And oh look, nothing concrete, just more "studies". The same ones they've been doing since 1973.
Posted by: George_Harris
Posted on: Mar 9th, 2017, 6:04pm
Studies are a way of looking like you are doing something when you really are not. Conversely, if they really are trying to do something, look at and study how they did it in Nashville. They managed to do it on the cheap, and get a fairly good system out of it. Above all, do not look at how they did it in Albuquerque. It seemed like they managed to do everything the expensive way.
A comment on Nashville: The line put in service was not the corridor with the largest traffic demand, but the one where they got "the most bang for their buck" It was on a state owned railroad line with a light level of freight traffic. The high demand corridors were high freight traffic lines owned by CSX and would likely have required double tracking as a starting point before issues of equipment, station locations, and traffic interfaces even began to be discussed.
Posted by: Dayliner9103
Posted on: Mar 23rd, 2017, 1:14pm
Anything which puts trains back on even part of the E&M in a modern, sustainable way, should be supported. Once there's life on the rails again, extension will be the inevitable consequence. For too much noise has been made on this forum about what type of traffic and what type of passenger is wanted on the E&N. ANY sort will do.