Amtrak

[jon_norstog]

The public doesn't own the tracks, but they were built with public resources - huge land grants in the 19th century, and then big federal money during WW II when practically all the track in the US was refurbished as part of the war effort. Here's a test for you: those rails have dates cast into the web. Check them out, see how many are dated 1942, 43, 44, 45.

the railroads treat those tracks as if they owned them, but it was the American people that paid for building them.

Why am i posting this? Ask yourself that when your Amtrack coach is sitting on a siding in the middle of Montana waiting for a freight train to pass by.

jn

[RED]

Here's a test for you: those rails have dates cast into the web. Check them out, see how many are dated 1942, 43, 44, 45.

Link???

Just because a railroad was built in the 1940's doesn't mean the rails are that old. They are continually being replaced and upgraded. BTW none of the 3 most recents wrecks was caused by old worn out rails. In every case, human error was to blame and in the most recent case it looks like a incorrectly positioned switch was the case and not the fault of the Amtrak crew that paid with their lives.

[Mark in Ottawa]

High speed trains have to have their own dedicated line and need to be elevated over all road intersections to avoid interactions with cars, trucks or pedestrians. This makes their cost prohibitive unless there is a very large passenger demand. The reason for the dedicated track is that the track must be super-elevated (i.e. banked) to suit the design speed of the train. If the train speed and the banking of the track are coordinated, the train can safely manage the curve and the load from the train is at right angles to the rail and there is no wear on the rail. If the train is too fast, then the rail wears out on the inner side and if the train is too slow, the rail wears out on the outer side of the curve. Cargo trains travel at a much slower velocity than high speed passenger trains and depending on the deign speed of the track, one side of the rail or the other will wear out if both types of train are using the same track. About 40 years ago there was an attempt to deal with this by building a passenger train that could use cargo track by having the superstructure of the rail car tilt. It was not a technical success. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAC_TurboTrain. Financially high speed trains are a difficult proposition in North America because of the long distances and the somewhat sparse populations compared to China, Japan or Europe.

[clintonhater]

the railroads treat those tracks as if they owned them, but it was the American people that paid for building them.

The principal reason railroads lost freight hauling revenue after WW II, and many went bankrupt, was competition from long-distance trucking; who paid for the highways those trucks travel on? (And, by the way, destroy in so doing.)

[Vern Humphrey]

The Japs (who I think first developed them) have been running them for decades and love them. They've been copied in France & Germany, where they're also hugely successful. Now the Chinese are building what will be the longest high-speed tracks in the world, with the fastest trains. Why can't the same be done in this country?

The simple answer is, there isn't a high-speed rail system in the world that makes a profit. They all operate at a loss.

If they WERE money-makers, private enterprise would build them. Since they're losers, governments build them, and syphon money out of the taxpayer's pocket to pay their huge losses.

[clintonhater]

The simple answer is, there isn't a high-speed rail system in the world that makes a profit. They all operate at a loss.

If they WERE money-makers, private enterprise would build them. Since they're losers, governments build them, and syphon money out of the taxpayer's pocket to pay their huge losses.

Well, can't you say the same thing about public roads? Never heard that they were supposed to turn a profit. (I'm sure you're aware that fuel taxes & license fees come no where close to covering road bilding & maintenance costs.)How about publically financed police & fire depts--are they expected to be self-supporting? Like public roads, fire & police protection, passenger rail is a public-service, and if taxpayers don't foot the bill, who will? One fact beyond dispute is that Europeans LOVE their rail service as much as I did when I was there, and I can't believe they aren't aware that their taxes pay for it.

[Vern Humphrey]

Well, can't you say the same thing about public roads? Never heard that they were supposed to turn a profit.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you say highways are a drain on the taxpayer's pocket I won't argue. But I WILL argue that doesn't justify another, even greater drain.

[clintonhater]

Just reported: CSX Freight worker failed to turn track switch back to original position after using it to divert freight train on to a siding. Wonder if he'll report back to work tomorrow. A bonanza for the negligence lawyers.

[Allen]

Just reported: CSX Freight worker failed to turn track switch back to original position after using it to divert freight train on to a siding. Wonder if he'll report back to work tomorrow. A bonanza for the negligence lawyers.

Probably that guy from the Unstoppable movie.

[leftyo]

Just reported: CSX Freight worker failed to turn track switch back to original position after using it to divert freight train on to a siding. Wonder if he'll report back to work tomorrow. A bonanza for the negligence lawyers.

union protected, probably wont get more than a write up.

[Clark Howard]

Check out the photos of the Engineer and Conductor who were killed.

[clintonhater]

Check out the photos of the Engineer and Conductor who were killed.

Whatever their shortcomings, I don't think they contributed to the accident--after the switch had been thrown which shunted their train from the main line on to the siding where the freight was sitting, all they could do was go along for the ride--though they reportedly hit their brakes immediately.

[Major Tom]

Flying to destinations, train trips across country used to thrill me. No more! I'll drive to where ever I want to go and take my chances with the semi trucks which clog all the highways.

[clintonhater]

Flying to destinations, train trips across country used to thrill me. No more! I'll drive to where ever I want to go and take my chances with the semi trucks which clog all the highways.

In the '60s & '70s, after I'd acquired a vehicle with a good stereo system, I can clearly remember when long-distance driving on the Interstates was a real pleasure; in fact, I'm now mortified to think of the gas I wasted on needless trips, like driving a 200 m. RT on Sunday to go back to the same gunshow I'd spent all day Saturday at! Sure, there was the occasional semi that had to be passed (though none of the outrageous "truck-trains" now allowed!), but it was a brief interruption to a pleasant drive.

I have to believe that there are easily a thousand semi rigs on the road now to every one then! And in rolling terrain, where you're forced to pass them going uphill, then have them blast past you doing 80 going downhill--there's just no place I'm wanting to go badly enough to endure hours of that kind of stress. Since winter began, a dozen or more 30-50 vehicle traffic pile-ups due to snow & ice have been shown on TV--they look like big-rig parking lots with only a handful of passenger cars mixed in among them.

[Vern Humphrey]

Let's hope that autonomously-driven vehicles help solve this problem.