Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Texas Central Railway


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#121 John Bredin

John Bredin

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:suburban Chicago (Des Plaines)

Posted 24 September 2016 - 10:10 AM

Anderson: before you could have even a contingent condemnation, the land must be surveyed. The landowners in question are arguing that TCR has no authority to enter their land for the survey, despite a Texas statute expressly allowing it, because it's not a functioning railroad.

#122 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 24 September 2016 - 10:13 AM

In the past such problems were resolved by acquiring a token railroad company with a mile of narrow gauge track somewhere with a decrepit engine and a caboose

#123 John Bredin

John Bredin

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:suburban Chicago (Des Plaines)

Posted 24 September 2016 - 10:20 AM

In the past such problems were resolved by acquiring a token railroad company with a mile of narrow gauge track somewhere with a decrepit engine and a caboose

But if TCR did so, the opponents of HSR would post photographs of the lousy track and ancient train online and claim them as examples of HSR as an antiquated choo-choo. It wouldn't fool rail supporters or reasonable neutral people, but it's not intended to.

#124 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 September 2016 - 04:34 AM

If you need to own a railroad to build a railrtoad, where did the first railroad come from? :)


Edited by cirdan, 30 September 2016 - 04:35 AM.


#125 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 September 2016 - 04:35 AM

sorry, duplicate post my mistake. Mods, please delet this post.


Edited by cirdan, 30 September 2016 - 04:36 AM.


#126 printman2000

printman2000

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,696 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amarillo, Texas

Posted 30 September 2016 - 11:39 AM

TCR has posted a section on their website called "Rumors vs Reality"

 

http://www.texascent...ors-vs-reality/



#127 printman2000

printman2000

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,696 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amarillo, Texas

Posted 22 February 2017 - 09:13 AM

http://texasrailadvo...ith-landowners/

 

 

Texas Central, developers of the state’s first high-speed train, announced today that it has marked a significant milestone in its land option program, the result of collaborative and ongoing engagements with property owners and stakeholders along the project’s potential route.



#128 saxman

saxman

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,344 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Orleans
  • Interests:Trains, planes, maps, and music

Posted 06 April 2017 - 09:27 AM

This is getting heated. All the anti-train bills made it out of committee and go to the Texas Senate  floor TODAY! If you live in Texas call you state senator TODAY. These bills could not only kill the TCR, but will probably stop any normal commuter rail transportation in Texas if not already built. 

 

 

 

https://www.tribtalk...assenger-trains Passenger rail as a transportation option for Texans is usually ignored by the Legislature without a second thought. Not this session. More than two dozen bills filed would not only marginalize trains for Texas but could kill off both private and public projects.

 

 

 

http://www.ipi.org/i...ral-rail-projecIn Texas, some conservatives wrongly think that opposition to high speed rail is a conservative principle. This is like saying that opposition to trucks, or cell phones, is a conservative principle. These may be preferences, but they aren’t principles. A principle is a timeless truth or proposition that helps us make decisions or choose behaviors. And opposition to high speed rail is not a conservative principle.

 

Here's a link for to the Texas Senate. Calling takes less than 5 minutes. Tell them to vote NO on Senate bills 975, 977, 979, 980 and 981


Edited by saxman, 06 April 2017 - 09:53 AM.

Amtrak Miles: 203,395 (as of 9/21/16)

#129 saxman

saxman

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,344 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Orleans
  • Interests:Trains, planes, maps, and music

Posted 01 June 2017 - 04:11 PM

So the Texas 2017 Legislative Session has wrapped up with bill 975 and 977 passing or at least are on the governors desk to be signed. Thankfully, the other bills did not get hammered out. Senate Bill 975 involves certain security measures take place in that law enforcement must be reimbursed for any costs they must endure "securing" the line. Senate Bill 977 says that no state money can be used on high speed rail. Texas Central seems unfazed by either and maintain that the project will continue "full steam ahead." I hope they can do what they say they can in the next two years. 2019 is the next legislative session. 

 

What concerns me now is the fact that state money can't be used for high speed rail. TxDOT has had a passenger rail division since 2009. I've yet to see actual plans from them but it sounds like if Texas were to want to build any passenger rail above 110 MPH then tough luck. Thats against the law now. I suppose up to 110 mph is good for many of other corridors and maybe one day in my lifetime we can have conventional passenger rail down the I-35 corridor, a la Illinois, California, or North Carolina. 

 

http://www.star-tele...e153545889.html


Amtrak Miles: 203,395 (as of 9/21/16)

#130 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 01 June 2017 - 04:47 PM

Well, I am almost certain that the Texas legislature will flip one or more times before the end of a lifetime of a young whippersnapper like you :D



#131 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 06 June 2017 - 02:42 PM

So the Texas 2017 Legislative Session has wrapped up with bill 975 and 977 passing or at least are on the governors desk to be signed. Thankfully, the other bills did not get hammered out. Senate Bill 975 involves certain security measures take place in that law enforcement must be reimbursed for any costs they must endure "securing" the line. Senate Bill 977 says that no state money can be used on high speed rail. Texas Central seems unfazed by either and maintain that the project will continue "full steam ahead." I hope they can do what they say they can in the next two years. 2019 is the next legislative session. 

 

What concerns me now is the fact that state money can't be used for high speed rail. TxDOT has had a passenger rail division since 2009. I've yet to see actual plans from them but it sounds like if Texas were to want to build any passenger rail above 110 MPH then tough luck. Thats against the law now. I suppose up to 110 mph is good for many of other corridors and maybe one day in my lifetime we can have conventional passenger rail down the I-35 corridor, a la Illinois, California, or North Carolina. 

 

http://www.star-tele...e153545889.html

It depends on how the law is written.  I'm sure that if there were significant will for it, someone would find a way to run a train no faster than 124.9 MPH;-)

 

Snark aside, 110 is pretty good...it's what FEC is doing on their shared tracks north of WPB, for example.  I do suspect that if you got a successful 110 operation going somewhere that you'd find some pressure to carve out an exception if it could be bumped to 125, for example.


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#132 SanDiegan

SanDiegan

    Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 11 June 2017 - 11:51 PM

More optimistic about this than the California project, which is likely to end up being some gold-plated grade separation improvements to San Joaquin service. Even more optimistic about the Florida project :-)


Edited by SanDiegan, 11 June 2017 - 11:51 PM.


#133 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 12 June 2017 - 04:05 AM

More optimistic about this than the California project, which is likely to end up being some gold-plated grade separation improvements to San Joaquin service. Even more optimistic about the Florida project :-)

That's roughly my order of expectations.  FL is happening MIA-WPB and I wouldn't be surprised if that line couldn't support itself then and there (at least vis-a-vis direct operating costs...you definitely need the run to Orlando to cover the capex).  TX looks likely (right now I'd say there's a 75% chance of it passing and if it were legal to do so I'd be tempted to offer making book at 4:1).  CA, in the version envisioned in the referendum, is a mess.  There's a path there but I don't see it happening.


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#134 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,957 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 June 2017 - 07:23 AM

 

More optimistic about this than the California project, which is likely to end up being some gold-plated grade separation improvements to San Joaquin service. Even more optimistic about the Florida project :-)

That's roughly my order of expectations.  FL is happening MIA-WPB and I wouldn't be surprised if that line couldn't support itself then and there (at least vis-a-vis direct operating costs...you definitely need the run to Orlando to cover the capex).  TX looks likely (right now I'd say there's a 75% chance of it passing and if it were legal to do so I'd be tempted to offer making book at 4:1).  CA, in the version envisioned in the referendum, is a mess.  There's a path there but I don't see it happening.

 

 

I think CA will be completed, even if maybe not within the timeline and budget. There are sections under construction and that creates momentum. Even if the initial segments will at first just be used by existing trains rerouted, the time savings will be visible and people will want to see more. Florida is taking a similarly phased approach. One of the cjhallenges in Texas is that you can't easily break the project down into standalone phases. This is why it has become an all or nothing project and this of course encorages attacks by those who wih it to end as nothing.



#135 Green Maned Lion

Green Maned Lion

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 15 June 2017 - 10:10 AM

The Robert Moses method is pretty tried and tested.
Travelled: Broadway Limited (1), Lake Shore Limited (6), Capitol Limited (7), Empire Builder (1), Southwest Chief (2), Sunset Limited (1), California Zephyr (3), Coast Starlight (2), Silver Meteor (5), Silver Star (5), Silver Palm (2), Crescent (1), Cardinal (4), Auto Train (4), Pennsylvanian (2), Palmetto (1), Acela Express (1), Empire Service (1), Northeast Regional (11), Keystone Service (1) --- Total Miles: 50,144 --- Total Trains: 61
Most important: Keep it Simple, Stupid!
Posted Image
Dream of love, dream of me, for you are my love. I love you.
Avatar and sig were done by my fiance, Corvidophile.

#136 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 02 July 2017 - 01:25 AM

The main reason I consistently hesitate about CA is the fact that the project is so big (in terms of scope, cost, etc.), even compared to other "serious" HSR plans (the only ones that seriously challenge it are broad-vision projects like NEC Future) that I can see a "path to collapse" for it.  In particular, with highways Moses was dealing with a mode of transportation that nobody was really questioning, etc.  He was operating within a consensus but fudging the numbers.  With CA there are actual "real" roadblocks to be had...

 

Of course, there's another possibility: Depending on what happens with the Cap and Trade funds (and how much of them there are), I can see CA eventually just throwing the authorized bond issue aside.  As it is that bond issue has likely lost at least 15% of its purchasing power in the last 8-9 years (it might be more given how infrastructure inflation has tended to be) and I have to wonder if they won't just eventually decide that pursuing funding from the bonds is, after a fashion, too expensive and not practical for some set of reasons (I'm particularly thinking the hard runtime limits, which are the main sticking point).


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#137 Paulus

Paulus

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 July 2017 - 09:05 PM

Of course, there's another possibility: Depending on what happens with the Cap and Trade funds (and how much of them there are), I can see CA eventually just throwing the authorized bond issue aside.  As it is that bond issue has likely lost at least 15% of its purchasing power in the last 8-9 years (it might be more given how infrastructure inflation has tended to be) and I have to wonder if they won't just eventually decide that pursuing funding from the bonds is, after a fashion, too expensive and not practical for some set of reasons (I'm particularly thinking the hard runtime limits, which are the main sticking point).

 

To a certain extent, that's already happening. 25% of the current cap and trade revenues is being used for CAHSR.



#138 Green Maned Lion

Green Maned Lion

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 03 July 2017 - 06:50 AM

People might see Moses as consensus now, but in his day he was very contaversal and almost universally hated as a boss.
Travelled: Broadway Limited (1), Lake Shore Limited (6), Capitol Limited (7), Empire Builder (1), Southwest Chief (2), Sunset Limited (1), California Zephyr (3), Coast Starlight (2), Silver Meteor (5), Silver Star (5), Silver Palm (2), Crescent (1), Cardinal (4), Auto Train (4), Pennsylvanian (2), Palmetto (1), Acela Express (1), Empire Service (1), Northeast Regional (11), Keystone Service (1) --- Total Miles: 50,144 --- Total Trains: 61
Most important: Keep it Simple, Stupid!
Posted Image
Dream of love, dream of me, for you are my love. I love you.
Avatar and sig were done by my fiance, Corvidophile.

#139 seat38a

seat38a

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County California
  • Interests:Trains, Planes, And Web App Development

Posted 08 July 2017 - 06:48 PM

The main reason I consistently hesitate about CA is the fact that the project is so big (in terms of scope, cost, etc.), even compared to other "serious" HSR plans (the only ones that seriously challenge it are broad-vision projects like NEC Future) that I can see a "path to collapse" for it.  In particular, with highways Moses was dealing with a mode of transportation that nobody was really questioning, etc.  He was operating within a consensus but fudging the numbers.  With CA there are actual "real" roadblocks to be had...

 

Of course, there's another possibility: Depending on what happens with the Cap and Trade funds (and how much of them there are), I can see CA eventually just throwing the authorized bond issue aside.  As it is that bond issue has likely lost at least 15% of its purchasing power in the last 8-9 years (it might be more given how infrastructure inflation has tended to be) and I have to wonder if they won't just eventually decide that pursuing funding from the bonds is, after a fashion, too expensive and not practical for some set of reasons (I'm particularly thinking the hard runtime limits, which are the main sticking point).

Well CAHSR is real. The tracks are being built. I shot a video of it under construction in Fresno.

 

https://youtu.be/QORJh2XRQM0?t=4m36s


Edited by seat38a, 08 July 2017 - 06:48 PM.


#140 Caesar La Rock

Caesar La Rock

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 527 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2017 - 10:14 PM

Ignore


Edited by Caesar La Rock, 27 July 2017 - 10:16 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users