Amtrak ridership up, funding for more rail built by states.

[Dark Hellion]

I have to agree that train rides are very pleasant. I love to drive, but I find that long trips are very high on anxiety by car, yet on a train you can simply sit, relax, chit-chat, browse the internet, etc. and generally enjoy yourself without worrying about that asshole coming up on your ass at 90mph or the guy who is going 62 and boxes you in for 10 minutes passing 3 semis. The lack of stress is great.

[Ghost Rider]

Split off retard's last biting remark.

[CmdrWilkens]

The state rail partnership deal is the one that has me the most hopeful overall if this goes forward. I believe I've mentioned it befroe but MARC is planning on some rather massive investments on both the Newark(Del)-Wash(DC) portions of the NEC as well as bits of the Captial and Metropolitan Subs for CSX (plus a little work on the Old Main Line). The details are here for those who haven't seen me speak about it before.

Anyway with some federal matching money i think this is just the sort of program benefit everyone. It would quad track the NEC from Newark, Del through New Carrolton, triple track the Metropolitan out to WV, triple track the Captial up to Baltimore all for about $4Bn estimated. Throw some federal money and the timetable may even be reasonable because it s$4Bn over the next 27 years (well $4Bn current dollars over 27 years). Even presupposing that the estimate is at least 25% undervalued and cost over-runs add another 25% that's still a massive increase in track capacity and reliability for $6Bn. The bigger deal, in my mind, would be that you would literally have a commuter rail connection from North Central Virginia to New London CN without ever stepping on an Amtrak train.

VRE from Fredricksburg to DC
MARC from DC to Newark(Del)
SEPTA from Newark to Trenton NJ
NJ Transit from Trenton NJ to Penn Station
MTA subway frm Penn to Grand Central
Metro North from Grand Central to New Haven
ConnDOT from New Haven to New London

[Alferd Packer]

Philadelphia-Harrisburg is already under wire and cleared for 110mph operations, possibly 120mph. They completed the upgrades back in 2006 IIRC.

Oh, I didn't realize that they were rated to go that fast. Could they run the tilting Acela sets out there(that is, tilt them), or do they just run a single HHP-8 or AEM-7-powered consists typical of the NEC regional trains?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Philadelphia-Harrisburg is already under wire and cleared for 110mph operations, possibly 120mph. They completed the upgrades back in 2006 IIRC.

Oh, I didn't realize that they were rated to go that fast. Could they run the tilting Acela sets out there(that is, tilt them), or do they just run a single HHP-8 or AEM-7-powered consists typical of the NEC regional trains?

The later. Normal NEC regional cars are cleared for 120mph anyway, so the grand result of those worthless billions invested in Acela is a few stretches of track where they can got 125% of the speed of Regional trains. If they refitted the entire line south of New York to D.C. with tension catenary they could probably shave another 30 minutes off the D.C. to NYC run, though, but they haven't even done that. Extensive retrofitting of the existing grade might further reduce it, as it is possible for the Acela consists to make 200mph, but for the moment, forget about it. There's never really been a dumber project than Acela, you could achieve almost the results by using the existing consists with special extra trains making few stops, and upgrading the catenary and, of course, getting back those sections of the line in Connecticut (owned by CDOT and the NYC commuter rail service, IIRC) where the current speed limit is 90mph and widening them to allow for faster travel. The problem is that track designed for high speed operations can rarely accommodate freight trains, and we need more freight capacity as well as passenger trains, so all of our lines must be mixed use. Dedicated TGV/Bullet train lines are simply not in the cards for America, to much money and to late to the game the way things will be getting worse, we need full electrification and improved roadbed and signalling to allow around 110 - 120mph operation of regular electric passenger trains on existing mainlines.

[Broomstick]

You keep pushing the electric catenary, but seriously, as someone who has ridden just such a system for 10+ years I have to say there are definite maintenance issues with such. Partly, it's our weather extremes (the lines expand and contract with temperature changes, of course, and our temps range from - 25 to +40 C) but honestly, isn't there a better way? The damn things break with some frequency. With luck, it's a minor thing, but I've seen those wires yank a pantograph clear off a car, or wrap entirely around a train car... it's a mess.

Sure, it's workable (the South Shore and South Bend Rail Road is over a century old), but I'd like to see something better.

[CmdrWilkens]

The NEC faces a whole HOST of structural issues so I'll just go from south to north with what a I know:

DC:
-Union Station is only cleared for catenary at about 70% of its platforms so that already reduces the number of trains you can run through.

- Though it isn't technically an NEC issue the extended trains do run to Newport News and the lack of electrification south of DC means a nice switchover while the Virginia Ave tunnel means even if you wanted you can't run Superliners.

- Only two tracks in and out of DC until north of New Carrolton, this means all of the traffic into and out of DC will shut down with the slightest problem. Oh yes and the commuter lines that use CSX trackage use these same two tracks for a stretch in the final 2-3miles of approach.

Maryland:
- The switches, outside of those around BWI, are not that great and don't allow full use of the 3rd track except in stretches between the major Amtrak only stops meaning getting arund commuter train breakdowns and problems can be tricky at best.

- There is a brief stretch of 4 tracks...however it lasts about 10 miles before we go back down to 2 tracks and the next big problem.

- The B&P tunnel. The MAS is 35mph IIRC and it runs through gradients and turns that makes the approach into NYPenn look downright friendly. Oh yes and clearence means you can't run Superliners just Viewliners. Now there is a bit of support behind a new tunnel that would shave 10-20 minutes off a typical Balt-Penn to BWI (and reverse) trip. Moreover this would means you would have 4 tracks from Balt-Penn to just shy of BWI...downside is the project is projected in the $1.5-2Bn range.

- North of Baltimore you are back down to double trackage across the bush, gunpowder, and most difficult susquehana rivers.

Deleware:
I actually don't know of any big problems in the state but there also aren't that many route miles so it tends to fly by before you know it.

Pennsylvannia:

-30th Street Station has possibly the worst power issues of any stretch of the NEC I've ridden on. Of the 7 power loss situations I've had on the NEC 6 of them were approaching or leaving 30th street.

Jersey:

- The other breakdown I've experienced, and heard is not uncommon, is appraoching New York but still in Jersey. This is also where I've had multiple signalling related delays so jersey gets the blame

New York Penn:

- can't do much about it but the gradient coming in to Penn is still the ruling gradient for the NEC and it is none too friendly.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You keep pushing the electric catenary, but seriously, as someone who has ridden just such a system for 10+ years I have to say there are definite maintenance issues with such. Partly, it's our weather extremes (the lines expand and contract with temperature changes, of course, and our temps range from - 25 to +40 C) but honestly, isn't there a better way? The damn things break with some frequency. With luck, it's a minor thing, but I've seen those wires yank a pantograph clear off a car, or wrap entirely around a train car... it's a mess.

Sure, it's workable (the South Shore and South Bend Rail Road is over a century old), but I'd like to see something better.

It worked just fine over hundreds of miles of the most rugged mountain country in the world on the Milwaukee Road--almost 100 years ago. And that system was maintained in operation for 50 years. The catenary has fully adequate reliability for regular main-line service. It's not like we can't have reserve diesels to deal with shortages, we just want to tie the power of the trains to nuclear powerplants and hydroelectric instead of some sort of enormously wasteful hydrocarbons that we're running out of.

Please refer to the history of Milwaukee Road electric operations on the Rocky Mountain Division and the Coast Division, crossing the Rockies on one of the worst of the northern passes, and the Coast Division's operation across Snoqualmie pass. Really, the SS&SB RR is an interurban that had lighter construction standards from the start, and mainline electrification using catenary is the world-class norm in other countries as well, including Russia, which has far worse weather conditions.

[Broomstick]

Funny - I've had at least a dozen ex-pat Russians in the Chicago area tell me that Chicago's weather is comparable to that in most of Russia. Siberia has worse weather, but not (I'm told) Moscow. But maybe they're bullshitting me. I've never been to Russia myself.

Anyhow - as I said, based on my experience with near-daily ridership on a catenary-electric, there ARE maintenance issues. That doesn't mean the train doesn't work - as I said, the SS&SB has been in operation over a century (and, by the way, they also run freight over those lines, predominantly coal/coke, scrap iron, and steel roll for the mills although they use diesels for the freight hauling). The problem is, if we build new catenary which standards will it be built to?

And, mind you, it's not the TERRAIN that's the problem - it's maintaining the damn wires. I'm not familiar with the rail line you reference, I'll have to do some research which will be problematic with our internet connection problems of late. However, in MY area our biggest transportation problems aren't terrain-related (it's flat out here) but temperature extremes, snowfall quantities, and the fact it is nothing too peculiar to have 100 km/hr winds. Get a sudden temperature drop, a few centimeters of ice on the lines, and throw in one of trademark winds and it's not THAT surprising we have problems sometimes.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Funny - I've had at least a dozen ex-pat Russians in the Chicago area tell me that Chicago's weather is comparable to that in most of Russia. Siberia has worse weather, but not (I'm told) Moscow. But maybe they're bullshitting me. I've never been to Russia myself.

The electrification of the Trans-Siberian railroad was completed in the year 2000.

Anyhow - as I said, based on my experience with near-daily ridership on a catenary-electric, there ARE maintenance issues. That doesn't mean the train doesn't work - as I said, the SS&SB has been in operation over a century (and, by the way, they also run freight over those lines, predominantly coal/coke, scrap iron, and steel roll for the mills although they use diesels for the freight hauling). The problem is, if we build new catenary which standards will it be built to?

We'll also have more people available for maintenance. The lack of maintenance due to understaffing is a chronic issue on American railroads which will necessarily vanish as trucking and driving become impossible, and the cost of labour decreases due to all the suburbanites looking for any work they can get to put potatoes on the table and electricity in the heaters in the shanty-tenaments they end up living in.

And, mind you, it's not the TERRAIN that's the problem - it's maintaining the damn wires. I'm not familiar with the rail line you reference, I'll have to do some research which will be problematic with our internet connection problems of late. However, in MY area our biggest transportation problems aren't terrain-related (it's flat out here) but temperature extremes, snowfall quantities, and the fact it is nothing too peculiar to have 100 km/hr winds. Get a sudden temperature drop, a few centimeters of ice on the lines, and throw in one of trademark winds and it's not THAT surprising we have problems sometimes.

Well, most railroads will have issues with sudden changes in temperature and storms, but they can be cleared off with some admittedly rather constant effort and kept running, or restored to service quite soon. But I'm afraid to say that several service disruptions lasting several days in a row will be a normal occurrence in many areas of the country, and during that time, you will just be unable to get to work. It's simply one of the numerous consequences of drawdown.

[Broomstick]

Funny - I've had at least a dozen ex-pat Russians in the Chicago area tell me that Chicago's weather is comparable to that in most of Russia. Siberia has worse weather, but not (I'm told) Moscow. But maybe they're bullshitting me. I've never been to Russia myself.

The electrification of the Trans-Siberian railroad was completed in the year 2000.

I did not know that. How reliable has it been? How does their system differ from the SS&SB RR?

We'll also have more people available for maintenance. The lack of maintenance due to understaffing is a chronic issue on American railroads which will necessarily vanish as trucking and driving become impossible

Oh, PLEASE, Marina - "trucking and driving will become impossible" is bullshit. We had teamsters before the internal combustion engines. There are alternative fuels, although they will not be as plentiful or as cheap as gasoline used to be.

Well, most railroads will have issues with sudden changes in temperature and storms, but they can be cleared off with some admittedly rather constant effort and kept running, or restored to service quite soon. But I'm afraid to say that several service disruptions lasting several days in a row will be a normal occurrence in many areas of the country, and during that time, you will just be unable to get to work. It's simply one of the numerous consequences of drawdown.

Actually, since I'm not riding the train these days it's sort of a moot point unless/until I get another job requiring it. However, during such breakdowns in winter we can't simply leave people sitting out on the rails - they'd freeze to death. This is not acceptable. I do not find :::: "service interruptions lasting several days in a row will be a normal occurrence" acceptable when, during the 19th Century pre-petroleum the goddamned trains were reliable.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I did not know that. How reliable has it been? How does their system differ from the SS&SB RR?

I haven't heard any reliability complaints. It's a standard 3 kV DC system also used by Poland, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and parts of Czech R./Slovakia and the Ukraine, though I believe the system used in the SS&SB is rather different.

- "trucking and driving will become impossible" is bullshit. We had teamsters before the internal combustion engines. There are alternative fuels, although they will not be as plentiful or as cheap as gasoline used to be.

I'm just saying it won't make economical sense for any routes short of those where you simply cannot or have no reason to build a rail line; i.e., that if you can build a railroad, all truck service on that route will cease to exist. Trucks will basically be susbidized supply vehicles for extremely remote areas, and for short-run final delivery, where they can probably be electric. Long distance haulage with single-trailer vehicles is, in fact, far to inefficient to remain competitive with rail for any products. If the rails exist, they will drive trucks out of business. Driving cars over long distances will certainly also get dangerously near to impossible, though--most gas stations will close down if nothing else, and there will not be much incentive in replacements for some time to come.

Actually, since I'm not riding the train these days it's sort of a moot point unless/until I get another job requiring it. However, during such breakdowns in winter we can't simply leave people sitting out on the rails - they'd freeze to death. This is not acceptable. I do not find :::: "service interruptions lasting several days in a row will be a normal occurrence" acceptable when, during the 19th Century pre-petroleum the goddamned trains were reliable.

Obviously I meant that trains can sometimes not get through. For instance, it's normal around here for a mudslide to close the tracks in the November -- January period, shutting down service from Everett to Seattle, about twice, and each time for 1 - 3 days, due to heavy rainfall and the track being built along the coast. Now, even in the 1950s people were, could, and did get stuck on long-distance trains going over the passes, but they weren't left to die.

Here's a Detail on that, "The Case of the Stranded Streamliner". The basic point I'm trying to put across by talking about this isn't that rail is unreliable, because it's extremely reliable, it's that all forms of transportation are unreliable and we just happen to be used to having an extremely extensive road network that we don't have for rails, in which detours and alternate routes are much more possible. Part of drawdown will be accepting the reality that mother nature can halt our plans in life.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Here's some more resources on Milwaukee Road Electrification. Also here.

[Broomstick]

I did read some of the reference articles on the Milwaukee Road.

I think at heart my disagreement with the Duchess is twofold:

1) As wonderful as rail may be, no one transportation system will answer all needs. Road vehicles, boats, and airplanes will continue to exist for a variety of reasons.

2) The Duchess tends to put her arguments into absolute terms - even though I know (usually) she is not, in fact, that much of an absolutist.

Although rail is wonderfully efficient in many respects, it does require a substantial capital investment, on-going maintenance costs, and it is relatively difficult to change routes compared to some other transportation modes. Because the infrastructure uses large quantities of metal such systems are vulnerable not only to illicit scavengers (although idiots attempting to steal copper from powered catenaries usually are eliminated swiftly from the gene pool) but also, as pointed out in one of the linked documents for the Milwaukee Road, legitimate agencies seeking to sell off valuable metals in exchange for a rapid cash input, even if long-term this is a bad idea.

Of course, other transport modes have problems, too - barges, for example, are also cost-effective for moving bulk goods but they are dependent on interconnecting waterways. If you lack such, then building canals requires a substantial capital investment as well as maintenance. Barges are also vulnerable to river floods (as we are currently seeing on the upper Mississippi this year) and low water conditions.

Highways also require substantial capital input and maintenance, however, due to the extensive network currently in existence changing routes or detouring around problems is fairly easy in most situations. While there are requirements for money, I think the capital required is less than that for railroads and barges although I have not fact-checked the numbers. Of course, we are all aware of the problems of cars/trucks/etc. occupying such roads in large numbers. However, roads just aren't going away - they pre-date animal-drawn vehicles, after all. People will continue to use them for short distance travel, even if what they're using for transport changes. Also, while there is some use for former roads as material, that doesn't have the worth of metals so roads are far less likely to be "recycled" inappropriately or unwisely.

Aviation gets a lot of hits lately from the global warning/environmental set - everyone seems to love to slam aviation. And I'd be the first to admit there are some problems and it is certainly expensive. Aviation is also more vulnerable to bad weather than any other transport mode. However, airplanes do not require road-like structures between landing points so it is extremely easy to change routes between points. Infrastructure requirements can be concentrated at airports, which can be located close to destinations and/or rail lines (in my area we have mass-transit - both rail and bus - connections to 4 airports). Because the required infrastructure is not strung all over creation it simplifies some maintenance problems. Where speed counts aviation wins. If airplanes are sized appropriately you can get by with remarkably little infrastructure - see Alaska and its use of small planes. On very long trips - cross continental, for example - aviation is more efficient than highways when properly applied. We aren't going to get rid of aircraft because they are just so damn useful - but how and when we use them, and how we fuel them, THAT may certainly change.

So, while I am certainly in favor of electrically powered railroads (hell, I rode one almost daily for 10 years) I don't think they'll be a cure for all that ills us.

[Jade Falcon]

Regarding electrification, in the UK, most of the rail lines that are electrified are of the overhead cables, however, in the old BR Southern region that was formerly the province of Southern Railways, the electrification is of the third rail variety. Would this be a viable option in terms of maintainence? It also does mean that in densely populated areas you wouldn't need to have the bother of raising bridges.

[Broomstick]

I would think that third rail type of power supply suffers from two liabilities - more accessible to idiot humans, and more likely to be interfered with by either wildlife or vegetation. Overhead is out of reach for most plants and critters. Birds seem to perch with impunity on overhead lines, but in reality they experience a certain number of fatalities from grounding out. While a certain amount of flora and fauna will be impacted (sometimes literally) by trains, the quantity and size of such things can and certainly has impacted rail design (see the "cow-catcher" featured on many US freight trains)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Roads are actually substantially more expensive in fixed infrastructure costs than railroads, by simple virtue that they require a lot more grading, a lot more buildup of support structure, and then the vast and expensive process of paving. Modern roads require machinery to build, and also usually have at least 11ft wide lanes + shoulders (and even those are more like mid-50's lanes). In comparison the operating breadth of a railroad is less than five feet, there's no continuous surface which has to be built, and you can put one together by a manual labour gang working by hand. So the fixed infrastructure cost of railroads is substantially cheaper on a per-mile basis than roads (since obviously roads need at least two lanes). The maintenance costs may supposedly be more, but that's only because America simply doesn't spend any more on road maintenance near like it should.

The electrification would at least solve the problem of the Milwaukee Road's by being a federal mandate, paid for with federal money.

And, I certainly would also like to see more barge use and canal construction; it served us well enough in the 19th century.

We can basically double our operational track, or even increase it to 250%, given enough effort, and augment that with extensive canals and canalization of rivers and the use of coastal luggers to carry cargo from seaside town to seaside town, connecting them if they don't have railroad or canals running through them. That will leave only a couple areas in which vehicles are required, for instance, point-delivery in some areas of cities (others can be handled by Chicago-style underground cargo subways), and for some of the very long-distance supply or extraction routes where a railroad is unfeasable. What does that leave us with, then, precisely? Well, there's more than a few places like deliveries in cities or some haulage in the countryside where horse and wagon will end up making plenty of economic sense, just like it did in 1900.

[Sea Skimmer]

Regarding electrification, in the UK, most of the rail lines that are electrified are of the overhead cables, however, in the old BR Southern region that was formerly the province of Southern Railways, the electrification is of the third rail variety. Would this be a viable option in terms of maintainence? It also does mean that in densely populated areas you wouldn't need to have the bother of raising bridges.

Third rail electrification is inherently low voltage, like around 1,500 volts,otherwise it will arc to the ground. Meanwhile overhead wires being built these days are typically around 50,000 volts and even ones strung up in the 1920s reached 11,000 volts. That low voltage makes for very inefficient locomotives and general low power delivery.

Third rail works fine for light commuter rail, especially when using electric multiple units rather then dedicated locomotives but it is simply incapabul of meeting the power demands of US style 200 car long coal and double stacked container trains which can weigh as much as 20,000 tons. As it is even 50,000 volt overhead wires can have serious voltage drop limitations actually supplying the demands of running multiple electric freight trains of that scale in-between a given pair of substations, particularly if the area is hilly and the locomotives are all running at full throttle. This issue is often overlooked when people examine the seemingly massive outputs of electric locomotives.

The 3000volt DC electrification the Milwaukee Road had is very outdated technology, though the mighty Empire that is Italy with its craptastic train system still runs some 1,500volt DC overhead systems.

Third rail does have lower installation and maintenance cost compared to overhead wires, but ONLY if you already have completely grade separated and fenced track which is extremely rare in the US. The cost of rebuilding the track to be grade separate will in most cases very quickly exceed the savings you might have vs. rebuilding some bridges for overhead wiring.

[Jade Falcon]

It mentions the systems here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_el ... at_Britain

The old Southern Region is of a low voltage as you say, and we don't have double stack container freight here. A lot of our freight is still diesel hauled anyway.

[Sea Skimmer]

please delete this, posted in wrong forum

[Broomstick]

Roads are actually substantially more expensive in fixed infrastructure costs than railroads, by simple virtue that they require a lot more grading,

What the hell? Rail requires grading, too.

In comparison the operating breadth of a railroad is less than five feet, there's no continuous surface which has to be built,

Oh? What about the ballast? And ties? And high speed rail is dependent on welded track which, last I heard, requires modern machinery and not gandydancers.

And, I certainly would also like to see more barge use and canal construction; it served us well enough in the 19th century.

Canals are enormously expensive to build - in many cases in lives as well as money. Not to mention that they can play merry hell with natural river systems and their seasonal fluctuations. Then there is the matter of the zebra mussels getting into the Great Lakes where, among other things, they muck up water systems used by power plants, as well as other environmental upsets. They are not a no-impact solution although they certain have good applications at times.

That will leave only a couple areas in which vehicles are required, for instance, point-delivery in some areas of cities

But, since we already have roads why do you assume we will stop using them? Why not rig catenaries over the roads, electrify buses, and use them as a trolley system sans rails?

(others can be handled by Chicago-style underground cargo subways)

Oh, the sub-street delivery tunnels that Chicago stopped using decades ago and businesses have now chopped up and subdivided for other uses? Not to mention that, being below flood stage/water table, they were always prone to flooding. In the 1990's a breach in one such tunnel shut down the downtown area for the better part of a week.

Well, there's more than a few places like deliveries in cities or some haulage in the countryside where horse and wagon will end up making plenty of economic sense, just like it did in 1900.

Why horses? Seriously, why do you think ALL fueled vehicles will disappear? Horses require daily feeding and care, they drop shit all over the roads (literally) which must be removed, they are prone to panic, causing a hazard when they run away out of control. Small vehicles running on biodiesel or methane or some sort of alcohol or, Og help us, steam power have many advantages over the horse. Why do you dismiss those alternatives so completely?

[Uraniun235]

Didn't a lot of medical problems become less severe after we stopped having huge shit troughs in city streets?

Anyway I would suspect that "horse and wagon" would be useful in smaller towns, like say in the 10000-40000 population range, where trains would basically offload a bunch of cargo in the middle of town, and then wagons would come up and distribute that cargo throughout the city. Of course, if human labor is suddenly becoming incredibly available thanks to the meltdown of the "service sector", we don't even need horses for a great many loads, we can just have people pulling light wagons and save the horses for the truly heavy stuff that human labor can't handle very well.

And the Duchess didn't say they would disappear; she said that horse and wagon would start to make "plenty of economic sense", implying that it would be cheaper to maintain a horse and wagon than it would be to maintain an engined vehicle. Which, depending on the availability of energy, might be true.

[Surlethe]

Oh? What about the ballast? And ties? And high speed rail is dependent on welded track which, last I heard, requires modern machinery and not gandydancers.

There's also the fact that, during extreme temperatures, welded track must be continuously monitored for thermal expansion and contraction and any accompanying breakage must be fixed. Highways, on the other hand, just crack up; they are not impassable, though they do need to be repaired eventually.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Roads are actually substantially more expensive in fixed infrastructure costs than railroads, by simple virtue that they require a lot more grading,

What the hell? Rail requires grading, too.

Broomstick, sheesh, didn't you read that? I said a LOT MORE GRADING. Also, engineering-wise, grading includes all preparation of the roadbed--and obviously you need to blow up more of the hillside for a 22ft wide road (even with no shoulders) instead of a 4ft, 8.5in railroad. This is self-obvious.

In comparison the operating breadth of a railroad is less than five feet, there's no continuous surface which has to be built,

Oh? What about the ballast? And ties? And high speed rail is dependent on welded track which, last I heard, requires modern machinery and not gandydancers.

Uhm, we got 110mph trains with heavy short rail in the 1920s and 1930s, we can certainly do so again if we have to, Broomstick. By continuous surface I meant pavement--I included gravel in the grading for the ballast. Would you please not be so confrontational about this? I'm really not an idiot when it comes to railroad engineering. The amount of work required to compress and pave a road designed for high-speed travel with heavy trucks is vastly more than even the preparation of an extremely high quality railroad.

Canals are enormously expensive to build - in many cases in lives as well as money. Not to mention that they can play merry hell with natural river systems and their seasonal fluctuations. Then there is the matter of the zebra mussels getting into the Great Lakes where, among other things, they muck up water systems used by power plants, as well as other environmental upsets. They are not a no-impact solution although they certain have good applications at times.

Well, canals can be built by raw manpower, and huge canal barges can be hauled by donkeys, which makes them highly viable in a peak oil situation where energy is the main concern, not money or lives (if I may be blunt).

But, since we already have roads why do you assume we will stop using them? Why not rig catenaries over the roads, electrify buses, and use them as a trolley system sans rails?

I've extensively proposed that. I suppose long-distance operation could be possible for commercial vehicles even on interstates, though they'd have to be limited to about 45mph due to the nature of the connections between trolleybus fits and the catenary. So they wouldn't compete with long-distance rail for passenger hauling. Still rather inefficient. We can probably use that in some areas, and I certainly advocate networks of hundreds of miles of urban streets being put under wire--Seattle's network is more than 220 miles.

Oh, the sub-street delivery tunnels that Chicago stopped using decades ago and businesses have now chopped up and subdivided for other uses? Not to mention that, being below flood stage/water table, they were always prone to flooding. In the 1990's a breach in one such tunnel shut down the downtown area for the better part of a week.

It is, however, feasable as something to build again in the future, and rebuild in Chicago.

Why horses? Seriously, why do you think ALL fueled vehicles will disappear?

I don't. I said as much in the post, blast it all.

Horses require daily feeding and care, they drop shit all over the roads (literally) which must be removed, they are prone to panic, causing a hazard when they run away out of control. Small vehicles running on biodiesel or methane or some sort of alcohol or, Og help us, steam power have many advantages over the horse. Why do you dismiss those alternatives so completely?

I specifically said there'd be roles for powered vehicles, and you just ignored me.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh? What about the ballast? And ties? And high speed rail is dependent on welded track which, last I heard, requires modern machinery and not gandydancers.

There's also the fact that, during extreme temperatures, welded track must be continuously monitored for thermal expansion and contraction and any accompanying breakage must be fixed. Highways, on the other hand, just crack up; they are not impassable, though they do need to be repaired eventually.

We don't need welded continuous rail. We can use 130lb/ft steel rail in traditional lengths and we CAN continuously operate 110mph trains over it. It has been done before, and it can be done again. Or even 155lb/ft rail and probably slam the heavy passenger trains through (with concrete ties) at 120mph, though only the Pennsy ever installed rail that heavy.