Join the discussion on the following article:
Wires Down on Northeast Corridor, Amtrak service delayed
Every time that antiquated infrastructure gets hot, there is risk of trouble. Amtrak needs to replace the obsolete static tension catenary from 1935 with modern continuous tension catenary, before they implament their planned new equipment on the NEC. Its just not safe to use obsolete infrastructure while competing with air corridors and super highways.
It’s easy to say the catenary needs to be replaced, getting the money… not so easy. That segment of the corridor has been identified for as territory for 160mph operation when funding for catenary replace becomes available. At least 25 or so miles of catenary is sort of funded and is scheduled to be replaced in the next 5 or so years between New Brunswick and Trenton to support 160 mph operations.
Operated by the same government which wants to run trains even faster. Never mind Amtrak can’t operate them at current speeds unless the sun is shining. To make it worse, the sun was shining.
Mr Lemmo is correct. Replacing the wires should take precedence over new equipment. Unfortunately, it is a bit like buy new underwear. Most people go for the new suit or dress. Outward appearance almost always trumps foundations.
Mr. Livingston, don’t waste your time on a fool and a hypocrite.
With regard to Mr. Guse: A privately-owned railroad here in the West got a great opportunity to improve traffic thanks to trackage rights to Portland. But its directors starved its maintenance and capital improvements budget for other divisions, and it couldn’t handle the new opportunity. And the Government did not bail it out. Perhaps you’ve heard of the MIlwaukee Road and Lines West. Great capitalistic story.
I am fascinated by how willing Mr. Guse is to demonstrate phenomenal ignorance and blind bias repeatedly. Has he ever noticed how “government run” highways, waterways and airlines (e.g. federal air traffic control) operate?
If the feds would put the money into Amtrak that they put into the air corridors and super highways, Amtrak could probably get new equipment along with updating the catenary.
Greg, at least this village idiot stimulates this forum. Kinda reminds me of “The Professional Iconoclast”: John Kneiling in Trains Magazine years ago. He sure got replies, and HOW!
I really like how we resort to personal attacks when we disagree on this forum. If he’s wrong, say so, but can we keep this civil, please?
I really like how we resort to personal attacks when we disagree on this forum. If he’s wrong, say so, but can we keep this civil, please?
John Livingston: Sadly, that attitude is common in both the private and public sector these days. It’s always sexy to build new lines, or even buildings; it’s quite another to maintain the ones you already have. UP and BNSF generally do a good job at maintaining their lines, and let’s remember: without BNSF and UP, essentially, AMTRAK is a regional railroad at best. Also, the success of a railroad depends on customers, good management, and adequate funding. If you want to see a less than good example, see AMTRAK right now on the management front. A great example, on the other hand, would be the Iowa Interstate railroad. Owner is a businessman, but on a recent steam train excursion, he was one of the regular workers. Friendly to the communities they run through, friendly to railfans, and great to its customers and getting to know them well. That’s how ANY railroad of any size succeeds. Do we see that in AMTRAK today? Had The Milwaukee Road, and even the Rock Island been run like that, I’d more than bet they’d still be around. There’s no question AMTRAK has made improvements to some things, but they have a long way to go before they really succeed (and a lack of funding is only a part of the issues they face).
I really like how we resort to personal attacks when we disagree on this forum. If he’s wrong, say so, but can we keep this civil, please?
Yeah, the Milwaukee Road as an example of the corporate mindset…remember also the Schlitz brewery debacle and IBM’s derisive repudiation of the Microsoft offer to sell.