Rant Railways, whats happening?

[Andy44]

Wow, Notebook, that's an amazing story! Too bad about the crew, and the idiot truck driver. Accidents at grade crossings have been reduced somewhat due to the ditch light mandate in the US, but they are still fairly common.

I've spent a lot of time around trains, my dad is a hobbyist, my uncle worked for Conrail for a couple of decades up in the Pennsylvania mountains, and as a boy me and my moron friends used to hop freight trains as they rolled through town at walking speed.

I always hopped on the very back. At least if I fell off I wouldn't get run over. The things scare the heck out of me, and I am not dumb enough to try to race one over a crossing.

I've crossed the continent on Amtrak 3 or 4 times, and I've had a few adventures with breakdowns out in the middle of nowhere. It was always a net positive, especially the time we had a breakdown on the Southwest Chief and they couldn't serve us in the diner car, so we stopped at a little town in New Mexico. While we waited for an employee to go get us dinner delivered, we all wandered into the local watering hole and proceeded to throw a few back with the locals.

 

[Notebook]

I can just imagine your last tale happening here Andy44, you would stop in a little town in the middle of nowhere, and wait, and wait, and none would come, then the train would move off as if nothing had happened...

A few things about that trip(besides the accident), I was surprised that there wasn't a railway station at SF, or the bit our hotel was in. It was on the "Peninsula" close to the tourist bits, so a taxi to Oakland over one of the bridges was required.
Have they built any new stations? Also, the Oakland station didn't have platforms, there were steps up to the carriages. More surprising was the station was shut at 3am, for a major city, we thought that was odd, maybe a knock on from the accident?

This was 20 years ago, I bet things have changed a bit.

N.

 

[Andy44]

No station in SF that I know of, other than the CalTrain commuter train stops. In 2005 I spent a few months in the Bay area and took the train across the continent to get home. I started in the south end of the Bay, at San Jose, which has a real train station, but it was just regional commuter service from San Jose up to Oakland (Emeryville, actually), which is the western-most terminal of the Amtrak long-distance train California Zephyr.

The problem is that the Zephyr follows the old Transcontinental Railroad, which was built eastward from Sacramento, which is northeast of SF, and therefore separated by the water of the Bay. No railroad bridges or tunnels cross the Bay, although rails do, of course, run up the coast to SF from the southern end, which is CalTrain commuter and private freight lines.

Amtrak is lucky to have the long distance service it has, they are never going to get money for the massive engineering project required to build rails across the Bay. The state of California wants to build a high-speed line between LA and SF, which is pretty much folly, since it won't make money and the state is pretty much bankrupt as it is.

 

[Linguofreak]

Not only the crossings, but the head-end equipment (locomotives, cab cars etc.) has had "Ditch Lights" added to them around the early '90s I think. They provide a triangular light pattern so drivers either running the gates, or at un-gated crossings have something to better triangulate off of which allows better judgement of the distance and speed of trains.

From what I gather from the accident report, though, the problem was that the truck driver was going too fast for conditions and didn't see the crossing in the fog before it was too late to stop for it.

 

[Notebook]

Just had a seond read of the NTSB report, and I don't know what they mean by this:

Furthermore, when a car is in the upright position passengers encounter less risk when they can exit the car directly to the ground through the vestibule door.

Must have been a different carriage to ours, the doors sills were about head height. They definetely were not at ground level.

N.

 

[Urwumpe]

The state of California wants to build a high-speed line between LA and SF, which is pretty much folly, since it won't make money and the state is pretty much bankrupt as it is.

Why? Are more than 800 km between both, so planes can be more economic? The last time I looked it had been just 480 km, a pretty short distance for planes and a pretty long distance for cars.

Just calculate how many people you can move by a typical high-speed rail and how many on the same route by train or car. High-Speed trains can be very economic, if calculated and managed well, just look at the SNCF in France, the Route Paris-Lyon-Marseille is pretty comparable in distance and economic background to SF-LA.

The Route Paris-Lyon did cost 3.5 billion Euro BTW, and had a track renewal for 300 million Euro in 1996, after 15 years of operation.

 

[Andy44]

Why? Are more than 800 km between both, so planes can be more economic? The last time I looked it had been just 480 km, a pretty short distance for planes and a pretty long distance for cars.

Just calculate how many people you can move by a typical high-speed rail and how many on the same route by train or car. High-Speed trains can be very economic, if calculated and managed well, just look at the SNCF in France, the Route Paris-Lyon-Marseille is pretty comparable in distance and economic background to SF-LA.

The Route Paris-Lyon did cost 3.5 billion Euro BTW, and had a track renewal for 300 million Euro in 1996, after 15 years of operation.

LA to SF by car up Interstate 5 is about 5.5 to 6 hours. Once you get to your destination, you have your car with you, which is vital, especially in California, where everything is designed around cars.

High-speed electric trains are extrememly expensive to build from scratch, and way more expensive to operate than standard rail service. And AFAIK, even Amtrak's busy Northeast Corrider doesn't turn a profit. If these things were economical, private railroad companies would be competing to be the first to build one.

Add to that the fact that California is paying their employees in IOUs, and it becomes clear that this is a boondoggle. Standard CalTrain service is good enough. Thinking about it, building a giant rail bridge over Earthquake Lake (SF Bay) might be a better idea.

 

[insanity]

LA to SF by car up Interstate 5 is about 5.5 to 6 hours. Once you get to your destination, you have your car with you, which is vital, especially in California, where everything is designed around cars.

High-speed electric trains are extrememly expensive to build from scratch, and way more expensive to operate than standard rail service. And AFAIK, even Amtrak's busy Northeast Corrider doesn't turn a profit. If these things were economical, private railroad companies would be competing to be the first to build one.

Add to that the fact that California is paying their employees in IOUs, and it becomes clear that this is a boondoggle. Standard CalTrain service is good enough. Thinking about it, building a giant rail bridge over Earthquake Lake (SF Bay) might be a better idea.

Again I must disagree with you here Andy.

I live on the I-5 corridor and have lived on it for my whole life (in all three states, too). A fast enough train that could get you between HellA and SF in a few hours would be a huge shot in the arm for the state. First off the employment boost and incoming federal money would be a huge shot in to the dying Californian economy. Secondly, if both cities made an investment in decent public transit, you would have two of the largest cities on the west coast (plus all the nice little towns in between) at your fingertips. I guarantee you people would ride the hell out of it. Personally I want to see high-speed rail from Seattle to LA (with a stop here in Corvallis, but not one in Eugene).

 

[Andy44]

A fast enough train that could get you between HellA and SF in a few hours would be a huge shot in the arm for the state.

Do you have any analysis to back that up? Any passenger rail service anywhere in the US that actually turns a profit?

First off the employment boost and incoming federal money would be a huge shot in to the dying Californian economy.

Of course I would like to ride high speed trains, but they are like space shuttles. Everybody wants to have one, wants to ride one, and wants everyone else to pay for it.

Of course, if you really want a high speed line between LA and SF, get your state to give any company that builds it and operates it immunity from all taxes, real estate, fuel, employees' income taxes, local taxes, the works. If it's really profitable, UP or BNSF or some other company will do it, and it won't cost the state anything.

 

[insanity]

Do you have any analysis to back that up? Any passenger rail service anywhere in the US that actually turns a profit?

Okay:
http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/10/26/daily50.html

Note that the one line with significant high-speed coverage is profitable.

Of course, if you really want a high speed line between LA and SF, get your state to give any company that builds it and operates it immunity from all taxes, real estate, fuel, employees' income taxes, local taxes, the works. If it's really profitable, UP or BNSF or some other company will do it, and it won't cost the state anything.

No, you get the state to run and build it. They don't have to pay taxes on fuel, real estate, or local permits. They can claim eminent domain and get the land on the cheap.

 

[Andy44]

No, you get the state to run and build it. They don't have to pay taxes on fuel, real estate, or local permits. They can claim eminent domain and get the land on the cheap.

So in addition to stealing money from all Americans so you can ride your train up the coast, you get to force your own citizens to sell their land for it at bargain basement prices, too.

Sounds good, sign me up!

 

[insanity]

So in addition to stealing money from all Americans so you can ride your train up the coast, you get to force your own citizens to sell their land for it at bargain basement prices, too.

Sounds good, sign me up!

Eminent domain is a constitutional provision allowing the state to pay fair prices for land to build public-goods on (I disagree strongly with the New Jersey case where they built a retail mall for the record). I see a lot of good in the strictly utilitarian sense in having public high-speed rail. If that means buying up real-estate below it's inflated value, I'll accept it. If you don't like it, take it up with Madison.

I'd pay the higher taxes/fares in a heart-beat.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I believe the Northeast Corridor makes an "over-the-rail" profit in that while yes, they are losing money on the underlying infrastructure + the trains, the trains themselves actually make money. But then again, is there ANY governmental infrastructure that makes any money? Highways? no, toll ways? not even, Amtrak? NEC and Auto Train I believe.

 

[Andy44]

I'd pay the higher taxes/fares in a heart-beat.

Perhaps this is better left for another thread. I like trains and the only responses I have to this would surely kill the thread.

 

[Ark]

So in addition to stealing money from all Americans so you can ride your train up the coast, you get to force your own citizens to sell their land for it at bargain basement prices, too.

Sounds good, sign me up!

Without eminent domain, we wouldn't have an interstate system, nor essentially any of the modern conveniences necessary to run the country.

Sometimes the needs of the many actually do have to be placed ahead of the needs of the few. An advanced, convenient, more efficient transportation system capable of moving thousands of people a day up and down the coast without traffic and pollution is not worth scrapping so a few people don't have to get displaced.

Eminent domain procedures sure as hell beat the old-school methods of scoring land for the railroad, which basically amounted to "Give us your land at the price we dictate or we shoot you and your family."

 

[Andy44]

Eminent domain procedures sure as hell beat the old-school methods of scoring land for the railroad, which basically amounted to "Give us your land at the price we dictate or we shoot you and your family."

Perhaps this is best left for another thread. I like trains and my response to this would surely kill the thread.

 

[Ghostrider]

Eminent domain procedures sure as hell beat the old-school methods of scoring land for the railroad, which basically amounted to "Give us your land at the price we dictate or we shoot you and your family."

What's the big difference? Apart from "give us your land at the price we dictate or we'll tear-gas you, beat you up with batons and maybe shoot you dead if we believe we might have seen something that could have passed off as a weapon"?

 

[Ark]

What's the big difference? Apart from "give us your land at the price we dictate or we'll tear-gas you, beat you up with batons and maybe shoot you dead if we believe we might have seen something that could have passed off as a weapon"?

The fact that it's the elected government of the people (well, the rest of the people) and that, to a much greater extent to the unsupervised operations of the railroad companies, the government officials in charge are held accountable for the actions taken to enforce that law. Also, such steps are almost never necessary, except for the rare cases of people who simply don't have enough common sense to realize they can either take a reasonable sum of money for their land and leave, or leave penniless after the government eventually wins the legal fight.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also it is not about profit, when talking about infrastructure. Sometimes the profit of a infrastructure comes only after ten years or more, time spans which are not liked by short-sighted companies.

You build infrastructure for supporting companies. For example tourism. Also you increase the mobility of your citizens with it, which is again helping the economy. If you can get from SF to LA in 2 hours, it is possible for somebody in LA to work in SF and the other way around. With the interstate, you are not able, you can't even do a good weekend stay in LA, if you have to spend over 12 hours out of 48 for driving around.

Also, if you as state can't just force people to sell their property, you would quickly have the other extreme in the negotiations: People who buy real estate with dubious methods for selling it to the state for higher prices, or people who do the same with their own property. Such people don't care about the infrastructure, they only care like all good capitalists, for their own pocket.

You thus need methods for having a useful balance in the negotiations. I would personally prefer it, if people are getting a share of the revenue gained by the new infrastructure directly, but this is often hard to calculate, should be easier for a railroad than for a toll free road.

 

[Ghostrider]

The fact that it's the elected government of the people

Yeah, the elected government of the people, by the people, for the lobbies.

the government officials in charge are held accountable for the actions taken to enforce that law.

Keep hoping.