Oregon buys 2 Talgo trainsets

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: So you're justifying the Oregon Talgo order on the basis as a "valid social function?" That's makes complete sense since it fails every objective test, given the horrifically high costs per seat and the highly dubious, non-competitive nature of the contract!

I'm not saying the Talgo train is the best solution, merely that the concept of running a train here serves a valid function. Given the low speeds of the line in question, and lack of curvature, standard off-the-shelf conventional equipment likely could have been used to lower costs.

Oh, and "marginal driver" means exactly that - a driver who technically may have passed licensing requirements ( which incidentally are ridiculously lax here in the states compared to elsewhere ), but who nonetheless cannot competently operate a motor vehicle. I'm sure there's more than a few in Oregon who qualify. In New York City such drivers seem to be a majority.

I can't think of very many people who would refer to the MTA as an unqualified "success" on any level.

No, the MTA is virtually synonymous with waste, corruption, and graft, but the concept of using public transit in NYC is successful. If only we could get someone else to run it....

jtr1962 wrote:
As george matthews said, there is a difference between what people want and what they can afford.

If the continued maintenance of the Interstate Highway System is unsustainable, as you so erroneously state, how do you imagine that the construction of a multi-trillion dollar HSR system can be represented as affordable?

jtr1962 wrote:There is already a reverse migration into denser living arrangements thanks to the real estate crash.

Not true, unless the "denser living arrangements" you are referring to are homeless shelters.

jtr1962 wrote: There is zero economic justification continuing to prop up a way of life which is destined to failure sooner or later. Are those in these less dense living arrangements willing to pay for the much higher cost of their spread-out infrastructure serving relatively few people? Truth is they couldn't afford it even if they wanted to.

So, what is your solution? Building Soviet style apartment blocks?

jtr1962 wrote: The first round of infrastructure was courtesy of the federal government at a time when building these things cost way less in real dollars. Now it's wearing out and the money just isn't there to fix it.

So if it isn't affordable to spend tens of billions to maintain existing, heavily used, and entirely vital highway infrastructure, how is it affordable to spend trillions on HSR?

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

jtr1962 wrote:There is already a reverse migration into denser living arrangements thanks to the real estate crash.

Not true, unless the "denser living arrangements" you are referring to are homeless shelters.

jtr1962 wrote: There is zero economic justification continuing to prop up a way of life which is destined to failure sooner or later. Are those in these less dense living arrangements willing to pay for the much higher cost of their spread-out infrastructure serving relatively few people? Truth is they couldn't afford it even if they wanted to.

So, what is your solution? Building Soviet style apartment blocks?

jtr1962 wrote: The first round of infrastructure was courtesy of the federal government at a time when building these things cost way less in real dollars. Now it's wearing out and the money just isn't there to fix it.

So if it isn't affordable to spend tens of billions to maintain existing, heavily used, and entirely vital highway infrastructure, how is it affordable to spend trillions on HSR?

Certainly in my part of the country, exurban development completely crashed, while density continues building in the city. Maybe not everywhere, but that's the pattern in Chicago in the wake of the Bush crash. You're welcome to build Soviet apartment blocks if you like, GNJW. But what developers typically WANT to build is decent-looking denser developments near rail. Often, zoning requirements disallow it, but the market seems to want it. And the cost of maintaining our highway system is significantly more than 'tens of billions' even in a given year. While the "trillions" you mention for HSR is more like 2 or 3 trillion over a decade, not over a single year.

None of my edits really hurt your argument that HSR is very expensive, perhaps too expensive. I'd just love to see you disagree without reducing other people's arguments to irrelevant absurdities ("soviet style") and goosing your own with false comparisons that exaggerate the difference ("billions" v. "trillions").

ne plus ultra wrote:I'd just love to see you disagree without reducing other people's arguments to irrelevant absurdities ("soviet style") and goosing your own with false comparisons that exaggerate the difference ("billions" v. "trillions").

Same here. GNJW is certainly entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't mean reducing everyone else's to euphemisms like "anti-automotive advocacy".

And yes, HSR will be expensive. I've never pretended otherwise. The only question is will the net benefit be more than spending the same money on alternatives. More importantly, will some of the alternatives even be viable as fuel prices continue to rise, our health care system continues to be burdened with effects of environmental pollution, and we continue to pave over the natural world? I can't answer that without a crystal ball, but I can only see it might be more prudent to take a course which at least gives us an alternative in case the status quo fails ( which I think it will ). What happens in 10 or 15 years if oil is at $1000 a barrel and long distance travel in the US is still primarily powered by fossil fuel? The result will make the current economic downturn look like paradise.

jtr1962 wrote:

ne plus ultra wrote:I'd just love to see you disagree without reducing other people's arguments to irrelevant absurdities ("soviet style") and goosing your own with false comparisons that exaggerate the difference ("billions" v. "trillions").

Same here. GNJW is certainly entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't mean reducing everyone else's to euphemisms like "anti-automotive advocacy".

And yes, HSR will be expensive. I've never pretended otherwise. The only question is will the net benefit be more than spending the same money on alternatives. More importantly, will some of the alternatives even be viable as fuel prices continue to rise....

....and fall.....and rise.....and fall....

jtr1962 wrote: our health care system continues to be burdened with effects of environmental pollution

What are to referring to? If anything, environmental pollution has less of an impact on human health today than 4 decades ago, before air quality regulations came into effect.

jtr1962 wrote:.....and we continue to pave over the natural world?

Are you paraphrasing a "Counting Crows" song?

jtr1962 wrote: I can't answer that without a crystal ball, but I can only see it might be more prudent to take a course which at least gives us an alternative in case the status quo fails ( which I think it will ). What happens in 10 or 15 years if oil is at $1000 a barrel and long distance travel in the US is still primarily powered by fossil fuel? The result will make the current economic downturn look like paradise.

It sounds like you're worried about inflation, which is a function of monetary policy, not transportation. I can assure you that HSR fares will rise with inflation, perhaps much quicker than inflation due to the wage demands of unionized HSR workers.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

jtr1962 wrote: our health care system continues to be burdened with effects of environmental pollution

What are to referring to? If anything, environmental pollution has less of an impact on human health today than 4 decades ago, before air quality regulations came into effect.

Small steps. At least he's conceding a government action sometimes does some good.

ne plus ultra wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

jtr1962 wrote: our health care system continues to be burdened with effects of environmental pollution

What are to referring to? If anything, environmental pollution has less of an impact on human health today than 4 decades ago, before air quality regulations came into effect.

Small steps. At least he's conceding a government action sometimes does some good.

LOL

Is it just me, but shouldn't a discussion about the Talgo trainsets lend itself more to a discussion about MECHANICAL engineering as opposed to SOCIAL engineering????

A little historical perspective may be helpful here. I've put together a little graph of the boardings and alightings for Cascades services in Oregon over the years.

jstolberg wrote:A little historical perspective may be helpful here. I've put together a little graph of the boardings and alightings for Cascades services in Oregon over the years.

Can you clarify one thing.... Are these boardings just for Portland - Eugene service or does it include the through service to Seattle?

The graph includes people getting on and off the Cascades trains in Portland. That includes passengers on corridor trains traveling to other points in Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. It does not include passengers boarding or alighting from the Coast Starlight or the Empire Builder.

I'm not opposed to suburban stops in general, but based on the graph, Oregon City would seem to add very little to this route except delay. Why continue to stop there? Is there some explanation I'm not thinking of for its paltry usage? Is this a new stop that people don't know about? A station that not all trains stop at?

I'm not opposed to suburban stops in general, but based on the graph, Oregon City would seem to add very little to this route except delay. Why continue to stop there? Is there some explanation I'm not thinking of for its paltry usage? Is this a new stop that people don't know about? A station that not all trains stop at?

Interesting question. I wish I had all the answers....
Here's an Oregon City train station photo of the existing platform

It' was not much more than a whistle stop...
Source http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/oregoncity.htm

They have moved the historic Southern Pacific depot to this location..

Source http://www.orcity.org/publicworks/amtrak-station-moved

Maybe the historic depot will accommodate passengers better and attract more passengers.

I wonder if they've already studied that and determined that the stops nets more passengers by serving the stop as opposed to passengers lost due to the longer running times.

The question is 'why Talgo'? The answer is simple: because Talgo is willing to ‘play ball’ in the FRA governed market in an effort to make a sale. The last European builder to go all in was ABB who spent in excess of $10 million marketing their technology in the early 1990’s. All they got for their efforts was some respectable themed merchandise sales and no takers for the technology. They packed their goodies, went home and sold out to one of their competitors. Now Talgo had done the engineering to make a FRA passable product prior to a firm commitment to a sale. Bombardier and Alstom have circulated conceptual renderings of what they “could” build but will go no further until there is cash in hand. For Talgo it was a gamble and it looks like it may well pay off. Again, all of this means nothing until that first flanged wheel rolls in revenue service.