Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K
And of course trains with their own dedicated trackage.
|
The problem, IMO, at least in the first five to ten years with the average speed increases 1 mph (2 km/h would be better), could be resolved politically in large part.
1st) The question of Amtrak and other public and semi-public trains having scheduling rights, and, vigorous penalty clauses for breaking these scheduling rights, is central for over the short term.
This might be in exchange for infusions of government money to add sidings on single track lines long enough for freight to continue moving while the passenger train passes on the main track. Double tracking should be the norm for any passenger/freight corridor with 3rd track sidings.
2nd) The issue is not complex technology, and, compared to running dedicated two track passenger lines, rather cheap.
Rather, the issue in the US (and to a lesser extent in Canada) is political, as exemplified by Amtrak. The federal and state moneys that cover the operating losses for most lines is highly "visible" in budgets, and, politicians have always been able to sound 'conservative' by attacking this very small part of state and federal budgets. In addition, the Big Seven North American Railroads- BNSF, UP, CSX, NW, CP, CN, and, KC lobby constantly to reduce regulation and ideas about sharing traffic on their lines, over which they could be liable for scheduling errors.
3rd) The issue, IMO, is not increasing the speed from 79 mph to 110 mph, but, increasing the track mileage over which passenger trains can run 79 mph.
*********
The sad part is that adding a few thousand miles of siding and 2nd tracks at a cost of $20 to 30 million per mile in constant dollars when combined with penalty clauses over scheduling, could make huge impacts on efficiency and speed. If, for example, 3 thousand miles, or an additional 2.5 percent of the current rail track grid were added, in constant dollars we are talking about $6 to $9 billion dollars spread out over a period of about ten years.*
A huge side benefit would be increasing the average speed of freight trains running on the same lines.
*add sidings and double track where do so is cheapest. Urban area bottle necks are a harder nut to crack, and, would stand out even more if rural speeds were to increase. A possible solution might be to move the passenger stations to multi modal freight terminals, generally located in the suburban fringes of cities. These could be serviced by buses, short term, and city wide public transit lines long term.