High Speed Rail and Amtrak News - Page 5

llamaorama · #81 Posted **Jan 21, 2009, 5:38 PM**

I guess your right, I was thinking along the lines of station stops and how they add to travel time.

Were you thinking something like the Talgo high speed DMU running in Spain that can be modified to meet FRA rules?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talgo#Talgo_XXI

Either way though it seems a good bit of double/triple tracking would be necessary between E. Portland and Vancouver to seperate it from freight trains

zilfondel · #82 Posted **Jan 22, 2009, 12:36 PM**

Eugene's never going to have "high speed" rail. There would be no point! Stops are too close together (50 km apart?) and the towns are just way too small.

On the other hand, a frequent service DMU intercity rail service would make more sense. The trains don't need to be high capacity, but they should serve Corvallis (big college town with a rail line running through the middle of downtown) and have a high frequency. Service would be great during Ducks/Beavers game days, when it take 6 hours (or more) to drive from Portland to Eugene.

NewUrbanist · #83 Posted **Jan 22, 2009, 5:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron

Even California's proposed HSR train isn't going to go 220 mph along the entire route. It'll only reach that top speed in rural areas in the Valley. Every time it approaches urban and suburban areas, it slows down to 100 mph or less.

Has anyone been to the Central Valley in California? The whole place is full of gap toothed suburban sprawl. The HSR will creep along through this route unless they run it through highly producing, highly valuable agricultural lands. I wonder if future higher density TOD developments will locate at the access points?

Growing up in Bakersfield (no cracks, it's not perfect, but it's my hometown), I would love for the HSR to run through the center of it's downtown. It could be a charming area if it had more activity. The worse thing that could happen is if this line created another suburban transit hub surrounded by moats of parking.

electricron · #84 Posted **Feb 19, 2009, 10:27 PM**

From http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/...6/daily30.html
Last year, 774,421 people were carried by the Cascades' train, up 14.4 percent from 2007, which was the service’s second most popular year. The train travels 310 miles between Vancouver, British Columbia, and Eugene, with a one-way trip between those two cities taking around 12 hours, according to an Amtrak schedule.

Not bad for a train averaging ~26 mph. Imagine what it could do if Amtrak could get the trains average speed to 70 or 80 mph?

Are any stimulus funds being spent on the Cascades' tracks?

Well, upon further investigation, I discover the news report was wrong! It's 310 miles between Eugene and Seattle, not Vancouver B.C. The time is 6 hrs and 30 mins, not 12 hours. The actual average speed is ~48 mph not ~ 26 mph. It's also an additional 157 train miles to Vancouver B.C.

How wrong can reporters get?

Okstate · #85 Posted **Feb 19, 2009, 11:52 PM**

I thought you couldn't go from Eugene to Vancouver in the same day? (By TRAIN)

CUclimber · #86 Posted **Feb 20, 2009, 12:08 AM**

Quote:

The time is 6 hrs and 30 mins, not 12 hours. The actual average speed is ~79 mph not ~ 26 mph.

Sure, until the train you're on has to sit for an hour and a half outside of Kelso while waiting for a freight train to pass.

pdxman · #87 Posted **Feb 20, 2009, 1:12 AM**

^^^Or 3 three hours outside of aurora to wait for a freight train to move.

Okstate · #88 Posted **Feb 20, 2009, 6:01 AM**

And don't even think about relying on the Coast Starlight while we're on the topic!

electricron · #89 Posted **Feb 20, 2009, 8:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okstate

And don't even think about relying on the Coast Starlight while we're on the topic!

I won't. Long distance trains are rarely on time. There's just too much that can go wrong and delay the train.

MR. Cosmopolitan · #90 Posted **Feb 20, 2009, 6:56 PM**

It would be good if they used faster trains, maybe with 220 mph there could be a possibility to extend it to San Francisco

zilfondel · #91 Posted **Feb 20, 2009, 10:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

It would be good if they used faster trains, maybe with 220 mph there could be a possibility to extend it to San Francisco

I would like it if they could at least start by double-tracking the rail south of Salem! I believe a lot of the Oregon line is single-tracked. Just terrible considering how many freight trains they have running.

Recently I ran across a website an engineer did an analysis of how to extend passenger rail service south from Eugene to Ashland, Medford, and to San Fran. The tracks need upgrading, but it wouldn't be all that expensive.

electricron · #92 Posted **Feb 21, 2009, 7:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel

I would like it if they could at least start by double-tracking the rail south of Salem! I believe a lot of the Oregon line is single-tracked. Just terrible considering how many freight trains they have running.

Recently I ran across a website an engineer did an analysis of how to extend passenger rail service south from Eugene to Ashland, Medford, and to San Fran. The tracks need upgrading, but it wouldn't be all that expensive.

Double tracking a rail line, without building expensive bridges and tunnels, usually costs ~$2 million per mile. ~$1 million for grade work and another ~$1 million for track work. I'll assume the ROW is wide enough to accept the second track. Although, bridges and tunnels will increase the price, how much depends on how many bridges and tunnels are needed.

JordanL · #93 Posted **Feb 23, 2009, 9:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJD

-The Steel Bridge is too sharp a turn for HSR, period.

-If we raze the silos there is plenty of room (approx. 2000 ft.) between the Steel and Broadway bridges (and between the Willamette and Interstate Avenue, approx. 200 ft.) for an HSR station. This is the prominent location for an eastside station due to its proximity to all LRT lines, proposed streetcar and the Rose Quarter transit center.

Razing the silos would be... uhhh... difficult...

They are HEAVILY used, and don't underestimate the impact on Portland's economy that having major shipping routes here provides...

I also have a note:

Today I was planning on taking a trip to Lake Charles, LA to visit my sister and brother-in-law. Checking out my travel options, I looked at Amtrak, Greyhound and Airlines.

Amtrak: 3 days, 14 hours; $280 one way

Greyhound: 2 days, 17 hours; $350 round trip

Airlines: 4 hours; $320 round trip

Who wouldn't take a plane given these options?

MightyAlweg · #94 Posted **Feb 23, 2009, 10:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL

Amtrak: 3 days, 14 hours; $280 one way

Greyhound: 2 days, 17 hours; $350 round trip

Airlines: 4 hours; $320 round trip

Who wouldn't take a plane given these options?

Only railroad buffs or people afraid to fly.

That Amtrak one-way fare was for Coach, you have to add in buying your own meals and drinks in the Lounge Car or Diner for those three days each way. Greyhound would schedule some meal stops where you would also be buying your own food and drink. If you went First Class on Amtrak you could have a small Roomette and your meals would be included in the Dining Car. So a quick check of Amtrak.com just told me the round trip fare on Amtrak from Portland to New Orleans would be;

Amtrak: Seven and a half days of total travel (Empire Builder to Chicago, City of New Orleans to New Orleans and vice versa)

$572 round trip Coach, (unreserved reclining coach seat, no shower facilities), meals not included

$1,161 round trip Sleeping Car Roomette (28 inch wide berth, shared toilets/shower facilities), meals included

$2,324 round trip Sleeping Car Bedroom (38 inch wide berth, private toilet/shower facility), meals included

There's also an element of society that has no official government ID and thus can not board a plane or get past the ticket agents and TSA checkpoints. Those folks go Greyhound, as even Amtrak does cursory ID checks now. Greyhound does not ask for ID on its domestic bus routes.

But if you have a government issued ID card and aren't afraid to present it to officials in public, then flying is the cheapest and fastest way to go for most American travel.

MightyAlweg · #95 Posted **Feb 23, 2009, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron

I'll assume the ROW is wide enough to accept the second track. Although, bridges and tunnels will increase the price, how much depends on how many bridges and tunnels are needed.

If we are talking double-tracking from Portland to at least Sacramento, then the answer is "No" as there are hundreds of miles where the ROW is not wide enough for an additional track.

I take Amtrak's Coast Starlight from Los Angeles up to Portland or Seattle about once a year. It's a delightful way to travel if you get a room in the Sleeping Car and then have access to the First Class Lounge Car and the Dining Car. It takes two days to get there, instead of a two hour plane trip. From Eugene the tracks head east into the mountains, then southwest from Klamath Falls past Mount Shasta down to Redding.

The railroad tracks on that route traverse steep grades, many long tunnels, go over slim wooden bridges above roaring rivers, and thread through narrow mountain canyons and passes. That route is truly a marvel of early 20th century railroad engineering, but there is barely enough room for one train, let alone two.

If the current West Coast railroad routes were to be double-tracked between Eugene and the Bay Area, the costs would be in the Billions. Heck, the tracks that cross and hug the Willamette south of Oregon City are narrow and winding and would present a massive engineering challenge just to get another track to Salem.

Okstate · #96 Posted **Feb 23, 2009, 10:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JordanL

Amtrak: 3 days, 14 hours; $280 one way

Greyhound: 2 days, 17 hours; $350 round trip

Airlines: 4 hours; $320 round trip

Who wouldn't take a plane given these options?

Funny, i've always wondered that too. One time in Eugene I saw the coast starlight (from Cali) stop & let the passengers off for a minutes while the Eugenians were loading up & thought to myself...wow, all these people can afford cross country train travel? They looked like they just escaped prison! What gives?

PacificNW · #97 Posted **Feb 24, 2009, 12:33 AM**

↑ I don't know whether to take your comment "just escaped prison" personally offensive, or not. I take the Cascades to Seattle a few times a year. My step dad worked for Union Pacific so I road the rails, as a kid and teenager, many times. I have never spent time in prison. Riding a train gives me the opportunity to see the scenery at a leisurely pace.

NJD · #98 Posted **Feb 24, 2009, 1:46 AM**

Quote:

Razing the silos would be... uhhh... difficult...

They are HEAVILY used, and don't underestimate the impact on Portland's economy that having major shipping routes here provides...

^ My source says the city has talked to the new(ish) owners of the silos (and Vulcan who owns the old Red Lion site next door), and that the owners of the silos would be willing to negotiate especially if it involved building new silos further downstream where the river sees less traffic and has fewer bridges to navigate around. No real talks will occur until HSR Cascades is actually approved, which the NARP has tentatively slated for the 2nd run of federally funded HSR lines (which means at least a decade away from design starts). I cannot confirm this, but the source is reliable.

As for ticket prices, they are a prime example of basic business demand pricing. Remember that the French TGV is very modern, reliable, affordable, and a profitable branch of their Department of Transportation. Until there is adequate ridership (and competition) the prices will stay high, and there will be more and more demand as Americans stop subsidizing autos and airplanes and start wanting more comfortable, safer and more modern alternatives to driving and flying. Rail is the most efficient means of transport other than by sea. On an even playing field with autos and airlines, after a comparable system gets built, the railroad will be cheapest, safest and most comfortable means of travel.

electricron · #99 Posted **Feb 24, 2009, 3:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MightyAlweg

If we are talking double-tracking from Portland to at least Sacramento, then the answer is "No" as there are hundreds of miles where the ROW is not wide enough for an additional track.

I take Amtrak's Coast Starlight from Los Angeles up to Portland or Seattle about once a year. It's a delightful way to travel if you get a room in the Sleeping Car and then have access to the First Class Lounge Car and the Dining Car. It takes two days to get there, instead of a two hour plane trip. From Eugene the tracks head east into the mountains, then southwest from Klamath Falls past Mount Shasta down to Redding.

The railroad tracks on that route traverse steep grades, many long tunnels, go over slim wooden bridges above roaring rivers, and thread through narrow mountain canyons and passes. That route is truly a marvel of early 20th century railroad engineering, but there is barely enough room for one train, let alone two.

If the current West Coast railroad routes were to be double-tracked between Eugene and the Bay Area, the costs would be in the Billions. Heck, the tracks that cross and hug the Willamette south of Oregon City are narrow and winding and would present a massive engineering challenge just to get another track to Salem.

I wasn't talking about going all the way to Sacramento from Portland, just south to Eugene and north to Vancouver, where the existing Cascades trains run.

The distance between Portland and Sacramento, per Amtrak schedules is 637 miles, much too far for a high speed train.
The time it would take a 120 mph train to travel 637 miles is 5 hours and 19 minutes. That's not including the additional 187 miles to Seattle and an additional 157 miles to Vancouver.
The time it would take a 220 mph train to travel 637 miles is 2 hours and 54 minutes. That's not including the additional 187 miles to Seattle and an additional 157 miles to Vancouver.

That's far longer than the 2-3 hours travel time for high speed rail to be competitive with flying.

Okstate · #**100** Posted **Feb 24, 2009, 7:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacificNW

↑ I don't know whether to take your comment "just escaped prison" personally offensive, or not.

I was actually specifically referring to the coast starlight route. I've ridden on the cascades as well numerous times & the comparison can't be made with the cascades. Maybe it was a rare occurrence. I've certainly hung out with my fair share of bad apples in my day & there were vast similarities.