Philadelphia, PA/USA

[Caultron]

The US railroad industry is doing great, handling more freight and making more money than ever.

It got out of passenger service years ago because passenger service couldn't make any money. People would rather fly.

And they still do.

I'm not against having bullet trains in the US, but if they can't be built or operated without government subsidies, they're just not worth it. They need to pay their own way.

[crfriend]

1. Automating the entire US rail network would be a massively expensive job, and it's not clear who would pay for it. And if it ever got hacked, the entire US rail network could be disabled.

Automation is really only useful on very heavily-trafficked sections and where stops are well laid out. Automation and standard freight practise would not be a good match.

2. Cities in the United States tend to be too far apart for rail travel, even on bullet trains, to be attractive.

This really depends on one's expectations. For instance, at one point in time a company I worked for had an office in Chicago. I could take the train from Boston or Worcester (MA) and get into Chicago in time for a lunchtime meeting the next day -- and do so with much less hassle than fighting my way into the airport and then dealing with the sort of degradation that one expects from the "flying experience" of today. So, even longer trips can be practical if one thinks about it and adjusts expectations a bit. Recall, also, that a typical train trip is downtown-to-downtown, not outskirts-to-outskirts (if not outright boondocks).

3. Excluding subsidies, it's not clear that bullet train tickets would be cheaper than plane tickets.

The airlines are already ridiculously subsidized (think FAA, ATC, the Weather Service, &c.) compared to rail service -- and the environmental impacts of the airline's carbon-footprint is mind-boggling compared to that of intercity rail. Moving people around has always been problematic -- and expensive. And people complain when things go wrong. When was the last time you heard a gripe from a stopped coal gondola?

4. I don't believe Amtrak owns any actual track. The freight railroads like BNSF, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, and Union Pacific own the tracks and Amtrak just pays to use it.

Amtrak owns most of the Northeast Corridor (NEC), but the state of the roadbed is such that they cannot really do anything resembling high speed the way the Europeans and Japanese do; there is one 30-mile stretch in southeastern Rhode Island where the Acela Express can get up to 150 MPH -- then comes an amble through Connecticut at 50 MPH that blows the entire schedule to New York City. We did better time-wise in 1910 than we do in 2015 -- and we did it with steam.

5. Maybe they should work on better control of the engineers rather than control of the trains or tracks.

We still don't know what happened in Philadelphia, so we should not be jumping to conclusions. All we know at the moment is that the train was well in excess of the speed limit for the curve. We do not know why, and we will not know why until we search that out. If we care, that is.

In short, we should either join the rest of the civilised world and invest properly in rail at least for highly urbanised parts of the country -- or we should admit defeat and give it up altogether. Keeping it in the state it's in now is an invitation to more trouble. PTC (Positive Train Control) was supposed to be done on the NEC by the end of this year; the clowns in congress just pushed that out to 2020 thereby guaranteeing that it'll never get done.

[Taj]

The driver is supposed to have a pretty good idea of where he is on the road, even in lieu of markers. If there are blind turns, or approaches where it might not be possible to see

Rail engineers are tested and qualified for every segment of track they travel. If a train is rerouted off it's usual routing, a qualified engineer is provided by the owner of the rails to guide the train on that segment.

This is correct. Engineers must qualify for specific routes as well as for passenger service. I was in engine service and train service in " the old days " when we ran on train orders. There was no CTC or even a dispatcher's board showing where we were on the system. We had to comply with speed and time, no exceptions. All of the automatic devices in the world cannot substitute for competency.

My heart goes out to everyone affected by the tragedy.

[Big and Bashful]

Looking at this debate, it seems that U.S. rail is in a worse state than the UK railways, probably for similar reasons. Old rail networks which do not allow for high speed passenger trains and those in power hoping that private industry can afford the capital investment to not only buy up to date stock but to find the funds to rip up old track and replace with modern high speed compatable railtracks.
I haven't seen anything about the latest crash but remember a youtube video showing a passenger train speeding through a bend so fast that it literally flew off the rails, that one was fairly recent.

Modern high speed trains tend to be equipped with speed management systems in Europe which if they detect that a driver isn't slowing for a speed reduction will automatically brake. Some have basically an intelligent cruise control system which is fed with line speeds for the track ahead and manages the speed of the train. I suppose a fully automated train with a klaxon to wake the driver to deal with any problems the computer cannot handle will be the next step, that will probably be a good thing for safety! However automation will only work if companies can find the funds to invest in upgrading the track infrastructure to inform the trains of speeds, signals, problems etc. As the U.S. suffers from being very big I suppose there is an awful lot of track to be upgraded, and as air travel is so cheap these days the U.S. rail network will continue to be mainly freight, lots of huge freight trains trundling serenely along the tracks like it is today.
In the UK, as most freight went to roads years ago to clog our motorways up, passenger services can run at up to 125 mph on much of our main lines, the main problem is the high rail fares, I find that rail travel is normally dearer than driving, for families and groups I don't understand why they would use trains in the UK when they are an expensive otion.

[pleated]

I haven't seen anything about the latest crash but remember a youtube video showing a passenger train speeding through a bend so fast that it literally flew off the rails, that one was fairly recent.

I think this is the one you are referring to (in July 2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-ZtCFqf7UI

[r.m.anderson]

Recent developments of another train (locomotive) running in the opposite direction had a cab window punctured by an unknown piece of debris ?
FBI now investigating this - the plot thickens !
Strangely the speed of the train approaching this curve increased instead of decreasing - perhaps the engineer advanced the throttle instead of
retarding it due to unknown reasons ?
Scenario developing the engineer was hit by debris and lost consciousness inadvertently pushing the throttle forward (higher speed) and losing control of the train.

More information as it progresses and is reported - - -

[crfriend]

Scenario developing the engineer was hit by debris and lost consciousness inadvertently pushing the throttle forward (higher speed) and losing control of the train.

That'd be pure speculation. I am aware of a SEPTA train getting hit by an object which damaged the windscreen, but that was several miles away from the accident at Frankford Junction. No evidence points to any external damage to the accident locomotive other than contact with the ground following the derailment.

We still do not know why what happened, happened. It may be weeks, or even months, before we have even a clue.

NTSB has turned the accident site back to Amtrak who are now working to restore the curve to operational status -- which may take a few day's time as they need to replace stanchions and catenary, as well as rail, that were damaged.

This one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-ZtCFqf7UI

is rather terrifying to watch. Then there's the Southhall crash from 1997 which is equally stunning. But then there's the case of a French TGV taking the ground at speed due to the collapse of a hitherto-unknown World War I trench atop which the roadbed was laid -- and no serious injuries, nevermind fatalities, were tallied. The technology continues to advance and get better and safer -- even as speeds increase.

It's amazing how not only do we create these wonderful technologies, we also abuse them to the point of abject failure. One would hope we'd do better.

[skirted_in_SF]

4. I don't believe Amtrak owns any actual track. The freight railroads like BNSF, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, and Union Pacific own the tracks and Amtrak just pays to use it.

While that is mostly true, Amtrak owns the NE corridor (including the track where the accident occurred). I believe the NE corridor extends from Washington DC to Boston. Amtrak and the states also pay significant money to the freight lines to upgrade track for their use.

[skirted_in_SF]

To think that the railroads helped to build America.



When/Where did we(America) go wrong?

Trains in China vs America 2015-05-15.jpg

Uncle Al
Train Buff

Uncle Al, you weren't exactly fair in your pictures. In the first group you could have used an Acela locomotive in place of the P42 (especially one in the old paint scheme )
In the second group you are comparing a passenger engine in high speed service with a freight engine.
Of course China has a more modern system than the US. Theirs was built from scratch for passenger service in the last 15 +/- years by a government that has nearly absolute power over the population. I'm fairly certain the European HS passenger systems don't share track with freight and that the US moves a greater proportion of freight by rail.

[r.m.anderson]

It used to be that passenger trains had absolute priority on the rails bumping freights and way freights to the sidings.
NOW - The passenger trains especially those in the western US share the rails with priority modular freight trains with
high priority to get the containers to the shipping dock and onto ships bound where else but Asia to jobs that left our country years ago!
Some how our PRIORITIES got twisted around and it can not all be blamed on aviation. High speed trains between
two points less than 500 miles apart generally will beat the airplane with the airport security restrictions and airports
having to be out of the city loop. Case in point the NE Corridor - Train always beats airplane NYC to DCA city center
to city center (exception to the present accident but only for a few days).
Foreign governments subsidize their railroads and are not fraught with political parties blocking every move and $ spent.
And the US government is doing a fine job of doing just that. Not everyone can afford to fly. During and prior to WWII
trains went almost everywhere big; medium; little and postage stamp size towns. The family automobile and the airplane
did a number on this but still yet the train is the most efficient and economical way of moving the masses of folks from
one large city to another as well as volume freight and produce. The US could have high speed trains like the TGV; ICE
and Bullet - if the US can subsidize being a world cop fighting small wars there is certainly money for transportation !

[Big and Bashful]

I haven't seen anything about the latest crash but remember a youtube video showing a passenger train speeding through a bend so fast that it literally flew off the rails, that one was fairly recent.

I think this is the one you are referring to (in July 2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-ZtCFqf7UI

Yep, that was the one, I forgot that it was Spanish.

[denimini]

To think that the railroads helped to build America.



When/Where did we(America) go wrong?

Trains in China vs America 2015-05-15.jpg

Uncle Al
Train Buff

We don't have fast rail yet in Aus

[crfriend]

We don't have fast rail yet in Aus

Sun kinks!

Note that there is no breakage to either rail in that picture. The implication is that the signals will show an empty stretch of track by virtue of a green signal. Ignoring the curve at the far end of the frame, imagine seeing "all clear" on the signals and then coming up on *that* at a buck-fifty. (The same thing happens now with washouts; the roadbed washes out from beneath the rails, leaving the rails hanging above the void -- electrically intact.) Jointed rail would have likely broken someplace and opened the circuits.

Expect to see more of that as various places warm up in the next century. Laying welded rail is a temperature-sensitive proposition and needs to be done on hot days, an even then the rail gets further heated as it goes down because "ribbon-rail" only works in tension.

[Uncle Al]

Uncle Al, you weren't exactly fair in your pictures. In the first group you could have used an
Acela locomotive in place of the P42 (especially one in the old paint scheme )
In the second group you are comparing a passenger engine in high speed service with a freight
engine. Of course China has a more modern system than the US. Theirs was built from scratch
for passenger service in the last 15 +/- years by a government that has nearly absolute power
over the population. I'm fairly certain the European HS passenger systems don't share track
with freight and that the US moves a greater proportion of freight by rail.

These pic's were ones already made up and were the quickest I could find.

Granted that China, Japan & Europe have better train service is due in part
that they are not using antiquated track & routes. They built new track that
could handle the speed. The U.S. rail system was originally designed for speeds
that did not exceed 50 mph. That's what most steam engines could muster.
As speeds increase NO ONE UPDATED THE TRACK TO ACCEPT THESE SPEEDS.
A fine example of going from a pony(steam engine) to a racehorse(diesel & traction)
and not going from a 'pony cart'(old track system) to a chariot(new, updated track
system). The 'racehorse' is pulling 'pony carts'.

Instead the U.S. built the Inter-state Highway System. Great idea for moving
freight(trucks) and people(cars & busses). The I.H.S. was designed during the
Eisenhower Administration to move military vehicles(primary function) around
the U.S. The fact that everyday citizens, and trucking companies, are using the
I.H.S. is a secondary function - yet the public isn't aware that the Gov't can
shut-down the I.H.S. to all vehicles except military vehicles - if deemed necessary.
The I.H.S. helped to kill-off passenger service on trains.

Another example is larger & faster aircraft. They needed longer, wider & thicker
runways to accommodate the new aircraft(size, speed & weight). New airports
were(and are being) built. People don't think twice about this. This is called
"infra-structure". The train companies(and the U.S.Gov't) have not 'kept-up'
with upgrading the rail "Infra-structure". The public does not want their land taken
to build new 'right-of-way' for higher speed trains. If there were new long-distance
"right-of-way's" built to withstand high speeds, more freight & passengers would
be moved around the U.S. by rail. I personally know of several people who can
no longer travel by air due health reasons.

Had the 'curve in question' been banked by 5-10 degrees, the current accident
probably wouldn't have occurred(maintaining & upgrading infra-structure).

OK - I'll get off my

Uncle Al

Who is an avid train buff, modeling in N, HO, S & G Scales
and is quite partial to, and ridden on, the original P.R.R.
Also had a grand time on the T.G.V. when visiting France

[crfriend]

The U.S. rail system was originally designed for speeds that did not exceed 50 mph. That's what most steam engines could muster.

Steam engines could, and on many occasions did, best 100 MPH. so the notion of a national "speed limit" of 50 doesn't work. Fast passenger engines in the 1930s and beyond were more than capable of those speeds. The trailing carriages don't particularly care how fast they're going so long as they remain on the guideway.

Instead the U.S. built the Inter-state Highway System. Great idea for moving freight(trucks) and people(cars & busses). The I.H.S. was designed during the Eisenhower Administration to move military vehicles(primary function) around the U.S. The fact that everyday citizens, and trucking companies, are using the I.H.S. is a secondary function - yet the public isn't aware that the Gov't can shut-down the I.H.S. to all vehicles except military vehicles - if deemed necessary. The I.H.S. helped to kill-off passenger service on trains.

It ultimately took a sustained three-pronged attack on the railroads to bring them down, and those three prongs were (1) Corporate greed, (2) overly-aggressive labor-unions (which by then was Mafia-controlled thanks to government interference), and (3) overt and direct government interference. Likely defanging just one of those would have been enough to see the enterprise to ultimate success but it wasn't to be -- and recall just how close even the freight operations were to shutting down. Faced with a competition which had > 99.5% of its infrastructure built for it at taxpayer expense (the trucking industry) and the profits to be had by ballooning car sales -- and fuel sales -- the railroads could not compete. Only with the "fuel shocks" (wholly contrived, I'll add) in the 1970s did railroads look viable again from an economic perspective. (Passenger rail never really did make much money for the big railroads; they always made their nut on freight. They kept at it for a while for prestige and bragging-rights, but at the end really wanted out which led to the formation of Amtrak.)

Another example is larger & faster aircraft. They needed longer, wider & thicker runways to accommodate the new aircraft(size, speed & weight). New airports were(and are being) built. People don't think twice about this. This is called "infra-structure".

Who pays for the construction of new airports? Is it the airlines? Nope, it's the taxpayer. Boo Hiss. Note also that aircraft, on average, are slowing down. The fastest ship in the sky remains the Lockheed L-1011 which cruises at about Mach 0.92; the fastest modern Boeing stuff pokes along at about Mach 0.8. Concorde and the TU-144 are long-since dead, and counterparts to them are unlikely to ever reappear.

Had the 'curve in question' been banked by 5-10 degrees, the current accident probably wouldn't have occurred (maintaining & upgrading infra-structure).

The curves on the passenger-tracks on the NEC are already pretty heavily super-elevated (the railroad term for "banking"), and that dates back into the early part of the previous century when fast service was becoming routine. Without super-elevation, the flange of the outer wheel, and the inside edge of the outer rail, bear all the [lateral] force of the motion of the train around a curve; with super-elevation (raising the outer rail above the inner), one makes use of gravity to bring things back into balance. It's worth noting here that in a railroad with perfect geometry and balance, the flanges on the wheels never touch the insides of the rails; the taper on the wheel naturally guides the wheels so the flanges remain a half-inch or so clear of the rail. The only function of the "tilting" of the modern "high-speed' (laugh) American trains is for passenger comfort only -- the flanges do all the work of keeping the shiny side up.