Passenger train question. s

[Anonymous]

At what speeds would long distance need to travel to compete with air. I figure the average speed to be about 150 mph.

At 150 MPH New York to Chicago would be about 6 hours
New York to Florida would be about 6.5 hours
Would anyone ride these trains if they existed?

Also when was the last real year passenger rail made a profit? Im thinking 1885. HA HA HA

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CHPENNSYLVANIA
At what speeds would long distance need to travel to compete with air.

When you factor in parking, security screening and operating frequency, maybe 90-100+ mph works, as with the NEC. Amtrak is deemed a viable alternative for northbound travel for some folks I work with in the WashDC area.

Duration of the journey is part of it, but so is frequency. One fast train a day between end-points would be an interesting novelty, but air travelers are used to having some variety of departure times (for major markets).

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
Also when was the last real year passenger rail made a profit? Im thinking 1885.

Depends on what you are talking about..

The Rockey Mountaineer Rail Tours that run out of Vancouver BC and travel up through Kamloops to Jasper or Prince Rupert are making money, but they aren't for commuters, they're for very rich tourists.

[athelney]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

QUOTE:
Also when was the last real year passenger rail made a profit? Im thinking 1885.

Depends on what you are talking about..

The Rockey Mountaineer Rail Tours that run out of Vancouver BC and travel up through Kamloops to Jasper or Prince Rupert are making money, but they aren't for commuters, they're for very rich tourists.

The westbound Rocky Mountaineer today had 12 cars but was only about half full. I'm sure they wer'nt losing money even so .

[Modelcar]

....I doubt regular scheduled passenge trains in this country make money at all. Perhaps one exception: Auto Train. But it will soon need Capitol equipment and I'm sure not enough money is made [if any], to pay for that.

[Anonymous]

Actually, many of the ATK long hauls make money above-the-rail. Return to capital is a little dicier since it is a function of the vagaries of ATK's accounting system, which for years was entirely unrealistic and could be mainpulated at will to achieve the desired immediate political result. For example, for years 7/8 alone grossed more than all the metroliners combined, and didn't fall below the line except on a "fully allocated" basis, which meant ATK was charging inordinate amounts of OH to the route. Another example, ATK caught multiple times a few years ago charging AEM7's to 11/14 (long extension cords????). Same with Amcans, although not assigned to the route.

Even though it is old, pick up PTJ from about 1984 and read the series on ATK accounting, if you want to know why you can't look at historical data re: profitability of national system trains.

Hopefully Gunn will start cleaning up their act.

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE:
When you factor in parking, security screening and operating frequency, maybe 90-100+ mph works, as with the NEC. Amtrak is deemed a viable alternative for northbound travel for some folks I work with in the WashDC area.

Good point. What's so sad and frustrating about this idea is that in the 1940s and 50s, 90 to 100 mph passenger trains could be found throughout the U.S. The EMD E7s were famous for hauling trains at these speeds over double and triple track mainlines. A trajedy that railroadwise, we actually regressed and now have a long way to catch up.

Even the benefits of the railroads going to "single track" mainlines are no longer so sweet a money saver. UP's congestion has been a good example of this.

[Anonymous]

Speed is not the only deciding factor on profitability. The vast majority of passenger service in the USA is not ACELA standard service; it's the rattlers that run from Long Island, New Jersey, Connecticut and northern New York into New York City. The Long Island Rail Road ran at a profit for years hauling passengers. Are those trains fast? Not really- you stop at every station and EVERYBODY changes trains in Jamaica. The railroad IS faster than a drive on the Long Island Parking Lot, oops, Expressway. It's also cheaper to take a train, too; you can get a monthly pass on Metro Transit for less than the cost of a decent parking slot in New York City. You end up in the middle of the city, as compared to being stuck out on the outskirts (as you would if you flew in to New York... or Atlanta... or BWI).

The real competition against railroads, when it comes to passenger service, isn't airlines; it's automobiles. This is true even for longer range intercity rail travel, even for vacations. It's easier, more convenient, less time consuming and cheaper for me to drive my truck (a gas guzzling Ford Ranger type) from Atlanta to Washington on vacation than to take the train. I can carry everything I need to be comfortable in the bed of the truck. I can stop when I want to. Even with gas prices as high as they are, it's cheaper to take the truck on vacation than it is to take a train.

The habitual long range train rider- generally middle aged to older people- are vastly outnumbered by the RV owning retired couples who make the semi annual commute between New York and Florida. Or, anywhere and Arizona. No one will ever accuse old folks in RV's of being high speed drivers. They sure are comfortable, though.

Erik

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CHPENNSYLVANIA

At what speeds would long distance need to travel to compete with air. I figure the average speed to be about 150 mph.

At 150 MPH New York to Chicago would be about 6 hours
New York to Florida would be about 6.5 hours
Would anyone ride these trains if they existed?

Also when was the last real year passenger rail made a profit? Im thinking 1885. HA HA HA

The last year that US passenger trains as a whole made money (not just specific trains or railroads) was 1929. It's not that the RRs gave up on passenger svc. To the contrary, they poured a lot of money into streamliners and improved/faster service after WWII, but, as nice as these trains were, airlines stole the long distance business traveller and the auto/suburban lifestyle stole the rest -- and the investment was a waste. By the end of the 1950s, it was pretty clear that there wasn't any money to be made moving people by rail and the RRs (with a few notable exceptions) wanted out. The result was Amtrak.

To answer to your other question about speed. The real question is value, which is the combination of service (which includes trip time) and price. If a passenger train gave the same level of service (speed, comfort, convenience, etc) as an airplane at the same price, they would split the market. As you trade off these various components of service, different market segments will assign different value to the service and people may be willling to pay more or less. A leisure traveller may place a high value on comfort and a low value on speed, for example. A business traveller, just the opposite. So, how fast is fast enough depends entirely on the market you're selling to.

Obviously, Acela competes well with air as customers are willing to sacrifice some speed for comfort, convenience and price.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Your estimate of an average speed of 150 mph for high speed rail to be competitive timewise with air travel on a portal-to-portal basis is right on. For example French Rail runs high speed rail service between Paris and Marseille in 3 hrs and 20 minutes with a few intermediate stops supports your estimate. A portal-to-portal trip between Paris and Marseille which includes getting to and from either the railroad station or the airport to the final destination takes approximately 5 hours by either mode.

An average speed of 150 mph would require a top speed of 190 mph, and a train would not be able to travel that fast through the significant mileage in the intervening mountainous territory between New York and Chicago. Therefore, a high speed train would not be able to average 150 mph between New York and Chicago so the travel time would be somewhat longer, perhaps 7 hours. A 3 - 4 hour station-to-station travel time by train is about the longest travel time for a trip on a high speed train to be competitive timewise with flying.

I doubt if too many businesses would sit still for one of its employees spending the entire business day traveling by train when that employee could get there faster by flying.

When was the last real year passenger rail made a profit? Don't laugh! The New Haven reportedly made a profit on its passenger service in the early-to-mid 50' s

[jeaton]

drephpe-I think Gunn has cleaned up the accounting fairly well. You can check for yourself with the FY 2004 monthly reports posted on Amtrak's web site.

others-Speaking of a market niche, I think 15 hour overnight service between major metro area in the 1000 distance range could attract business travel from the airlines. For example, Leave Chicago at 5pm-arrive New York City 9am via rail. With travel time to the airport, baggage and security an 8pm flight is prudent. Two hour flight time arrives in New York 11pm (time change), get the bags, car, cab or whatever, check in at hotel and you are probably in bed after midnight. That's a fair amount of work, and unless you live on snacks, there is the question of meals, as well as morning rituals.

OK, I have generalized. If your start or end point is closer to the airports, then fly.

Point is that 1000 miles in 15 hours is 67 MPH average, which might be doable with a good amount of 100MPH top speed. My guess is the investment required for that speed is very much less than for 150-200MPH. The prospect for either high speed or medium speed train service making a positive return on investment is slim to none, but there might eventually be enough public approval to get the needed public funds for the lower cost service.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

others-Speaking of a market niche, I think 15 hour overnight service between major metro area in the 1000 distance range could attract business travel from the airlines. For example, Leave Chicago at 5pm-arrive New York City 9am via rail. With travel time to the airport, baggage and security an 8pm flight is prudent. Two hour flight time arrives in New York 11pm (time change), get the bags, car, cab or whatever, check in at hotel and you are probably in bed after midnight. That's a fair amount of work, and unless you live on snacks, there is the question of meals, as well as morning rituals.

OK, I have generalized. If your start or end point is closer to the airports, then fly.

Point is that 1000 miles in 15 hours is 67 MPH average, which might be doable with a good amount of 100MPH top speed. My guess is the investment required for that speed is very much less than for 150-200MPH. The prospect for either high speed or medium speed train service making a positive return on investment is slim to none, but there might eventually be enough public approval to get the needed public funds for the lower cost service.

I used to think this way, too, until I realized that NY to Chicago in 16 hours on a businessman's schedule is exactly what got killed by air in the 50s. I think the major market to major market business travel for trips >400 miles or so is lost and gone forever.

However, as Mark pointed out, linking major market to intermediate points is what rail does well and air does poorly. All those, non-hub cities that have poor or limited svc that happen to be on decent rail routes are candidates for passenger rail svc.

[BaltACD]

Were Hi-Speed Passenger Rail to become a real reality it would have to be a 'clean sheet' design from a civil engineering point of view.

Today's existing railroad routes were surveyed and designed in the middle 1800's by engineers who viewed their priorities as getting from A to Z with a minimum of grade and a minimum of earth moving....the extra distances to get from A to Z were of a secondary consideration.....As a result todays rail lines have been laid out on 'water level' grades folloing rivers and streams (even on their alignments through mountainous territory). The engineeers of the 19th Century could not concieve of the modern earth moving equipment or it capabilities to truly move mountains. Also if one is designing for a passenger only right of way the grades can be significantly steeper that it can be for freight/passenger rights of way as passenger trains are significantly ligher and higher powered when compared agains freight trains.

Hi-Speed Rail is a transportation option that must be explored in the 21st Century as our other transportation modes (air and Highway) East of the Mississippi are rapidly approaching practical capacity. As air travel returns to pre 9/11 volumes the Air Traffic Control system is getting closer to the girdlock level that it was at prior to 9/11. The primary Interstates I-95, I-75, I-70, I-80, I-10 are also approacing practical capacity for effective long distance travel.

I don't know if Hi-Speed Rail can ever be a money maker in the traditional sense of returning a profiit on all of the investment required, however, neither the Air system nor the Interstate System turn profits when judged by the same rules. The Air Lines don't pay the full cost of the Airports and and the Air Traffic Control system, Highway users both commercial and private are not paying the full cost of the roads systems.

[Anonymous]

In Texas there are rumors of more toll roads: many of the free interstates and new planned freeways will have free service roads but the controlled access highway will be a toll road, at 15 cents a mile. So maybe the auto enthusiasts will be paying more to ride the interstates, when they become toll roads on top of the highway tax already on gasoline.

At 15 cents a mile, a 10 mile trip becomes $1.50 more expensive, a 100 mile trip becomes $15 more expensive, a 1000 mile trip becomes $150 more expensive....this should take a bite out of long distance car travel..... making a high speed train more attractive at longer distances.....

As for businesses, most treat a flight from Dallas to New York City or Los Angeles as a full day anyway.... By the time one drives to the airport, finds a parking space, take care of their luggage, get through security, and then wait for hours waiting for the flight to take off, fly, and do the airport shuffle all over again at the other end, plus drive to their destination and park again.....its eight hours.... especially if the flight's been cancelled or delayed.....

I'm sure with modern methods the state of Pennsylvania new rails can be sped up to HSR, but there will be a number of tunnels and bridges.... similar to the HSR line from Florence to Rome. Once the HSR line hits Ohio, its fairly flat all the way to Chicago.... Frankly, the mountain ranges in Pennsylvania aren't the Rocky Mountains, they really aren't that high. Once the grade of 1,000 feet or so is attained, the valleys could be bridged over.... tunneling through any mountain that gets in the way over 1,000 feet.....and I'm not so sure the route would have to be 1,000 feet high.....

Six hours to Chicago, I was thinking in terms closer to five hours, with a TGV high speed rail line..... Yes, I would ride the train.....

I hate with a passion sitting in any aircraft, I have yet to find a comfortable seat in any aircraft....

[jeaton]

You are very correct that airline service in the 1950's wiped out business travel between Chicago and New York and most every other overnight run in the country. I can also tell you from experience that airline service then, and at least up to the late 80's was a hell of a lot more convenient than it is now. I frequently traveled out of O'Hare and could figure 20 minutes from the front door of the terminal to the Gate was plenty of time. Try that now.

Of course there is no way to really test the idea, since most Amtrak service doesn't fit the parameter. And yes reliability is important. Noon arrival is way too late for for a 10am appointment.

I do agree that the under 400 mile hub service fills a larger public need, and absent funds to do everything, if it was my call that would be the priority.

Jay

[Anonymous]

What really hurt the passenger trains profitability was losing the mail contracts..... The railroads never turned a profit moving people, it was freight all along.....

I used to hear the airlines could turn a profit just hauling mail, but so many aren't even though they are hauling the mail.....