Brainstorming A National Network

I don't know if diesel oil, before taxes, costs more in Europe than in the USA. But when the European rail network was being rebuilt after WWII, the designers went for a lot of electrification. Does that mean that oil cost more in Europe then, than here? Maybe they had a lack of refining capacity.
In any case, I was proposing a coal-fired minemouth plant; its costs wouldn't be affected much by oil or natural gas prices.

In Europe the diesel oil is just more than half of cost of leaded gasoline. But then gasoline is taxed up the wahoo, last summer In holland lead free was about euro 1.39 per liter but diesel was only 0.84.
Comparing thats about $4.10 per gallon for gasoline.
and $ 3.00 for diesel per gallon. still high but not taxed as much as gasoline.

Electricity is relativly cheap in Europe

Well here are my thoughts at a better rail network for the US:

Format:

HSR (Electric) on coastlines and intermeadite cities
Ex: BOS-MIA w/WAS-CHI or SEA-SAN w/ LAX-LAS
Transcons:HSR (Diesel) on 3 corridors CHI-SEA, CHI-SFO, MIA-SAN/LAX

Track Setup:
If possible, Pax use seperate ROW for electric ops with PTC/Cab Signals, then use same ROW (Isolated) with freight. For example Pax would use only center two tracks, while Freight uses outer two etc. (Pax get Cab Signals etc.)


Equipment:
Coastlines: Aclea/Regionalcombination service. Acela does express service to major destinations, Regional does local stops as well.
Transcon: Current LD with faster diesels and newer sleepers/coach seating.

Who Pays:
Government Subsidies: Federal and State, Local only for station construction etc. The taxpayers see a consession tax for airlines and for driving car on longer trips (EZ Pass like transponder in all cars, after certain distance on highway, incrimental charges)

It's pie in the sky, but hey it could work.

Cheers,
Patrick

John_Perkowski wrote:Remember, if a section of a railroad electrifies, Amtrak also has to buy new equipment: Whither THAT funding?

If it was just one section Amtrak would probably run through with diesels. Milwaukee Road sometimes used to do that out west with Olympian Hiawatha.

one thing that must hurt electrification costs is the massive increase in the price of copper in the last few years . aliminuim wire has stayed around the same price , but is alot harder to use in cantenary type applications .
What may be the first step is mainline passenger versions of the hybrid locos , such as the green goat , and genset shunting locos .

What may be the first step is mainline passenger versions of the hybrid locos , such as the green goat , and genset shunting locos

First step towards what? Certainly not high-speed passenger operations.

The price of copper is influenced by China's inordinate demand for it.

first step towards great fuel efficency , electric type accleration etc .

copper price is mainly chinese demand , though much of it is reexported to the west as throwaway electrical goods. it hasnt been helped by the closure of a major indonesian copper mine , and of course speculative trading .

Patrick A. wrote:

Who Pays:
Government Subsidies: Federal and State, Local only for station construction etc. The taxpayers see a consession tax for airlines and for driving car on longer trips (EZ Pass like transponder in all cars, after certain distance on highway, incrimental charges)

It's pie in the sky, but hey it could work.

Cheers,
Patrick

I don't think any of us realise the extent of the changes to policy that are going to happen when the reality of the climate problem sinks in. When Bush and his deniers are gone there will be some changes. The climate problem is going to be increasingly at the centre of policy making for the next couple of centuries.

Ithink the best chance we have at developing a bettter railroad initiative in this country would be to elect Guliani. Coming from NY, he probably knows a thing or two about HSR, Amtrak, and commuter railroads considering that oth #! abd #2 run out of his old borough. Also, he's not a knee-jerk repub, making it easier to take more fo a practical rather than party look at domestic policy.

Leave the presidential candidate discussion for another website, please.

re we talking about rebuilding/restructuring Amtrak, or are we talking about new routes, new construction, new operators? Is this an academic about hypothetic passenger rail in general, or are we discussing Amtrak operations and the reform thereof?

Sorry Otto, I couldn't help myself

I often use the weather map on the USA Today to draw out a HSR network. I usually end up going overboard but hey, it is only imagination. I do hit a lot of states so it could and should get a lot of support. So, grab a USA Today and follow along (cities not listed on the map will be in parentheses):

1. NEC, naturally. Improved to higher speeds of course.

2. Chicago - (South Bend) - (Toledo) - Cleveland - Pittsburgh - Harrisburg - Philadelphia - and on to NYC as well as a branch from Pittsburgh to Washington DC

3. Chicago - Indianapolis (and a branch to Cincinnati) - Louisville (with a state funded branch to Frankfort and Lexington) - Nashville - (Chatanooga) - Atlanta - Macon - (Jessup) - Jacksonville

4. Chicago - Springfield - St. Louis - Memphis - Jackson - Baton Rouge - New Orleans (or Jackson - Hattiesburg - Gulfport/Biloxi - N.O.) with a split of the line at the Arkansas border that goes to Little Rock - Texarkana - Dallas-Ft Worth

5. Chicago to Detroit and with coordination with Canada on to Toronto - Montreal - Quebec City on another imaginary HSR line for our friends up north...

6. Boston - Concord - Montpelier - Burlington - Montreal

7. NYC - Albany - (Syracuse) - Rochester - Buffalo (and on to Toronto)

8. NYC - Albany - Burlington - Montreal

9. A state funded line for Tennessee of Memphis - [Nashville - Chatanooga] <- Nationally funded - Knoxville - (Bristol)

10. A continuation of the NEC down South: Washington DC - Richmond - Raleigh - Charlotte (I ignore the "Crescent Cities" in between, they get covered by the State and can meet up with the national system at Raleigh or Charlotte) - Greenville (state (NC) funded branch to Asheville) - Atlanta - Montgomery - Mobile - Gulfport/Biloxi - New Orleans. Also a branch from Raleigh - Fayetteville (with state funded line to Wilmington) - Myrtle Beach vicinity - Charleston - Hilton Head vicinity - Savannah - (Jessup) - Jacksonville

11. Atlanta - (Athens) - (Augusta) - Columbia - Charleston

12. Atlanta - Birmingham - Tupelo - Memphis - Little Rock -> DFW

13. Jacksonville - Daytona Beach - Orlando - West Palm Beach - Miami with a branch from Orlando to Tampa - Sarasota - Fort Myers

14. Jacksonville - Tallahassee - Pensacola - Mobile -> New Orleans - Baton Rouge -> Houston

15. Texas Triangle: DFW (situated near the airport in between the two cities, local rail can connect this to the two downtowns) - (Waco) - (Temple) - Austin - San Antonio, DFW - (Waco) - (Bryan-College Station) - Houston - (Galveston {maybe}), Houston - (Bryan-College Station) - Austin - San Antonio. I choose this route as it hits a massive college town and would connect two of the largest universities in the country together, worth in my eyes the slight extra length of this routing. Houston direct to San Antonio would not generate as many trips as adding the other two midpoints to the route, and it shortens the length of rail that would have to be built.

16. state funded branches from San Antonio to Corpus Christi - Brownsville, and S. A. to Laredo. LD train from New Orleans -> S. Antonio - Del Rio - Ft. Stockton - El Paso - Las Cruces - Tucson - Phoenix -> Los Angeles

17. Chicago -> St. Louis - (Columbia) or Jefferson City - Kansas City - (Lawrence) - Topeka - (Manhattan) - (West Kansas) - (Denver Int'l Airport) - Denver. Here I could go Chicago -> Omaha -> Denver but I think more ridership would be generated with the bigger cities of KC and StL included in the route.

18. DFW - (Sherman) - (Norman) - Oklahoma City (w/ branch to Tulsa) - Wichita - Topeka -> K.C.

19. DFW - (Wichita Falls) - Amarillo - Pueblo - Colorado Springs - Denver

20. Chicago - (O'hare airport) - Milwaukee - Madison - (La Crosse) - Minneapolis/St. Paul (plus Empire Builder to Seattle) with a branch from Milwaukee to Green Bay

21. Chicago - Davenport - (Iowa City) - Des Moines - Omaha - Lincoln

22. State funded: [Erie?] - Cleveland - (CLE airport) - Columbus - Dayton - Cincinnati - cincy airport - Louisville

23. Denver -> Pueblo - Santa Fe - Albuquerque - Phoenix (maybe via Gallup and Flagstaff) - Palm Springs - San Bernardino - Los Angeles

24. Los Angeles - San Bernardino - Las Vegas - St George - Cedar City - Salina - Salt Lake City

25. San Diego - LA - Bakersfield - Fresno - BRANCH to San Jose - San Francisco and Oakland, - Fresno - Sacramento - LD to Seattle or Vancouver, CA.

26. State funded line from Oakland/S.F. - Sacramento - Lake Tahoe - Carson City - Reno

27. A new LD that goes from (perhaps Denver) - Salt Lake City - Idaho Falls (Branch to Jackson Hole?) - Sun Valley - Boise - Burns - Bend - Portland -> Seattle

28. Eugene - Salem - Portland - Olympia - Seattle - Vancouver, CA.

29. To make Wyoming happy, a line from Denver to Cheyenne.

30. To make West Virginia happy - Wash DC to Chicago via WV and Cincy.


This hits every state save South Dakota and Alaska and Hawaii. This could have lots and lots of support in Congress. Too bad we don't have that $600 B, not that we'd need it all at once.

Apologies for the extreme length of this post. I finally decided to get this out there. I even left out some stuff. Remember, a network is more successful the greater number of nodes it has.

Again I ask: Are we talking about rebuilding/restructuring Amtrak, or are we talking about new routes, new construction, new operators? Is this an academic about hypothetic passenger rail in general, or are we discussing Amtrak operations and the reform thereof?

Much needed discussion IMHO MikeinNeb. (In fact, it helped push me over the edge and go from a lurker and register.)

I agree with the premise of your idea, but I have some other thoughts:

While moving from fossil fuel to electrical motive power is good on many levels, it really isn't where the low-hanging fruit is. Our existing rail network is about 20% more efficient than both highways and air travel for both freight and passengers. IMO the question is really how to shift more traffic onto rail. This means building more capacity and increasing speeds.

Increasing the passenger loads on existing trains will also increase energy efficiency.

Instead of looking at creating a completely new network, I believe we must start from our existing rail network, looking for ways to increase speed, capacity, and efficiency in more incremental ways.

Eventually those incremental steps will be reinvesting in relatively abandoned rail ROWs or constructing new rail next to roadways.

But I think the first question is how can we encourage the class Is to build more track (especially double track where it is currently single) and invest in PTC. While this is especially important where Amtrak currently travels, the whole network works together.

Imagine how much better Amtrak would work if every route mile it traveled on had at least two tracks and PTC. Travel times would decrease and reliability would increase. Revenue will increase because train travel will be more attractive and some costs will decrease (some costs are driven by distance, and some are driven by time). At the same time, freight transit times will decrease.

While some of the costs of these improvements would be Amtrak's (PTC for locomotives, increased passenger capacity, additional frequencies), most of them are the Class I's (track and signaling).

So I think the question is how can we encourage or subsidize investment for the Class Is.

One idea:

Mainline rail ROW that is part of a Amtrak route, double tracked, and with working PTC is exempt from local and state property taxes until 2016. Maybe every 5 years a new bar is set for the next 10 years of exemptions. Raising this bar every few years will eventually lead us to requiring electric traction for the tax exemption.

Hi folks!

What's about a hybrid locomotive?
A diesel engine inside but also a pantograph on the roof?
The modern current converter (for the traktion motors and HEP) doesn't matter if the electrical power come from a gen-set or from the overhead wire.
So take a common diesel engine and equip it with a transformator and a pantograph... (simplify!)

With these engines u can install the overhead wire there where u need the advantages of the electrial catenary wire system.
For examples
* in urban areas with many stop and goes,
* on gradients of a pass route (dynamic breaking downwards with feeding into power network) and
* on high speed track parts (to increase the travel speed)

Cheers