"Extreme Trains" Empire Builder

[sky12065]

I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree that it's not about getting there! It's about both! If it wasn't about getting to where we are going, many of us would not be able to afford to allocate our limited dollars to train travel and would loose out on enjoying the trips! At least this is the case for my wife and myself!

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement! Although it is both, the journey is as or more important. That's why you chose to go from CHI to LAX via either ABQ or SAS! And why you chose to go from SDL to LAX via PDX!

I'm sure that you'll agree that we can agree to respectfully disagree! If we all agreed on everything, it would sure make for a whole lot of boring discussions. Wouldn't you agree?

As I think of it there are more than just two "it's abouts." Besides the journy and the destination there is also the discussion, but I'd be the first to say that the discussion comes in third in the order of importance. Bottom line though is that what's more important does not have a "one size fits all" answer and is directly related to the individual that is making that determination.

The journey may be more important to you and the destination may be more important to me. But to another what's important just may be that I simply end my goofy reply now!!! :wacko: :lol:

 

[track-toy]

I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree that it's not about getting there! It's about both! If it wasn't about getting to where we are going, many of us would not be able to afford to allocate our limited dollars to train travel and would loose out on enjoying the trips! At least this is the case for my wife and myself!

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement! Although it is both, the journey is as or more important. That's why you chose to go from CHI to LAX via either ABQ or SAS! And why you chose to go from SDL to LAX via PDX!

I'm sure that you'll agree that we can agree to respectfully disagree! If we all agreed on everything, it would sure make for a whole lot of boring discussions. Wouldn't you agree?

As I think of it there are more than just two "it's abouts." Besides the journy and the destination there is also the discussion, but I'd be the first to say that the discussion comes in third in the order of importance. Bottom line though is that what's more important does not have a "one size fits all" answer and is directly related to the individual that is making that determination.

The journey may be more important to you and the destination may be more important to me. But to another what's important just may be that I simply end my goofy reply now!!! :wacko: :lol:

I'm really new around here and I'm just curious why the trains don't go any faster. I know that track technology is part of it. I also know that the US has adopted the european welded track principles. To me it's all about those magic 4' 8.5". The same gauge as the euro trains. I'd like to see tracks gradually upgraded with concrete ties so that the integrity of the track is easier to maintain to a higher standard. Then we could get some trainsets from Europe that can do 200mph or maybe GE and others would be inclined to develop high speed trains.

I know that maybe the intrigue in this country is for traditional-type train rides rather than super high speed so I hope I'm not talking out of turn.

 

[WICT106]

I'm really new around here and I'm just curious why the trains don't go any faster. I know that track technology is part of it. I also know that the US has adopted the european welded track principles. To me it's all about those magic 4' 8.5". The same gauge as the euro trains. I'd like to see tracks gradually upgraded with concrete ties so that the integrity of the track is easier to maintain to a higher standard. Then we could get some trainsets from Europe that can do 200mph or maybe GE and others would be inclined to develop high speed trains.
I know that maybe the intrigue in this country is for traditional-type train rides rather than super high speed so I hope I'm not talking out of turn.

there really is no simple answer to your question. The track standards and signal system standards, within the US are different than Europe. To go in excess of 80 mph in the US one must have one of the following installed: Automatic Train Control System, or Automatic Train Stop, or Cab Signals. When that regulation was first promulgated in the late 1940s, many RRs looked at the cost, looked at the fact that they were already losing passenger traffic to the taxpayer funded highways, and that they were not going to get any financial assistance from government sources in funding the maintenance for such systems, and took the solution of simply reducing their speed limits. That way, the RRs did not have to pay for the additional signal systems (that many of them felt were of limited return, anyway).

One more recent reason is that, in addition to the signal systems standards grandfathered up to the present day via Title 49, Code Of Federal Regulations, subpart 236, complete

For the specific regulation about signaling systems, the one that was grandfathered in between 1947 and 1952: 49 CFR 236.0 sub-subpart (4) (d) .

Hope these should begin to answer some of your questions.

I don't think you're talking out of turn at all. I welcome the addition of a new voice to our forums, and look forward to a another person adding their perspective to more high speed trains and a improvement of train travel. Be advised that it can have its share of challenges, and the debate here can be as vigorous as anywhere else. Fortunatly the moderators here are quick to avoid letting the debate devolve into the vitriol that other sites suffer from.

 

[track-toy]

I'm really new around here and I'm just curious why the trains don't go any faster. I know that track technology is part of it. I also know that the US has adopted the european welded track principles. To me it's all about those magic 4' 8.5". The same gauge as the euro trains. I'd like to see tracks gradually upgraded with concrete ties so that the integrity of the track is easier to maintain to a higher standard. Then we could get some trainsets from Europe that can do 200mph or maybe GE and others would be inclined to develop high speed trains.
I know that maybe the intrigue in this country is for traditional-type train rides rather than super high speed so I hope I'm not talking out of turn.

there really is no simple answer to your question. The track standards and signal system standards, within the US are different than Europe. To go in excess of 80 mph in the US one must have one of the following installed: Automatic Train Control System, or Automatic Train Stop, or Cab Signals. When that regulation was first promulgated in the late 1940s, many RRs looked at the cost, looked at the fact that they were already losing passenger traffic to the taxpayer funded highways, and that they were not going to get any financial assistance from government sources in funding the maintenance for such systems, and took the solution of simply reducing their speed limits. That way, the RRs did not have to pay for the additional signal systems (that many of them felt were of limited return, anyway).

One more recent reason is that, in addition to the signal systems standards grandfathered up to the present day via Title 49, Code Of Federal Regulations, subpart 236, complete

For the specific regulation about signaling systems, the one that was grandfathered in between 1947 and 1952: 49 CFR 236.0 sub-subpart (4) (d) .

Hope these should begin to answer some of your questions.

I don't think you're talking out of turn at all. I welcome the addition of a new voice to our forums, and look forward to a another person adding their perspective to more high speed trains and a improvement of train travel. Be advised that it can have its share of challenges, and the debate here can be as vigorous as anywhere else. Fortunatly the moderators here are quick to avoid letting the debate devolve into the vitriol that other sites suffer from.

Thank you. I think I understand the signaling differences that preclude high-speed rail in the US. I did notice that the eastern corridor is more advanced though, allowing 100mph. In looking at the rail standards, I couldn't find anything specific to alignment. In order to eliminate side-to-side occilations of the cars on straight stretches, there is a need to enforce relative rail height standards. The two rails must be within a maximum # of a few thousandths of an inch in height difference (whatever is decided, but the closer to dead level the better.

All the standards say that I could find is "Roadway elements, except track circuits, including those for test purposes, shall be gaged monthly for height and alinement, and shall be tested at least every 6 months." When I have looked at videos of US trains, especially those youtube videos at extreme trackside, the ties allow for vertical movement of the track which seems inadequate to me like the spikes are loose. High speed rail track doesn't use high-maintenance spikes.

Then there is the subject of curves. There may be but I couldn't find any, a set of standards for banking the rails for curves.

One thing that the europeans don't have is single track for vast distances with only some dual track near the cities. In Europe most track is dual. This had to be upgraded for high speed by increasing the spacing between trains traveling in opposite directions. Also the cost per mile to increase rail standards in this country would be less than in Europe.

Anyway, one of the key euro train routes (London, UK - Paris, France - 211 miles) is accomplished today by 186mph trains in 2hrs 15mins with some speed restricted track (only 100mph through the 31-mile tunnel). This is way faster than the airlines can do accounting for security and boarding delays. Think about it. How many boarding doors do trains have vs a single airplane boarding door! Trains don't have to taxi either. Also, airline flight is not true city to city, you've got to get to the airport first.

I'm sure all this has been debated before, but I'm new here. What I have seen on other train forums, especially the reviews, is people complaining that they should have taken the plane. Let's make train travel faster!

 

[Tony]

I just got to watch for the first time (for me), an "encore presentation" of this episode.

Do passengers riding the EB really have an opportunity to explore the original/old/abandoned tunnel like they show (at a smoking stop perhaps)?

Does the EPA really allow steam engines to still dump their waste coal ash on the ground like that?

 

[Superliner]

Unfortunately, this show is too "hyped" or "extreme" for me (for ratings I am sure) ... the first episode I watched was about the Acela (and the last). Perhaps I am just being "extreme" about my opinion, but I prefer the laid back approach and the not so excited or extreme (yeah I know) "oh my... yada yada" crap that TV chooses today. Just my 2 cents.