise?
A higher density of service in any case. More people in more seats going more miles by Passenger Rail of one kind or another.
The trend is good.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Less of the Federal funding pie going to intracity transit. Rapid transit and light rail on dedicated right of way will continue to grow, however. Local governmental transit districts will to more of the funding.
Light rail growing as a rebirth of streetcars or the equivalent.
More full-size commuter rail on both owned and shared (with freight rail) right of way.
Commuter rail for cities that never had commuter rail before the freight railroads gave up on passengers.
Electrification.
Computerization. (Big surprise.)
The eventual dissolution or complete restructuring of Amtrak. Alex Kummant will not be able to do anything that drastically different. As we swing into a Democrat political cycle there will just be more of the same. There is no trend to tell us what post-Amtrak heavy passenger rail will look like. But . . .
Interest on behalf of private enterprise running passenger trains. Could we be looking at government owned infrastructure with trains owned and operated by private enterprise under franchise?
A higher density of service in any case. More people in more seats going more miles by Passenger Rail of one kind or another.
The trend is good.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Bringing Back the CRANDIC
We could fail to explain what the CRANDIC is and what it means to any railfan who visited eastern Iowa during the golden age, but that would be too much fun and also would probably drive away new readers of this blog. We have correctly used it as an acronym above, but it is more likely that you will see it just as Crandic.
The Crandic is the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, a former interurban (until 1953) with a colorful past, a reasonably successful present, and, if this article has anything to say about it, a possible future as a revived electric passenger hauler. The Crandic may one day serve as a "light rail" line, the modern equivalent of a light interurban. A lot of old interurbans were light, up to some but not all of the standards of the steam railroads and able to haul some, but not all freight.
By today's standards for "steam" roads, they would all be light. This with the possible exception of the last surviving example, CSS&SB. But that has to do with steel mills and possibly with why the South Shore Line survived into the Twenty-First Century as a true-to-life heavy interurban.
As usual, we digress. Our point is that the revival of the Crandic as an electric interurban of sorts just adds to The Evidence.
The Evidence is that American cities made a big mistake by forsaking electric traction for passenger service, both intra- and intercity. Streetcar tracks should have never been pulled up or paved over and what was once electrified should have stayed electrified.
As America moves more to an energy philosophy that includes power generation with non-fossil fuels, electric traction makes more sense. (As of State of The Union 2007, Mr. Bush's energy policy still stinks. Biofuel is a boondoggle. Can anyone still pronounce nuclear correctly? I guess any country whose leader can't pronounce it shouldn't try to use it. But another digression has occurred.)
Alas, the streetcars disappeared in most cities no later than the 1950s. Interurban electric traction (like CSS&SB) disappeared earlier in most cases, and heavy electric traction (like Milwaukee Road's) except for Passenger Rail has been on the ropes for years. Infrastructure cost is part of it, but there was also a time when the so-called experts thought everything would move on rubber tires and Interstate highways. Talk about infrastructure costs!
So much for the experts.
If the Crandic returns in electric configuration, we also hope to see more streetcars and perhaps other electric interurbans. But we can't help imagining what it would be like if the wires had never come down.
©2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
The Crandic is the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, a former interurban (until 1953) with a colorful past, a reasonably successful present, and, if this article has anything to say about it, a possible future as a revived electric passenger hauler. The Crandic may one day serve as a "light rail" line, the modern equivalent of a light interurban. A lot of old interurbans were light, up to some but not all of the standards of the steam railroads and able to haul some, but not all freight.
By today's standards for "steam" roads, they would all be light. This with the possible exception of the last surviving example, CSS&SB. But that has to do with steel mills and possibly with why the South Shore Line survived into the Twenty-First Century as a true-to-life heavy interurban.
As usual, we digress. Our point is that the revival of the Crandic as an electric interurban of sorts just adds to The Evidence.
The Evidence is that American cities made a big mistake by forsaking electric traction for passenger service, both intra- and intercity. Streetcar tracks should have never been pulled up or paved over and what was once electrified should have stayed electrified.
As America moves more to an energy philosophy that includes power generation with non-fossil fuels, electric traction makes more sense. (As of State of The Union 2007, Mr. Bush's energy policy still stinks. Biofuel is a boondoggle. Can anyone still pronounce nuclear correctly? I guess any country whose leader can't pronounce it shouldn't try to use it. But another digression has occurred.)
Alas, the streetcars disappeared in most cities no later than the 1950s. Interurban electric traction (like CSS&SB) disappeared earlier in most cases, and heavy electric traction (like Milwaukee Road's) except for Passenger Rail has been on the ropes for years. Infrastructure cost is part of it, but there was also a time when the so-called experts thought everything would move on rubber tires and Interstate highways. Talk about infrastructure costs!
So much for the experts.
If the Crandic returns in electric configuration, we also hope to see more streetcars and perhaps other electric interurbans. But we can't help imagining what it would be like if the wires had never come down.
©2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Vote for Bill Richardson
Mr. Richardson just threw his hat into the ring this morning. This guy is such a longshot for the Democrat presidential nomination that you might think even Nancy Pelosi has a better chance. So why would a conservative blogger tell anyone to vote for him?
Well, for his position on one issue: He likes Passenger Rail.
Mr. Richardson is responsible for the New Mexico Rail Runner, and for getting the Federal funding for it. Mr. Richardson believes that there is room for more mass transport, and it ain't in the skies. Finally, he is not bashful about putting public money on the line for it.
We can't say the same for any other potential presidential candidate, although Barak Obama has been almost as active in procuring federal transportation funds for Illinois. In Mr. Obama's case, he and Dick Durbin talked a good talk, but when it comes down to it, most of the money they procured will be spent on highways. And on the Republican side, forget about it. Only Rudy Giulani may come anywhere close to being sympathetic to funding for major Passenger Rail projects.
On a low note, Hillary Clinton is now also in the race. Her focus will not be on transportation. We are not even sure if she knows how to drive a car. When the subject comes up, and it will, she will listen to Democrat advisers who tell her to put the big bucks in public transit. We all know that all Democrat voters live in the inner city and can't afford a car. (For those of you who don't understand Limbaugh-like sarcasm, that was some of it.)
In the opinion of Mister Trains, there is nothing wrong with public transit. We usually keep an historic CTA car of one sort or another as a wallpaper on this computer. (A 6-year old Pentium 4 that could use some public funding.) It just isn't presently what this country needs in added quantity.
On a high note, we do not think anyone truly has a clue as to where these candidates will be standing or sitting in February 2008. The drive-by media are still treating the Republican primaries as though they don't exist. So everybody still has a chance to opt in for Passenger Rail in a big way.
Given the stakes, we should all try to impress upon our duly elected officeholders, and upon their potential successors, the importance of Passenger Rail.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Well, for his position on one issue: He likes Passenger Rail.
Mr. Richardson is responsible for the New Mexico Rail Runner, and for getting the Federal funding for it. Mr. Richardson believes that there is room for more mass transport, and it ain't in the skies. Finally, he is not bashful about putting public money on the line for it.
We can't say the same for any other potential presidential candidate, although Barak Obama has been almost as active in procuring federal transportation funds for Illinois. In Mr. Obama's case, he and Dick Durbin talked a good talk, but when it comes down to it, most of the money they procured will be spent on highways. And on the Republican side, forget about it. Only Rudy Giulani may come anywhere close to being sympathetic to funding for major Passenger Rail projects.
On a low note, Hillary Clinton is now also in the race. Her focus will not be on transportation. We are not even sure if she knows how to drive a car. When the subject comes up, and it will, she will listen to Democrat advisers who tell her to put the big bucks in public transit. We all know that all Democrat voters live in the inner city and can't afford a car. (For those of you who don't understand Limbaugh-like sarcasm, that was some of it.)
In the opinion of Mister Trains, there is nothing wrong with public transit. We usually keep an historic CTA car of one sort or another as a wallpaper on this computer. (A 6-year old Pentium 4 that could use some public funding.) It just isn't presently what this country needs in added quantity.
On a high note, we do not think anyone truly has a clue as to where these candidates will be standing or sitting in February 2008. The drive-by media are still treating the Republican primaries as though they don't exist. So everybody still has a chance to opt in for Passenger Rail in a big way.
Given the stakes, we should all try to impress upon our duly elected officeholders, and upon their potential successors, the importance of Passenger Rail.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Regional Interstate Passenger Rail
We heard of a good idea whose time has come.
The Midwest has a Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Compact. It promotes the development of intercity Passenger Rail that crosses state lines.
What a deal. We think we should have one of these in the Southwest, and particularly in New Mexico.
We don't understand why more people in New Mexico don't get excited about the prospect of Passenger Rail service from Denver to El Paso and serving New Mexico's three metropolitan areas. (For you unwashed, that would be Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Las Cruces.)
We further don't understand why more people don't get excited about Passenger Rail in the east-west corridor that would be Phoenix, Tucson, Las Cruces, El Paso and San Antonio. Granted, this is more of a stretch, as there is a long, long way between El Paso and San Antonio. And because of line abandonments and other factors, New Mexico doesn't have any real good attractive Passenger route to Dallas-Ft. Worth.
We need a Regional Initiative, and we need to get people in all the above cities and surrounding areas involved.
Anyone please let me know.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
The Midwest has a Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Compact. It promotes the development of intercity Passenger Rail that crosses state lines.
What a deal. We think we should have one of these in the Southwest, and particularly in New Mexico.
We don't understand why more people in New Mexico don't get excited about the prospect of Passenger Rail service from Denver to El Paso and serving New Mexico's three metropolitan areas. (For you unwashed, that would be Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Las Cruces.)
We further don't understand why more people don't get excited about Passenger Rail in the east-west corridor that would be Phoenix, Tucson, Las Cruces, El Paso and San Antonio. Granted, this is more of a stretch, as there is a long, long way between El Paso and San Antonio. And because of line abandonments and other factors, New Mexico doesn't have any real good attractive Passenger route to Dallas-Ft. Worth.
We need a Regional Initiative, and we need to get people in all the above cities and surrounding areas involved.
Anyone please let me know.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Digging Out
The first week of the year seems not to have brought any significant Passenger Rail news.
The East (and Northeast in particular) is holding its own on speculation about the revival of passenger service in even the smallest hamlet. When New Englanders can't go skiing or ice fishing, they apparently fantasize about what life would be like with good Passenger Rail service.
The Intermountain West, meanwhile, is digging out of record-breaking El Nino snowfalls. We're also fantasizing about what life would be like with good Passenger Rail service.
Oddly enough, the West is closer to this than the East.
It seems like any reasonble proposal has grown legs and is walking, crawling, and in some cases running to fruition.
We had previously scheduled a post about the Colorado group that is advocating I-25 rail corridor service between Denver and Albuquerque. Though the idea at first glance seems a long shot, it has greater chance of becoming reality than rail service to the Poconos. Here's why:
There are obvious benefits at the north end. Colorado has the cash, and the citizens have the will. Major East Slope communities including Pueblo and Colorado Springs will be served. At the south end, there is the upstart New Mexico Rail Runner, and the state owns the railroad, all the freaking way to a connection with the freakin' best-run, if not busiest, Transcon in the country.
This writer has long proposed that New Mexico look at the benefits of a further connection all the way to El Paso, TX. The old Santa Fe ran a day train in this direction that wasn't all that badly patronized. It would have been better if the old Santa Fe hadn't, like all railroads of the pre-Amtrak era, been more interested in train-offs than in train-ons.
Whether most New Mexicans like it or not, the biggest population and employment center in the state is not Albuquerque or Santa Fe, it is the strip of Interstate 10 between El Paso and Las Cruces. And Las Cruces has railroad access that goes to Arizona and Beyond.
While we spend our days wondering if the old flat-roof adobe can hold all that snow, we can fantasize about a Passenger Rail network run by Colorado and New Mexico (hey, they already own the Cumbres & Toltec!) and including as it's terminal points Denver, El Paso, and Phoenix. God or the Union Pacific forbid, maybe even Yuma and San Antonio.
We local Southwesterners certainly would be able to train-it better than we can now with the miserably late Southwest Chief and the just miserable Sunset Limited.
Just day dreamin' in the snow!
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
The East (and Northeast in particular) is holding its own on speculation about the revival of passenger service in even the smallest hamlet. When New Englanders can't go skiing or ice fishing, they apparently fantasize about what life would be like with good Passenger Rail service.
The Intermountain West, meanwhile, is digging out of record-breaking El Nino snowfalls. We're also fantasizing about what life would be like with good Passenger Rail service.
Oddly enough, the West is closer to this than the East.
It seems like any reasonble proposal has grown legs and is walking, crawling, and in some cases running to fruition.
We had previously scheduled a post about the Colorado group that is advocating I-25 rail corridor service between Denver and Albuquerque. Though the idea at first glance seems a long shot, it has greater chance of becoming reality than rail service to the Poconos. Here's why:
There are obvious benefits at the north end. Colorado has the cash, and the citizens have the will. Major East Slope communities including Pueblo and Colorado Springs will be served. At the south end, there is the upstart New Mexico Rail Runner, and the state owns the railroad, all the freaking way to a connection with the freakin' best-run, if not busiest, Transcon in the country.
This writer has long proposed that New Mexico look at the benefits of a further connection all the way to El Paso, TX. The old Santa Fe ran a day train in this direction that wasn't all that badly patronized. It would have been better if the old Santa Fe hadn't, like all railroads of the pre-Amtrak era, been more interested in train-offs than in train-ons.
Whether most New Mexicans like it or not, the biggest population and employment center in the state is not Albuquerque or Santa Fe, it is the strip of Interstate 10 between El Paso and Las Cruces. And Las Cruces has railroad access that goes to Arizona and Beyond.
While we spend our days wondering if the old flat-roof adobe can hold all that snow, we can fantasize about a Passenger Rail network run by Colorado and New Mexico (hey, they already own the Cumbres & Toltec!) and including as it's terminal points Denver, El Paso, and Phoenix. God or the Union Pacific forbid, maybe even Yuma and San Antonio.
We local Southwesterners certainly would be able to train-it better than we can now with the miserably late Southwest Chief and the just miserable Sunset Limited.
Just day dreamin' in the snow!
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Snowstorm
As some readers of this blog know and others are about to learn, we are based in Albuquerque, NM. That wouldn't mean much, except that we have just been through the worst snowstorm to hit Albuquerque in about 50 years. (Records from 1959 were broken.)
In 1959, Albuquerque was served (well) by the Santa Fe and its generally reliable passenger schedule. Some of the great trains called at Albuquerque, and there were doodlebugs to El Paso, Amarillo and Santa Fe, with connections to the still operating Colorado narrow gauge system. History does not record how late the trains ran then, and it probably won't record how late they are running today.
But we will bet that they were not as late as Amtrak.
We don't exactly understand why Amtrak trains get as late as they get in snow. (As we write this, the eastbound California Zephyr, which is having to travel through the same snowstorm now in eastern Nebraska and western Iowa, is running over 8 hours late. Amtrak's Web site is reporting a "service disruption" for the Southwest Chief through Albuquerque, so who knows!) The basic technology is the same as 1959: Diesel electric locomotives pulling stainless steel passenger cars which are self-sufficient for some functions and which depend on the locomotive for others. Even the high-level concept was already in operation.
Part of it, we are sure, has to do with the freight railroads and with the record volumes of rail freight being carried. Not only will the freight railroads tend to give money-making freight priority, but they will have to have more maintenance windows as the freights wear out the track faster than ever.
Another part of it, we are also sure, is the management of Amtrak and the general attitude that it no longer matters if anything is on schedule. The attitude that things are just too complex and it is all right if we get off schedule so long as we have a reasonable excuse, like snow.
In 1959, railroaders of all seniorities were, we are just as sure, called on the carpet for any delay at all.
Given the history of railroading in this country, and the history of railroads getting the passengers and mail through in all kinds of weather, Passenger Rail should be the transportation mode of choice in bad weather. It's not, but it should be.
Times change and commerce suffers if the free flow of goods is impeded. Commerce and something more abstract suffers, however, when the free flow of American travel is impeded. This nation was built on the free flow of goods and people, and something happens to the American psyche when goods become more important than people.
We hope that, in the New Year, the new congress finds a way to enable Amtrak or some form of national Passenger Rail to become what Passenger Rail should be.
May God bless us all with a Happy and Prosperous New Year!
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
In 1959, Albuquerque was served (well) by the Santa Fe and its generally reliable passenger schedule. Some of the great trains called at Albuquerque, and there were doodlebugs to El Paso, Amarillo and Santa Fe, with connections to the still operating Colorado narrow gauge system. History does not record how late the trains ran then, and it probably won't record how late they are running today.
But we will bet that they were not as late as Amtrak.
We don't exactly understand why Amtrak trains get as late as they get in snow. (As we write this, the eastbound California Zephyr, which is having to travel through the same snowstorm now in eastern Nebraska and western Iowa, is running over 8 hours late. Amtrak's Web site is reporting a "service disruption" for the Southwest Chief through Albuquerque, so who knows!) The basic technology is the same as 1959: Diesel electric locomotives pulling stainless steel passenger cars which are self-sufficient for some functions and which depend on the locomotive for others. Even the high-level concept was already in operation.
Part of it, we are sure, has to do with the freight railroads and with the record volumes of rail freight being carried. Not only will the freight railroads tend to give money-making freight priority, but they will have to have more maintenance windows as the freights wear out the track faster than ever.
Another part of it, we are also sure, is the management of Amtrak and the general attitude that it no longer matters if anything is on schedule. The attitude that things are just too complex and it is all right if we get off schedule so long as we have a reasonable excuse, like snow.
In 1959, railroaders of all seniorities were, we are just as sure, called on the carpet for any delay at all.
Given the history of railroading in this country, and the history of railroads getting the passengers and mail through in all kinds of weather, Passenger Rail should be the transportation mode of choice in bad weather. It's not, but it should be.
Times change and commerce suffers if the free flow of goods is impeded. Commerce and something more abstract suffers, however, when the free flow of American travel is impeded. This nation was built on the free flow of goods and people, and something happens to the American psyche when goods become more important than people.
We hope that, in the New Year, the new congress finds a way to enable Amtrak or some form of national Passenger Rail to become what Passenger Rail should be.
May God bless us all with a Happy and Prosperous New Year!
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, December 24, 2006
End of Year Report
Several thoughts - not the least of which is we have reached nearly the end of another year and the situation with Amtrak has not really improved.
As always, there are signs of imminent change and signs of imminent disaster. And you wouldn't be able to tell which sign Mister Trains thinks points which way.
Yesterday's TV news brought a video bite of a delayed air passenger in Denver who thought, with flights grounded, that there may be some way to get from Denver to Albuquerque by rail. There should be, but there isn't, and probably won't be for at least a decade. (If it happens sooner than that, we will gladly eat our words.)
As always, there are signs of imminent change and signs of imminent disaster. And you wouldn't be able to tell which sign Mister Trains thinks points which way.
Yesterday's TV news brought a video bite of a delayed air passenger in Denver who thought, with flights grounded, that there may be some way to get from Denver to Albuquerque by rail. There should be, but there isn't, and probably won't be for at least a decade. (If it happens sooner than that, we will gladly eat our words.)
The potential rail traveler looking for a train is a bad thing - because the public doesn't know where Amtrak goes - but it is a good sign. That an air passenger would even think of the train tells us that air passengers are becoming fed up with the hassle. If Amtrak put on more routes and lost the "don't take a chance running in the storm" mentality, it would have more riders pretty fast.
The January issue of Trains carried an article about new Amtrak president Alex Kummant. Can Amtrak's new president keep the trains rolling? Anyone who's interested should read it thoroughly and between the lines.
This is a bad sign. Why? Because after reading this article, we don't think he can keep the trains rolling?
Bless him for taking on a thankless job. But Mr. Kummant is too wrapped up in doublespeak and the "committee" way of doing a job. From the direct quotes in the article, we can tell that his version of action is "talking about action." And he doesn't think Passenger Rail is viable in anything but a corridor context. Furthermore, he doesn't think that any drastic forms of initiative can be done quickly. Just how long does he think he will last at this job? As we have reported before, Amtrak presidents come and go with alarming frequency. At least Mr. Kummant is humble enough to acknowledge the employees and the historical problems that Amtrak has faced.
We prefer optimism. So we hope and pray that, at this time next year, we will buy a ticket to travel from Denver to Albuquerque without leaving the ground or using an Interstate. We also hope and pray that Mr. Kummant enjoys his next job.
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Tree-Huggin' Railroadin'
Those with some interest in the establishment of new Passenger Rail routes, and those with some concern that NIMBY's and BANANA's can put a stop to just about any project, should read the recent article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel entitled Crowds Flock To Rail Symposium by Genevieve Bookwalter, Sentinel staff writer.
Out there on the leading edge of trying to get Passenger Rail service on a 32-mile Union Pacific line, these people have the community both involved and interested. How did they do it? It appears that they are willing to look beyond conventional commuter service and think of alternates that satisfy the environmentalist in all of us. People interested in just getting automobiles off the highways are there. So are those who want to see alternate fuels used in order to reduce our dependency on oil and cut down on the environmental degradation of oil exploration.
There are also those who would finance the proposal, at least in part, from other than taxes and surcharges.
There was one classic NIMBY, a resident of 30 years who complains about the windows shaking when trains go by. Where has he been for 30 years? Living next to the tracks. The tracks were there before he was and, with some luck, the rest of the crowd will have passenger service long after he is gone.
But despite the NIMBY, this is the way Passenger Rail is going to have to get done in the foreseeable future.
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Out there on the leading edge of trying to get Passenger Rail service on a 32-mile Union Pacific line, these people have the community both involved and interested. How did they do it? It appears that they are willing to look beyond conventional commuter service and think of alternates that satisfy the environmentalist in all of us. People interested in just getting automobiles off the highways are there. So are those who want to see alternate fuels used in order to reduce our dependency on oil and cut down on the environmental degradation of oil exploration.
There are also those who would finance the proposal, at least in part, from other than taxes and surcharges.
There was one classic NIMBY, a resident of 30 years who complains about the windows shaking when trains go by. Where has he been for 30 years? Living next to the tracks. The tracks were there before he was and, with some luck, the rest of the crowd will have passenger service long after he is gone.
But despite the NIMBY, this is the way Passenger Rail is going to have to get done in the foreseeable future.
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Line Abandonments
At this time, we are going to abandon one project and revise our approach to this website. We have recently taken up new responsibilities that will restrict our abilities to produce a blog on a weekday. We are therefore going to change our blog back to once a week and revert to posting on Saturday or Sunday, whichever works. We will probably forward date all the blogs to the next Sunday, and we will “extra” the blog if possible with new information.
The project we are going to abandon is looking up the record on our congressmen. The research we have done so far indicates that our representatives are only interested when it comes to money, and they will be for or against Amtrak and Passenger Rail, whether they know anything at all about trains, based on if the funding involved appears to be politically popular or unpopular.
Popularity contests are no way to fund a railroad.
Oh, for the days of private investment and public stock offerings for Passenger Rail.
Maybe, they are right around the corner.
©2006 – C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
The project we are going to abandon is looking up the record on our congressmen. The research we have done so far indicates that our representatives are only interested when it comes to money, and they will be for or against Amtrak and Passenger Rail, whether they know anything at all about trains, based on if the funding involved appears to be politically popular or unpopular.
Popularity contests are no way to fund a railroad.
Oh, for the days of private investment and public stock offerings for Passenger Rail.
Maybe, they are right around the corner.
©2006 – C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Monday, December 04, 2006
Las Vegas Has No Train Station
This will be a short post.
For one thing, Blogger Beta isn't working properly and we cannot format the text. For another, we got back from Vegas on Thursday afternoon and haven't had a chance to write or do research.
The hotel, The Gold Coast, was about a block from the railroad. There were plenty of Union Pacific trains working the line. No Amtrak, however.
Las Vegas, one of the premier tourist destinations of the country, has no train station. Bus stations it has got, airports also. But no train station and no Amtrak service except via Thruway bus.
As we said previouly. Pity.
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
For one thing, Blogger Beta isn't working properly and we cannot format the text. For another, we got back from Vegas on Thursday afternoon and haven't had a chance to write or do research.
The hotel, The Gold Coast, was about a block from the railroad. There were plenty of Union Pacific trains working the line. No Amtrak, however.
Las Vegas, one of the premier tourist destinations of the country, has no train station. Bus stations it has got, airports also. But no train station and no Amtrak service except via Thruway bus.
As we said previouly. Pity.
©2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Friday, November 24, 2006
Hiatus Announcement
We're leavin' on a jet plane, won't be back again until after 12/1. Could have been a train, but employers don't think "train" when it comes to business travel. Pity.
Rather than lug the laptop through security or count on getting a decent connection on a hotel computer blah, blah, we are suspending the blog for a time. Our next post is scheduled for 12/4. Have a happy holiday season.
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Rather than lug the laptop through security or count on getting a decent connection on a hotel computer blah, blah, we are suspending the blog for a time. Our next post is scheduled for 12/4. Have a happy holiday season.
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Sell The Seats You Have
The most recent issue of Trains carries an article that describes how Amtrak copes with the Thanksgiving Holiday rush. It's not a surprise that Amtrak no longer even tries to have enough seats for everyone who wants to ride. They just want to sell the seats they have at a price that goes higher with every sold seat.
Yes, selling more seats could produce higher revenues, but at what cost? This is the bottom line syndrome that has hit Amtrak hard, making it less of a public utility and more of a government white elephant.
T'was a time when Amtrak could find enough used, abused and just plain junk passenger equipment, service it, and put it on the rails for a holiday rush. Gone to sales or scrap, these venerable pieces of equipment have their modern counterpart in the scores of damaged or worn out passenger seats in Amtrak yards. There's no money budgeted for repairs and repairs don't appear to be on the radar screen.
Our theory of a proper course for Amtrak is Revamp Nothing. Go back through our archives to find out what Revamp Nothing is all about. But should Amtrak (or whatever form national Passenger Rail takes in the future) build enough new equipment to meet peak demands?
We say yes! Why? Because holidays and vacations are the make and break for any travel-related business in the US. Any business will get more repeat business and off-peak business if it can handle the peaks with style and class.
Case in point: Car rentals. Having a good experience when renting a car for a holday trip makes us more willing to spend that extra bit and rent one while our Mercedes is in the shop, or when our two-seater just isn't big enough to take four adults out for dinner. Having a good experience with the car itself will also sell more of the same car line off the dealer lots.
If we can call up Amtrak and get a reservation for a last-minute out-of-town Thanksgiving dinner invitation, we will be more likely to check out Amtrak when we need a last minute to go to a business meeting two states away. If the price is reasonable, we will be more likely. This is true of airlines, too.
Because we can't do this today is why we drive alot. It's why alot of people drive alot instead of take the train, which for trips of 1500 miles or less has comparable travel times.
We are talking to Alex Kummant: Get those government dunderheads to fess up enough money so that you can build some peak capacity. Stop playing games with numbers on tickets that should be flat rated. Get some balls and start serving the train-riding public like a real railroad! You may be surprised on how much new money you can make.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Yes, selling more seats could produce higher revenues, but at what cost? This is the bottom line syndrome that has hit Amtrak hard, making it less of a public utility and more of a government white elephant.
T'was a time when Amtrak could find enough used, abused and just plain junk passenger equipment, service it, and put it on the rails for a holiday rush. Gone to sales or scrap, these venerable pieces of equipment have their modern counterpart in the scores of damaged or worn out passenger seats in Amtrak yards. There's no money budgeted for repairs and repairs don't appear to be on the radar screen.
Our theory of a proper course for Amtrak is Revamp Nothing. Go back through our archives to find out what Revamp Nothing is all about. But should Amtrak (or whatever form national Passenger Rail takes in the future) build enough new equipment to meet peak demands?
We say yes! Why? Because holidays and vacations are the make and break for any travel-related business in the US. Any business will get more repeat business and off-peak business if it can handle the peaks with style and class.
Case in point: Car rentals. Having a good experience when renting a car for a holday trip makes us more willing to spend that extra bit and rent one while our Mercedes is in the shop, or when our two-seater just isn't big enough to take four adults out for dinner. Having a good experience with the car itself will also sell more of the same car line off the dealer lots.
If we can call up Amtrak and get a reservation for a last-minute out-of-town Thanksgiving dinner invitation, we will be more likely to check out Amtrak when we need a last minute to go to a business meeting two states away. If the price is reasonable, we will be more likely. This is true of airlines, too.
Because we can't do this today is why we drive alot. It's why alot of people drive alot instead of take the train, which for trips of 1500 miles or less has comparable travel times.
We are talking to Alex Kummant: Get those government dunderheads to fess up enough money so that you can build some peak capacity. Stop playing games with numbers on tickets that should be flat rated. Get some balls and start serving the train-riding public like a real railroad! You may be surprised on how much new money you can make.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Monday, November 20, 2006
High Tech and Next Generation Passenger Rail
We have previously blogged the subject of Next Generation Passenger Rail and how high-tech control for locomotives and trains could be implimented.
The December issue of Trains carries an article about the recent federal mandate to convert to ECP braking. (Electronically Controlled Pneumatic braking)
On US trains on what is termed the "steam" railroads, the latest variation of the original Westinghouse air brake design from the late 19th Century is used. (Steam railroads are "heavy." They are not street railways, in general, and not light rail or rapid transit systems. However, many commuter railroads are steam railroads by this definition. Many rapid transit and street railroad systems also use regenerative braking, some use vacuum brakes and air brakes that are different from the Westinghouse system, and some use hydraulic brakes.)
With the US system, the brake pipe and air reservoirs on all cars are charged with compressed air produced by a compressor on the locomotive. Without going into exactly how this happens, we can say that a reduction in the pressure in the brake pipe going from car to car causes an application of the brakes. As this pressure reduction starts at the locomotive, it takes time to get to the last car of a long train.
ECP would add a control cable and control box to each car. A presumably digital signal would apply the brakes in all cars according to the brake application chosen by the engineer. Application for the whole train would be almost instantaneous and greatly assist in both control and stopping distance.
We think that anyone with an interest in railroading can see that this would take us one step closer to remote control of trains, with accompanying cost and safety improvements. (Some rapid transit trains are currently remote controlled. It is precisely because they use braking and power systems that offer better train control.)
ECP is an incremental change. ECP does not follow the policy of this blog, Revamp Nothing. ECP can be applied to existing systems without changing the entire system, and the cost can be spread out over the many owners of railroad rolling stock.
Following the informal guidelines of Revamp Nothing, a non-incremental change to a better form of ECP would allow for the following improvements: Either switch to vacuum brakes or allow for individual cars to charge their own reservoirs. Eliminate the cable and use digital (through the tracks). Let the train driver/engineer make one uniform application or apply brakes differently on different cars depending on conditions. Add regenerative (dynamic) braking on cars as it now exists on locomotives and on catenary systems.
Although Westinghouse had a good idea, pneumatic braking depends on not losing your air. The system has to be recharged. In vacuum braking, once you pull a vacuum, atmosphere does the work. And we think anyone who has ever operated a train or run a realistic simulator can see the advantages of being able to control where in the train you apply the brakes.
Comments anyone? We'd like to hear from the engineers.
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
The December issue of Trains carries an article about the recent federal mandate to convert to ECP braking. (Electronically Controlled Pneumatic braking)
On US trains on what is termed the "steam" railroads, the latest variation of the original Westinghouse air brake design from the late 19th Century is used. (Steam railroads are "heavy." They are not street railways, in general, and not light rail or rapid transit systems. However, many commuter railroads are steam railroads by this definition. Many rapid transit and street railroad systems also use regenerative braking, some use vacuum brakes and air brakes that are different from the Westinghouse system, and some use hydraulic brakes.)
With the US system, the brake pipe and air reservoirs on all cars are charged with compressed air produced by a compressor on the locomotive. Without going into exactly how this happens, we can say that a reduction in the pressure in the brake pipe going from car to car causes an application of the brakes. As this pressure reduction starts at the locomotive, it takes time to get to the last car of a long train.
ECP would add a control cable and control box to each car. A presumably digital signal would apply the brakes in all cars according to the brake application chosen by the engineer. Application for the whole train would be almost instantaneous and greatly assist in both control and stopping distance.
We think that anyone with an interest in railroading can see that this would take us one step closer to remote control of trains, with accompanying cost and safety improvements. (Some rapid transit trains are currently remote controlled. It is precisely because they use braking and power systems that offer better train control.)
ECP is an incremental change. ECP does not follow the policy of this blog, Revamp Nothing. ECP can be applied to existing systems without changing the entire system, and the cost can be spread out over the many owners of railroad rolling stock.
Following the informal guidelines of Revamp Nothing, a non-incremental change to a better form of ECP would allow for the following improvements: Either switch to vacuum brakes or allow for individual cars to charge their own reservoirs. Eliminate the cable and use digital (through the tracks). Let the train driver/engineer make one uniform application or apply brakes differently on different cars depending on conditions. Add regenerative (dynamic) braking on cars as it now exists on locomotives and on catenary systems.
Although Westinghouse had a good idea, pneumatic braking depends on not losing your air. The system has to be recharged. In vacuum braking, once you pull a vacuum, atmosphere does the work. And we think anyone who has ever operated a train or run a realistic simulator can see the advantages of being able to control where in the train you apply the brakes.
Comments anyone? We'd like to hear from the engineers.
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Politicians and Passenger Rail
As the mid-term election balloon deflates to a screeching, "Whatever," we thought it would be interesting and informative to do a survey of how our newly elected congressmen stack up for/against or indifferent to Passenger Rail. We will start with New Mexico, move on to neighboring states. As it would take 25 weeks to cover all 50 states in our twice-weekly blogs, we will omit those states where we cannot locate any credible information. Readers please feel free to email us any info on your congressman (yes, it's the right form of address, even if she is female.)
In New Mexico, Heather Wilson has voted both for and against Amtrak funding and continuation of funding. Whether this signifies a lack of knowledge of railroading and Passenger Rail is a matter of opinion. Many Republican voters think that Ms. Wilson simply votes with Mr. Bush.
A little research shows that Tom Udall has an understanding of the economies of using rail to transport both freight and passengers, at least insofar as these economies support his positions on the environment and independence from foreign sources of oil. Udall has historically been associated with keeping both Amtrak and local intrastate service on the front burner and recognizes the detriment to the country if Passenger Rail should fall by the side of the roadbed.
Congressman Steve Pierce of New Mexico has no discernable record on Passenger Rail.
Next time on P & PR, Texas.
© 2006 - C. A Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
In New Mexico, Heather Wilson has voted both for and against Amtrak funding and continuation of funding. Whether this signifies a lack of knowledge of railroading and Passenger Rail is a matter of opinion. Many Republican voters think that Ms. Wilson simply votes with Mr. Bush.
A little research shows that Tom Udall has an understanding of the economies of using rail to transport both freight and passengers, at least insofar as these economies support his positions on the environment and independence from foreign sources of oil. Udall has historically been associated with keeping both Amtrak and local intrastate service on the front burner and recognizes the detriment to the country if Passenger Rail should fall by the side of the roadbed.
Congressman Steve Pierce of New Mexico has no discernable record on Passenger Rail.
Next time on P & PR, Texas.
© 2006 - C. A Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Monday, November 13, 2006
On Time and On The Advertised
Would advertising by freight railroads, and better advertising by Amtrak and commuter railroads really help the cause of Passenger Rail?
Some of our readers and some readers of Trains think so. We are not so sure.
If you are old enough to remember the days when intercity Passenger Rail advertised (we are), you will remember that it was always in conjunction with freight. Santa Fe was "Ship and Travel Santa Fe." Amtrak still does advertise, but it doesn't do a very good job of telling anyone where it goes.
The good old advertising leaned heavily on destination. Take the Broadway Limited to New York, the Super Chief to Los Angeles, the Hiawatha's, the 400's or the Twin Cities Zephyr to Minneapolis. (You can guess we lived in Chicago in those days.) Amtrak's advertising leans on price, and that's probably all they have going for them.
We don't know if present-day ad agencies are ready for advertising passenger rail. We would guess that the average ad exec doesn't know Tallahassee from Timbuctu, let alone where they are or how to spell them. (There are three spellings for the latter, all correct.) Would it help if the advertising told us where the freight railroads went? We doubt it.
Then there is the need for graphics. (Exception: Radio spot announcements.) For print ads, do you show the destination? Or do you show the passenger train speeding along the high iron at seventy per? (Few US passenger trains do seventy per, by the way.) We have seen some TV spots from Europe that are quite disarming, charming, witty and just as likely to spark an interest in riding as are any airline ads you may have seen in the United States.
Should the advertising lie and never show an Amtrak train threading its way past freight traffic? Or would the public be better off to realize that Amtrak has to use the already overloaded freight railroad system?
Or should the railroads (all railroads) put their heads together to develop an all new approach to getting people interested in trains? Maybe take a cue from the negative campaign ads. "Did you know that Tarmac Airlines uses stinky jet fuel? You can smell the kerosene during those nasty 90-minute waits for terminal space. Tarmac Airlines is soft on the war in Iraq. It hasn't carried nearly as many of our Armed Forces as has rail. Amtrak. Whay wait to fall out of the sky?"
Railroads used to issue promotional films by the hundreds. These thinly disguised "educational" films were shown in thousands of classrooms all over the country and made school-age children aware of how railroads fit into the politics and industry of the country. We haven't seen any for Amtrak or Passenger Rail in general, and we wouldn't be surprised if films that are decades old are still shown in classrooms.
We would like to see a general council called together for the sole purpose of making the public aware of rail's part in the American economy. Perhaps one composed of representatives of Class 1 and Shortline railroads as well as of commuter agencies and Amtrak. But please add representatives of the shipping and riding public, and of the non-educated public.
Although this blog has advocated separating Passenger Rail from Freight right of way, this will separate it from one of it's greatest educational benefits. As long as Passenger Rail must share the way with freight, the rider can be educated and see for him/herself how freight rail serves the country.
As specialization becomes the norm, education becomes more narrow. If we lose the ability to educate the public on this subject dear to our hearts and vital to the country, pity us for more than just our damnable hubris.
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Some of our readers and some readers of Trains think so. We are not so sure.
If you are old enough to remember the days when intercity Passenger Rail advertised (we are), you will remember that it was always in conjunction with freight. Santa Fe was "Ship and Travel Santa Fe." Amtrak still does advertise, but it doesn't do a very good job of telling anyone where it goes.
The good old advertising leaned heavily on destination. Take the Broadway Limited to New York, the Super Chief to Los Angeles, the Hiawatha's, the 400's or the Twin Cities Zephyr to Minneapolis. (You can guess we lived in Chicago in those days.) Amtrak's advertising leans on price, and that's probably all they have going for them.
We don't know if present-day ad agencies are ready for advertising passenger rail. We would guess that the average ad exec doesn't know Tallahassee from Timbuctu, let alone where they are or how to spell them. (There are three spellings for the latter, all correct.) Would it help if the advertising told us where the freight railroads went? We doubt it.
Then there is the need for graphics. (Exception: Radio spot announcements.) For print ads, do you show the destination? Or do you show the passenger train speeding along the high iron at seventy per? (Few US passenger trains do seventy per, by the way.) We have seen some TV spots from Europe that are quite disarming, charming, witty and just as likely to spark an interest in riding as are any airline ads you may have seen in the United States.
Should the advertising lie and never show an Amtrak train threading its way past freight traffic? Or would the public be better off to realize that Amtrak has to use the already overloaded freight railroad system?
Or should the railroads (all railroads) put their heads together to develop an all new approach to getting people interested in trains? Maybe take a cue from the negative campaign ads. "Did you know that Tarmac Airlines uses stinky jet fuel? You can smell the kerosene during those nasty 90-minute waits for terminal space. Tarmac Airlines is soft on the war in Iraq. It hasn't carried nearly as many of our Armed Forces as has rail. Amtrak. Whay wait to fall out of the sky?"
Railroads used to issue promotional films by the hundreds. These thinly disguised "educational" films were shown in thousands of classrooms all over the country and made school-age children aware of how railroads fit into the politics and industry of the country. We haven't seen any for Amtrak or Passenger Rail in general, and we wouldn't be surprised if films that are decades old are still shown in classrooms.
We would like to see a general council called together for the sole purpose of making the public aware of rail's part in the American economy. Perhaps one composed of representatives of Class 1 and Shortline railroads as well as of commuter agencies and Amtrak. But please add representatives of the shipping and riding public, and of the non-educated public.
Although this blog has advocated separating Passenger Rail from Freight right of way, this will separate it from one of it's greatest educational benefits. As long as Passenger Rail must share the way with freight, the rider can be educated and see for him/herself how freight rail serves the country.
As specialization becomes the norm, education becomes more narrow. If we lose the ability to educate the public on this subject dear to our hearts and vital to the country, pity us for more than just our damnable hubris.
© 2006 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)