High-speed rail, red herring, and my lament

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

For the foreseeable future, I think you will sooner get the public--much less investors--to put their money in Winter-only Ice Cream shops in Nome Alaska than they will high speed rail.

My point isn't that high-speed rail doesn't have advantages; my point is that it is a non-starter because no one is willing to pay for it and it detracts from projects than could be done.

Gabe

Before the economy tanked, there were a few private projects talked about for Texas & Florida. In addition, politicians and people from Amtrak keep talking about selling the NEC. I presume they must have someone in mind. Wasn't there a German company behind one of the projects?

My point is you'll never have HSR as long as there's an Amtrak. Many Conservatives aren't against paseenger rail - they're quite willing to fund heavy commuter rail projects. But they are against social welfare programs and as long as Amtrak looks like a duck.

[Paul Milenkovic]

One of the functions of the very long distance Western trains is as a kind of "land cruise ship." While it may fall under the category of "Amtrak for railfans", railfan would have to be expanded beyond us rabid maniacs who chase trains in our cars to people who just plain like rail travel for seeing the great expanse of the U.S. and organize vacations around this activity.

I guess "land cruise ship" is a non-PC reason for Amtrak because why are we spending tax subsidies so a bunch of retired people who don't care that they are 4 hours delayed behind some freight train can putter around the country, but hey, we have National Parks which combine recreation with preservation of national heritage. If Amtrak can draw foreign tourists to spend their hard currency on now cheap American dollars and see this great land of ours, perhaps their is some social interest in that.

Last time I mentioned "land cruise ship" and got someone worked up that I wasn't advancing the right argument in support of the long distance trains, I was told the argument about the long distance trains serving all of those small communities along the way, and how much of the Interstate traffic is end-to-end and how much of it is shorter hops along the route anyway.

Someone tell me, does the argument that the Empire Builder is the life line to small communities in Montana hold water? The train is only once a day, and for a lot of those communities that once a day is at 2 AM -- do a lot of people board the train at that hour?

And with the freight-train interference or whatever reason the Empire Builder can be multiple hours late, does that train really get any "corridor" traffic along the corridors on its route. My wife travels a lot on business and had asked if I would drive her to Columbus to take the train to Minneapolis. I said "yes, if you want the railfan experience of taking the Empire Builder, by all means, but it is only once a day and it goes only at these hours (not regarded as convenient for a woman travelling alone to get into Minneapolis in the late evening), and it is often multiple hours late, especially going eastbound."

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Amtrak long distance trains at least are booked solid in the summer because of the "land cruise ship" concept, the NEC trains get riders because even if it isn't HSR, it is frequent service, reasonable travel times and adherence to schedule, but most of the other corridors, whether part of long distance trains or short distance trains are a bust (Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha is a reasonable exception that I hear has many trains, fast speed, and keeps its schedule). No one is interested in a corridor train that runs once a day, that once a day is at inconvenient hours, and gets delayed by freight trains or for whatever other reason.

Does anyone have any insight as to how the Empire Builder serves as a life line to small communities in the Dakotas and Montana, or is this one of these political empire-building arguments to keep the train around?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

One of the functions of the very long distance Western trains is as a kind of "land cruise ship."

Does anyone have any insight as to how the Empire Builder serves as a life line to small communities in the Dakotas and Montana, or is this one of these political empire-building arguments to keep the train around?

There is no sane reason why the Empire Builder runs the schedule that it does, nor the route that it goes, other than to arrive at Glacier National Park in time to watch the sunrise. That seems to be the sole reason for it's existence, as the official Glacier National Park Land Cruise.

It leaves Seattle in the evening, so it does not serve the towns of Washington and Idaho at a decent hour. It hits the towns of Eastern Montana and North Dakota in the middle of the night. It bypasses the larger population areas of Montana along the I-90 corridor. Only the towns of North Central Montana have the option of decent boarding times.

It has been mentioned in TRAINS and elsewhere that the Empire Builder would do better to leave Seattle in the morning, at least on a every other day schedule, so that Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho stops can occur at decent hours. It has also been suggested that the Empire Builder reroute along the I-90 corridor through Montana, perhaps again splitting at Billings into a northern route along the I-94 corridor through North Dakota and a southern route into Wyoming and Colorado, or into Nebraska.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

For Paul
One reason why the Acela Express or Metroliner dominates the Washington - New York travel is it is the fastest way to get there door - to - door. It is often more convenient than flying between those cities, and as you pointed out it offers frequent and reliable service.

[Anonymous]

Notice the NY turboliners story is similar to the Acela story..... Amtrak leased the new Acela trainsets after winning approval to upgrade the NEC tracks from our Congress..... However, Congress never did fund the tracks upgrades to match the speed capabilities of the new trainsets, up to 160 mph.... Now it appears Amtrak put the cart before the horse, but in fact, a willy-nilly Congress did....

[Anonymous]

As for the long distance hotel trains, more than half of the riders are actually traveling a distance longer than the train goes.... More than half of the riders entering Chicago on a train leave Chicago on another train.....

Actually, since most of Amtrak's employees are based in Chicago, the trains are scheduled to enter Chicago in the mornings and early afternoons so that they can leave in the late afternoons and evenings.....Shift changes basically....

Therefore the Empire Builder time schedule is based for Chicago, as are all the other trains..... But yes, there are a lot of stops scheduled in the middle of the night.... not necessarily the best time to increase ridership along the routes.....

The only solution to stopping this practice of untimely stops is to either increase the number of trains daily, frequency, or to increase the speed of the trains significantly to get the frequency increase with the same number of trains...... And when I say significantly, I mean triple or quadruple their speeds......HSR......

[oltmannd]

I thougt the Amtrak long distance service into and out of Chicago was arranged for daylight connections. That is, all arrive in the AM so passengers can connect to PM departures of these daily trains.

West of the Mississippi, it gets hard to play "connect the dots" with multiple train frequency between population centers spanned by overnight long haul trains. In the east, it's a bit easier.

If you consider NY/Phila/Hburg/Pburg/Cleveland/ Toledo/Chicago as a route, you might arrange service with multiple train frequency such that there were departures available from each city at convenient times. For example, you might have a 6AM and a 9AM departure from Cleveland in each direction. You might also have a 6AM dept from Pittsburgh while the 6AM from Cleveland functions as your 9AM from Pittsburgh. Then you'd do similar with PM departures. Finally, you'd bridge the hole in the schedules with an overnight NY-Chic train.

If you layered on other corridor like route such as Cleve/Cols/Cincy and Cleve/Buffalo/Albany/NY-Boston, it starts to become a network.

But, I don't think we even get the chance to play this game as long as the notion of Amtrak being the provider of "subsidized senior citizen Land Cruises" is floating around out there and has some credence to it. You may not have to take Amtrak apart to kill this notion, but you do have to do something to give life to the idea that Amtrak has been "fixed".

The biggest problem with dismembering Amtrak is you'll lose some institutional knowledge. An example of this was when the NEC went to Amtrak, along with the people to run it. Conrail lost the institutional knowledge of operating on the NEC with speed control. Consequently, diesels ran on the NEC w/o speed control and ......

[DPD1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Will a train that travels 145 mph generate that much more riders than a train that travels 79 mph? I don't think so. Fixing the passenger rail system we have would generate more bang for the buck when increased ridership is compared to the amount of money necessary to implement and sustain high-speed rail.

I also think it's doubtful... The Euro style of rail travel has one major thing going for it, and that's the distances. America is too big. No matter how fast they go, it would never be fast enough. And the mindset in Europe and Japan is totally different... Especially Japan. As much as I hate to say it, I think urban commuter lines are the best bet for most American passenger rail transport. Any idea of some sort of grand high speed rail system on a large scale is just pie in the sky in my opinion. At least at this point. If (god forbid) this country ever gets to the level of congestion hat a country like Japan has, then maybe people would start going for it.

Dave
Los Angeles, CA
-DPD Productions - Home of the TrainTenna RR Monitoring Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

[daveklepper]

I don't think America is too big, and there is a market for good long distance train service. But the point about some towns being subsidized by having Amtrak service while others don't even have a bus connection is well taken. The auto-oil-highway boys had their way so it was positively un-American not to own a car, and indeed in many places you are second class citizen if you don't drive. I think this is wrong. I also don't think George Bush can "democratize Iraq" unless an energy policy has teeth and fuel cell won't do the job and if it did it would take 15 years anyway. So I think the USA needs a national public transportation system. Not to move people out of their cars, but simply to prove to the world that we could if we had to do so. Such a system would be based on a Robust Amtrak (basically what we have with a few restoration and everything in good repair) and then the best possible hybrid technology comfortable bus extensions so there is a national system available. I'd let Grayhound and Trailways and the regionals like Peter Pan do the bus expansion rather than start a new operation from scratch, but all would work together with common ticketing with Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

One of the functions of the very long distance Western trains is as a kind of "land cruise ship."

Does anyone have any insight as to how the Empire Builder serves as a life line to small communities in the Dakotas and Montana, or is this one of these political empire-building arguments to keep the train around?

There is no sane reason why the Empire Builder runs the schedule that it does, nor the route that it goes, other than to arrive at Glacier National Park in time to watch the sunrise. That seems to be the sole reason for it's existence, as the official Glacier National Park Land Cruise.

It leaves Seattle in the evening, so it does not serve the towns of Washington and Idaho at a decent hour. It hits the towns of Eastern Montana and North Dakota in the middle of the night. It bypasses the larger population areas of Montana along the I-90 corridor. Only the towns of North Central Montana have the option of decent boarding times.

It has been mentioned in TRAINS and elsewhere that the Empire Builder would do better to leave Seattle in the morning, at least on a every other day schedule, so that Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho stops can occur at decent hours. It has also been suggested that the Empire Builder reroute along the I-90 corridor through Montana, perhaps again splitting at Billings into a northern route along the I-94 corridor through North Dakota and a southern route into Wyoming and Colorado, or into Nebraska.

The Empire Builder doesn't need any fixin. It's doing well and is one of Amtrak's most successful LD trains, despite the fact that it doesn't serve any large population base between the Twin Cities and the West Coast.

Amtrak at one time did have a train serving the I-90 route of Billings. Unfortunately, the White House in 1979 - i.e. POLITICIANS - ordered Amtrak to discontinue many of its trains, including the NORTH COAST LIMITED.

The cut was made purely for political reasons. Not for ridership or for any other "sensible" reason. Again, Amtrak was "reformed" which always mean trains getting cut, not service improved or more money going to the system.

The Empire Builder's current schedule is run to the benefit of the end point cities of CHI, SEA, PDX and MSP.

Here's a good article about the success of the EB, which baffles the critics.

http://www.midwesthsr.org/promote_National.htm

[Anonymous]

In Europe they are slowly connecting their HSR lines into a larger system, a system similar in size to an area east of the Mississippi River in America..... Yes, transcontinental HSR lines are not sustainable....in distance and in population density.....

But the distances and population centers are sustainable east of the Mississippi River.... An area around Chicago of some 100 miles in radius approaches 10 million potential riders....similar in size to the New York City Metropolitan area.... and definitely larger than Washington DC's, Philadelphia's, or Boston's..... A high speed rail line from Chicago to New York City alongside I-80, I-76, and I-95 (Toledo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia) would be approximately 750 miles in length.... A high speed train averaging 150 mph, capable of doing up to 200 mph, could accompli***his overnight train trip today in an astonishing four and a half hours..... While not jet blasters by any means, a HSR train along this corridor would attract riders...... One trainset could leave New York City around 8 am EST, arrive in Chicago at 11:30 am CST, leave Chicago at 12:00 noon CST and arrive in New York City at 5:30 pm EST.... And yes, this one trainset could do an evening run from New York City at 6:00 pm EST and arrive in Chicago at 9:30 CST..... Amtrak today operates two trainsets, one eastbound and one westbound each night.... Use a second trainset in the reverse above, and we'll end up with three trains eastbound and westbound each day.....without any travel at night..... Small cities in America such as San Angelo, Texas don't have this daily airline frequency.... Add the two trainsets today of the Capitol Limited, and the two trainsets of the Three Rivers, and we could easily triple the frequency of the above HSR line between Chicago and New York City..... which was two and a half times better frequency than what Amtrak operates the Lake Shore Limited today.....

How about a HSR train every hour or so! Or we could cut two thirds of the personnel and keep the two and a half times better frequency of the HSR line with only two trainsets...... SAVINGS! POSSIBLY AN OPERATIONAL PROFIT! DO WE HAVE TOO MANY NEC ACELA TRAINS, MOVE SOME OVER TO THE CHICAGO LINE! SAVE EVEN MORE SALARY!

One thing is for certain, Amtrak can and would attract more riders on this route without the night trains..... Maybe people don't ride trains because they have a hard time sleeping in coach...... Amtrak doesn't operate any day trains on this route do they?

While it is a longer distance to Miami from New York City, and the time travel could end up around five or even six hours, the same frequencies can be had on a HSR line along the east coast..... There are over 10 million people living in Central and South Florida.... Combine the trainsets of the Silver Meteor, the Silver Star, and the Palmetto....one can get the picture......

Its about 500 miles from LA to Oakland, and a bit more to Sacramento..... There are 20 million people living in Southern California and up to 10 million people living in the Bay Area and Sacramento areas...

Its time to start building..... Talk doesn't walk the walk.....

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I think that Amtrak is a basis to build on. Get the money to get the equipment in decent shape and the service up to par. Your statement about Amtrak being a failure is contrary to the increases in numbers of riders. There are communities that depend on Amtrak as their only public transit connection to the outside world. During winter, for some it is the only connection, public or private. To abandon such communities right now is downright cruel.

The ridership arguement is really shaky. Amtrak has grown less than the population and the economy, so you have to be really careful using gross ridership. You have to look at specific markets, revenue, etc. to determine success. Gross ridership alone makes it look like a failure. For example, you could look at NY to Albany comparing the 1970s to now. Amtrak ticket prices and ridership have outpaced economic growth, so that's a win. The Silver Service may be capacity constrained, so no growth is possible. The Sunset, well, um....uh.....there's a reason this is McCain's favorite whipping boy, and he may not be too far off base, there.

Now, that there are communities that depend on Amtrak for public transport - that's a pretty good arguement. The downside of this one, is that the train service might look like a "subsidy" to those towns. And, what about similar towns that have no train or bus service? Is it fair that only some get train service?

The "all weather" arguement is, sadly, no longer true. Some of Amtrak's host RRs shut down whenever bad weather is forecast, much less occurs. I won't name names, but their initials are CSX.

csx has never shut down due to bad weather... it is biz as usealy in all weather...any slowdowns are due to crew avaiablity.... if they cant get crews ....they cant run trains...
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe



My point isn't that high-speed rail doesn't have advantages; my point is that it is a non-starter because no one is willing to pay for it and it detracts from projects than could be done.

Gabe

Well, I think your concern/observation is right on the money.. (pun intended) The concept of HSR has been run up the flag pole by a few different enterprising politicos at state and local levels here in northern Indiana, invariably with the lions share of the attention on the "shazaam" aspect of having fast train service , and paying considerably less attention to the HUGE pricetag necessary to make same a reality.

The reality being, the related cost would be a whopping cost to the taxpayer, that usually played down by mentioning it in some intentionally abstract phraseology such as "to be funded by private, federal, and local investment".

For anyone/everyone, the idea of "HSR serving my community" sounds like a great idea

It may sound so good, that a citizen (example) feels that a statewide increase in salestax is a worthwhile sacrifice, to help make it a reality. ("afterall, it's coming right through my town, so what a GREAT idea!" etc)

But, because of the high cost of entry, HSR by it's very nature cannot serve all communities.

It only seems worthwhile, so long as ~my~ community is trackside. What happens if it is determined in a feasibility study that the best path from NY to Chicago is instead a bee line across the top of Indiana, linking Toledo to Chicago? Is it still such a grand idea that my sales tax expenses go up to finance a mode of travel to which I have no immediate access? I think not.

Why pay more for everything I buy everyday of the year, simply for the privilige of having an hours drive to wait another half hour in a HSR terminal, to ride an hours long trainride to Chicago, when I can drive there myself in 3 hours, and save the expense of funding someone elses pipedream.?

HSR is one of those ideas that look great on paper, till you get to the balance sheet....

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd


The "all weather" arguement is, sadly, no longer true. Some of Amtrak's host RRs shut down whenever bad weather is forecast, much less occurs. I won't name names, but their initials are CSX.

csx has never shut down due to bad weather... it is biz as usealy in all weather...any slowdowns are due to crew avaiablity.... if they cant get crews ....they cant run trains...
csx engineer

We must be thinking about different things. I can recall in the past couple of years several events where CSX called it quits while NS kept going. There was even a Don Phillips column about it. The two examples that come to mind were when a hurricane threatend Jax and CSX evacuated the dispatching center and when a hurricane was threatening Wash DC, CSX stopped all operations in the area 24 hours ahead of time. That storm barely slowed NS down.

[Anonymous]

I am of the opinion the reason why we haven't built HSR is because of the political power of small communities..... HSR will only stop at major cities along any route.....
Never-the-less, slower speed commuter type trains such as the Colorado diesel car train can and should operate on the HSR routes serving the smaller towns.... Its vital that any HSR rail line be double tracked.....

Amtrak operates its trains today as a local through, whereas a HSR operation will be an express through.....