High Speed and Commuter Rail Electrification: Is Catenary Height an Issue? January 26th, 2010
Commentary by Paul Dyson
As we contemplate construction of High Speed Rail and electrification of existing routes we need to ask if catenary height an issue. This may seem arcane, almost academic, but it has real implications for the type of railroad network that we want to see here in California. Indeed it raises issues for the whole country.
Great Meeting in Sacramento on January 16, 2010 January 18th, 2010
Report by Noel T. Braymer
A Full House in Sacramento
The underlying theme of most of the speakers at the RailPAC/NARP meeting was on the challenges ahead for the State’s Rail Passenger services with future ridership growth in the mist of the current economic problems.
Compounding this will be the need to expand service to handle ridership growth feeding riders to the future High Speed Rail service. As RailPAC President Paul Dyson reflected attendees at the meeting on January 16th got the level of information that professionals regularly pay up to $500 to learn at industry symposiums. Read the rest of this entry »
TAMC Rail Policy Committee Meeting Report December 26th, 2009
Reported by Chris Flescher, RailPAC Associate Director, Salinas
November 2, 2009
Commuter Rail to Monterey County
There are some advantages to serving Salinas with a Capitol Corridor extension instead of the proposed Caltrain extension.
We Can Learn Much From The TGV December 20th, 2009
Opinion By Noel T. Braymer
The first modern High Speed Train was the Japanese Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka which opened for the 1964 Tokyo Summer Olympics. It had what was then the amazing top speed of 125 miles per hour.
Metrolink drops Solo BULLETIN December 13th, 2009
Metrolink CEO David Solow was asked to step down on December 11, and was replaced by former Riverside County Transportation Commissioner Eric Haley. Mr. Solow will stay on in a management position until June 30, 2010. Below are the two announcements from Metrolink, one stating action on fare increases and service cuts would be postponed and the other re Mr. Solo.
MORE UNACCEPTABLE SERVICE FAILURES ON PACIFIC SURFLINER 12/05/09: Letter to Amtrak December 6th, 2009
RAIL PASSENGER ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
1017 L Street PMB 217, Sacramento, CA 95814
www.railpac.org
5th December, 2009
Mr. Joseph H. Boardman
President and Chief Executive Officer
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
60 Massachusetts Avenue NE
Washington DC 20002
Dear Mr. Boardman:
Once again I must write to you about the catastrophic service failures on the Pacific Surfliner service.
WE ARE DEEPER IN DEBT, SO WE MUST THINK EVEN HARDER November 24th, 2009
Commentary by Paul Dyson
I have previously quoted New Zealand scientist Ernest Rutherford, “We had no money so we had to think”, and this struck a chord with a lot of readers. Regardless of the field of human endeavor to which you might apply this aphorism it is a good starting point. Try to do as much as you can with as little as possible.
October 22, 2009
By Paul Dyson, President of the Rail Passengers Association of California
Photos by Bill Kerby, RailPAC Treasurer
Chairman Davis, Vice Chairman Fletcher, and Committee members:
“Ladies and gentlemen, we have no money, therefore we must think”.
Texas Eagle Marketing and Performance Organization Meeting October 17th, 2009
Report by Robert Manning, RailPAC Director
It was suggested that I attend the TEMPO meeting which was held Saturday, September 26, 2009 in Temple, Texas. I had heard of this group, but their web site which I thought was rather bland did not give much detail or an agenda regarding this meeting. I was also told that this group saved the Amtrak train, the Texas Eagle, which was slated to be cut.
Metrolink Safety and Passenger Rail in Southern California October 5th, 2009
Reply to a Los Angeles Times report
by Paul Dyson
We should be grateful to the Los Angeles Times for bringing up the topic of rail
safety, even though the pieces that filled your columns last Sunday 27 September
seemed to be more concerned with causing a sensation rather than examining the
causes of the problem. I would be the first to agree that the Buena Vista
crossing at San Fernando Road in Burbank needs to be grade separated. But since
plans are already advanced to do just that, why pick on that location when the
map you published on line indicates as bad or worse problems in Anaheim, Corona,
and other communities? Or why not pick on Caltrans for their dilatoriness in
completing the plans and beginning construction in Burbank rather than the City
engineer who has to work within the rules imposed by the FRA, the California
PUC, and other regulatory agencies?
