Urbannizer Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 By Heather Clark - Associated Press ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — New Mexico, Colorado and Texas are applying for federal funds to study the viability of a high-speed rail system in the hopes of putting new life into passenger railroads in the Intermountain West.Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said Thursday the 720-mile high-speed rail system would travel at speeds of 110 mph to more than 200 mph from El Paso, Texas, through Albuquerque to Denver.Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizen4rmptown Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 One problem that may come up, if there is competition for this high-speed rail,is the population/area being served. I can think of a lot of other corridors that this rail will better serve.All I'm saying is the people in the corridor ain't a lot, compared to others....I mean "ALBUQUERQUE?EL PASO?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talbot Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I was thinking the same thing. Denver makes more sense, but only when connected to other bigger population centers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 One problem that may come up, if there is competition for this high-speed rail,is the population/area being served. I can think of a lot of other corridors that this rail will better serve.All I'm saying is the people in the corridor ain't a lot, compared to others....I mean "ALBUQUERQUE?EL PASO?"Well, it will be a handy way to ship drugs to the general region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 exactly the first thought that crossed my mind ricco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 110-200MPH seems awful slow for an area with so few reasons to make the train turn and tilt. And I agree with pretty much everyone above -- Why does New Mexico need high speed passenger rail?What I think the nation needs is high speed FREIGHT rail. Put a massive truck, ship, and barge terminal in Louisiana. Put another one near San Diego. Build a high-speed rail line that's twice as wide as the current standard gauge and let's move some crap across country at a reasonable speed.Did you know that, depending on the route, it can take two weeks for freight to cross America? There's massive congestion on many of the nation's freight rail lines. It's so bad that Canadian National just spent two billion dollars on a loop to route containers around Chicago. It can take FOUR DAYS to a WEEK to move a container through Illinois. What a mess.New Mexico would be perfect for high-speed freight. Passenger rail? I'm not so sure.There used to be a joke about the fictional merger of the Norfolk and Southern railroad with the Waycross and Brunswick railroad."How do you move an elephant across the country in 24 hours? NorfolkAndWay!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 110-200MPH seems awful slow for an area with so few reasons to make the train turn and tilt. And I agree with pretty much everyone above -- Why does New Mexico need high speed passenger rail?What I think the nation needs is high speed FREIGHT rail. Put a massive truck, ship, and barge terminal in Louisiana. Put another one near San Diego. Build a high-speed rail line that's twice as wide as the current standard gauge and let's move some crap across country at a reasonable speed.Did you know that, depending on the route, it can take two weeks for freight to cross America? There's massive congestion on many of the nation's freight rail lines. It's so bad that Canadian National just spent two billion dollars on a loop to route containers around Chicago. It can take FOUR DAYS to a WEEK to move a container through Illinois. What a mess.New Mexico would be perfect for high-speed freight. Passenger rail? I'm not so sure.There used to be a joke about the fictional merger of the Norfolk and Southern railroad with the Waycross and Brunswick railroad."How do you move an elephant across the country in 24 hours? NorfolkAndWay!"Why not use the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, since it already handles 40% of all container cargo?The problem is not the speed of the freight trains. It is the time spent in rail yards picking up and dropping off cars. Much of that freight travels at 60 mph when it is not in urbanized areas. And once the Panama Canal expansion is completed, the ships can simply sail to Houston or New York/New Jersey and offload there. No need for a cross country train ride at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 110-200MPH seems awful slow for an area with so few reasons to make the train turn and tilt. And I agree with pretty much everyone above -- Why does New Mexico need high speed passenger rail?What I think the nation needs is high speed FREIGHT rail. Put a massive truck, ship, and barge terminal in Louisiana. Put another one near San Diego. Build a high-speed rail line that's twice as wide as the current standard gauge and let's move some crap across country at a reasonable speed.Did you know that, depending on the route, it can take two weeks for freight to cross America? There's massive congestion on many of the nation's freight rail lines. It's so bad that Canadian National just spent two billion dollars on a loop to route containers around Chicago. It can take FOUR DAYS to a WEEK to move a container through Illinois. What a mess.Houston is also a highly congested bottleneck in the system. Union Pacific can take up to four days to process rail cargo. It has gotten so bad that containerized cargo from Barbour's Cut and Bayport is frequently taken to San Antonio by truck before being loaded onto rail and shipped further west.But, as Red pointed out, the problem is not the velocity at which trains can move through rural areas. It is overcoming the nightmarish scheduling of trains through urban areas, handling transshipment requirements and figuring out backhaul needs, then re-sorting of rolling stock at hump yards.Actually, though, the kinds of bulk goods that are suitable for freight rail typically are demanded pretty steadily by consumers and industry, allowing firms to schedule their shipments and inventory policies in such a way as that total time in transit doesn't really matter. There are some exceptions, like certain types of heavy machinery. But if it is a special order and absolutely positively has to be there on time, you can't beat a truck or aircraft...and because of the time delays involved with transshipment to freight rail, rail never will be a suitable alternative for those kinds of purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Why not use the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, since it already handles 40% of all container cargo?Because the space between LA and SD is easier to build a major rail project through without disturbing things.The problem is not the speed of the freight trains. It is the time spent in rail yards picking up and dropping off cars.Depends on where you're shipping from and to. As noted above, it can take a week to get a freight car through Illinois. That's THROUGH, not loading or unloading -- just moving it from coast to coast. I read a very long, good article recently about the various rail bottlenecks across the country. Loading and unloading is a whole other problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I'm not talking about unloading that particular car. I'm talking about picking up and dropping off the other cars in the string...just as Niche described. Doesn't matter though. The railroads have been raising prices even though it takes 2 weeks to go cross country. There is no incentive to build a high speed line...especially since the railroads, unlike highway transport, get no subsidies. In fact, they pay taxes on their infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I'm not talking about unloading that particular car. I'm talking about picking up and dropping off the other cars in the string...just as Niche described. Doesn't matter though. The railroads have been raising prices even though it takes 2 weeks to go cross country. There is no incentive to build a high speed line...especially since the railroads, unlike highway transport, get no subsidies. In fact, they pay taxes on their infrastructure.Railroads got huge subsidies early on in their development, but yeah...these days they're subject to a ridiculous amount of taxes and regulation. Having said that, they've got a lobby in D.C. that seems to be very effective. I wouldn't be at all surprised if subsidies became commonplace once more in the near future.A couple years back I came across a rail yard in the vicinity of Navigation and Velasco in the East End where someone with a Bobcat was ripping up part of a rail yard (...this is the one accessible via the rail line down the middle of Commerce Street). They were sorting the odds and ends of components that were stamped with manufacture dates going back into the 19th century in some cases. I started rummaging around through the scrap, trying to figure out what I could incorporate them into my properties for artistic effect, but was approached by a burly contractor and was told to vamoose. I asked him what he was up to, and he explained that on account of that the railroads are taxed according to the number of miles of trackage and that Union Pacific determined that this yard's capacity needed to be cut in half in order to avoid being taxed on it. Furthermore, I could not take even a small component because federal inspectors are required to take inventory of all removed items as evidence that they may no longer be taxed, and stolen items apparently gunk up the auditing process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moni Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 I was thinking the same thing. Denver makes more sense, but only when connected to other bigger population centers.El Paso has a larger population than Denver..per last census. Besides, the southwest is where people are migrating to because of the availability of space. We need high speed rail especially because of the vast distances required between population centers. I mean, if you live in a big city, catch a cab! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 El Paso has a larger population than Denver..per last census. Besides, the southwest is where people are migrating to because of the availability of space. We need high speed rail especially because of the vast distances required between population centers. I mean, if you live in a big city, catch a cab!You know, there are also all those resorts for Denver, I'm sure a high speed freight/passenger rail link from San Antonio or Austin MIGHT be justified for a straight shot. Otherwise, passenger traffic might only be good during the skiing season, for the poor souls that can't afford private jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.