- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Private passenger train service to begin in Florida in 2015---
Posted on 1/15/14 at 9:00 pm to I B Freeman
Posted on 1/15/14 at 9:00 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
They do but they travel probably 50% faster and have a record much worse than freight trains
Amtrak travels, most often, at a max speed of 79 mph. Freight trains travel at various speeds depending on the RR company, among other things (topography, curves in the track, size of rail, condition of track structure/substructure). Most freight trains don't move that fast, but they can certainly move at speeds that are comparable. BNSF runs as high as 60 mph and runs 20 trains per day through MS.
Got a link on Amtrak's record vs private freight? I'd like to see it if you do. FWIW, I don't know how their records compare nationally. But I doubt it's much better or worse than private freight.
quote:
that is somewhat beside the point
You brought up safety at crossings in the OP...
1
Posted on 1/15/14 at 9:12 pm to TX Tiger
I'm curious how well this will work. I'd like to see it be successful and become a model other states could use.
To me, the single biggest issue is obtaining the necessary right-of-way. You can't have 99% of the ROW and it be successful. You have to have it all.
It looks like they've got a lot of it (195 miles of 235). We'll see what happens with the last 40.
ETA: Just found this part:
195 of the 235 miles of Right of Way (ROW) already exists as a rail corridor, and the 40-mile route into Orlando will utilize an existing transportation corridor.
To me, the single biggest issue is obtaining the necessary right-of-way. You can't have 99% of the ROW and it be successful. You have to have it all.
It looks like they've got a lot of it (195 miles of 235). We'll see what happens with the last 40.
ETA: Just found this part:
195 of the 235 miles of Right of Way (ROW) already exists as a rail corridor, and the 40-mile route into Orlando will utilize an existing transportation corridor.
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 9:25 pm to Koothrappali
quote:
I'm curious how well this will work. I'd like to see it be successful and become a model other states could use.
To me, the single biggest issue is obtaining the necessary right-of-way. You can't have 99% of the ROW and it be successful. You have to have it all.
It looks like they've got a lot of it (195 miles of 235). We'll see what happens with the last 40
Of course the state had nothing to do with this.
I don't think private passenger rail would have completely died had the government stayed out of the Amtrak business.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 9:35 pm to I B Freeman
I don't disagree that Amtrak blows. I just seriously disagree with the concept of an "idiot proof crossing" or that any private company, freight or passenger, will significantly increase the current level of safety where a railway meets a roadway.
Maybe if the technology in cars increases where they automatically stop when a train is approaching based on GPS?
Maybe if the technology in cars increases where they automatically stop when a train is approaching based on GPS?
Posted on 1/15/14 at 9:43 pm to Koothrappali
quote:
Amtrak travels, most often, at a max speed of 79 mph. Freight trains travel at various speeds depending on the RR company, among other things (topography, curves in the track, size of rail, condition of track structure/substructure). Most freight trains don't move that fast, but they can certainly move at speeds that are comparable. BNSF runs as high as 60 mph and runs 20 trains per day through MS.
Got a link on Amtrak's record vs private freight? I'd like to see it if you do. FWIW, I don't know how their records compare nationally. But I doubt it's much better or worse than private freight.
quote:
that is somewhat beside the point
You brought up safety at crossings in the OP...
I did and I direct you to the FRA website. You can add it up there. I did it a couple of years ago after in a 12 month span 13 people were killed in Tangipahoa Parish and the RR was screaming for the number of crossing to be reduced as there were just too many. Several roads not much more than dirt drives crossed the track.
LINK
Or if you like you can just not believe it.
The point being no other common carrier of passengers killed as many people over the last 20 years as Amtrack in Louisiana or Mississippi yet we subsidise it.
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 9:45 pm to I B Freeman
The Amtrak I rode from NYC to Boston was pretty decent. I think it got up to around 140mph at one point and was buttery smooth.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 10:23 pm to I B Freeman
All railroad companies are always pushing to close crossings. Some of them will throw as much as $30K at a local municipality simply to close a single crossing. More per crossing if they can get more than 1. Additionally, the state can offer incentive funds to the city/county, although there are strings attached to how that money can be used. The general public usually raises hell when a crossing closure is on the table though, so they're very difficult to get, politically speaking.
I don't know if 13 people were killed in a 12 month span. (For clarification, is that 13 people or 13 collisions? 1 collision could result in 2 or more fatalities.) Just scanning the FRA website, it looks like there were 12 total collisions in that county for '10, '11, and '12.
And were all of the collisions with Amtrak trains? There were a total of 15 Amtrak collisions in those three years so almost all would have to be within that one parish. Possible, but not likely.
And that's counting both public and private crossings. There were only 9 collisions at public crossings in the same three years in that parish, 12 total Amtrak.
I'll look it up tomorrow though.
I don't know if 13 people were killed in a 12 month span. (For clarification, is that 13 people or 13 collisions? 1 collision could result in 2 or more fatalities.) Just scanning the FRA website, it looks like there were 12 total collisions in that county for '10, '11, and '12.
And were all of the collisions with Amtrak trains? There were a total of 15 Amtrak collisions in those three years so almost all would have to be within that one parish. Possible, but not likely.
And that's counting both public and private crossings. There were only 9 collisions at public crossings in the same three years in that parish, 12 total Amtrak.
I'll look it up tomorrow though.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 10:23 pm to I B Freeman
How are poor people going to pay the fares?
Posted on 1/15/14 at 10:32 pm to I B Freeman
Interesting thread topic. I'm not as familiar with passenger rail as I am freight. Amtrak shares most of tracks they use with higher traffic freight forwarders and rail companies, and doubling up on lines or building an extensive network of new lines exclusive for passenger rail is cost prohibitive. Freight companies have a lot of friends in congress protecting their business as well.
I'd like to see viable high speed passenger rail service (without significant taxpayer assistance) but it won't happen in this country during my lifetime outside of a few areas. Many of Amtrak's routes outside of the northeast would probably be shut down without subsidies.
Not to get off topic.....I think a lot of people critical of passenger rail in this country don't realize how extensive and competitive our nation's freight network is today.
I'd like to see viable high speed passenger rail service (without significant taxpayer assistance) but it won't happen in this country during my lifetime outside of a few areas. Many of Amtrak's routes outside of the northeast would probably be shut down without subsidies.
Not to get off topic.....I think a lot of people critical of passenger rail in this country don't realize how extensive and competitive our nation's freight network is today.
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 10:55 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 11:51 pm to dewster
quote:
I'd like to see viable high speed passenger rail service (without significant taxpayer assistance) but it won't happen in this country during my lifetime outside of a few areas. Many of Amtrak's routes outside of the northeast would probably be shut down without subsidies.
most areas in this country do not need high speed rail. Some cities in a few decades will need some type or an expanded system of light rail system to help with traffic congestion. The west coast from san diego to san fran might could justify it. The northeast corridor already has it.
quote:
Not to get off topic.....I think a lot of people critical of passenger rail in this country don't realize how extensive and competitive our nation's freight network is today.
Freight trains are extremely important especially with rising fuel costs, they become more efficient than trucks.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 1:12 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Amtrak has killed more people in Louisiana than any other common carrier over the last 20 years. Think of the times you hear about them hitting cars.
Lol
How about rednecks in pickups stop trying to beat trains.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 2:55 am to I B Freeman
quote:Amtrak doesn't own or operate the vast majority of the the track they run on. Also The Dept of Transportation determines crossing protection at rail crossings, not the railroads. So if rail crossing protection isn't adequate, that's on the DOT.
It is just a fact--a private railroad could not have stood the liabilities Amtrak absorbs with our subsidies. They would much better crossings--idiot proof crossings.
Nonetheless, why subsidize a common carrier that has a horrible safety rating while safer common carriers work without subsidies?
Most cars that are hit by trains are from people trying to beat the train. Trespass fatalities are far more frequent.
This post was edited on 1/16/14 at 3:00 am
Posted on 1/16/14 at 6:26 am to willthezombie
quote:
most areas in this country do not need high speed rail. Some cities in a few decades will need some type or an expanded system of light rail system to help with traffic congestion. The west coast from san diego to san fran might could justify it. The northeast corridor already has it.
For the most part I agree. Although, in my area, there was thought of having a high speed rail from Detroit to Chicago, which actually thought would be interesting
Posted on 1/16/14 at 6:30 am to Rohan2Reed
The high speed train in Californication starts in nowhere and arrives in nowhere for a few billion dollars for the effort.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 8:20 am to I B Freeman
quote:
I did it a couple of years ago after in a 12 month span 13 people were killed in Tangipahoa Parish
So I looked it up and here's what I've found:
Unless someone is breaking federal regulations, which is very doubtful, there has not been a 12 month period where there were 13 people killed in Tangipahoa Parish. There was one collision that killed 4 at Capace Rd (DOT # 300 176N) on June 18, 2010. The crossing had stop signs though and if it's the crossing I think it is, a Google Maps Street View look shows it's wide arse open. Thus, it's much more likely that it's the fault of the driver...
There have been 34 fatalities at public crossing since 1994 in the state of LA. There have been 39 in the state of MS since 1994.
Here's the place to query the collision data that will break it down by severity, county, public/private and also has a map:
LINK
Here's a link to look up the individual collisions by year. On this one, you can pull the incident report to find the details of the collision, sometimes even a narrative. The narratives are written by the reporting RR though, so they can be a bit biased.
LINK
On the links, make sure you use Amtrak[ATK]. There's an Amtrak[ATKC] that doesn't produce any results.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 8:41 am to Koothrappali
You are not getting rid of Amtrak. 1.7 billion is a pittance when compared to the overall budget.
Plus Congressman from North Dakota, Montana, and even someone like Paul Ryan who has a lot of amtrak trains running in his district and Trent Lott won't get rid of Amtrak. Add to it the support it has along the East Coast, West Coast, and Great Lakes it isn't going away. Even John McCain stopped bashing Amtrak when someone realized that in retaliation he would lose Essential Air Service funding for small town airports in Arizona.
After 9-11 Amtrak was found to be a reliable cross-country form of transportation. Amtrak is a national security issue. It isn't going away. You will find no support for gutting Amtrak in the Pentagon. In fact there are plans to use Amtrak to move troops across the country in times of warfare. If you have to move thousands of troops across country when the air is closed and highways and roads are jammed you need Amtrak to move troops.
Conservatives just blow hot air about Amtrak because it's an easy target and the mindless ones rip into Amtrak because they think it's only for poor people who don't have have the money for cars or air travel.
Plus Congressman from North Dakota, Montana, and even someone like Paul Ryan who has a lot of amtrak trains running in his district and Trent Lott won't get rid of Amtrak. Add to it the support it has along the East Coast, West Coast, and Great Lakes it isn't going away. Even John McCain stopped bashing Amtrak when someone realized that in retaliation he would lose Essential Air Service funding for small town airports in Arizona.
After 9-11 Amtrak was found to be a reliable cross-country form of transportation. Amtrak is a national security issue. It isn't going away. You will find no support for gutting Amtrak in the Pentagon. In fact there are plans to use Amtrak to move troops across the country in times of warfare. If you have to move thousands of troops across country when the air is closed and highways and roads are jammed you need Amtrak to move troops.
Conservatives just blow hot air about Amtrak because it's an easy target and the mindless ones rip into Amtrak because they think it's only for poor people who don't have have the money for cars or air travel.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 8:46 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Of course the state had nothing to do with this.
I don't think private passenger rail would have completely died had the government stayed out of the Amtrak business.
Your ignorance is both amusing and sad. The pentagon wants national passenger rail service.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 8:50 am to Koothrappali
quote:
Unless someone is breaking federal regulations, which is very doubtful, there has not been a 12 month period where there were 13 people killed in Tangipahoa Parish. There was one collision that killed 4 at Capace Rd (DOT # 300 176N) on June 18, 2010. The crossing had stop signs though and if it's the crossing I think it is, a Google Maps Street View look shows it's wide arse open. Thus, it's much more likely that it's the fault of the driver..
There were that many killed in Tangipahoa. May not have been over 12 months---might have been 18 months. Did you see the 5 killed in Ponchatoula by Amtrak.
Doesn't matter whose fault it is---the point is that no private company would be taking such risk for no more revenue than operating the passenger trains generate in Louisiana and Mississippi.
Did you find any other common carrier that killed as many people? They killed more than the airlines. More than the buses. We still subsidize it.
Look at 1995--time sure flies-- LINK
Here is another from 2010 but I know when the 1995 accident occurred there were 13 people killed over a short period.
LINK
This post was edited on 1/16/14 at 8:56 am
Posted on 1/16/14 at 10:31 am to I B Freeman
Here's my point; There are numerous, legitimate reasons to think that Amtrak sucks. I don't disagree with the fact that Amtrak is a drain. At no point have I argued otherwise. However, you're trying to make this about crossing safety. That's a terrible argument to make. Let's take a look at the arguments you've made in this thread:
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing ever posted on this board. Think about that. I'm still waiting on you to give me an example of an idiot proof crossing by the way.
Probably the least inaccurate thing you've posted, but still not accurate. Plenty of freight travels at speeds comparable to Amtrak. I'm yet to see the records for each, passenger and freight.
By your own admission, this "may not have been 12 months". I count 34 over 20 years for the whole state (9 of which we've accounted for in 2 crashes in '95 and '10), so forgive me for not buying this.
I'm not saying people don't get hit by Amtrak trains (the article you pasted from 2010 is the one I referenced in my previous post). What I am saying is that is most certainly does matter who is at fault. If someone goes around lowered gates and gets hit, or if someone hits the side of the train that is already occupying the crossing, you can't hold that against the train.
Instead of making it about crossing safety, why don't you stick to arguments like:
Those are legit reasons to re-evaluate Amtrak.
I didn't look at other common carriers but I don't believe that to be an apples to apples comparison. Airplanes don't have vehicular traffic crossing their ROW. Stopping a bus is significantly easier than stopping a train.
quote:
It is just a fact--a private railroad could not have stood the liabilities Amtrak absorbs with our subsidies. They would much better crossings--idiot proof crossings.
This is quite possibly the dumbest thing ever posted on this board. Think about that. I'm still waiting on you to give me an example of an idiot proof crossing by the way.
quote:
They do but they travel probably 50% faster and have a record much worse than freight trains
Probably the least inaccurate thing you've posted, but still not accurate. Plenty of freight travels at speeds comparable to Amtrak. I'm yet to see the records for each, passenger and freight.
quote:
I did it a couple of years ago after in a 12 month span 13 people were killed in Tangipahoa Parish
By your own admission, this "may not have been 12 months". I count 34 over 20 years for the whole state (9 of which we've accounted for in 2 crashes in '95 and '10), so forgive me for not buying this.
I'm not saying people don't get hit by Amtrak trains (the article you pasted from 2010 is the one I referenced in my previous post). What I am saying is that is most certainly does matter who is at fault. If someone goes around lowered gates and gets hit, or if someone hits the side of the train that is already occupying the crossing, you can't hold that against the train.
Instead of making it about crossing safety, why don't you stick to arguments like:
quote:
Amtrak received $1.7 billion in 2013 in taxpayer subsidies
quote:
Their ridership is terrible.
quote:
Amtrak is a money loser here and everywhere else outside the population dense Northeast.]
Those are legit reasons to re-evaluate Amtrak.
I didn't look at other common carriers but I don't believe that to be an apples to apples comparison. Airplanes don't have vehicular traffic crossing their ROW. Stopping a bus is significantly easier than stopping a train.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 8:00 pm to Koothrappali
reevaluate, but don't abolish it. Amtrak is vital for poor people who do not have the means to pay for transportation.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News