|
Dave Inc. posted:I don't know. It's still in its implementation phase, so nothing about the operation of the train is really different for the engineer from the last fifty years, right? For example, if a car company decides to delay implementation of autonomous technology until the following model year, are they now liable for someone driving the current model year vehicle off the road because they weren't paying attention? The other question is how much ride time did the engineer get before taking off and trying to make up a 30min delay at the start. If you need to push the limit on the highway you always drive, you know where and how. But on an unfamiliar highway, things will be different.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
Thats a really dumb media narrative but im not surprised. There are like 3 systems in the nation that actually have working PTC with FRA sign off, and its basically impossible to get unless the trains are actually running (see: SMART). If you waited for PTC to turn on to run the new line, you may never run it. Caltrain and Metro North were supposed to get PTC by 2015. Its 2017, and they are still years and years away. Like 90%+ of the nations passenger rail route miles don't have PTC. If the line was built right, and the engineers trained right, PTC really shouldn't be the media focus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Cygni posted:If the line was built right, and the engineers trained right, PTC really shouldn't be the media focus. Exactly. The whole point of the line was to avoid running on track shared with freight and with curves designed to be taken at high speed. Yet here we have a train that was running on track shared with freight and needing to slow down for a curve. I think that in the rush to get the line completed before the 2017 deadline (to receive federal stimulus funds) they cut corners. Add to that Amtrak employees running the trains without enough training on the route and you have a recipe for disaster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
One of the key points to consider in the design of any system is human factors. People will gently caress up, so you need to plan for that and put in place the best controls you can to reduce the resulting risks. Automatic safety systems like PCT are the ideal, but they are often too expensive or time consuming to implement right away. You can't just throw up your hands and say "well the optimal solution isn't ready yet so I guess we'll ignore the problem". Proper training, signage, maintenance and equipment should have prevented this. The fact that an accident like this occurred on the first day of operation says to me that something was not up to snuff. People don't usually fall asleep or play with their phone or get distracted their first day on a new job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 20:37
|
|
JuffoWup posted:The other question is how much ride time did the engineer get before taking off and trying to make up a 30min delay at the start. If you need to push the limit on the highway you always drive, you know where and how. But on an unfamiliar highway, things will be different. apples to oranges JuffoWup posted:Yet they'll hit the engineer for being distracted by a cellphone. if this is the case, then it's not a 'hit'. it is illegal, not just against amtrak's operating rules but contrary to federal law, to use your cellphone while operating a train. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/220.305 Disgruntled Bovine posted:Proper training, signage, maintenance and equipment should have prevented this. The fact that an accident like this occurred on the first day of operation says to me that something was not up to snuff. People don't usually fall asleep or play with their phone or get distracted their first day on a new job. i agree. either the guy wasn't paying attention and missed the signage, the signage was inadequate, or the training was inadequate. i think that, what is most likely, it was some combination of the second two. it sounds like the construction of the line was some politicians or administrations pet project and unnecessary risks were taken by amtrak or forced on them by state/fed governments. vains fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
vains posted:it sounds like the construction of the line was some politicians or administrations pet project and unnecessary risks were taken by amtrak or forced on them by state/fed governments. Pretty much this. From my reading about it, the original project as planned was scheduled to go live in 2019 Then the federal government started handing out bags of cash for infrastructure projects as long as the project was completed in 2017 "Hey guys, if we rush this the Feds will pay for it!!!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Glad you yanks now have your very own Morpeth Curve Combining two things for some context: http://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=&lat=55.1602514922045&lon=-1.6854357719421387&zoom=15&style=standard Yes, that's an (all-but-)90 degree turn in the middle of a high-speed section one of the main express lines in the UK. That map's actually a pretty good way to get a visual of just how badly Beeching and the Tories hosed over the British railway network: just look at all the disused, abandoned and razed track everywhere in the UK - from little one-stop branch lines up to an entire main line railway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Yeah but you have to factor in that nobody in the US gives a flying poo poo about passenger rail, even when they are flying off the tracks consistently. They could make rolling out PTC easier, cheaper, faster, and/or better, but they arent going to cause nobody cares. Hey now... The area I live in has excellent passenger service! You can catch a Amtrak train twice a week... on Tuesday and Thursday.... at 2:30AM... Standing in the dark in a rickety old lean-to, in the bad part of town with no functioning streetlights. (The Cardinal to Chicago if anyone is wondering) On second thought... yeah... no one gives a flying gently caress about passenger rail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Onboard account of Cascades derailment: https://transitsleuth.com/2017/12/21/the-story-on-amtrak-cascades-train-501-derailment/
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
Passenger rail in the US, and really mass transit in general in a lot of the US, is something of a circular problem. People avoid using it because it sucks and it sucks because nobody wants to pay to fix something nobody's using. Or something only filthy poors are using.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
The problem is that rail takes a lot of capital investment and so its a big risk to put down that much money when the ridership is largely unknown (because passenger rail doesn't exist in most of the us) The only entity that can really tackle that problem is the government and lol if you think they are ponying up to let poor people move around easier. There's also the fact that air travel often makes a a lot more sense than passenger rail in the US due to pure geography, compared to Europe and Japan etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
To add, some of the problems with passenger rail/mass transit in the US is actually due to the fact that the cities here are not nearly as compact as europe (save big cities developed before the invention of the automobile like chicago, new york, etc). And hilariously, that comes back to government making it happen. Ask apple about the mandated parking spots at their swanky new headquarters that was supposed to be a giant green space with a donut in the middle. That isn't the only problem of course, but buildings are just too far apart. So you'd find yourself still getting a taxi or uber just to finish your trip. Or you could have drove and not have to pay someone else. In some places, it is the only way where there isn't even bus service to some town. So yes, it is a combination of problems. And that doesn't even get into the weird oddity of amtrak's existence as a for-profit business yet subsidized by the government (which makes it not for profit).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
i dont understand the fascination with wanting to ride a train to get somewhere. on the north east corridor, yea it makes sense. you can get on a train in dc and be in downtown nyc faster and with less hassle than driving. other than that, why would you want to spend 2-3 days getting somewhere only to arrive there without the ability to get around and still having spent the same amount of money or more than if you had flown. its not even a 'lol gently caress poor people' thing. its a 'building a high speed rail network would cost a shitton* of money and not be in the public interest to do at all because nobody** wants to spend 14hrs*** on a train to get somewhere when they could spend 5 in an airplane.' the cost, tens of billions just for an la to chicago highspeed electric line, almost guarantees that the routes would have to be aligned to suit political interests vs actual profitability. the cost also guarantees that the line would never pay for itself in any reasonable period of time. *at the extreme low end, figure $1mil a mile, plus enough trainsets for sufficiently frequent service. **except train spergs ***la to chicago at acela speeds
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Generally the use case for high speed rail is routes shorter than crossing the US or something. I imagine it would be mostly a replacement for short haul flights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
They could implement HSR in two places in the US where it isn't now: California Coast, and Detroit -> Chicago -> Milwaukee -> Madison -> Twin Cities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
I just recently took the Amtrak Empire Builder from Seattle to Chicago, a trip that normally takes 46 hours, but took me 52 (there was a train derailment in North Dakota and we got to sit and wait for 6 hours). It was a lot of fun, and thanks to the Amtrak credit card I earned enough points to do another cross-country train ride sometime in the near future, but 1) I was riding the train purely for the experience of riding the train, not because I had no other way to get to Chicago 2) I had to take a week off from work to do it 3) It was about 3x as expensive as a plane ticket I think price is going to be a much bigger factor in ridership than speed is. Would I take the Empire Builder again if it took 1/3rd of the time but was just as expensive? Probably not. Would I take it if it were on par or cheaper than a plane ticket? Maybe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
I was less focused on train travel as being an affordable alternative to plane travel and more about regional commuter rail service not really being a thing in this country anywhere except the Northeast Corridor despite not being a totally terrible idea. Maybe. But yes, Amtrak service is trapped in this lovely void of taking exponentially longer than a plane and also costing the same (if you want to be stuck in a coach seat for several hours/days) or (potentially a lot) more so it's a lot more of a luxury service for retired people, train freaks, and those afraid of flying than an actual public good but yet it's subsidized by the government but also supposed to try to turn a profit and just the entire situation is generally dumb as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Yeah I suppose I forgot that I could have made the trip for much cheaper if I wanted to be in a seat for 52 hours straight (lol, no). Those tickets also don't include access to a shower, or food, which is $$$ if you're paying out of pocket.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Remember that the reason the empire builder exists is not for chicago-seattle but like havre, mt to whitefish or something. Many of these cities don't even have greyhound. Amtrak is expensive, but it is cheaper than subsidizing air travel to remote airports (rural air routes are given even more government support than regular routes). Also, when there are flights from small cities, even with federal funding, flights out of small cities tend to approach really loving expensive. The question essentially is do you think people need to own a car, and a car reliable enough to for hundreds of miles from home, to travel from very rural towns and if not whether the government should fund it. Clearly the reps from those states believe it should because you'll never see a bi-partsian reaction like trying to cancel, reduce, or even re-route a long distance train. This is also why it has 20 million stops. I do think NW, california, and upper midwest (minneapolis-chicago) trains should be able to make money if they are fast enough. They make a huge about of sense. nm fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Dec 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
iirc the NEC only just breaks even, forget making a profit
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Does transport infrastructure need to make a profit? It's weird that that is usually the standard on whether trains are worth it but nobody ever insists that roads should be profitable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
welcome to America
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Elukka posted:Does transport infrastructure need to make a profit? It's weird that that is usually the standard on whether trains are worth it but nobody ever insists that roads should be profitable. Conservative states selling their toll roads to private interests would beg to differ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:iirc the NEC only just breaks even, forget making a profit It depends on how you do the accounting. The NEC is not really run as a business (nor should it be imo) so the accounting is hard to follow. For example, last year it had a $369m profit on the books, but a lot of the capital improvement projects and stuff aren't getting shown in that. Amtrak estimated that it needs something like $368 million a year in capital improvement and equipment over the next decade. So by that measure, it nearly exactly breaks even. But that doesn't include stuff like the future $20b Gateway project which is getting a lot of its funding externally. Funny enough, this is how all transportation in the US works. The overhead for air travel for example is massively subsidized by the taxpayer... airport improvements, air traffic control, runways, certification, etc. And roads are way way worse than that. By total subsidy per traveler, rail gets by far the lowest, both by % and by real dollars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
nm posted:Remember that the reason the empire builder exists is not for chicago-seattle but like havre, mt to whitefish or something. The problem with taking part of the route is two fold: 1) the train runs all night, so it might get in to your city at 3 am. Ugh. 2) except it is probably running late, so you show up at 3 am and it shows up at 7 am. Double ugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Elukka posted:Does transport infrastructure need to make a profit? It's weird that that is usually the standard on whether trains are worth it but nobody ever insists that roads should be profitable. Like they said above, plus there's the fact that railroads (in the US at least) started as a very much for-profit business and were very successful. People seem to forget that the business models that worked back then to make the railroads insanely profitable cannot and will not work in the modern world. Because of the past history people don't look at a set of tracks and think "government should own and maintain this" like they do with roads. As a side note, this also leads to all sorts of trouble when dealing with grade crossings. Situations routinely develop where the government is at the mercy of the private business when trying to improve a road that happens to cross a set of tracks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
smackfu posted:The problem with taking part of the route is two fold: People still do it, because for many it's still the best option. Seriously it's why congress lets the long distance routes continue to exist. The retirees and train nerds taking sleepers from end to end are just there to help subsidize service for the native family travelling from one res to the next or the oil field worker going home from Williston to Fargo for the weekend. If you do take one from end to end, you'll see the faces in the coaches cycle almost completely two or three times during the trip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Theris posted:People still do it, because for many it's still the best option. Seriously it's why congress lets the long distance routes continue to exist. The retirees and train nerds taking sleepers from end to end are just there to help subsidize service for the native family travelling from one res to the next or the oil field worker going home from Williston to Fargo for the weekend. If you do take one from end to end, you'll see the faces in the coaches cycle almost completely two or three times during the trip. Yeah, on my transam ride, I killed my wheel in libby, mt. There is no bike shop there nor public transit beaides greyhound. There is one in whitefish, so I was able to hop on th train at butt-o-clock with my wheel and got bailed the gently caress out. I was absolutely not the only person doing that route that day. Without that train, those people would be stuck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2017 21:41
|
|
PremiumSupport posted:Like they said above, plus there's the fact that railroads (in the US at least) started as a very much for-profit business and were very successful. People seem to forget that the business models that worked back then to make the railroads insanely profitable cannot and will not work in the modern world. Because of the past history people don't look at a set of tracks and think "government should own and maintain this" like they do with roads. well railroads are still for profit businesses and are still pretty profitable. so...im not sure what nationalizing them would accomplish.....
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
vains posted:well railroads are still for profit businesses and are still pretty profitable. so...im not sure what nationalizing them would accomplish..... You're talking about freight rail, he's talking about passenger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Training: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/amtrak-crews-express-concerns-about-training-on-new-route-where-train-derailed/ Merry Xmas. Both mains near Sydney NE today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5uQNI_Ewl0
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
So I've taken one train trip in my entire life - I took a VIA rail trip from Saskatoon to my Sister's place in the GTA. It was cheap, the food was excellent, and I thought the whole thing pretty cool. As I was traveling near Christmas, I probably got a special rate - and they charged me $40 extra to ship some stuff I was moving, and it was like 100 lbs of stuff. The train was half-empty. I met a Japanese hydrogeologist who takes the train from Vancouver to Toronto every Christmas "to unpack his brain". He flies over from Japan every Christmas to visit his family in S. Ontario, and developed this little ritual for himself. Anyway, thanks to the open railway map I relived that trip, in particular looking for Otterdale. (It is a siding in the middle of nowhere, Northern Ontario.)  We also went through a town called Hornepayne. I googled the name, and the population has gone down by 50% since I visited: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/hornepayne-future-prospects-1.3503914
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Merry Xmas. Both mains near Sydney NE today. P. sure that's not how you are supposed to park the train.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 11:01
|
|
|
vains posted:i dont understand the fascination with wanting to ride a train to get somewhere. I think the magic word with trains is "sleeper cabin". A friend took his family to northern Finland with a cartrain before Christmas. They drove their car to the station and loaded it in the train. Then they hopped in and spent the ride sleeping in their private cabin. I usually prefer trains for ~12 hour trips over plane. Less hassle than an airport, I can spend the trip sleeping instead of wasting several hours in the middle of the day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:I think the magic word with trains is "sleeper cabin". A friend took his family to northern Finland with a cartrain before Christmas. They drove their car to the station and loaded it in the train. Then they hopped in and spent the ride sleeping in their private cabin. I usually prefer trains for ~12 hour trips over plane. Less hassle than an airport, I can spend the trip sleeping instead of wasting several hours in the middle of the day. If only car trains were available on any of the cross-country routes here in the US. There's literally one route that offers this, from near DC to near Orlando. https://www.amtrak.com/auto-train If I could bring my car along on any of the Chicago > West Coast routes it'd make rail travel a lot more appealing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Other than buying the needed cars why is it DC-Orlando* is the only route that offers that since its not that big of a drive. I figure a cross country route or atleast florida to New England or the midwest would make more sense. *As its direct express between them with no other stops iirc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Because the infrastructure was already in place on that one route. AutoTrain was actually a service started by a private company, who ended up handing the business over to Amtrak. Amtrak just continued what they already had going.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
If you want to get somewhere for cheap you can take a bus, and it's really cheap. There is no market segment between that and flying, especially now that flying is so inexpensive. And poor people don't take passenger rail, rich people do. Poor people ride the bus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:If you want to get somewhere for cheap you can take a bus, and it's really cheap. There is no market segment between that and flying, especially now that flying is so inexpensive. Pretty much. I went to Philly from Boston for PAX Unplugged, bus cost me $70 round trip, Amtrak would have been ~$170 (with disability discount) and flying would have been ~$250.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:If you want to get somewhere for cheap you can take a bus, and it's really cheap. There is no market segment between that and flying, especially now that flying is so inexpensive. And poor people don't take passenger rail, rich people do. Poor people ride the bus. I imagine you live near the NEC, because this is a pretty NEC specific opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 20:29
|
|