News: The FRA Midwest Passenger Rail plan

electricron wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 5:20 pm Like spoiled brats in a toy or candy store, wanting everything without a care in the world. No one actually takes the time to read the study to its conclusion, and no one reacts to the roadblocks and difficulties that need to be overcome. Why even the FRA called this plan ambitious? What a shame.

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:17 pm I kind of resent being called a spoiled brat, electricron. I don't think having hypothetical discussions about almost hypothetical maps for passenger train service and suggesting that this or that would also be good, without getting lost in the tangled affairs of state-federal funding mechanisms that might or might not work, is spoiled.

Prof. Martens, I REALLY don't think Ron called you, personally, a spoiled brat. I believe he was referring to any of these "studies", be it the Network Growth Strategy from Y2K, this latest Connect 21, and now this Midwest initiative. They're all the same; somebody just put a plate of spaghetti in front of the reader.

I hold same regarding these studies; certainly not you, Prof Martens, whom I have had the pleasure to meet face to face (thanks Lexus, for buying the gas for that jaunt). Ron, save that '19 meet-up with my Niece, you are a "bit off my beaten path".

The infrastructure is simply so deficient around these parts (in Chicago, only the CB&Q has a true high speed exit/entry to town - round the curve at Halstead St. and step on the gas) for both freight and passenger that I believe such would have to be addressed with "trillybux" before any meaningful improvements for either class of service would be realized.

Brightline issued billions in tax-exempt bonds, and for the 40 miles of new right-of-way only had to acquire 94 acres of private land, 27 of it from another railroad. State authorities leased it the rest. Looks like Florida was very accommodating at the statewide level. Local counties, another matter. https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot ... _I_OPT.pdf

It's impressive to watch all the construction of Brightline on https://twitter.com/roamingrailfan and wonder despairingly how it would be going with Amtrak or CAHSR. The scale of it, for just a semi-high speed route from West Palm to Orlando, pales before highway spending of course.

Private business is not a panacea - investment capital is always finite and thinking can be short term or badly managed. Look at the shortage of container chassis, with a two-year backlog at best, and companies reluctant to tool up new lines, here or overseas. Look at the shortage of medical equipment last year, which killed people. We could call out the Army Reserve to drive trucks from the port at Long Beach, but they wouldn't like it, nor their their very expensive command.

There is a lot of capital rolling around in finance plays, but it doesn't do much. And too much fiat money or too low monetary interest rates causes inflation, despite some new thinking on that (as far as I know).

Somehow true high speed rail is built in Asia and Europe, even England.

Once Merchants bridge is complete the STL time should decrease ?

kitchin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 9:52 am Brightline issued billions in tax-exempt bonds, and for the 40 miles of new right-of-way only had to acquire 94 acres of private land, 27 of it from another railroad. State authorities leased it the rest. Looks like Florida was very accommodating at the statewide level. Local counties, another matter.

Mr. Kitchin, as noted over at the Brightline topic, it appears that the debt comprised of Private Activity Bonds issued was a "sweetheart deal" to which only wealthy, connected Floridians were invited. The Financial Service industry calls that a Private Placement.

In required disclosures, it was learned the stated interest rate was 8% and were to be Private Activity Bonds hence free of Federal Income Tax. If the placement was made to Floridians, there is no State Income Tax, as Florida is one of nine states that hasn't got one.

To what extent the bonds were issued at a premium, thereby reducing the effective interest rate, is not disclosed.

Now Principal repayment of Private Activity Bonds is not guaranteed by any party, however I would not be surprised if there is an implicit understanding that the State will "bail 'em out" should Brightline not "make it". Besides if there is no default on the interest payments for the next twelve years, the holders are "essentially whole" (12 X .08 = .96). Then there is a Federal Capital Loss deduction for the deemed worthless security.

In short, laughter all the way to the bank; and possibly, if the "belly" faces the wrong way, the Accountant.

Lest this response stand, let's leave Brightline discussion here with that.

Bob Roberts wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:37 am I know this is just a high-level overview but I was surprised not to find any mention of Des Moines other than the maps.

Nor Topeka, nor Lincoln, nor Indianapolis, nor other state capitals.

This is pork for Illinois. Prove me wrong.

It's pork that Illinois can't afford, especially if they need to fund taking over Metra operations from UP and possibly BNSF. That all comes out of the same shrinking revenue pie.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

>Once Merchants bridge is complete the STL time should decrease ?<

Probably better asked in the Lincoln Service topic, but short answer is unlikely. Amtrak has predominantly been using the other bridge (Macarthur) across the Mississippi for last few years and the High Line which connects to the Merchants was single tracked when it was rebuilt several years back so only improvement for Amtrak with new bridge might be slightly less freight interference given that two trains will be able to use the new Merchants instead of the current restriction of only one at a time.

>>I know this is just a high-level overview but I was surprised not to find any mention of Des Moines other than the maps. I am guessing the Des Moines stop will continue to be 40 miles south of town in Osceola (as with the Zephyr)?<<

At the risk of topic drift, I can share an "Around the World in 80 Days" type adventure. Was on an Eastbound Zephyr headed to Chicago with a connection to St Louis when we encountered tornados across Nebraska and were running at greatly reduced speed. I realized that I would not make any connections to St Louis, so I disembarked at Osceola (as the timetable noted it was a gateway for Des Moines). The train left and the station keeper quickly came to lock up. She kindly called the one cab in town who insisted on cash only (and fare was hefty--$100?) so had to find a working ATM--which took several attempts. Eventually got to Des Moines airport and then obtained a one way car rental. I had been home for several hours and having my dinner in St Louis (after dropping the car at the airport there) when I checked and saw that my CZ hadn't even made Chicago yet.

west point wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:05 am Once Merchants bridge is complete the STL time should decrease ?

The new St Louis bridge mat help some. Yet it has been so long that they may have to redo Joliet to Alton to see if fences need mending, all the crossing gates working, then the new ROW in Springfield is finished. Someday need to work & finish CUS to Joliet then Alton to St Louis segments. So much time & money wasted on this project.

StLouSteve wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:14 am >>I know this is just a high-level overview but I was surprised not to find any mention of Des Moines other than the maps. I am guessing the Des Moines stop will continue to be 40 miles south of town in Osceola (as with the Zephyr)?<<

At the risk of topic drift, I can share an "Around the World in 80 Days" type adventure. Was on an Eastbound Zephyr headed to Chicago with a connection to St Louis when we encountered tornados across Nebraska and were running at greatly reduced speed. I realized that I would not make any connections to St Louis, so I disembarked at Osceola (as the timetable noted it was a gateway for Des Moines). The train left and the station keeper quickly came to lock up. She kindly called the one cab in town who insisted on cash only (and fare was hefty--$100?) so had to find a working ATM--which took several attempts. Eventually got to Des Moines airport and then obtained a one way car rental. I had been home for several hours and having my dinner in St Louis (after dropping the car at the airport there) when I checked and saw that my CZ hadn't even made Chicago yet.

This is exactly why I am in favor of the Amtrak strategy of short - mid range inter-city corridors. It is one of the few areas they can be competitive.

NotYou wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:04 pm This is exactly why I am in favor of the Amtrak strategy of short - mid range inter-city corridors. It is one of the few areas they can be competitive.

Yes, passenger trains can be competitive with highways in the short to mid range intercity corridors.
But these passenger trains need room and space to go fast over the freight owned railroad corridors, which are too congested at choke points entering and exiting large cities. To get that room and space to get that additional speed, they need a dedicated funding source. And as I responded earlier, that dedicated funding source does not exist in most of the USA - yet!

Exactly right, Electricron. Fast, reliable, frequent-ish trains on short-ish routes with lots of people and pedestrian/transit friendly cities and towns along the way are the places that can rack up the passenger-miles -- and that kind of service needs expensive infrastructure and a steady operating subsidy. The operating subsidy per passenger and per passenger mile can probably be pretty low if there's good service in a densely-populated area as described, but the service isn't going to pay for itself and won't be cheap to create. One or two trains a day that wind their way along routes cobbled together our of several host rrs or former host rrs, shoehorned among freight trains and generally unwelcome on the property, are not going to be significant parts of the transp market or attractive investments for anyone. Hanging onto remnants of 1925 intercity routes, or trying to revive them, is almost as impractical in the 2-4-hour market as in the 1-2-day market. (The Hoosier State was the worst recent example.) "We can get you from South Bend to Milwaukee faster than driving five times a day and you don't have to brave the Dan Ryan at rush hour" would be a heck of a selling point, and with the right coordination it could work.

Hmm. What if frequent trains from Champaign ran through to Milwaukee and also made a quick stop at a point where passengers from the South Shore trains could make an easy transfer? I guess the problem there is that eventually the Grand Crossing project will mean that those Champaign corridor trains don't run next to South Shore trains any more. But some kind of coordination between agencies to make multi-carrier trips as seamless as possible, and have the commuter and corridor trains work as part of the same regional transportation system, would seem like a great way to use and improve existing resources to help create a good situation for other parts of the Plan to work some day.

I'm sorry if I was too prickly or misunderstood you a few days ago, by the way.

The magic question of course is this depends on Amtrak not finding itself on the Senate floor at their markup session…

No bucks, no Buck Rodgers.

218+51+1.

Prof. Martens, lest we forget that through MKE-STL trains were inaugurated during Nov 71; MKE-DET were not all that far behind.

I think Amtrak concluded that the number of "throughs" were simply not enough to warrant the different equipment assignments required by each local segment.

Inaugurating that service did trigger an interesting Labor "fruck-fruck", that I have no knowledge of how such was resolved. It seems as if the GM&O Engineers thought they were entitled to a "days pay" for handling a train from Track 28 to 19 (a through track) as if to say their "terminal" was a bumper post on "their side" (even numbered) of CUS. That their Local Chairman ever allowed that nonsense to progress escapes me. Fortunately, nothing ever came to my attention that our MILW Engineers tried to pull same. MILW Engineers handled the UP "City" trains on that through track without any kind of claim nonsense; even if any arose, they were adjudicated long before I ever set foot on the property.

Mr. Norman, maybe twice in fifty years would not be too often to consider the idea especially if it's as part of a big new push for a more or less new type of service in a world and region that have changed a lot. Even just making schedules and CUS work well for south-north and north-south transfers would help, if running through were too troublesome.