High speed rail ripoff?

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

The state if Indiana (through the governors office, no less), has recently announnced it’s interest in exploring a multistate “High speed passenger rail Initiative” geared towards using the old Pennsey tracks from Pittsburgh to Chicago for a 110 mph+ passenger corridor, that to me seeths in “nut shell”’ game.

For one, they project that the “high speed” aspect would come well after inception, and after certain economic criteria were reached (won’t happen, you need a “destination” to make HSR a workable plan)

And for another the roadbed in question is in such shabby shape, the only thing of value is the right of way at present, none of the inplace fixtures and plant would accomodate HSR.

What I THINK is goinng on here is laying the groundwork to disrupt the public sentiment of ''save Amtrak", by dangling a carrot in front of a gullible public.

Say they disolve Amtrak, private investors step in to buy the respective franchises, they want a “steal deal” on existing Amtrak assets, and the public is duped into accomodating the investors need with all the aplomb of a kid with his nose pressed against a candy store window, thinking “'oh boy!! High speed rail”

After the initial “give away”, the special criteria justifying the “'high speed” uppgrade are never reached (of course) so don’t blame the investors for the publics failure to properly support the plan,…etc etc.

Does anybody else share my skepticism on this, or am I just becoming a hardened old cynic?

2

I might be wrong, but did not the trains of the earlier part of the 20th century regularly run from New York and points east to Chicago at or near 100mph? And on jointed rail, and with steam power? So now we can spend untold $$$ to get back to where we were 75 years ago? Such a deal!!!

Just like the North Shore that ran from Milwaukee to Chicago at 90mph back in the 40’s. Now the track is pulled up, much of the right-of-way used for other purposes. Now some genius politicians want to revive the old CNW main from Kenosha to Milwaukee for rail service (which ran at 79mph in the same period). For who? There is already the Hiawatha service from Milwaukee to Chicago 7 times per day.

Sure wish I had a relative that was into politics, then I would not have to work either.

3

If the Gov. and the RR’s got together and built a high speed corridor,say for example along the Interstate 80 corridor from Ca.to N.Y. I’d ride it.

4

I’d ride it too…But I don’t think they have sincere intent to build it… What I think is going on here is a bit of “''nest feathering” for the privatization of a broken up Amtrak.,

Folks get so “giddy” over the idea of something new, they will in many instances give away the farm to get it.

And , a “motivated” public would be just the tonic needed to allow private interests to swoop up Amtrak assets at bargain basement prices.

5

There’s a similar proposal floating around here in PA. We’ve been duped into getting a maglev train. From what I’ve heard, it would link our airport to downtown. People seem to forget about the monorail that was built during the '70s in South Park, out in the 'burbs. It ran a few miles from the park entrance to the Allegheny County fairgrounds. It just had one line, and wasn’t around very long. In fact, it was more expensive to tear it down…than it was to build it!

Getting back on topic, I’d rather the money be spent getting Amtrak back into shape!

6

Sort of like th e monorail (s) built for the people of Springfield, Ogdenville, and West Haverbrook in the TV Cartoon series 'the Simpson’s" e’hhhh?[:D]

7

Keep your legs in shape for walking and demand that government give us a planning process that’ll ensure everyone can walk to and from all daily needs. No one should be forced to depend on modes of transportation so dangerous that they require air bags, seat belts or crash helmets. Government’s primary function is to protect life. If so many of us didn’t need cars just for routine daily errands there might be a much greater demand for intercity rail travel - even at 79-mile-an-hour maximum speeds.

8

Something like that. The one that was built here served as a demonstration as what was “to be in the future.” However, that didn’t happen. After many of the mills closed here, and quite a few residents left, spending the tax dollars to build it couldn’t be justified.

9

they’d have alot of work here in ohio to do too.
stay safe
joe

10

[xx(] well literally speaking because the US is so spread out, we’ll never see a highspeed rail network like europe. Although we can dream can’t we???[8D]

11

100 mph ain’t high speed rail in my book. However, this speed is better than 30 mph. In my opinion we would be better off to spend $63 billion to build 7,000 miles of 150 mph tracks, rather than spend $38 billion upgrading 23,000 miles of tracks to 100 mph.

Yes, our country is bigger than Europe, but that hasn’t stopped Europe from expanding their high speed lines. They actually have a plan in place.

And this is exactly what is wrong in America. High speed rail will work, all it needs is funding and a plan, similar to the interstate highway system. And yes, using current or even abandoned railroad lines and current interstate highway real estate for high speed rail will save lots of money.

Flordia estimates double track high speed rail along current right of way at $ 9 million a mile, $12 million if electrified. Texas estimates that new right of way would lift this to $20 million a mile. So there is significant savings in using real estate already owned by the government.

The technology exists. There is no reason not to build. Building high speed rail is not by any definition stretching the envelope. If the Europeans can do it, so can we.

7,000 miles of double track high speed rail could entail connecting the four major population areas of the northeast with the midwest, the southeast and southwest, plus California: a line on the west coast in California, from Philadelphia to Chicago, Washington DC to Miami. Chicago to Houston, Houston to Jacksonville, Chicago to Atlanta to Minneapolis, and to Denver, New York City to Toronto and Montreal. Every state east of the Mississippi except for 3 small New England states would have high speed rail, and many states west of the Mississippi would have high speed rail, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, California, and Minnesota. Every city with a metropolitan population of over 5 million would be included, and most of the cities of over a million in metropolitan population too.

12

A 110 mph top speed “high speed?” rail line between Pittsburgh and Chicago isn’t viable; 110 mph top speed would probably translate to a 65 -70 mph average speed which would mean a station - station trip of close to 7 hours, and a door to door travel time of 8 + hours; it would attract few, if any, business travelers. If high speed rail is to compete with air transportation the door to door travel would have to be significantly reduced.

13

A 110 mph top speed “high speed?” rail line between Pittsburgh and Chicago isn’t viable; 110 mph top speed would probably translate to a 65 -70 mph average speed which would mean a station - station trip of close to 7 hours, and a door to door travel time of 8 + hours; it would attract few, if any, business travelers. If high speed rail is to compete with air transportation the door to door travel would have to be significantly reduced.

14

Well again, I think the “conditional” aspect of the entire shooting match speaks boatloads about the lack of sincerity of the project as touted…

As Joe mentioned, the Ohio segment is in sorry shape I’ve walked portions of the Indiana line in question, “covered with rust” best sums it up the only work I’ve seen recently done on this segment is the re railing of the NS line up from Cincinnati where it ties into the line in question, and even then only minimal work was done on the thru line, most of it was on the NS approach (totally disconnecting from the former Nickle Plate, and tieing onto the former Pennsey in a “westbound only” config, the east bound connect made at the former Wabash, for you routemeisters) it is in a word a “forgotten” thouroughfare.

Which is why I see it as such a prime candidate for a post Amtrak era rip off. Get the public all jazzed up with big promises, slam dunk whatever legislative approval is needed, then starrt the laborious process of weaseling out of the high cost/high speed end of the bargain. "BECAUSE THE PUBLIC FAILED to support it,…of course.

15

The state if Indiana (through the governors office, no less), has recently announnced it’s interest in exploring a multistate “High speed passenger rail Initiative” geared towards using the old Pennsey tracks from Pittsburgh to Chicago for a 110 mph+ passenger corridor, that to me seeths in “nut shell”’ game.

For one, they project that the “high speed” aspect would come well after inception, and after certain economic criteria were reached (won’t happen, you need a “destination” to make HSR a workable plan)

And for another the roadbed in question is in such shabby shape, the only thing of value is the right of way at present, none of the inplace fixtures and plant would accomodate HSR.

What I THINK is goinng on here is laying the groundwork to disrupt the public sentiment of ''save Amtrak", by dangling a carrot in front of a gullible public.

Say they disolve Amtrak, private investors step in to buy the respective franchises, they want a “steal deal” on existing Amtrak assets, and the public is duped into accomodating the investors need with all the aplomb of a kid with his nose pressed against a candy store window, thinking “'oh boy!! High speed rail”

After the initial “give away”, the special criteria justifying the “'high speed” uppgrade are never reached (of course) so don’t blame the investors for the publics failure to properly support the plan,…etc etc.

Does anybody else share my skepticism on this, or am I just becoming a hardened old cynic?

16

I might be wrong, but did not the trains of the earlier part of the 20th century regularly run from New York and points east to Chicago at or near 100mph? And on jointed rail, and with steam power? So now we can spend untold $$$ to get back to where we were 75 years ago? Such a deal!!!

Just like the North Shore that ran from Milwaukee to Chicago at 90mph back in the 40’s. Now the track is pulled up, much of the right-of-way used for other purposes. Now some genius politicians want to revive the old CNW main from Kenosha to Milwaukee for rail service (which ran at 79mph in the same period). For who? There is already the Hiawatha service from Milwaukee to Chicago 7 times per day.

Sure wish I had a relative that was into politics, then I would not have to work either.

17

If the Gov. and the RR’s got together and built a high speed corridor,say for example along the Interstate 80 corridor from Ca.to N.Y. I’d ride it.

18

I’d ride it too…But I don’t think they have sincere intent to build it… What I think is going on here is a bit of “''nest feathering” for the privatization of a broken up Amtrak.,

Folks get so “giddy” over the idea of something new, they will in many instances give away the farm to get it.

And , a “motivated” public would be just the tonic needed to allow private interests to swoop up Amtrak assets at bargain basement prices.

19

There’s a similar proposal floating around here in PA. We’ve been duped into getting a maglev train. From what I’ve heard, it would link our airport to downtown. People seem to forget about the monorail that was built during the '70s in South Park, out in the 'burbs. It ran a few miles from the park entrance to the Allegheny County fairgrounds. It just had one line, and wasn’t around very long. In fact, it was more expensive to tear it down…than it was to build it!

Getting back on topic, I’d rather the money be spent getting Amtrak back into shape!

20

Sort of like th e monorail (s) built for the people of Springfield, Ogdenville, and West Haverbrook in the TV Cartoon series 'the Simpson’s" e’hhhh?[:D]