We have not supported this fine organization in the past. Oversight, possibly.
In the seventh decade of life in these very good United States, we find that there are way too many organizations that need our assistance for their advocacy before Congress and before other legislative bodies, committees and organizations. And there are far too few funds to pony up for all.
We have to pick and choose.
We recently received a membership package from NARP, and we urge anyone with the will and the funds to consider joining and contributing to this fine organization. That Amtrak is better today than it would be without NARP is not in doubt. Whether any advocacy group can save Amtrak is, as also is whether Amtrak should be saved in anything like its current form.
So Mister Trains will consider all of the possibilities with deliberation. Our cash will only go so far.
Meanwhile, we are soon going to take a ride on New Mexico Rail Runner, now in its first ripening and awaiting extension to Santa Fe, NM. That we haven't done so is another function of lack of both time and cash. We will report on our ride another time.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
NIMBYs Strike . . . and Strike
There is perhaps nothing so infuriating to a United States citizen as to have the government tell him/her what to do with his/her property. So it comes as no surprise that people in Texas do not want Union Pacific to get the benefit of eminent domain to relocate tracks out of the congested hearts of Texas cities.
Union Pacific, of course, has never been noted for either its tact or its hearfelt good will to the public in general and to property owners in particular. Witness UP's years long battle with some toy and model manufacturers over the use and licensing of the UP logos. And yes, folks, if you take a picture of a UP train and put it up on the wall of your den, you may get a call from a UP lawyer.
Of course UP was one of the original transcontinentals that spawned the term "robber barons." It is also the company that swallowed the Octopus, Southern Pacific.
Also, relocating tracks from unconvenient locations for freight rail does nothing to benefit Passenger Rail - unless the ROWs are railbanked or otherwise preserved for this use. Some of the best freight rail routes in the country would make some of the best commuter and Passenger Rail routes - if abandoned by the freight railroads.
And the position of this blogger has always been that Passenger Rail just won't work if it is not subsidized by government in some way.
That way should never be the taking of private property for the purpose of turning it over to another private enterprise. That's what UP would like to have done in Texas, and Texas government is considering it.
That brings us to this point. We have advocated the possible creative financing of Passenger Rail by re-investing private money. Is this a contradiction?
It is only if the private money gets to control real estate that was taken in eminent domain. So we have to be careful. What we would rather see, if these routes really need to be populated with trains instead of with private enterprises, is that the property owner gets his chance to invest in the enterprise and reap any rewards. The property owner's investment is putting in the land for the route. We'd like to see this work for new passenger tracks as well.
So move UP if we must, give them some land, but let them pay a big dividend on that land to the guy or gal who had to give it up. And let UP leave the old tracks so that we can put passengers in trains running on them.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Union Pacific, of course, has never been noted for either its tact or its hearfelt good will to the public in general and to property owners in particular. Witness UP's years long battle with some toy and model manufacturers over the use and licensing of the UP logos. And yes, folks, if you take a picture of a UP train and put it up on the wall of your den, you may get a call from a UP lawyer.
Of course UP was one of the original transcontinentals that spawned the term "robber barons." It is also the company that swallowed the Octopus, Southern Pacific.
Also, relocating tracks from unconvenient locations for freight rail does nothing to benefit Passenger Rail - unless the ROWs are railbanked or otherwise preserved for this use. Some of the best freight rail routes in the country would make some of the best commuter and Passenger Rail routes - if abandoned by the freight railroads.
And the position of this blogger has always been that Passenger Rail just won't work if it is not subsidized by government in some way.
That way should never be the taking of private property for the purpose of turning it over to another private enterprise. That's what UP would like to have done in Texas, and Texas government is considering it.
That brings us to this point. We have advocated the possible creative financing of Passenger Rail by re-investing private money. Is this a contradiction?
It is only if the private money gets to control real estate that was taken in eminent domain. So we have to be careful. What we would rather see, if these routes really need to be populated with trains instead of with private enterprises, is that the property owner gets his chance to invest in the enterprise and reap any rewards. The property owner's investment is putting in the land for the route. We'd like to see this work for new passenger tracks as well.
So move UP if we must, give them some land, but let them pay a big dividend on that land to the guy or gal who had to give it up. And let UP leave the old tracks so that we can put passengers in trains running on them.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Buy It and They Will Go Away
We don't particularly like sour grapes and I-told-you-sos. But that's exactly how we feel about the recent announcement by BNSF Railway that it will cease freight operations on the Raton Pass line. The railroad and local press have tried to sugar coat it, but we saw it coming. We tried to warn the public via an Op-Ed back when it was announced that the State of New Mexico would have to put up an extraordinary amount insurance to guarantee that BNSF Railway would not have to pay up on any lawsuits arising from the operation of New Mexico Rail Runner on tracks still operated and controlled by BNSF.
The sugar coating: Well, we have talked about the interest of Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico in putting together north-south passenger service along the front range and down through the passes into the Rio Grande Valley. So the silver-lines sugar coating is that New Mexico will eventually have to have the Raton Pass line intact for that Passenger Rail service to happen. (See our previous blogs Poor Stepchild, Here's a Twist, and Big Plans.)
How intact will it be? The dark side of the silver lining is that BNSF will no longer dispatch trains over this stretch of track. We don't know the exact details of the purchase agreement, so we don't know for sure whether BNSF is required to continue maintenance on the line and at what cost. It will certainly be more costly for BNSF if they no longer have maintenance crews on the ground in this area, and it will certainly eventually cost New Mexico more money to keep the tracks and road bed viable. (At this time, it is not known whether this means that BNSF will also not use the line that runs from Isleta - site of an infamous Santa Fe passenger wreck - to Dallies, where the Transcon splits from the actual line over Raton. Nor is it clear if BNSF still wants to serve customers on this line in Albuquerque.) It is likely that increased costs for maintenance of a dead railroad will be passed on to New Mexico taxpayers.
What about Amtrak? Yes, Amtrak still dispatches the Southwest Chief over Raton, and it will keep doing this for the foreseeable future. As of January 2008, the State of New Mexico will own this line, unless it rescinds the contract and demand's its money back. We don't see that happening. So Amtrak will be the only tenant for every mile north of Galisteo (if that's where Rail Runner's new ROW actually cuts off), and Amtrak will pay who exactly to operate it's trains? New Mexico has the option of starting its own shortline, and Mister Trains, for one, would be very glad to be in on the ground floor of that enterprise.
One possibility is the Santa Fe Southern, also state owned, which runs from Lamy into Santa Fe on the old Santa Fe branch. But we would hope for a completely new operation, one that would take advantage of all the potential customers now shipping by truck from the Albuquerque Area, and one that would bring back freight service to Kirtland AFB and Sandia National Laboratory as well as the heavy duty movie soundstages now almost complete in the Mesa Del Sol area. An old branch up Tijeras Creek would be the jumping off point for an extention of track into Mesa Del Sol and perhaps even for Passenger Rail service there at a later date.
Yes, all this takes money. But if the State of New Mexico is going to buy a railroad, in our book ,it damn well better want to operate one when given the opportunity.
Get out and ride, watch, or just listen to a train!
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
The sugar coating: Well, we have talked about the interest of Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico in putting together north-south passenger service along the front range and down through the passes into the Rio Grande Valley. So the silver-lines sugar coating is that New Mexico will eventually have to have the Raton Pass line intact for that Passenger Rail service to happen. (See our previous blogs Poor Stepchild, Here's a Twist, and Big Plans.)
How intact will it be? The dark side of the silver lining is that BNSF will no longer dispatch trains over this stretch of track. We don't know the exact details of the purchase agreement, so we don't know for sure whether BNSF is required to continue maintenance on the line and at what cost. It will certainly be more costly for BNSF if they no longer have maintenance crews on the ground in this area, and it will certainly eventually cost New Mexico more money to keep the tracks and road bed viable. (At this time, it is not known whether this means that BNSF will also not use the line that runs from Isleta - site of an infamous Santa Fe passenger wreck - to Dallies, where the Transcon splits from the actual line over Raton. Nor is it clear if BNSF still wants to serve customers on this line in Albuquerque.) It is likely that increased costs for maintenance of a dead railroad will be passed on to New Mexico taxpayers.
What about Amtrak? Yes, Amtrak still dispatches the Southwest Chief over Raton, and it will keep doing this for the foreseeable future. As of January 2008, the State of New Mexico will own this line, unless it rescinds the contract and demand's its money back. We don't see that happening. So Amtrak will be the only tenant for every mile north of Galisteo (if that's where Rail Runner's new ROW actually cuts off), and Amtrak will pay who exactly to operate it's trains? New Mexico has the option of starting its own shortline, and Mister Trains, for one, would be very glad to be in on the ground floor of that enterprise.
One possibility is the Santa Fe Southern, also state owned, which runs from Lamy into Santa Fe on the old Santa Fe branch. But we would hope for a completely new operation, one that would take advantage of all the potential customers now shipping by truck from the Albuquerque Area, and one that would bring back freight service to Kirtland AFB and Sandia National Laboratory as well as the heavy duty movie soundstages now almost complete in the Mesa Del Sol area. An old branch up Tijeras Creek would be the jumping off point for an extention of track into Mesa Del Sol and perhaps even for Passenger Rail service there at a later date.
Yes, all this takes money. But if the State of New Mexico is going to buy a railroad, in our book ,it damn well better want to operate one when given the opportunity.
Get out and ride, watch, or just listen to a train!
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Quad Cities Rail
Northern Illinois’ Passenger Rail gets way too much recognition in the media. And why shouldn’t it? With the state funding increased frequencies on its downstate routes that already service many Northern Illinois cities, and now with Amtrak moving toward agreements and implementations that will bring back the old Blackhawk route (IC) to Rockford, Galena, Dubuque, and beyond, the citizens of Northern Illinois can be proud to have many more rail travel choices than most of the rest of us.
We haven’t been back to Illinois to ride trains for some time, and we envy the choices. Living in a city with only two choices doesn’t seem like much fun for a Passenger Rail enthusiast.
The only thing we would say to Illinois about the proposed service is, “This is not just a commerce opportunity but a tourism opportunity.”
As we have noted in our comments about Passenger Rail in other parts of the country, city pairs that make a nice day trip (either round trip or overnight stay) by rail are a golden opportunity to get dollars spent in the areas served. A day trip or overnight to Dubuque from Chicago or suburbs wouldn’t be very hard to take. And when there is scenery like that available in Northwestern Illinois, there is an added bonus if the planners can just make the train run in daylight for most of the year.
So serve both commerce and tourism and get the schedules right, Amtrak and Illinois, and you might just have a beautiful little Amtrak Blackhawk making money on your hands.
HONOR OUR FALLEN HEROES
Freedom does not come without cost. Perhaps no words could be more true and more troubling. Enjoying the fruits of our freedom, we tend to forget those who have come before, and those who are currently ready to give their all for our freedom. You may disagree with the purpose of the task and argue cause and effect, but another also very true statement is this: No man ever gave his life for his country thinking that he was fighting a lost cause. God, Honor, Country, Family. Dear Brave Soldier, Live and work every day knowing that your work is honorable and your cause is just, and your God, your Country and your Family love you.
©2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
We haven’t been back to Illinois to ride trains for some time, and we envy the choices. Living in a city with only two choices doesn’t seem like much fun for a Passenger Rail enthusiast.
The only thing we would say to Illinois about the proposed service is, “This is not just a commerce opportunity but a tourism opportunity.”
As we have noted in our comments about Passenger Rail in other parts of the country, city pairs that make a nice day trip (either round trip or overnight stay) by rail are a golden opportunity to get dollars spent in the areas served. A day trip or overnight to Dubuque from Chicago or suburbs wouldn’t be very hard to take. And when there is scenery like that available in Northwestern Illinois, there is an added bonus if the planners can just make the train run in daylight for most of the year.
So serve both commerce and tourism and get the schedules right, Amtrak and Illinois, and you might just have a beautiful little Amtrak Blackhawk making money on your hands.
HONOR OUR FALLEN HEROES
Freedom does not come without cost. Perhaps no words could be more true and more troubling. Enjoying the fruits of our freedom, we tend to forget those who have come before, and those who are currently ready to give their all for our freedom. You may disagree with the purpose of the task and argue cause and effect, but another also very true statement is this: No man ever gave his life for his country thinking that he was fighting a lost cause. God, Honor, Country, Family. Dear Brave Soldier, Live and work every day knowing that your work is honorable and your cause is just, and your God, your Country and your Family love you.
©2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Creative Financing
No, it’s not a euphemism for graft, although it can be.
Such financing can be used to bolster the incentive for small- to mid-sized cities to install Passenger Rail.
Some of this depends on having a financially vital manufacturer that is capable of delivering turnkey Passenger Rail systems. An example would be Bombardier, but there are certainly others and there should be ample incentive for more to enter the field.
Some of railroading’s earlier examples of creative financing involved freight rail. When the writing was on the wall – writing that said that rail was dead or a nationalized system was inevitable without some form of deregulation, creative managers convinced customers to build and own the car fleet. These fleets subsequently have carried higher volumes of bulk commodities at lower prices for more customers than the old system where the railroad built, owned, and maintained the fleet.
Some possibilities for Passenger Rail---
Cradle to Grave without Rail: The manufacturer offers to build, operate and maintain all of the heavy equipment necessary to haul passengers by rail. The city or other political division already owns the tracks or has the rights to use them for passenger service. The city does not pay for the equipment up front, but signs a long-term contract whereby the manufacturer retains ownership and gets all the benefits of ownership. If the manufacturer can’t bank its own deal, a commercial bank holds a hefty mortgage, but cities have taxing power and are unlikely to default on obligations. The incentive to the city is low or no up-front payment and lower overall costs. This is attractive because the city can get the system up and running and the economic benefits can flow before costs start to increase. The equipment is likely to last longer than the contract, and the city can always extend, buy new, or negotiate a buyout to suit its needs if the desired result is obtained. In the worst case scenario – nobody rides – the city is not stuck with a system it can’t use. The manufacturer can always move the equipment to another route.
Cradle to Grave with Rail: This is still a viable scenario but it is less attractive because land can’t be moved and tracks and signals are not as easily moved as locomotive’s, cars, and shop equipment. We could see this as an incentive to get short, elevated rapid-transit routes established in small cities using either conventional rail, monorail, or maglev. If some manufacturer could develop a well-engineered modular right-of-way structure for this, it would be a plus.
Freight Rail Participation: True or False: It is impossible to get the freight railroads back into the passenger business. We think the answer is False. All of the current stable of Class Ones have a history that goes deep into Passenger Rail. The corporate culture knows and remembers that passenger trains once bought both shippers and public good will. But corporate inertia is hard to overcome, and sales departments may not be willing to admit that a passenger train or two could make a sale with a shipper where nothing else has worked. It is ironic that the very prosperity that could make it possible for Freight Rail to finance new Passenger Rail also could make it impossible to fit a passenger train into the flow of traffic. Look at the resistance to on-time Amtrak by most of its Freight Rail partners.
The solution could be mixed trains. Freight Rail would only have to subsidize or finance new coaches, sleepers and lounge/diners. Many railroads run scheduled freights or a near equivalent. And there is at least one operations theory that holds that scheduled freight is better for railroads, shippers and crews. Why not tack at least one passenger car on each freight. A kind of national stand-by ticketing could be used. It wouldn’t surprise us if potential riders wouldn’t mind the wait even for an unscheduled ride.
What about stations and amenities? you ask. Well, that’s where public, private or volunteer creativity comes in. If the railroads could just see it in their hearts to let us build some stations on their property, civic groups and municipalities could see a wealth of benefit for their respective areas by operating stations the way the government(s) now operate airports. Creative ideas are welcome. The fear of litigation for premises accidents is a negative. In fact it is a negative for all forms of creative interest by civic groups and non-profits. Until we get the lawyers out of the equation, none of this may really work because of the high cost of liability insurance.
Special Trains and Rental Fleets
Despite naysayers, the demand for Passenger Rail exists. Some of this demand is not constant, as for daily rides to work, but sporadic, as for vacations, special events, and special seasons or circumstances. Some companies make a decent dollar on vacations rail cruises. It has always been an uphill climb, again partly because of insurance costs. Special events are also their province, but specialty cars for special events do not exist. An example of special seasons would be fall color tours or ski trains, and an example of special circumstances would be disaster evacuations and troop transport into evacuated areas.
Creativity would involve having and maintaining a fleet of cars for all occasions and the permission to run them when and if the circumstances warrant. The freight railroads would have to be compliant, but they would gain payments for use of their track and possibly crews.
But the USA is not the only place where passenger trains run! We tend to be provincial about this, but we are guessing that a good ride on a German railcar is equal to a good ride on an American car. We are also willing to bet the farm that there is a huge worldwide supply of stored or sidelined passenger cars that could be brought up to the right condition to run anywhere on North American railroads. Bring them in, position them strategically around the country, and start advertising their availability, and you just may find that there are large groups of people that can find something to do with them in a creative way.
Financing this would be difficult, but does anybody know the number for any banks in Dubai? Sounds like this would be just their cup of tea.
©2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Such financing can be used to bolster the incentive for small- to mid-sized cities to install Passenger Rail.
Some of this depends on having a financially vital manufacturer that is capable of delivering turnkey Passenger Rail systems. An example would be Bombardier, but there are certainly others and there should be ample incentive for more to enter the field.
Some of railroading’s earlier examples of creative financing involved freight rail. When the writing was on the wall – writing that said that rail was dead or a nationalized system was inevitable without some form of deregulation, creative managers convinced customers to build and own the car fleet. These fleets subsequently have carried higher volumes of bulk commodities at lower prices for more customers than the old system where the railroad built, owned, and maintained the fleet.
Some possibilities for Passenger Rail---
Cradle to Grave without Rail: The manufacturer offers to build, operate and maintain all of the heavy equipment necessary to haul passengers by rail. The city or other political division already owns the tracks or has the rights to use them for passenger service. The city does not pay for the equipment up front, but signs a long-term contract whereby the manufacturer retains ownership and gets all the benefits of ownership. If the manufacturer can’t bank its own deal, a commercial bank holds a hefty mortgage, but cities have taxing power and are unlikely to default on obligations. The incentive to the city is low or no up-front payment and lower overall costs. This is attractive because the city can get the system up and running and the economic benefits can flow before costs start to increase. The equipment is likely to last longer than the contract, and the city can always extend, buy new, or negotiate a buyout to suit its needs if the desired result is obtained. In the worst case scenario – nobody rides – the city is not stuck with a system it can’t use. The manufacturer can always move the equipment to another route.
Cradle to Grave with Rail: This is still a viable scenario but it is less attractive because land can’t be moved and tracks and signals are not as easily moved as locomotive’s, cars, and shop equipment. We could see this as an incentive to get short, elevated rapid-transit routes established in small cities using either conventional rail, monorail, or maglev. If some manufacturer could develop a well-engineered modular right-of-way structure for this, it would be a plus.
Freight Rail Participation: True or False: It is impossible to get the freight railroads back into the passenger business. We think the answer is False. All of the current stable of Class Ones have a history that goes deep into Passenger Rail. The corporate culture knows and remembers that passenger trains once bought both shippers and public good will. But corporate inertia is hard to overcome, and sales departments may not be willing to admit that a passenger train or two could make a sale with a shipper where nothing else has worked. It is ironic that the very prosperity that could make it possible for Freight Rail to finance new Passenger Rail also could make it impossible to fit a passenger train into the flow of traffic. Look at the resistance to on-time Amtrak by most of its Freight Rail partners.
The solution could be mixed trains. Freight Rail would only have to subsidize or finance new coaches, sleepers and lounge/diners. Many railroads run scheduled freights or a near equivalent. And there is at least one operations theory that holds that scheduled freight is better for railroads, shippers and crews. Why not tack at least one passenger car on each freight. A kind of national stand-by ticketing could be used. It wouldn’t surprise us if potential riders wouldn’t mind the wait even for an unscheduled ride.
What about stations and amenities? you ask. Well, that’s where public, private or volunteer creativity comes in. If the railroads could just see it in their hearts to let us build some stations on their property, civic groups and municipalities could see a wealth of benefit for their respective areas by operating stations the way the government(s) now operate airports. Creative ideas are welcome. The fear of litigation for premises accidents is a negative. In fact it is a negative for all forms of creative interest by civic groups and non-profits. Until we get the lawyers out of the equation, none of this may really work because of the high cost of liability insurance.
Special Trains and Rental Fleets
Despite naysayers, the demand for Passenger Rail exists. Some of this demand is not constant, as for daily rides to work, but sporadic, as for vacations, special events, and special seasons or circumstances. Some companies make a decent dollar on vacations rail cruises. It has always been an uphill climb, again partly because of insurance costs. Special events are also their province, but specialty cars for special events do not exist. An example of special seasons would be fall color tours or ski trains, and an example of special circumstances would be disaster evacuations and troop transport into evacuated areas.
Creativity would involve having and maintaining a fleet of cars for all occasions and the permission to run them when and if the circumstances warrant. The freight railroads would have to be compliant, but they would gain payments for use of their track and possibly crews.
But the USA is not the only place where passenger trains run! We tend to be provincial about this, but we are guessing that a good ride on a German railcar is equal to a good ride on an American car. We are also willing to bet the farm that there is a huge worldwide supply of stored or sidelined passenger cars that could be brought up to the right condition to run anywhere on North American railroads. Bring them in, position them strategically around the country, and start advertising their availability, and you just may find that there are large groups of people that can find something to do with them in a creative way.
Financing this would be difficult, but does anybody know the number for any banks in Dubai? Sounds like this would be just their cup of tea.
©2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Sustaining the Passenger Rail Revival
No, we haven’t lost our train-lovin’ minds. There is a revival of sorts.
(Note: This was actually written - but not posted - before comments were received on the three previous posts.)
To look at Amtrak and the constant rail-wrangling of Congress (see www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0307/032907cdam2.htm) and the political establishment(s) that run Congress, you would not see what is really going on. We have been watching their (Congresspersonus corruptus) behavior for many years, and we see through the political self-indulgence that Congress recognizes a growing need and desire for Passenger Rail. This will translate into some form of National system, even if it is eventually far different from Amtrak. The political inertia just makes it take longer.
The real revival is occurring in small- to mid-sized cities that really want to grow and really need Passenger Rail. The political incentive here is different. To grow, the city needs to attract more industry, more business, and the work force to spread the dollars into the community. Today’s business locators – people who hunt for new facility locations - look for public transportation that can carry high passenger volumes without the uncertainties of bus-running on city streets – even if those streets have dedicated bus lanes. Passenger Rail gets the employees to work rested and in a good frame of mind and makes the drudgery of the daily grind more tolerable. This results in better bottom line and less employee turnover. (No, your employer does not now and never did care whether you were rested or happy, just that his bottom line reflects it.) As a consequence, it is attractive for small- to mid-sized cities to be pro-Passenger Rail. The form of this rail-oriented bias varies from city to city.
In Albuquerque, NM, the always misguided but well-meaning Mayor Martin Chavez thought it was streetcars, but was re-aligned by the city council. But this was well after Governor and Presidentialist Bill Richardson had stolen the thunder by getting New Mexico Rail Runner up and running.
In Austin and San Antonio, TX, it means a standard commuter train that looks a lot like Rail Runner (www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=181597) but has a big star instead of a bird’s head. In Oklahoma and Kansas it looks a lot more like locally-sponsored and funded intercity rail, as the area contemplates extending the Oklahoma City – Fort Worth Heartland Flyer to Newton Kansas (www.normantranscript.com/opinion/local_story_086012328) and beyond.
The smaller cities mentioned above, and hundreds that aren’t mentioned above but are in a position to have Passenger Rail link them to larger cities, do not have the surrounding suburban network that is typical of eastern big-shots. So to them, short-hop, day-train intercity rail is commuter rail. For those cities that do have suburbs on the circumference, new passenger routing is going to look more like rapid transit or modern streetcar/light rail. The big-shots will continue to expand via extensions and additions to their already-existing rapid transit, commuter, and (rare-because-of-mid-twentieth-century-bus-mania) street systems.
We have gone off at the mouth without saying anything about our ideas to sustain this revival. Some of them include creative financing and more public participation without more public dollars. We will write more about these ideas next time or when possible.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
(Note: This was actually written - but not posted - before comments were received on the three previous posts.)
To look at Amtrak and the constant rail-wrangling of Congress (see www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0307/032907cdam2.htm) and the political establishment(s) that run Congress, you would not see what is really going on. We have been watching their (Congresspersonus corruptus) behavior for many years, and we see through the political self-indulgence that Congress recognizes a growing need and desire for Passenger Rail. This will translate into some form of National system, even if it is eventually far different from Amtrak. The political inertia just makes it take longer.
The real revival is occurring in small- to mid-sized cities that really want to grow and really need Passenger Rail. The political incentive here is different. To grow, the city needs to attract more industry, more business, and the work force to spread the dollars into the community. Today’s business locators – people who hunt for new facility locations - look for public transportation that can carry high passenger volumes without the uncertainties of bus-running on city streets – even if those streets have dedicated bus lanes. Passenger Rail gets the employees to work rested and in a good frame of mind and makes the drudgery of the daily grind more tolerable. This results in better bottom line and less employee turnover. (No, your employer does not now and never did care whether you were rested or happy, just that his bottom line reflects it.) As a consequence, it is attractive for small- to mid-sized cities to be pro-Passenger Rail. The form of this rail-oriented bias varies from city to city.
In Albuquerque, NM, the always misguided but well-meaning Mayor Martin Chavez thought it was streetcars, but was re-aligned by the city council. But this was well after Governor and Presidentialist Bill Richardson had stolen the thunder by getting New Mexico Rail Runner up and running.
In Austin and San Antonio, TX, it means a standard commuter train that looks a lot like Rail Runner (www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=181597) but has a big star instead of a bird’s head. In Oklahoma and Kansas it looks a lot more like locally-sponsored and funded intercity rail, as the area contemplates extending the Oklahoma City – Fort Worth Heartland Flyer to Newton Kansas (www.normantranscript.com/opinion/local_story_086012328) and beyond.
The smaller cities mentioned above, and hundreds that aren’t mentioned above but are in a position to have Passenger Rail link them to larger cities, do not have the surrounding suburban network that is typical of eastern big-shots. So to them, short-hop, day-train intercity rail is commuter rail. For those cities that do have suburbs on the circumference, new passenger routing is going to look more like rapid transit or modern streetcar/light rail. The big-shots will continue to expand via extensions and additions to their already-existing rapid transit, commuter, and (rare-because-of-mid-twentieth-century-bus-mania) street systems.
We have gone off at the mouth without saying anything about our ideas to sustain this revival. Some of them include creative financing and more public participation without more public dollars. We will write more about these ideas next time or when possible.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Back In The Day
In a highly depressing fit of birthday retrospective, we thought we'd take a look here at some of the things we have seen in Passenger Rail and rail in general. Things that are no longer.
The Empire Builder, California Zephyr and North Coast Limited slamming across the first public crossing at grade west of Union Station, Chicago, each with an average of 14 cars and each within a half hour of each other late on a summer afternoon. At that location, each would be pulled by Electromotive E units or by F3 or F7 sets positioned A-B-B-A and matching the GN or NP streamliner colors.
Today, the CTC signals west of that crossing still go from green to red as Amtrak varnish and Metra commuters speed beneath.
The sight and sound of F3 or FT sets in Burlington Route colors revving up to pull freight out of Clyde Yard across the same grade crossing. Sitting on the Illinois Central bridge abutment just above roof level and watching them go by.
CB&Q steam engines still working the yard nearby as all of the above occurs.
Wooden Chicago 'L' cars plying the Loop. In addition the first of the post-war cars made from PCC cars retired from the formerly extensive Chicago Surface Lines network. We never rode the PCCs, however, because the surviving lines near home on Cermak Road always ran older red cars.
Other 'L' sights and sounds like the street level right of way west of 54th Avenue to Oak Park Avenue in Berwyn. The last of the West Side 'L' before it came down in favor of the Congress (now Eisenhower) Expressway. Other third rail action in downtown Chicago including Chicago Aurora & Elgin and North Shore Line.
The sight of a single CA&E car running flat out westbound at Butterfield Road near Warrenville - 25 miles out of Chicago and running on third rail power.
CB&Q monitor roofed power cars on the Chicago to Aurora commuter. Before conversion to HEP these cars provided the voltage for the florescent lights in the newer bi-levels. This was also before push-pull operation.
The interior of the Super Chief in its last incarnation before Amtrak.
The D&RGW narrow gauge when it was still D&RGW.
Union Pacific gas turbines pulling heavy freight in Wyoming on Overland Route and sharing it with frequent armour yellow and red striped passenger trains. A DD40 under full load. Half or more of the consist of the UP freights were wooden sided box cars.
Riding Baltimore & Ohio into Washington Union Station and riding Amtrak into Grand Central.
The City of New Orleans in IC colors, and the rest of the stable of fast passenger trains that IC put through Champaign, Illinois, in the last two years before Amtrak. Most often in those years they were running late. Riding on the City of New Orleans, the real one, from Champaign to Chicago.
Grand Central Station, Chicago.
Dearborn Station, Chicago.
The old, original, Northwestern Station, Chicago.
The 'Q' passenger depot in Aurora, IL, a marvelous brick, two-story concoction that seemed too small yet too complex for a small city like Aurora. This was when a stable of commuter trains still yarded overnight just south (railroad west) of the station with locomotives facing the station.
The ticket booths at Union Station, Chicago, and the old concourse that went to the wrecker's ball with its high, window-lit ceilings and hand operated mechanical train designation and destination boards.
Well, that's enough for now. I'm getting more depressed.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
The Empire Builder, California Zephyr and North Coast Limited slamming across the first public crossing at grade west of Union Station, Chicago, each with an average of 14 cars and each within a half hour of each other late on a summer afternoon. At that location, each would be pulled by Electromotive E units or by F3 or F7 sets positioned A-B-B-A and matching the GN or NP streamliner colors.
Today, the CTC signals west of that crossing still go from green to red as Amtrak varnish and Metra commuters speed beneath.
The sight and sound of F3 or FT sets in Burlington Route colors revving up to pull freight out of Clyde Yard across the same grade crossing. Sitting on the Illinois Central bridge abutment just above roof level and watching them go by.
CB&Q steam engines still working the yard nearby as all of the above occurs.
Wooden Chicago 'L' cars plying the Loop. In addition the first of the post-war cars made from PCC cars retired from the formerly extensive Chicago Surface Lines network. We never rode the PCCs, however, because the surviving lines near home on Cermak Road always ran older red cars.
Other 'L' sights and sounds like the street level right of way west of 54th Avenue to Oak Park Avenue in Berwyn. The last of the West Side 'L' before it came down in favor of the Congress (now Eisenhower) Expressway. Other third rail action in downtown Chicago including Chicago Aurora & Elgin and North Shore Line.
The sight of a single CA&E car running flat out westbound at Butterfield Road near Warrenville - 25 miles out of Chicago and running on third rail power.
CB&Q monitor roofed power cars on the Chicago to Aurora commuter. Before conversion to HEP these cars provided the voltage for the florescent lights in the newer bi-levels. This was also before push-pull operation.
The interior of the Super Chief in its last incarnation before Amtrak.
The D&RGW narrow gauge when it was still D&RGW.
Union Pacific gas turbines pulling heavy freight in Wyoming on Overland Route and sharing it with frequent armour yellow and red striped passenger trains. A DD40 under full load. Half or more of the consist of the UP freights were wooden sided box cars.
Riding Baltimore & Ohio into Washington Union Station and riding Amtrak into Grand Central.
The City of New Orleans in IC colors, and the rest of the stable of fast passenger trains that IC put through Champaign, Illinois, in the last two years before Amtrak. Most often in those years they were running late. Riding on the City of New Orleans, the real one, from Champaign to Chicago.
Grand Central Station, Chicago.
Dearborn Station, Chicago.
The old, original, Northwestern Station, Chicago.
The 'Q' passenger depot in Aurora, IL, a marvelous brick, two-story concoction that seemed too small yet too complex for a small city like Aurora. This was when a stable of commuter trains still yarded overnight just south (railroad west) of the station with locomotives facing the station.
The ticket booths at Union Station, Chicago, and the old concourse that went to the wrecker's ball with its high, window-lit ceilings and hand operated mechanical train designation and destination boards.
Well, that's enough for now. I'm getting more depressed.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Answers to Comments
Christopher suggests that BNSF would favor a move of the freight route to the east.
We are not saying you are wrong, which may negate our first argument to some extent. That just adds two others. 1. From a Passenger Rail standpoint, it is not desirable to use potential passenger subsidies to help BNSF make more profit on coal. The various coalitions should be very careful about this or BNSF will, once again, be selling a passenger agency a pig in a poke while enhancing their bottom line with the money. 2. The Denver Area still has rail shippers that need to be served, so with the freight route moved east, the passenger route will never be allowed to be all passenger and you will have some of the same problems that exit in the Northeast.
Revamp Nothing Primer
Our mantra of revamp nothing does not mean we say no to recycling or to refurbishing. Recycling means using old, spent materials to make new ones. Refurbishing means putting a mantle of newness onto something that is already worn out. The underlying structure remains the same. You may have to refurbish coach seats every five years. The connotation of a revamp is that a robust revision of an already existing system is done to solve a perceived problem, real or imagined. This is exactly what has gotten Amtrak into trouble over these many years. A revamp is more comprehensive than refurbishment and usually doesn't work in its context. Recycling is the drastic result of having too may failed revamps.
We'd like to paraphrase Ed King in his recent Trains article about a derailed and then refurbished locomotive: If Amtrak is not careful, either some car and locomotive manufacturers are going to find themselves with some unexpected trade-ins, or some scrap yards are going to get some windfalls. And adding our own comment: The freight railroads will happily make the deliveries to either.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
We are not saying you are wrong, which may negate our first argument to some extent. That just adds two others. 1. From a Passenger Rail standpoint, it is not desirable to use potential passenger subsidies to help BNSF make more profit on coal. The various coalitions should be very careful about this or BNSF will, once again, be selling a passenger agency a pig in a poke while enhancing their bottom line with the money. 2. The Denver Area still has rail shippers that need to be served, so with the freight route moved east, the passenger route will never be allowed to be all passenger and you will have some of the same problems that exit in the Northeast.
Revamp Nothing Primer
Our mantra of revamp nothing does not mean we say no to recycling or to refurbishing. Recycling means using old, spent materials to make new ones. Refurbishing means putting a mantle of newness onto something that is already worn out. The underlying structure remains the same. You may have to refurbish coach seats every five years. The connotation of a revamp is that a robust revision of an already existing system is done to solve a perceived problem, real or imagined. This is exactly what has gotten Amtrak into trouble over these many years. A revamp is more comprehensive than refurbishment and usually doesn't work in its context. Recycling is the drastic result of having too may failed revamps.
We'd like to paraphrase Ed King in his recent Trains article about a derailed and then refurbished locomotive: If Amtrak is not careful, either some car and locomotive manufacturers are going to find themselves with some unexpected trade-ins, or some scrap yards are going to get some windfalls. And adding our own comment: The freight railroads will happily make the deliveries to either.
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Poor Stepchild
Continuing on the subject of Wyoming to New Mexico Passenger Rail:
We know that turning the Wyoming – New Mexico Passenger Rail corridor into a High Speed Rail line wouldn’t favor New Mexico. If there had been an easier, flatter way to get from the likes of La Junta, Colorado, to Las Vegas, NM, the old Santa Fe would have used it when they had a chance. Yes, the Santa Fe could have dropped south further east and taken a water level routing through the mountains and mesas that strangely extend too far east from the Rockies along the NM-CO border – but the old Santa Fe was shooting for Pueblo and the riches of Colorado miners. New Mexico and El Paso were afterthoughts that became more desirable as competition with the Rio Grande heated up. But we don’t see any use for one of those routings now.
Even La Junta is too far out on the eastern plains for a practical north-south high-speed line. So getting into New Mexico, the proposed passenger line would probably have to follow the old Raton Pass line of the AT&SF anyway.
Practically speaking, it could take a decade to bring Raton-Santa Fe up to nominal standards, more to get high-speed running. The latter would need significant grade relocation, maybe tunnels, and certainly many environmental impact studies. Not least, the Raton tunnel, the high pass at Glorietta, and the narrow way through Apache Canyon would have to be eliminated.
South of Santa Fe, HSR would not have a problem with the old right-of-way. Even today, it could be a rocket ride from Galisteo to Albuquerque if New Mexico (remember the state owns the tracks) would get rid of the jointed rail, poor ties, and equally outdated semaphore block signals. (As a rail historian, Mister Trains loves these old signals. There could be a way to save them, but the objective is Revamp Nothing.) The rest of the way to El Paso could be made equally fast with a minimum of investment compared to what would have to be done in the Raton area.
Blogger's Note: Some portions of the track from Galisteo to Belen are FRA approved for 79 mph now, notably some of the Rail Runner route. This route will not be approved for 99 mph until such time as the state relays the track. That's still well short of desirable HSR speeds.
So we figure that Pueblo should be sold as a destination-positive for travelers wanting to take the slow ride down the scenic Santa Fe. Let a tourist cruise take the travelers south to Santa Fe, where they can get artsy with the tartsy and then continue HSR down to El Paso if desired. The same could work from the opposite direction.
But as a fast trip Albuquerque-Denver, it won’t work for a lotta years, if ever.
©2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
We know that turning the Wyoming – New Mexico Passenger Rail corridor into a High Speed Rail line wouldn’t favor New Mexico. If there had been an easier, flatter way to get from the likes of La Junta, Colorado, to Las Vegas, NM, the old Santa Fe would have used it when they had a chance. Yes, the Santa Fe could have dropped south further east and taken a water level routing through the mountains and mesas that strangely extend too far east from the Rockies along the NM-CO border – but the old Santa Fe was shooting for Pueblo and the riches of Colorado miners. New Mexico and El Paso were afterthoughts that became more desirable as competition with the Rio Grande heated up. But we don’t see any use for one of those routings now.
Even La Junta is too far out on the eastern plains for a practical north-south high-speed line. So getting into New Mexico, the proposed passenger line would probably have to follow the old Raton Pass line of the AT&SF anyway.
Practically speaking, it could take a decade to bring Raton-Santa Fe up to nominal standards, more to get high-speed running. The latter would need significant grade relocation, maybe tunnels, and certainly many environmental impact studies. Not least, the Raton tunnel, the high pass at Glorietta, and the narrow way through Apache Canyon would have to be eliminated.
South of Santa Fe, HSR would not have a problem with the old right-of-way. Even today, it could be a rocket ride from Galisteo to Albuquerque if New Mexico (remember the state owns the tracks) would get rid of the jointed rail, poor ties, and equally outdated semaphore block signals. (As a rail historian, Mister Trains loves these old signals. There could be a way to save them, but the objective is Revamp Nothing.) The rest of the way to El Paso could be made equally fast with a minimum of investment compared to what would have to be done in the Raton area.
Blogger's Note: Some portions of the track from Galisteo to Belen are FRA approved for 79 mph now, notably some of the Rail Runner route. This route will not be approved for 99 mph until such time as the state relays the track. That's still well short of desirable HSR speeds.
So we figure that Pueblo should be sold as a destination-positive for travelers wanting to take the slow ride down the scenic Santa Fe. Let a tourist cruise take the travelers south to Santa Fe, where they can get artsy with the tartsy and then continue HSR down to El Paso if desired. The same could work from the opposite direction.
But as a fast trip Albuquerque-Denver, it won’t work for a lotta years, if ever.
©2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Here's a Twist
For the Wyoming to New Mexico Passenger Rail corridor.
Why not put the passenger trains on the new and flatter route?
Argument Number One. We do not think that moving the freight routing east and away from the Joint Line is one that BNSF/UP will particularly like. It will increase miles and costs through the corridor.
Argument Number Two. Rail technology has grown by leaps and bounds since the Joint Line or any upgrades were engineered. Incremental improvements haven’t tapped into the vast improvement that could be made in grade, stability, and ride. Why not give Passenger Rail a shot at this? The Joint Line will never be HSR, but the new line could be. Wouldn’t it be nice to ride to your overnight meeting in Denver in the same way that James Bond rides to the Casino Royale? (Everybody please email this blog and the one before it to Virgin Trains.)
Argument Number Three. Passenger Rail on a new line to the east would promote development in the direction away from the mountains and keep industry in the older city areas where it belongs. Moving the freight east will just promote the building of more industrial parks, but our way would favor walkable, train-served, commuter cities.
Argument Number Four, aka Law of Unintended Consequences. Corrollary to Argument Number Three, the development of new industrial parks would call for new road and even new Interstates. Ugh! But you must know that the first time the railroad even hinted that the new freight corridor was reaching capacity, the truckers would be Johnny Spot to offer door-to-door service in a 54-foot trailer. Oh, please let them keep using Interstate 25.
Keep on using the train!
Why not put the passenger trains on the new and flatter route?
Argument Number One. We do not think that moving the freight routing east and away from the Joint Line is one that BNSF/UP will particularly like. It will increase miles and costs through the corridor.
Argument Number Two. Rail technology has grown by leaps and bounds since the Joint Line or any upgrades were engineered. Incremental improvements haven’t tapped into the vast improvement that could be made in grade, stability, and ride. Why not give Passenger Rail a shot at this? The Joint Line will never be HSR, but the new line could be. Wouldn’t it be nice to ride to your overnight meeting in Denver in the same way that James Bond rides to the Casino Royale? (Everybody please email this blog and the one before it to Virgin Trains.)
Argument Number Three. Passenger Rail on a new line to the east would promote development in the direction away from the mountains and keep industry in the older city areas where it belongs. Moving the freight east will just promote the building of more industrial parks, but our way would favor walkable, train-served, commuter cities.
Argument Number Four, aka Law of Unintended Consequences. Corrollary to Argument Number Three, the development of new industrial parks would call for new road and even new Interstates. Ugh! But you must know that the first time the railroad even hinted that the new freight corridor was reaching capacity, the truckers would be Johnny Spot to offer door-to-door service in a 54-foot trailer. Oh, please let them keep using Interstate 25.
Keep on using the train!
Next: What happens in New Mexico if we follow this Twist?
© 2007 - C. A. Turek - mistertrains@gmail.com
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Big Plans
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
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)