What I’ve always imagined would work w.r.t. mixed “higher speed” passenger and freight along existing frt ROW would be an additional single track, primarily for passenger, but connected to the adjacent, existing frt tracks at some intervals. The connection would allow meets between the opposing passenger trains, allow for maintenance, and even provide opportunity for the frt road to run higher speed intermodal trains.
The track would be controlled by the frt road as part of their network. It would allow for curve realignment and selective grade crossing elimination, as well.
I figure you’d probably be able to successfully mix 110 mph passenger with std frt traffic with this arrangement.
How about Cleveland to Chicago as the first, best place to try it out?
Using “standard” passenger equipment, I agree that it’s technically and economically feasible, at 110. 150? That’s a different matter. I’m hoping we will run some RTC models later this year to see how such a 110-mph freight/passenger scenario works out, but speaking with my dispatcher’s green eyeshade on, 99% of the time I believe it will operate just like it was the NYC and this was 1922, with high-wheel Atlantics flashing past on the passenger tracks and 2-8-0 hogs toiling on the freight tracks.
A bigger question is what would be the outcome of the possibly tendentious negotiations between the passenger and freight railroads over who controls what, pays for what, rents what, uses what, accepts liability for what, ad infinitum. Some of the passenger people I know are a little more creative than others. On the one hand I’m excited because things are suddenly changing fast, and on the other I’m filled with dread that once again we’ve got the cart before the horse – decisions will be made, a policy will be created later to justify the decisions, and we’ll all be living with less-than-ideal outcomes for
To RWM’s 1st paragraph (above): “See, there isn’t much new under the sun - the more things change, the more they remain the same.” And like I said about a week ago, now we know why the PRR & NYC did that 4-track thing from NYC to Chicago.
To RWM’s 2nd para: [(-D] Oh - yeah - ditto the above. [sigh]
RWM: One of the things you did not mention is property taxes. If the additional trackage is owned by some government entity but controlled and operated by the appropriate RR then the capacity increase would not cause additional taxes. If signaling upgrades are also taxed the full bidirectional signaling and PTC could also be owned by the government. I’m thinking especially about the New York state property tax situation which speeded up the retirement of the 4 track water level route and caused NYC to slow their passengerf trains probably hastening NYC train’s demise since interstate roads could beat complete with better travel times at the slower passenger speeds.
If the SW9 is hauling PIH to the cannery, and the line passes through your typical small Wisconsin town with an elementary school, a church, and a hardware store, like a Revell catalog, all within earshot of the air horn, I doubt you will find a majority in that town considering it asinine. If the public says, “This is the safety level we require,” the public, being a democracy, has the right to demand that. The public could demand all the locomotives be painted purple with pink polka-dots, if it wanted. And then, the public lives with the consequences of their decisions.
The government isn’t the lunacy, the government is the receptacle the lunacy is placed into. Government isn’t Martians imposing their will on us from some other planet, it’s people we elect, lobbyists we hire, petitions we sign. If you want to see lunacy, look at the ballot intiatives concocted by citizens that get onto the state ballots each year simply by obtaining enough signatures at a folding table in front of the Safeways. The Simpsons’ character is a parody of the public.
And the short line manager might do that, and might prevail.
I try to guess what people, railroads, and agencies will do, not prescribe what they ought to to. Telling some people what they ought to do could get me into trouble with other people (I have very limited faith in the protection afforded by an alias on a forum). And more important, I don’t think it’s my place or prerogative to pronounce what policy ought to be because that enters into the political realm and leaves the technical realm. I’m like a doctor who would recommend quitting smoking if you first told me your goal was a long healthy life, whereas if you came into the room and announced that your goal was merely to get your ingrown toenail removed and that’s it, I’d provide just that service and keep my mouth shut about your other choices. In other words, I’m not one who will be agreeing or disagreeing with you on what policy ought to be, only the guy who talks about what policy is, what it might be, an
And the short line manager might do that, and might prevail.
I try to guess what people, railroads, and agencies will do, not prescribe what they ought to to. Telling some people what they ought to do could get me into trouble with other people (I have very limited faith in the protection afforded by an alias on a forum). And more important, I don’t think it’s my place or prerogative to pronounce what policy ought to be because that enters into the political realm and leaves the technical realm. I’m like a doctor who would recommend quitting smoking if you first told me your goal was a long healthy life, whereas if you came into the room and announced that your goal was merely to get your ingrown toenail removed and that’s it, I’d provide just that service and keep my mouth shut about your other choices. In other words, I’m not one who will be agreeing or disagreeing with you on what policy ought to be, only the guy
[snip] Now for the substantive part. I’m not opining on what government policy on requiring PTC on short lines with TIH traffic ought to be. Rather, my comment went to what a short line’s response is likely to be if such a requirement were imposed. I think it’s very likely that most short lines would respond by simply refusing to handle TIH traffic - after all, what other choice do they really have?. Further, I think the odds of a short line prevailing in a refusal to provide TIH service rather than installing PTC for a few TIH (or PIH) shipments a year are excellent. There’s no issue about STB picking a fight with the adminstration - I’m not aware that the administration has taken any position one way or another about whether the government should require a cash strapped shortline to bankrupt itself instal
thanks for all the discussion i have been busy working at the coal mine for the past week and read the all the opinions as to why america could not run high ( medium ) speed D M U sets loading gauge wrong… no money to pay for them ( bring the troops home for a week… that should cover it ) insurence too high etc etc etc… in australia the australian version ,s of the british HST 125 have been running daily 600 miles north , south and west from sydney for approx 30 years and no accidents… why would the D M U ,s have to be built stronger the freight cars in australia are built to american design ( generally ) so whats the problem ???