seize the opportunity!

ok porter county. you want out of the rda? thats fine.

while some are crying about the loss of the 3.5 million in revenue. I say its time instead to focus on the found 25 million. you see thats the amount of state funds remaining over the next 6 years that are already committed to the rda from the major moves legislation from the sale of the toll road.

rather than focus on the loss of the annual 3.5 mill that porter county had committed to contributing. lake, st joes, and laporte counties need to focus on the opportunity that is now before them.

for some reason region expansion has always been committed to moving eastward into porter county. this never made much sense to me as there is not one major destination point for travelors within porter county. at least in st joes you have south bend, which has notre dame. and in laporte you have blue chip. in porter county you have basically nothing. and porter county seems intent on keeping things that way... also, most major roads in the region have been built over the years connecting chicago to the south. not east.

so with the most expensive part of the south shore extension proposal on the table is the valpo connection there are no longer any worries there as that is now off the table. instead of worrying about what we can no longer have. congressman pete needs to rework his federal appropriation that has already been passed by the federal government, to direct it solely the proposed lowell expansion. this would allow this project, including additional south shore stations in the new north south corridor to be built with less local match money.

and besides that the legality of porter county suddenly witholding committed funds is in question. so its possible at least some more money from porter county could still flow to help pay for it.

think of it. besides lowell, dyer could suddenly be connected to chicago by a 30 minute train ride. st john as well and the rest of the southern half of lake county could all be within a 15 minute car ride of a new train station. these areas have already blown up with development in recent years. and traffic is already a major problem in and out of those areas. the south shore southern extension could alleviate that.

porter county doesnt want to be connected. thats fine. lets just skip over them and leave them in the 19 century where they belong. in the meantime we could use this opportunity to leap lake county into the present day modern era of regionalism.

on the other hand if mitch decides to let porter county go quietly...and gives porter county thier money back and allows them to go free. then lake could insist on the same treatment as well. this would return 15 million to both the county, and cities of hammond, gary, and east chicagos coffers. as well as 3.5 million to each of their annual budget. we either get a new rail system modernized to compete with local traffic problems, or we get a whole lot more money to deal with our own budget issues. either way. it seems to me porter county just did us a huge favor.

When the toll road was sold, some of that money was earmarked for all the communities along the toll road. I think the Oracle's belief that Lake county will receive a windfall because Porter county is leaving the RDA is wrong. The proceeds from that sale rightfully belong to all the citizens of Northern Indiana,not just members of the RDA. I believe Porter county should and will receive more funding from the toll road sale. As far as extending the South Shore to Lowell, I don't believe it can happen unless Lake county passes an income tax to pay for it. The odds of that happening are slim to none. Since the South Shore is an electric train, they can't run on Amtrak's track. They need tracks dedicated for electric trains.

Wouldn't commuters have to change from electric cars to Amtrak cars? I can hear them griping now.

Three letters for the south shore
D
M
U

KarenT wrote:

Wouldn't commuters have to change from electric cars to Amtrak cars? I can hear them griping now.

Yes, they would have to change trains. It would add 10 to 15 minutes to a ride that will already be over an hour. I think that would be a negative for many riders. If it is going to be built, it should be done right. Hop on the train in Lowell with your coffee and paper and ride it downtown.

So they couldn't join up with the South Shore. I know the south shore and Union Station aren't really close - took a trip that way many years ago.

KarenT wrote:

So they couldn't join up with the South Shore. I know the south shore and Union Station aren't really close - took a trip that way many years ago.

You are right, the South Shore and Amtrak are two separate lines. The proposals to extend the South Shore to Lowell all involve building a dedicated line because of the large amount of traffic commuter rail requires. Amtrak has the ability to operate on rail lines with freight traffic because they only operate one or two trains per day. Commuter rail that operates 20 or more trains per day can't be run on freight lines. If commuter rail is going to be built, they should build high speed rail. There are already electric trains running from Washington to NY that go 150 MPH. Lowell to Chicago in 30 minutes would rock.

Passenger railroads 101:
1. By law, Amtrak has absolute priority on the rail lines it uses, freight trains have to get out of the way.
2. Commuter trains and freight trains do share the same tracks. The UP West, Northwest, and North Metra lines are all freight lines that Metra shares with the UP. There are other, but I am most familiar with the UP
3. High speed rail wouldn't be feasible from Lowell to Chicago as it would only be "high speed" from Lowell to Munster, the rest of the way the infrastructure wouldn't support it. Even the proposed high speed lines from Chicago to Detroit and to Indy and to St. Louis have the Chicago area as a "slow zone" limited to about 50mph.
4. As long as the South Shore insists on using 19th century technology for this project it will be overpriced. Personally I'd love to see them use DMU cars

Bill B wrote:

Passenger railroads 101:
1. By law, Amtrak has absolute priority on the rail lines it uses, freight trains have to get out of the way.
2. Commuter trains and freight trains do share the same tracks. The UP West, Northwest, and North Metra lines are all freight lines that Metra shares with the UP. There are other, but I am most familiar with the UP
3. High speed rail wouldn't be feasible from Lowell to Chicago as it would only be "high speed" from Lowell to Munster, the rest of the way the infrastructure wouldn't support it. Even the proposed high speed lines from Chicago to Detroit and to Indy and to St. Louis have the Chicago area as a "slow zone" limited to about 50mph.
4. As long as the South Shore insists on using 19th century technology for this project it will be overpriced. Personally I'd love to see them use DMU cars

Thanks for adding your knowledge to this thread. I do have one question. Given the need for changes that need to be made in transportation due to both global warming and pollution concerns, isn't DMU a technology whose time has passed? This is from the link you posted.

wrote:

Disadvantages of DMUs as compared with electrically powered light rail vehicles include higher energy costs per passenger for large traffic volumes, dependence on fossil fuels, the inconvenience of having to maintain fueling facilities and refuel the vehicles, increased air pollution, greater audible noise output, slower acceleration and higher maintenance costs.

One line of thinking says that electric trains (actually anything electric) merely offsets the pollution to another location. Usually a location that is surrounded by low income people, thus placing the health burden associated with the electric production on the segment of the population that is least able to pay for it.
If we were using a high percentage of nuclear or wind or solar for our electric grid, I would agree with you sparks. But we are still primarily using coal.
Another thing to consider is the high construction and maintenance costs associated with electric trains. I have seen estimates from the American Association of Railroads that vary, but usually electics are between 25-50% more costly to erect and maintain.
My third point is versatility. An electric train can only run on electrified lines. How many times have we heard about delays because of switching problems at Kensington? If the S.S. was using DMUs they could re-route to other non-electric lines instead of being stuck.
If you look at it from just the financial POV, commuter trains lose money. But I think the big picture is important too, ane we should support common-sense expansion of mass transit.

Bill B wrote:

One line of thinking says that electric trains (actually anything electric) merely offsets the pollution to another location. Usually a location that is surrounded by low income people, thus placing the health burden associated with the electric production on the segment of the population that is least able to pay for it.
If we were using a high percentage of nuclear or wind or solar for our electric grid, I would agree with you sparks. But we are still primarily using coal.
Another thing to consider is the high construction and maintenance costs associated with electric trains. I have seen estimates from the American Association of Railroads that vary, but usually electics are between 25-50% more costly to erect and maintain.
My third point is versatility. An electric train can only run on electrified lines. How many times have we heard about delays because of switching problems at Kensington? If the S.S. was using DMUs they could re-route to other non-electric lines instead of being stuck.
If you look at it from just the financial POV, commuter trains lose money. But I think the big picture is important too, ane we should support common-sense expansion of mass transit.

In order to reduce our dependence on imported oil, we need to build different locomotives to power freight trains. A hybrid locomotive with the ability to run on either diesel or electricity is what is needed. In urban areas with heavy rail traffic,it would make sense to add electric power lines to power trains without polluting the air. On long cross country runs, they could run on diesel. As far as the costs go, that is one area where greater fuel efficiency can create it's own savings. We import $200 billion dollars worth of oil a year. By building more more efficient cars,trucks,locomotives and planes,that $200 Billion can be directed towards jobs here instead of flowing to the Middle East.As far as generating power from coal, I think it has to be a given that as a country,we have no choice but to move away from coal as a power source. The damage we are creating,both by mining the coal and burning it is far too costly. By the time we have built enough electric vehicles to start lowering fuel use, the infrastructure to generate electricity cleanly will be in place.

Hybrid diesel/electric locomotives have been around for a long time. The diesel engine powers a generator that supplies the electric drive motors.

You can read more here.

Actually the term "hybrid" as applies to locomotives refers to regenerative braking, that is, taking the energy wasted in braking, capturing it, and using it for accelerating.
Trains are already the most fuel efficient method of moving freight, and they are just getting better. My company has been reducing fuel used per ton mile for several years now, we are currently second or third on the continent.

Bill B wrote:

Actually the term "hybrid" as applies to locomotives refers to regenerative braking, that is, taking the energy wasted in braking, capturing it, and using it for accelerating.
Trains are already the most fuel efficient method of moving freight, and they are just getting better. My company has been reducing fuel used per ton mile for several years now, we are currently second or third on the continent.

I always have to laugh when posters use links that they haven't read to "prove" their points. Robin posted a link to support his contention that hybrids have been in use for years, however, according to his link, the GE hybrid locomotive is still in the design stage. Here is what GE says about the fuel efficiency gains possible by applying hybrid technology to locomotives.

wrote:

Our engineers are designing a hybrid diesel-electric locomotive that will capture the energy dissipated during braking and store it in batteries. The energy can then be reused by the crew on demand, reducing fuel consumption by as much as 15% and emissions by as much as 50% compared to most freight locomotives in use today.

IMO, our government must start supporting initiatives like this. Less pollution,less imported oil and more jobs. A win-win situation. In addition to supporting more fuel efficient locomotives, I think federal
policy should be directed to improving rail infrastructure nationwide. Environmentally and financially, rail is the best way to haul goods over long distances.

Once again you prove you don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps this link can help educate you on how locomotives have been using diesel/electric technology for a long time. Clearly I overestimated your knowledge of this topic.

Robin Banks wrote:

Once again you prove you don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps this link can help educate you on how locomotives have been using diesel/electric technology for a long time. Clearly I overestimated your knowledge of this topic.

If you had read BillB's post, you would have realized that you are wrong. Bill works in the railroad industry and is very knowledgeable about the industry. I'm always amused when a poster refuses to admit they are wrong, which further undermines their credibility.

BillB wrote:

Actually the term "hybrid" as applies to locomotives refers to regenerative braking, that is, taking the energy wasted in braking, capturing it, and using it for accelerating.

And if we want to explore the subject further, we can go to the link you posted. Here is what GE, a leading manufacturer of locomotives, says is a hybrid locomotive.

GE's website wrote:

If every locomotive could run as efficiently as GE’s hybrid locomotive is being designed to operate, railroads in North America could together save as much as $425 million dollars in fuel costs each year. Our engineers are designing a hybrid diesel-electric locomotive that will capture the energy dissipated during braking and store it in batteries.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

Once again you prove you don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps this link can help educate you on how locomotives have been using diesel/electric technology for a long time. Clearly I overestimated your knowledge of this topic.

If you had read BillB's post, you would have realized that you are wrong. Bill works in the railroad industry and is very knowledgeable about the industry. I'm always amused when a poster refuses to admit they are wrong, which further undermines their credibility.

BillB wrote:

Actually the term "hybrid" as applies to locomotives refers to regenerative braking, that is, taking the energy wasted in braking, capturing it, and using it for accelerating.

And if we want to explore the subject further, we can go to the link you posted. Here is what GE, a leading manufacturer of locomotives, says is a hybrid locomotive.

GE's website wrote:

If every locomotive could run as efficiently as GE’s hybrid locomotive is being designed to operate, railroads in North America could together save as much as $425 million dollars in fuel costs each year. Our engineers are designing a hybrid diesel-electric locomotive that will capture the energy dissipated during braking and store it in batteries.

General Electric actually manufactures the electric motors and is a supplier of parts to the industry. Electro-Motive is the largest manufacturer of locomotives in the world. They are also a (profitable) division of General Motors.

Well, that makes you the second poster on this thread who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. Electro-Motive is the second largest manufacturer of locomotives in the world. GE has been the largest manufacturer of locomotives in the world for over twenty years now. Here is the link that proves my point.

GM sold EMD two ro three years ago to a private group. It is still called EMD but it no longer stands for Electro-motive Division. I forget what it stands for now.