8 ms·

Amtrak Cascade has trains that can do 125 mph but are throttled to 78 mph because of low quality tracks, as I understand it. Amtrak also recently just started r

Amtrak Cascade has trains that can do 125 mph but are throttled to 78 mph because of low quality tracks, as I understand it. Amtrak also recently just started running many more trains per day between Seattle and Portland. High speed rail is great, but maybe a good starting point would just be… fixing the tracks. Get 3 1/2 hours from SEA to PDX down closer to 2…

NegativeLatency 3y ago
Even just reliability, I regularly make this drive for visiting family and it would be preferable to be able to kick back and relax instead of driving, but currently it’s just too snow and infrequent to be a viable option for me.
- ryanSrich 3y ago
  Exactly. I also do this drive every few months and still can’t believe driving is more efficient than taking the train. It’s the absolute perfect setup for a train too.
- paulcole 3y ago
  I never learned to drive and it turns out the Portland to Seattle train is a good option for getting between the two cities. Everybody says they’d take the bus/train/whatever instead of driving if only this or that were true. If the train was faster and more frequent you’d find another reason not to take it. The stories we tell ourselves.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Approximately downtown to downtown without a car on either end is pretty much the ideal scenario and it applies to a tiny slice of the population. I mostly take the train to Manhattan even though it means driving in the wrong direction for about an hour only because the southern part of the drive into the city is so awful.
foota 3y ago
I think the tracks are the most expensive part though, no? Although I'm not sure if you mean the physical tracks are in poor condition or the layout. If it's the layout, that's not much easier to fix than building a HSR. They may not even be able to fix the railroad company owned tracks?
- sfpotter 3y ago
  I don’t know the answer to either of your questions. Is track more expensive than new high-speed trains?
  - foota 3y ago
    Construction is expensive, and purchasing right of way in populated areas is ridiculously expensive. Short tracks are more expensive because you want to do inconvenient things in order to keep them short (like tunneling and building bridges) instead of taking the path of least resistance. You need all of these things for a good high speel rail, but you need a lot of it to even improve the existing rail. There's some compromises you could make to improve the existing system, but there's not much desire for it I think since it'd still largely be a many billion dollar long term project. I think the opinion is that it's not worth spending all that unless it's transformative (i.e., the marginal benefit of a 2 hour vs 3 and a half hour train ride is small compared to the benefit of a 3 and a half hr ride to a 1 hour ride since at that point you have realistic commutes and such).
    - ghaff 3y ago
      1 hr Seattle to Portland probably doesn’t even really make it commuting distance because very few people are going to live and work close enough to the endpoints to keep things to 90 minutes total. Boston to NYC is 4 hours or so and that’s useful for a lot of purposes although that’s admittedly in part because driving and parking in Manhattan is so awful. (I could drive from my house to Manhattan faster but I hardly ever do.)
      - georgeoliver 3y ago
kposehn 3y ago
The line is owned by BNSF and has quite a lot of BNSF and Union Pacific trains running on it daily, in addition to the Cascades services. No amount of improving the tracks will fix congestion, so moving to a separate line entirely for passenger service makes a ton of sense.
- andbberger 3y ago
  organization before electronics before concrete. some amount of infrastructure will fix congestion, how much depends on what precise timetable will be run. the swiss manage to run a huge amount of freight alongside many passenger trains because they did their homework and built infrastructure where it was needed. in general, "precision scheduled railroading" has fucked passenger-freight interoperability in the states because the freight railroads are running trains too long to fit into any of the sidings, which forces amtrak into the pocket
  - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
    It's just a lack of political will. If Congress wanted Amtrak to really have priority, then they'd strengthen laws which allow Amtrak to have priority and then Amtrak can go for suit. They don't though whereas freight railroad has a lot of friends in Congress and so freight wins while Amtrak loses.
stuaxo 3y ago
In the article they point out that for proper HSR you need segrated straight tracks. Sure, for faster ordinary trains 100mph - 125 you need to improve tracks too, but a lot of that is also improving junctions implementing flyovers and extra track so that trains aren't delayed or stopped.
- bombcar 3y ago
  You don't even really need to get to 100-125 MPH to greatly improve travel times; usually the first step is just double tracking all the things; once that's in place you've shaved 20-30 minutes off a 3 hour trip. Then you can worry about running faster trains.
Lammy 3y ago
> because of low quality tracks, as I understand it Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Washington_train_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Washington_train_derailme...
- chrisandchris 3y ago
  > Preliminary information from the data recorder showed that, when the incident happened, the train was traveling at 78 mph (126 km/h),[4] nearly 50 mph (80 km/h) over the speed limit. In what sense relevant?
andbberger 3y ago
i am unfamiliar with the condition of the tracks on that corridor but in general the vast majority of lines in the US are limited to below 80mph due to the infamous FRA 79 mph rule which mandates in cab signaling to exceed 80mph. with the near ubiquity of positive train control now following the FRA's unfunded mandate (another brilliant piece of policy from the boys in blue) this rule should no longer apply. but due to reasons unknown to me (bureaucratic mire?) trains on many corridors are still limited. there are also some grade crossing related speed restrictions the FRA and its cronies should be hurled into the sun
freitzkriesler2 3y ago
Amtrak needs to own its own rails and it have to share them with freight.
throw0101a 3y ago
> High speed rail is great, but maybe a good starting point would just be… fixing the tracks. The problem is that there is little 'glory' in simple maintenance. The 'concept' is often called "state of good repair": * https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/asset-management/state-good-repair https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/asset-m... It's much more tempting to announce a new project with a ribbon cutting ceremony. The topic often comes up in Toronto, often as it relates to our transit system: * https://www.tvo.org/article/toronto-is-falling-apart https://www.tvo.org/article/toronto-is-falling-apart
- xnx 3y ago
  /glory/money/s In the US public transportation primarily operated as system to transfer public money to large engineering firms, subcontractors and politicians. Any transportation utility is incidental. Cost over-runs are the rule and have no consequences (More money for everybody!). The US has the highest cost per mile because no involved parties benefit from making it practical and cost effective. Self driving cars are probably our best chance to break up this system and reinvent public transportation.
mgarfias 3y ago
I want to know how they’re going to keep the homeless off the tracks. I ride Amtrak to Portland 3d/wk and the amount of weird stuff happening along the tracks is staggering.

NegativeLatency 3y ago

Even just reliability, I regularly make this drive for visiting family and it would be preferable to be able to kick back and relax instead of driving, but currently it’s just too snow and infrequent to be a viable option for me.

ryanSrich 3y ago
Exactly. I also do this drive every few months and still can’t believe driving is more efficient than taking the train. It’s the absolute perfect setup for a train too.
paulcole 3y ago
I never learned to drive and it turns out the Portland to Seattle train is a good option for getting between the two cities. Everybody says they’d take the bus/train/whatever instead of driving if only this or that were true. If the train was faster and more frequent you’d find another reason not to take it. The stories we tell ourselves.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Approximately downtown to downtown without a car on either end is pretty much the ideal scenario and it applies to a tiny slice of the population. I mostly take the train to Manhattan even though it means driving in the wrong direction for about an hour only because the southern part of the drive into the city is so awful.

foota 3y ago

I think the tracks are the most expensive part though, no? Although I'm not sure if you mean the physical tracks are in poor condition or the layout. If it's the layout, that's not much easier to fix than building a HSR. They may not even be able to fix the railroad company owned tracks?

sfpotter 3y ago
I don’t know the answer to either of your questions. Is track more expensive than new high-speed trains?
- foota 3y ago
  Construction is expensive, and purchasing right of way in populated areas is ridiculously expensive. Short tracks are more expensive because you want to do inconvenient things in order to keep them short (like tunneling and building bridges) instead of taking the path of least resistance. You need all of these things for a good high speel rail, but you need a lot of it to even improve the existing rail. There's some compromises you could make to improve the existing system, but there's not much desire for it I think since it'd still largely be a many billion dollar long term project. I think the opinion is that it's not worth spending all that unless it's transformative (i.e., the marginal benefit of a 2 hour vs 3 and a half hour train ride is small compared to the benefit of a 3 and a half hr ride to a 1 hour ride since at that point you have realistic commutes and such).
  - ghaff 3y ago
    1 hr Seattle to Portland probably doesn’t even really make it commuting distance because very few people are going to live and work close enough to the endpoints to keep things to 90 minutes total. Boston to NYC is 4 hours or so and that’s useful for a lot of purposes although that’s admittedly in part because driving and parking in Manhattan is so awful. (I could drive from my house to Manhattan faster but I hardly ever do.)
    - georgeoliver 3y ago

kposehn 3y ago

The line is owned by BNSF and has quite a lot of BNSF and Union Pacific trains running on it daily, in addition to the Cascades services. No amount of improving the tracks will fix congestion, so moving to a separate line entirely for passenger service makes a ton of sense.

andbberger 3y ago
organization before electronics before concrete. some amount of infrastructure will fix congestion, how much depends on what precise timetable will be run. the swiss manage to run a huge amount of freight alongside many passenger trains because they did their homework and built infrastructure where it was needed. in general, "precision scheduled railroading" has fucked passenger-freight interoperability in the states because the freight railroads are running trains too long to fit into any of the sidings, which forces amtrak into the pocket
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  It's just a lack of political will. If Congress wanted Amtrak to really have priority, then they'd strengthen laws which allow Amtrak to have priority and then Amtrak can go for suit. They don't though whereas freight railroad has a lot of friends in Congress and so freight wins while Amtrak loses.

stuaxo 3y ago

In the article they point out that for proper HSR you need segrated straight tracks. Sure, for faster ordinary trains 100mph - 125 you need to improve tracks too, but a lot of that is also improving junctions implementing flyovers and extra track so that trains aren't delayed or stopped.

bombcar 3y ago
You don't even really need to get to 100-125 MPH to greatly improve travel times; usually the first step is just double tracking all the things; once that's in place you've shaved 20-30 minutes off a 3 hour trip. Then you can worry about running faster trains.

Lammy 3y ago

> because of low quality tracks, as I understand it Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Washington_train_derailment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Washington_train_derailme...

chrisandchris 3y ago
> Preliminary information from the data recorder showed that, when the incident happened, the train was traveling at 78 mph (126 km/h),[4] nearly 50 mph (80 km/h) over the speed limit. In what sense relevant?

andbberger 3y ago

i am unfamiliar with the condition of the tracks on that corridor but in general the vast majority of lines in the US are limited to below 80mph due to the infamous FRA 79 mph rule which mandates in cab signaling to exceed 80mph. with the near ubiquity of positive train control now following the FRA's unfunded mandate (another brilliant piece of policy from the boys in blue) this rule should no longer apply. but due to reasons unknown to me (bureaucratic mire?) trains on many corridors are still limited. there are also some grade crossing related speed restrictions the FRA and its cronies should be hurled into the sun

freitzkriesler2 3y ago

Amtrak needs to own its own rails and it have to share them with freight.

throw0101a 3y ago

> High speed rail is great, but maybe a good starting point would just be… fixing the tracks. The problem is that there is little 'glory' in simple maintenance. The 'concept' is often called "state of good repair": * https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/asset-management/state-good-repair https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/asset-m... It's much more tempting to announce a new project with a ribbon cutting ceremony. The topic often comes up in Toronto, often as it relates to our transit system: * https://www.tvo.org/article/toronto-is-falling-apart https://www.tvo.org/article/toronto-is-falling-apart

xnx 3y ago
/glory/money/s In the US public transportation primarily operated as system to transfer public money to large engineering firms, subcontractors and politicians. Any transportation utility is incidental. Cost over-runs are the rule and have no consequences (More money for everybody!). The US has the highest cost per mile because no involved parties benefit from making it practical and cost effective. Self driving cars are probably our best chance to break up this system and reinvent public transportation.

mgarfias 3y ago

I want to know how they’re going to keep the homeless off the tracks. I ride Amtrak to Portland 3d/wk and the amount of weird stuff happening along the tracks is staggering.