We need freight and passenger traffic to have access to fluid mainlines, as otherwise the lack of intermodal freight conversion off the highways will incur greater financial and economic costs for the nation. I still see improvements to existing mainlines as the most realistic as long as performance metrics are included with public dollars.
So instead of the parallel construction test mentioned, simply require by legislation that any of the Rail Traffic Control runs needed for passenger rail negotiations first start with the infrastructure needed to produce a fluid railroad for the existing freight traffic then calculate the value to add in passenger trains.
I produced a comment to the STB on this issue in the Gulf Coast case with illustrative parametric delay curves, showing that essentially the CSX line was in what is known by engineers as an unstable flow condition in the base case model. So if the performance metric is 900 minutes of delay per 10,000 train-miles for passenger, then the stable flow baseline MLOS metric for freight would be around 6000 minutes of delay per 10,000 train-miles for freight. In the case of the CSX line the model baseline was at around 8000 minutes.
After setting a logical model baseline for mainlines in legislation simply provide for Tax Credits per Intermodal or Passenger Train-mile actually operated equal to the Interstate Highway Cost-to-Fee Incremental Gap.
Thanks Jim, Once we accept the fact that our rail network is balkanized and much of it has been neglected to a dangerous degree we can have an informed discussion about the future. When I was with Grand Trunk CN in the 1970's passenger trains were still operating on the main lines. Commuter trains were operating between Pontiac and Detroit. The plant was maintained for 100 miles per hour. Freight traffic was not impeded by having centralized train control and well maintained track. We are suffering from investors that think rail is a place where you can make 20 percent per year. Not if you are doing your maintenance. 103 year old bridges and tunnels! The EU suffers from some of the same problems. But they have a master plan and are actively investing in a 21st Century rail network. The United States is not. Time for radical change. Our rail network is of vital strategic importance. If the private sector can no longer meet their obligations to the nation then perhaps nationalization must be considered.
This is a great piece; I agree wholeheartedly with the way you propose the question be phrased! A caution regarding the Virginia example you cite is that despite the state "ownership" I understand that CSX will not permit the passenger tracks to be electrified (even vetoing provision of bases for possible future catenary poles on the new Long Bridge being built by VDOT!). I've heard that they've also not been cooperative with NY State efforts to build passenger tracks parallel to the old New York Central mainline across upstate New York.
By the time we finish calculating what the freight RRs owe the public for the '71 bailout, there will not need to be much needed in the way of confiscation. How much is the public owed for preventing the RRs bankruptcy or inevitable nationalisation? The latter likelier back then had our demand for rail transit not been exceeded by our automobile addiction, socially engineered for class and race bias by dark forces such as Robert Moses and the car makers. Sharing what should have always been ours(the public's), given that we paid for it, is not cheaper than nationalisation and ensuing rational enviro and economic impact-determined prioritisation of freight vs passengers on publicly owned rail. Alas, Jim's radical thinking may be the most politically feasible in a cognitively divided country.
We need freight and passenger traffic to have access to fluid mainlines, as otherwise the lack of intermodal freight conversion off the highways will incur greater financial and economic costs for the nation. I still see improvements to existing mainlines as the most realistic as long as performance metrics are included with public dollars.
So instead of the parallel construction test mentioned, simply require by legislation that any of the Rail Traffic Control runs needed for passenger rail negotiations first start with the infrastructure needed to produce a fluid railroad for the existing freight traffic then calculate the value to add in passenger trains.
I produced a comment to the STB on this issue in the Gulf Coast case with illustrative parametric delay curves, showing that essentially the CSX line was in what is known by engineers as an unstable flow condition in the base case model. So if the performance metric is 900 minutes of delay per 10,000 train-miles for passenger, then the stable flow baseline MLOS metric for freight would be around 6000 minutes of delay per 10,000 train-miles for freight. In the case of the CSX line the model baseline was at around 8000 minutes.
After setting a logical model baseline for mainlines in legislation simply provide for Tax Credits per Intermodal or Passenger Train-mile actually operated equal to the Interstate Highway Cost-to-Fee Incremental Gap.
Thanks Jim, Once we accept the fact that our rail network is balkanized and much of it has been neglected to a dangerous degree we can have an informed discussion about the future. When I was with Grand Trunk CN in the 1970's passenger trains were still operating on the main lines. Commuter trains were operating between Pontiac and Detroit. The plant was maintained for 100 miles per hour. Freight traffic was not impeded by having centralized train control and well maintained track. We are suffering from investors that think rail is a place where you can make 20 percent per year. Not if you are doing your maintenance. 103 year old bridges and tunnels! The EU suffers from some of the same problems. But they have a master plan and are actively investing in a 21st Century rail network. The United States is not. Time for radical change. Our rail network is of vital strategic importance. If the private sector can no longer meet their obligations to the nation then perhaps nationalization must be considered.
This is a great piece; I agree wholeheartedly with the way you propose the question be phrased! A caution regarding the Virginia example you cite is that despite the state "ownership" I understand that CSX will not permit the passenger tracks to be electrified (even vetoing provision of bases for possible future catenary poles on the new Long Bridge being built by VDOT!). I've heard that they've also not been cooperative with NY State efforts to build passenger tracks parallel to the old New York Central mainline across upstate New York.
Freight can and does operate under cantenary all over the world. The response to CSX should be "who asked you".
Does CSX veto of catenary cover the S line?
By the time we finish calculating what the freight RRs owe the public for the '71 bailout, there will not need to be much needed in the way of confiscation. How much is the public owed for preventing the RRs bankruptcy or inevitable nationalisation? The latter likelier back then had our demand for rail transit not been exceeded by our automobile addiction, socially engineered for class and race bias by dark forces such as Robert Moses and the car makers. Sharing what should have always been ours(the public's), given that we paid for it, is not cheaper than nationalisation and ensuing rational enviro and economic impact-determined prioritisation of freight vs passengers on publicly owned rail. Alas, Jim's radical thinking may be the most politically feasible in a cognitively divided country.