New Rail Study
#31
MountainMan Wrote:All of this leaves me wondering why passenger rail service works so well all over the world except in America...

It doesn't work any better in Canada, either, and two of the main factors are:
1. the distances between major centres

2. our comparatively low population.

As much as I like trains, as far as I'm concerned, our population is too high already. Wink While our Government is quite willing to throw tax-payer dollars at all sorts of problems, there just aren't enough of them to go around, (see both 1. and 2. above). Also, outside of a small percentage of the population, there's not a great deal of interest in passenger rail unless it's "high speed" Wallbang or short-haul commuter lines. The former should be the purview of private enterprise, while the latter is generally left to Provincial and/or municipal jurisdictions.

While the U.S. has a population almost ten times that of Canada, it's still spread out over an almost-as-large area. The other factor is the American public's "fear" of government involvement in projects such as this. One of the reasons that Amtrak is continually struggling for funding is the idea that dumping government money into what "should be" private enterprise is somehow the first step on the road to communism or socialism. Until the public (and their elected representatives) get past that mindset, Amtrak will continue to be underfunded.

There may be hope, though, as the current Administration seems relatively comfortable injecting public funds into private corporations such as banks and automobile manufacturers - perhaps Amtrak's lobbyists are standing in the wrong line-up, Wink as the one that they're in has them standing behind both the Interstate Highway system and the airline industry. It's too bad that "socialism" is so damn selective. Misngth Goldth

As for the rest of the world, the nuances of ideology are plucked or discarded as suits the situation (or the government).

Wayne
Reply
#32
You're right on the situation similarities we share, Wayne ! And another rail competitor, water transport (particularly evident around here - Pittsburgh with the Three [navigable] Rivers), who's right of way is, like planes and trucks, largely maintained and "owned" by the taxpayer. The railroads received a lot of land from Uncle Sam, but largely (over) paid the value back in service over the years and two World Wars. Would the economic balance of passenger service be affected if right of way, signaling, communication and MOW responsibilities were taken over by public funding ??? Hmmmmmmm ? Bob C.
James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Reply
#33
Here's a relevant piece from "Slashdot" ( always good for tech news - and a tongue-in-cheek attitude), especially if you live in Arizona !

09/05/12/1811201 story
220-mph Solar-Powered Train Proposed In Arizona
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday May 12, @02:37PM
from the gonna-soak-up-the-sun dept.
Transportation Earth Power
Mike writes "An ambitious Arizona company has recently revealed plans for a solar powered bullet train that will streak across the desert at 220 mph, traveling from Tuscon to Phoenix in 30 minutes flat. Proposed by Solar Bullet LLC, the system comprises a series of tracks that would serve stations including Chandler, Casa Grande, Red Rock, and Marana, and may one day be extended to Flagstaff and Nogales. The train would require 110 megawatts of electricity, which would be generated by solar panels mounted above the tracks." Local coverage of the plan takes a harder look, noting that Solar Bullet LLC is two guys who are now asking local governments in the towns at which such a train would potentially stop for $35K for a legal and feasibility study. Total cost is estimated at $27B.

I believe I heard that Arizona has a healthy aversion to unwarranted expenditure of taxpayer $$$$ ?...is this plan reasonable for the available traffic and revenue ? Bob C.
James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Reply
#34
Bob C Wrote:streak across the desert at 220 mph,
The train would require 110 megawatts of electricity,

Hmm... The AMD-103 generates 3MW of power. The most powerful TGV draws 12MW of electricity. So I presume that they are saying that the solar collection is 10% efficient? Or is it that the network will support 10 trains at once?

I know that some 2nd and 3rd generation solar panels are much better than the 1st generation panels (which were used with the 10lb cars moving at 20mph across the desert...or whatever it was...which unintentionally illustrated how unfeasible solar power was at that time).

Still, they're dreaming...and that is a good thing. I wonder whether the power requirements are just not clearly reported...or whether the scheme is not fully developed. If the entire track is lined with solar panels, I'd hate to see the Maintenance costs...
Michael
My primary goal is a large Oahu Railway layout in On3
My secondary interests are modeling the Denver, South Park, & Pacific in On3 and NKP in HO
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/">http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#35
nkp_174 Wrote:Still, they're dreaming...and that is a good thing. I wonder whether the power requirements are just not clearly reported...or whether the scheme is not fully developed. If the entire track is lined with solar panels, I'd hate to see the Maintenance costs...

sounds like some science fiction fan grew up and had a dream. You are right, it really makes no sense to add the extra expense of solar panels when a modern diesel of electrified line would already be a huge savings over driving individual cars on I-10. Believe it or not, there are quite a few houses in arizona that are 100% off the grid. They rely on solar and wind turbines for their electricity, and water comes from either wells or cisterns. These houses are almost exclusively on the reservations or plateaus, where the temperatures are cooler and a/c is not needed. My co-workers installed a 3.5 kw photovoltaic system last year - and that is enough to supply almost all of their electrical needs. The problem is, they sell to the electric company during the day, and buy back at night (when the rates are lower). That means, they still have to pay miscellaneous taxes and hookup fees, so their electric bill is not zero. In their case, their July electric bill went from 250 to about 50 bucks. The return on their investment will be about 10 years, after a bunch of tax and utility rebates. Of course, if they sell their house, the PV system would be considered an asset and should increase the value of the house.
--
Kevin
Check out my Shapeways creations!
3-d printed items in HO/HOn3 and more!
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.shapeways.com/shops/kevin-s-model-train-detail-parts">https://www.shapeways.com/shops/kevin-s ... tail-parts</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#36
Bob C Wrote:220-mph Solar-Powered Train Proposed In Arizona
Just for kicks, I found an artists conception...
[Image: image.php?album_id=6&image_id=1025]
Reply
#37
Someone wants to cash in on the Obama "green" push.
Reply
#38
Guess that shows how little "concept" the artist had ! The (IMO) opportunistic bottom-feeders at the bottom of this proposal don't care WHO pays the bill, as long as it goes in the right pocket. Bob C.
James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Reply
#39
Well...railroads have historically been greedy opportunists. No reason why today would be any different.
Reply
#40
nkp_174 Wrote:I've always found it fascinating that simply hauling people does not pay...and very few have argued that it does.

I think what a lot of people don't realize is that hauling people doesn't pay no matter how you haul them. As far as I know the only transportation system anywhere in the United States that doesn't get a government subsidy is the freight railroads. Some of them were subsidized by the government when they were built (the transcontinental railroads), but now they pay for property to put tracks on and pay for all maintenance of the right of way. The amount of subsidy that the government pays to build and maintain airports and provide security since 911 makes the cost of Amtrak look like "chump change." I read an article probably 15 to 20 years ago stating that if the government either did not build air ports, or charged the airlines to recoup their costs for construction and maintenance, the cost of a coach ticket to New York City from Los Angeles would be $3000.00 one way, and that was years before 911 added security costs to themix! What would the trucking industry, to say nothing of the typical American traveler do if we did not have public (read government) roads? Gas prices go up and down, but they never seem to go down as much as they go up. 2 or 3 years ago, the gas prices here in the US were approaching $3.00/gallon. They dropped back to $1.50-$1.75, but they never got back to the $.25 a gallon that my dad paid for gas in the 1950's and early 1960's. Last summer the gas prices went to $4.00/gallon, then the economy crashed in October and gas prices dropped all the way to $2.00-$2.50/gallon. When gas prices reached $4.00 per gallon, ridership on the local commuter trains skyrocketed. I don't know if it is still up (yesterday's news and all that), when (not if) the gas prices go up again, the demand for passenger train service will again go up. The problem is that if we wait for gas prices to create a demand for passenger service in this country, the infrastructure will then take years to build at a much greater cost than it will today. Say what you want about socialism, the Europeans and the Japanese are way ahead of America in passenger train service. Additionally high speed trains are so efficient and convenient in Europe that it makes more sense to ride a train between cities less than 400 miles apart than it does to fly between those same cities.
Reply
#41
Bob C Wrote:Here's a relevant piece from "Slashdot" ( always good for tech news - and a tongue-in-cheek attitude), especially if you live in Arizona !

09/05/12/1811201 story
220-mph Solar-Powered Train Proposed In Arizona
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday May 12, @02:37PM
from the gonna-soak-up-the-sun dept.
Transportation Earth Power
Mike writes "An ambitious Arizona company has recently revealed plans for a solar powered bullet train that will streak across the desert at 220 mph, traveling from Tuscon to Phoenix in 30 minutes flat. Proposed by Solar Bullet LLC, the system comprises a series of tracks that would serve stations including Chandler, Casa Grande, Red Rock, and Marana, and may one day be extended to Flagstaff and Nogales. The train would require 110 megawatts of electricity, which would be generated by solar panels mounted above the tracks." Local coverage of the plan takes a harder look, noting that Solar Bullet LLC is two guys who are now asking local governments in the towns at which such a train would potentially stop for $35K for a legal and feasibility study. Total cost is estimated at $27B.

I believe I heard that Arizona has a healthy aversion to unwarranted expenditure of taxpayer $$$$ ?...is this plan reasonable for the available traffic and revenue ? Bob C.

I could see a high speed train between Tucson and Phoenix, and extending it to Nagales might work if there aren't too many high mountains in the way. I'm just not familiar with Arizona topography South of Tucson, but I don't see the feasibility of a high speed train crawling up the mountain to reach the high plateau of Flagstaff or Prescott. As it is Amtrak, using the BNSF mainline starts climbing away from the Colorado River at needles and climbs steadily all the way from the Az border to Flagstaff. I don't think any train is going to "streak" anywhere while making a climb to 6,000-7,000 feet above sea level.
Reply
#42
Here's some more on "High Speed Rail".

Pretty-well every mode of travel in North America is subsidised by government funding.

Wayne
Reply
#43
Russ Bellinis Wrote:I read an article probably 15 to 20 years ago stating that if the government either did not build air ports, or charged the airlines to recoup their costs for construction and maintenance, the cost of a coach ticket to New York City from Los Angeles would be $3000.00 one way, and that was years before 911 added security costs to themix!

Which of course, means that it does cost $3000...we just don't see the actual cost...as its spread out in taxes elsewhere.

Wow. I thought it was staggering, but that is still a bit worse than I would expect. Great nugget of info!
Michael
My primary goal is a large Oahu Railway layout in On3
My secondary interests are modeling the Denver, South Park, & Pacific in On3 and NKP in HO
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/">http://thesouthparkline.blogspot.com/</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#44
Russ, i can't argue with or accept the $3000/seat cost, but anyone who travels other than main terminal cities knows the air fare to somewhere has no relation to the distance traveled, but with how many seats are filled (or not) on the plane, and a bunch of other seemingly nonsensical criteria. Fill a Wide-Body, and you can afford to fly cheaply per seat - even better if it's 3, 4, or more flights on the same route (and returns to another "popular" destination) - crew and equipment costs, a larger divisor on fuel costs, some freight $$$ to those busy terminals, etc. Try flying to somewhere off the business/vacation/ airline's hub list - WOW, it can run you OVER $1.00 per air mile (close to the cost you quoted). Trains can't gain by skipping stops, they don't have an established clientele to judge how many seats they need on what trip at what time (large variances), and you have to take your seats most of the route, full or not for the whole trip, costing fuel crew and equipment. Rail is different, and the last time it "worked", it had little competition (I won't even mention trolleys/interurbans - which might be part of the solution we're looking for), let alone government subsidized modes. The "high-Speed Rail" thing is "sexy" - but only possible, let alone realistic and viable in a few areas/situations. The "BUZZ" will get the $$$ for some folks by generating "studies" for consultants at outrageous costs, and they'll just tell the subscriber what he wants to hear. The size of the US and Canada, our suburban sprawl and vast rural and wilderness areas to cross between service centers, the competitive environment, the conditional desires of potential users, makes a near-term cost effective, un-subsidized passenger rail solution elusive, at best, and "High-Speed" rail, at distances where it can be more than a proof-of-concept or civic competitive pride showpiece, little more than expensive smoke and mirrors. And remember, the other modes aren't standing still, and those rubber tires are squealing already! Icon_lol Bob C.
James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Reply
#45
Bob C Wrote:Russ, i can't argue with or accept the $3000/seat cost, but anyone who travels other than main terminal cities knows the air fare to somewhere has no relation to the distance traveled, but with how many seats are filled (or not) on the plane, and a bunch of other seemingly nonsensical criteria. Fill a Wide-Body, and you can afford to fly cheaply per seat - even better if it's 3, 4, or more flights on the same route (and returns to another "popular" destination) - crew and equipment costs, a larger divisor on fuel costs, some freight $$$ to those busy terminals, etc. Try flying to somewhere off the business/vacation/ airline's hub list - WOW, it can run you OVER $1.00 per air mile (close to the cost you quoted). Trains can't gain by skipping stops, they don't have an established clientele to judge how many seats they need on what trip at what time (large variances), and you have to take your seats most of the route, full or not for the whole trip, costing fuel crew and equipment. Rail is different, and the last time it "worked", it had little competition (I won't even mention trolleys/interurbans - which might be part of the solution we're looking for), let alone government subsidized modes. The "high-Speed Rail" thing is "sexy" - but only possible, let alone realistic and viable in a few areas/situations. The "BUZZ" will get the $$$ for some folks by generating "studies" for consultants at outrageous costs, and they'll just tell the subscriber what he wants to hear. The size of the US and Canada, our suburban sprawl and vast rural and wilderness areas to cross between service centers, the competitive environment, the conditional desires of potential users, makes a near-term cost effective, un-subsidized passenger rail solution elusive, at best, and "High-Speed" rail, at distances where it can be more than a proof-of-concept or civic competitive pride showpiece, little more than expensive smoke and mirrors. And remember, the other modes aren't standing still, and those rubber tires are squealing already! Icon_lol Bob C.

The point I was making is that it is very popular for politicians, particularly for conservative politicians to make much of the Amtrak subsidy as being a drag on our economy and an example of government waste. In fact virtually every form of transportation in this country is subsidized by the government in one way or another, and Amtrak's is probably the smallest subsidy of the bunch. Folks may argue about the size of Amtrak's subsidy or not, but to somehow decry it as "socialism" is to miss the point that our entire transportation infrastructure is an example of pure socialism in action. Eliminate socialism and we go back to the 1700's or whenever the time before the Erie Canal and Cumberline Gap Road were first built.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)