Comments for Systemic Failure

Comment on A Look at the Amtrak Capitol Corridor 2010-2012 Capital Budget by Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 03:14:27 +0000

As I recall, neither the Austin line nor the River line are owned by BNSF or UP. Their position is that you can’t build a platform above 8″ above TOR on their line. They don’t really have to give a reason. Take it up with them instead of taking cheap shots at people who don’t have any control over it.

Comment on A Look at the Amtrak Capitol Corridor 2010-2012 Capital Budget by Richard Mlynarik

Richard Mlynarik — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:47:41 +0000

It’s really simple.

Build the platforms outside of the freight car loading gauge. Crazy crazy idea!

Build the platforms at “low level” (~ 500 — 650mm ATOR) for level boarding with both low-floor single-deck and double-deck passenger trains: regional, commuter, intra-regional, inter-regional, high-speed all work.

There is zero conflict with freight (except that that is in the process of derailing or shifting. Cost of doing business!)
There is zero conflict with out-of-dimension loads, even. Well-flat away! Schnabel away! Go nuts with the aircraft fuselage ferrying!

Even some backwards Americans seem to be able to dimly grasp it..

NJT RiverLINE
Operating since 2004
* No platform strikes
* 15 shared track stations
* 20,000 annual freight cars
Austin’s Capitol Metro
*Operating since March 2010
* No platform strikes
* 7 shared track stations
* 45,000 annual freight cars

Comment on A Look at the Amtrak Capitol Corridor 2010-2012 Capital Budget by letsgola

letsgola — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:28:20 +0000

Oops, my reply below was supposed to be to you, sorry.

Comment on A Look at the Amtrak Capitol Corridor 2010-2012 Capital Budget by letsgola

letsgola — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:27:49 +0000

The class Is seem to be very concerned about setting precedents. For example they do not want to deploy four-quadrant gates in one location and then get sued when some idiot drives around the gates and gets mowed down at a crossing without four-quadrant gates. (Remember that freight RRs are private corporations and do not enjoy the liability limits and protections afforded to DOTs.) Or consider this (scroll to [[Page 57927]]) on ADA access where they basically say "nope, never" to anything over 8". I've heard that Amtrak also does not like to have station sidings (at midline stations, not necessarily terminals) because (1) you have to pay for a couple interlockings, not cheap, and (2) once they are on the station siding, the dispatcher (a freight RR employee) can hold them there and let freights pass them. If they stop on the mainline, the dispatchers can't do that. Also, note that even if the CPUC changed its laws to require level boarding, the freight RRs could appeal to the STB on the grounds that the law would impact interstate commerce. This is also why a city or state can't take RR property by eminent domain. In most passenger cases in the US, there really is no excuse for not having level boarding. Agencies like the MBTA own most of their own ROW. But when you are dealing with long distance routes over track owned by the Class Is, it is a really difficult issue.

Comment on A Look at the Amtrak Capitol Corridor 2010-2012 Capital Budget by Joey

Joey — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:27:44 +0000

Why should they care if their trains are never going to use the platform tracks?

Comment on A Look at the Amtrak Capitol Corridor 2010-2012 Capital Budget by Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 03:59:29 +0000

CPUC is irrelevant. The freights that own the tracks are just as vehement about not allowing anything over 8″.

Comment on A Look at the Amtrak Capitol Corridor 2010-2012 Capital Budget by Joey

Joey — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:05:06 +0000

Well yes … I guess the more relevant question is why no one has challenged that law yet.

Comment on A Look at the Amtrak Capitol Corridor 2010-2012 Capital Budget by Winston

Winston — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:30:38 +0000

The issue with high platforms is that unless the CPUC changes its rules high platforms are illegal on tracks that can be used by freight in California. It’s a dumb rule, but it’s the law.

Comment on A Look at the Amtrak Capitol Corridor 2010-2012 Capital Budget by Joey

Joey — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:43:33 +0000

What annoys me about the redesign of Sacramento Station is that almost no provision was made for future HSR. There is enough space between the tracks for columns, but straddle-bent structures, as always, aren’t cheap and the whole situation is less than pedestrian friendly. Why not reserve some of the (ample) at-grade space for future HSR platforms?

And why didn’t they implement level boarding at the new Sacramento Station, given that freight trains don’t even pass the platform tracks?

Comment on A Look at the Amtrak Capitol Corridor 2010-2012 Capital Budget by Joey

Joey — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:38:21 +0000

If that’s really an issue in any one particular location then put the platform tracks on sidings.