Railway Age Editorial - Two Tiered Infrastructure System

An interesting Railway Age Editorial on the creation of capacity for both freight and passenger (Amtrak content :0 ) is found here Mr. Vigrass' Comments. It seems that there is further pressure to link freight funding for the public good with passenger funding for the public good. Of course the lead in points out the lack of marginal cost recovery on 80 kip motor freight then links the two.

The upper speed of 75 mph for conventional three piece truck freight cars might be a bit high but if this is truck competitive intermodal freight then it could be about right. The upper limit of 110/125 proposed is not so high but if sustained on long segments could change the intercity passenger game.

I submit that the future in this country for new lines is some form of fast freight/passenger hybrid newly built corridor. Thoughts?

The long pole in that tent is "newly built."

I can see funding for existing lines improvement.

The environmental lobbies will tie up new construction in Endangered Species studies, and the local lobbies will holler NIMBY.

My thoughts.

I agree that we need to shift long distance truck freight to rail. Doing so would negate much of the economic need for the expense of maintaining the Interstate Highway System. Adding decent long-distance passenger rail would pretty much end the need for long distance highway travel in most of the United States. However, it seems the author is stuck in a diesel-powered railroad mindset even if he doesn't say it in so many words. Why only 75 mph for freight? 100+ mph would make more sense, and allow shipping of time-sensitive perishable cargo cross country by rail instead of truck. Furthermore, 110-125 mph for passenger rail for new lines? We could get that on many existing lines. Why even bother building new infrastructure if it's not going to be world class speeds? A better model is new fully electrified lines. At night they would run freight at speeds of 100 mph or greater. Axle loadings would be low enough to not tear up the track. Day operation would be passenger trains at speeds of at least 200 mph. Doing both these things would indeed change things for the better, basically relegating the motor vehicle to medium distance, medium speed transport, a niche ideally suited to battery-electric vehicles rather than the internal combustion engine. It would allow us to pump dollars currently used to maintain Interstate roads into rail. It would also make a big dent in the annual road carnage, saving taxpayers untold billions of dollars.

Honestly, a project like this would pay for itself many times over in short order. All we need to do is stop the special interests who might lose big-time from blocking it.

I have no problem with a 140 - 155 mph passenger electrified line used by single level freight intermodal during the night. See the post in the High Speed Rail forum on this board.

The Railway Age editorial was geared more toward an audience that would be looking toward just trying to get grade-separated lines in place that could support higher speeds for most freight. But I agree that things would probably move toward one end of the spectrum or the other.

The Railway Age editorial is also interesting as this is a mainstream industry publication not a university paper. As such it indicates more of a convergence of thought toward new build infrastructure that serves both purposes.

Of course a 110 mph line can be interwoven with the exisiting 2 to 3 degree of curvature interstate Right of Ways much more easily.

VPayne wrote:Of course a 110 mph line can be interwoven with the exisiting 2 to 3 degree of curvature interstate Right of Ways much more easily.

That might not be a bad idea either. As the need for Interstate truck/car transport dwindles, you can convert some or all of existing Interstate rights-of-way from road to rail. This would give a huge cost savings at these roads are already graded, don't have level crossings, and in many cases have bridges adequate to deal with rail traffic loads (perhaps with a little shoring up in some cases). And in many cases 110 to 125 mph operation is realistic given the typical curvature.

Well the only way to get the required 1 degree curve needed for 110 mph operation into a 200-300' wide interstate corridor is to put it on the outside of the existing lanes. The rail line might dip into the right of way of the interstate to set up for a curve but the overall land take could be less.

The editorial is clearly not an set of specifications. But I do see a renewed push for grade separated higher speed diesel lines coming from this. However, consider that even now Union Pacific is apposed to any publicly funded rail lines in the Austin, Texas area despite the need for something else. It seems a lot of the investor owned railroads would rather just have 80 kip trucks pay their fare share, currently paying around 70%, and let the market govern.

jtr1962 wrote:As the need for Interstate truck/car transport dwindles,

Do you have a source for that assumption? That is the first time I've ever read anything that suggested as such. Gasoline consumption is down in the USA and will continue to fall. I wouldn't equate that with unneeded highways in our lifetimes.

MudLake wrote:Do you have a source for that assumption? That is the first time I've ever read anything that suggested as such. Gasoline consumption is down in the USA and will continue to fall. I wouldn't equate that with unneeded highways in our lifetimes.

No source but merely an observation that with a decent Interstate passenger rail system there wouldn't be any need to travel long distances by car, or ship freight long distances by truck. Obviously Amtrak as it exists isn't even close to what we need. However, building HSR along Interstate corriders, with both local and express trains to serve stops spaced perhaps 10 miles apart, would pretty much negate the need to travel by car hundreds of miles. Sure, the car would still be used for local errands, but the local streets or two-lane country highways are plenty adequate for that. If you say this can't happen, consider that the reverse already has. 75 years ago when cars were still a novelty many said they would never replace the train. 50 years later quite a few places which were connected by rail no longer were, and the car was the only way to get around. The car displaced rail because it was better than those old, slow steam trains. HSR (real HSR, not the 110-125 mph which passes for HSR in the US) is way better than car over long distances, and I feel will eventually not just supplement it, but replace it entirely.

Also note there are some trends I see. An aging population means fewer people able to drive. The rising price of food and everything else means fewer people able to afford a car. The road carnage costs billions annually which we can ill afford any more. At some point, especially with a decent HSR system, the number of Interstate highway users will drop to the point that it won't be cost effective to maintain the highways. Every mode of transport has its rise, peak, and fall. The latter half 20th century belonged to the auto. IMO we're seeing the beginning of a long decline for the automobile, especially for long distance where it never really was an optimal solution anyway. We're also seeing the beginning of the end of a way of life dependent upon the auto. By 2050 a vast majority will be living in cities. Quite a few probably won't even own an auto. Like I said, all educated speculation on my part based on recent trends, but something we're quite likely to see in the next 50 years. Whether the auto disappears completely or not, I feel rail will play an increasing role in how we get around.

Moderator's Note:

After Mr Payne's initial post, there is little for this to do with Amtrak.

It will be moved to the HSR forum to see if it makes sense there. If not, our friends there will close it for good.

jtr1962 wrote;

Obviously Amtrak as it exists isn't even close to what we need. However, building HSR along Interstate corriders, with both local and express trains to serve stops spaced perhaps 10 miles apart, would pretty much negate the need to travel by car hundreds of miles. Sure, the car would still be used for local errands, but the local streets or two-lane country highways are plenty adequate for that

and after Mr Payne's comment, added;

VPayne wrote:
Of course a 110 mph line can be interwoven with the exisiting 2 to 3 degree of curvature interstate Right of Ways much more easily.
That might not be a bad idea either. As the need for Interstate truck/car transport dwindles, you can convert some or all of existing Interstate rights-of-way from road to rail. This would give a huge cost savings at these roads are already graded, don't have level crossings, and in many cases have bridges adequate to deal with rail traffic loads (perhaps with a little shoring up in some cases). And in many cases 110 to 125 mph operation is realistic given the typical curvature.

Some very interesting thoughts, although it should be noted that while interstate Highway curvature is suitable to rail conversion, some of the grades are not. If memory serves me correctly, grades on Interstate 80 climbing westbound out of the Delaware Water Gap between Stroudsburg and Blakeslee, Penna, run as high as 7 per cent.

My own conjecture on this issue is that the conflict over use of Interstate highways for freight vs passenger traffic is going to intensufy, just as it has on the slimmed-down, no-room-to-pass rail lines.

Continuing upward pressure on petroleum prices is going to increase the interest in even smaller personal vehicles. At the same time, the tractor/semi-trailer rig has increased in length by 13 feet in the 35 years I've followed the industry, with proportionate increases in weight and, to a lesser degree, height. The movement of "high-and-wide" loads, once a rail-dominated market, has been largely sacrificed to specialty motor carriers.

But I believe we are reaching a point where motorists are going to be increasingly wary of allowing 18-wheel mastodons to share the same highway with their less-than-a -ton roller skates. That could lead to some severe restrictions on the largest highway vehicles. The principal interstates might, for example, be segregated for larvge-vs-small or commercial-vs-private vehicles.

And now, a little long-term speculation -- just for fun.

South jersey, the area across the Delaware from Philadelphia, has two north-south interstate-grade highways, the original New Jersey Turnpike and I-295, paralell and built aroud 1970. Both feed onto the Delaware Memorial Bridge between Penn's Grove, N. J, and Wilmington, Del.

I"m pretty sure that that bridge could be modified to carry rail passenger traffic -- some of us will recall that the San Francisco-Oakland Transbay Bridge once carried interurban cars of the Key System -- and the same likely holds true for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge at Stevensville, Md.

Link those two with a grade-separated right of way using some of the former PRR Delmarva secondary lines, and you have the rudiments of an HSR system that could bypass both the Philly and Baltimore bottlenecks.

Obviously, not likely within the life expectancy of most of us here, but a very etertaining thought, and built mostly on the upgrade of present technology and infrastructure.

I think there is a post in this forum or the worldwide one , of a german high speed train that would be climbing a gradient of similiar steepness . i know when they built the tgv lines they had 1 in 28 gradients , they had to slow the trains down at the top of the gradient (crest ) as they feared they may become airborne !

Gilbert B Norman wrote:By no means does this Op-Ed piece appearing in RA suggest that the industry is on the brink of seeking any kind of public funding for track capacity upgrades.

However, I have read quotes from execs at Norfolk Southern indicating explicitly that they are seeking exactly that. I have no quotes from BNSF, but their practice indicates that they are interested in exactly that (the deal is usually, want better passenger service? Then give us these upgrades which help both passengers and freight).

Of interest to our participants here is I'm certain the industry would be concerned that if the necessary legislation were to move forth, "and passenger" language would certainly find its way into such.

So what's been happening is a little different: NS and BNSF seem to be saying "if you want passenger service, you pay for the upgrades for passenger service *and* give us upgrades for our freight service". They've both been cooperating with state governments on joint improvements (NM, WA, NC, IL). CN seems to have the same attitude. CSX has a similar attitude but perhaps more passenger-hostile in some parts of the country. UP seems to be substantially more passenger-hostile (odd given that unlike NS and CSX they still operate passenger trains in Chicago), but even it recognizes now that passenger trains are on its rails to stay.

Obviously they'd prefer to put passenger trains on separate ROWs or have them not at all, but they're not stupid; if they see a way to get federal, state, or local funding for freight capacity upgrades they wouldn't otherwise be able to comfortably pay for, they'll take it.

Indicative of that is, as I noted over at Mr. Benton's Worldwide Forum, in Mexico, when two US roads UP and KCS chose to make investments in the State owned rail system; hence "privatizing it, the "hammer was laid down" - the passenger trains would be gone - and don't even THINK about a "Mextrak".

That sort of criminal looting disguised as "privatization" is going to encounter fatal hostility in the US for a long time after what's happened in the last eight years. Heck, don't be surprised if the Mexican rails are renationalized or a "Mextrak" is instituted, as soon as the next Mexican election takes place.

That sort of criminal looting disguised as "privatization" is going to encounter fatal hostility in the US for a long time after what's happened in the last eight years. Heck, don't be surprised if the Mexican rails are renationalized or a "Mextrak" is instituted, as soon as the next Mexican election takes place.

It's called US imperialism outside the US. "Do it our way, or else".

Well, Mr. mathews, if, as you believe, the changing energy picture will diminish American influece throughout the globe, then one day your smug European friends can again practice a little "imperialsm" of their own. We Yanks were drawn ito two global wars as a result of the outdated "mercantilist" ideology.

But many of us now subscribe to that "Friedmanism" that so troubles you....not only Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose", but Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat", and under those theories, even a resource-poor nation can make its way by drawing upon the skills of its people alone.

Of course, we also have the ability to feed ourselvs, and an infrastructure that needs rebuilding, but gets to most of the places that count. Exactly how that redevelopment is going be accomplished will begin to unfold once the electoral circus folds its tents.

Mature democracies don't wage war one each other; economic competition is a lot more civilized than lobbing hand grenades, but as the Soviets found out, it's even more effective.