Class One's getting back into the passenger biz!

[Anonymous]

Was just reading this article over at the BLE website

"Thinking Outside the Boxcar"
http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=12295

It was talking about how some freight railroads (Namely Norfolk Southern) were thinking about getting back into the passenger business.

By the sounds of the article, it doesn't seem like they are planning on trans-con routes, but rather commuter services between major cities.

Some interesting quotes from the article.

QUOTE:
The railroad - so used to serving old industries like power plants and car makers - has had to think way outside the boxcar. Indeed, it's now considering the unthinkable - a return to operating some trains between cities.

QUOTE:
Norfolk Southern has taken the first step, he said, of "stop saying no" to new approaches to moving goods and people. "Instead we started saying yes - with conditions."
He set four principles for such partnerships: No reductions in freight capacity; fair value for use of the railroad's assets; full liability protection; and no subsidy of passenger operations.

QUOTE:
With massive congestion on Interstate 81, he said, "There's a lot of discussion about I-81 and how rail can be part" of solving the problem. One idea with support from government and business groups in western Virginia is the creation of the TransDominion Express, or TDX. The passenger rail line would serve Bristol, Roanoke, Lynchburg, Charlottesville, Richmond and Washington.
Another proposal involves working with Norfolk Southern to build more train tracks parallel to I-81.

It also sounds like freight railroads may be getting public funds to up-grade tracks that passenger trains run on, to improve passenger services.

This article certainly got my attention, it sounds as though with air and highway congestion at their worst ever, people are now truly, seriously looking towards making passenger rail a viable alternative.

[Dough]

There has been a lot of talk about this type of thing around Atlanta for the past few years. They are even seriously considering a light rail that heads south from Atlanta on a lightly used NS line. NS gets free upgrades thanks to the GA taxpayers. It seems like a good idea, but I'm just not sold yet. I don't see the proposed line as ever being profitable. Especially when you consider the initial costs. However, it may just be ignorance on my part.

Now they also considered lines to Gainesville and Athens from Atlanta. I think that these would be better, but it will be years before the government gets around to these stages...if ever. The Gainesville line would go through the very dense Gwinnett and south Hall counties. It is also the current route of the Amtrak Crescent route. The Athens line would serve the 30K students at UGA as well as the Athens/Clarke, Winder/Barrow, and Gwinnett county communities. They have even talked about a substantial toll on the primary highway between Athens and Atlanta, Hwy 316. If they could match the toll then rail would have the possibility of being profitable. They could capture shoppers headed to the Mall of Georgia, commuting between the cities and even some of the 92K fans that travel to Sanford Stadium on Saturdays.

Other possibilities include connecting the southern route to Macon, another between Atlanta and Augusta, and I'm sure that there are more on the other side of Atlanta. It’s funny. If you look at a map, Atlanta is in the center with the major interstates coming out as spokes. Then if you look at the railroads, there is a major line that generally parallels each of the interstates.

However, both of the northern lines are used more regularly for freight. I would imagine that the freight lines, CSX and NS, would be much more reluctant to have the added volume of passenger trains.

[daveklepper]

UP Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City is a real natural and might even be profitable if one did not count the costs of the upgrading.

[Anonymous]

Maybe Mr Goode is looking to do what Graham Claytor did. Upon retirement he goes to Washington D.C. and goes to work at running AMTRACK. Ya gotta giv'em credit, these Sr. railroad execs, they just got to run one again.

[Junctionfan]

Does NS having anything decent for passenger/ commuter service or would they need to buy new equipment for this?

[mudchicken]

What's the catch? And there is one!

[mustanggt]

Imagine... Jet black P42's with jet black superliners or future equivalent. Or even better, The BNSF Superchief.[;)] But on a serious note, lots of critics say the death of Amtrak would kill Class 1 passenger travel off for good. But what this article predicts could be a ray of light in a cloudy storm that is Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

It's going to be interesting to watch what happends with passenger rail in the next decade or so.

I know here in the lower mainland we have the West Coast Express, which is funded and run by Translink (private company that accepts government money to run public transit.)

They currently run 5 trains a day in either direction (From Mission to the City of Vancouver, then back out to Mission starting in the early afternoon.) Monday - Friday.

CP has been contracted to run the trains with a CP Conductor and a CP Engineer, all on CP trackage.

The system has been an overwhelming success, and they have been chatting about adding more trains to run at different times including weekends.

I think the future for passenger/commuter rail is looking awfully bright.

[Wdlgln005]

http://www.rta-ride.org/services/rail/index.html

The Nashville & Eastern may not be a class 1, but it & the RTA will bring commuter rail to Nashville. The URL above provides a link to progress on these lines.

Perhaps the Class 1's can be more open to more of these operations on their tracks? The problem is track capacity & money.

[cpbloom]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mustanggt

Imagine... Jet black P42's with jet black superliners or future equivalent.

[:p][:)][:o)]

[Anonymous]

Lets reword this direction just a little bit. What would get a successfull freight hauler that is performing more and more like a modern business, with improving profitability, growing freight tonnage, and an improved business relationship with both shippers and recievers to go back to what is essentially a 19th century money loosing, labor, maintainance, time, and capital intensive business when it does not need to?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion

Lets reword this direction just a little bit. What would get a successfull freight hauler that is performing more and more like a modern business, with improving profitability, growing freight tonnage, and an improved business relationship with both shippers and recievers to go back to what is essentially a 19th century money loosing, labor, maintainance, time, and capital intensive business when it does not need to?

Ah, it's a different world.

We aren't talking coast to coast long haul passenger traffic, that the railway is forced to run at a loss.

We're talking commuter traffic in high density areas, where there is a need for an alternative to air or car.

[jabrown1971]

What I envision happening is that in states where service is funded by the state, there will be contract bidding. Let's say that Amtrak runs trains in Illinois under direction of the Illinois Department of Transportation. In 2010, hypothetically, a contract will be let and any railroad that runs in Illinois can bid service and run if they win. UP could run trains under contract to the state of Illinois. I believe NC already owns cars and locomotives, other states could do the same. Even the current Amtrak equipment could be transferred to state ownership and Metra could bid on the St Louis Chicago Corridor and the Quincy trips. Bi-State (St Louis), could run the St Louis-KC Lines.

[BNSFGP38]

I have been told that at one time, railroads could run trains without state funds and massive upgrades. And also running passenger and frieght running on the same track was simply " No problem".

[jabrown1971]

Those days are long over..............since the airplane come into wide usuage. Railroads started to experience a decline in the 1950's The equipment is expensive to maintain and in those days freight was taking a backseat. Now Amtrak and state governments are trying to find ways to make the trains more competive to cars buses and airplanes, the only real way to do that is to upgrade the current infrastucture to accomodate trains that run at 100 + miles per hour. The only way this will happen is either through state or federal ownership of the rail corridors.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Talking about 100+ MPH, is anyone outside of the NEC running those speeds? What is going on on the Empire Corridor these days?

The talk on the Midwest Highspeed Rail initiative is running 110 MPH with lightweight Diesel trains (Talgo or perhaps DMUs). I guess this is close to what the Empire Corridor was at least at one time doing with Rohr Turboliners. What was their experience with 110 MPH operation? What kind of average speeds did they achieve with 110 MPH peak speeds? What kind of problems did they have with grade crossings?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Suburban service is also a money loser. Consider that 2/3 of the equipment is used only in peak periods and sits for the rest of the day. Also consider that multiple-ride fares, which are used by most riders, are appreciably lower than the base fare. For example, Metra's 10-ride ticket has a 10% discount over 10 one-way tickets. Metra's monthly ticket is 27 times the one-way fare, an average month has 40 rides (20 round trips), so the discount is almost 1/3 from the base fare. Raising fares is generally done about every other year, but a subsidy is still needed.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFGP38

I have been told that at one time, railroads could run trains without state funds and massive upgrades. And also running passenger and frieght running on the same track was simply " No problem".

Monopoly is not a game, but was very real in those days. Travel, Freight, Express, Communications (Western Union on rail rights of way) Mail and bulk. In short anything that had to be moved anywhere that there was not navigable water, ocean or the twenty mule team and stage coach services which were not much at that. I will quote an old rail exec from when I was a younger man than I am now; "You can't run a railroad on romance." Murry Klien said as much in Vol.II of Union Pacific. Railroading is a business. A big business that must make a profit. The truth be told, I miss riding the rails on a great Limited, but those days are gone and we have to move on.

[Anonymous]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that freight railroads operating commuter services under contract was commonplace. For example, I'd always thought that the various freight railroads provided the crews under contract for Metra in Chicago.

[jabrown1971]

I think Metra employs train crews. Won't swear to it. Anyone from Chicago got that answer

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Metra's situation varies with the lines involved. Some operations are under purchase-of-service contracts, so the operating road employs the crews. Others are directly operated by Metra and Metra employs the crews on those routes.

[Anonymous]

Anybody for $5, 6, 7 or 8 dollar per gallon gasoline?

[motor]

You gotta watch stories like this. They may be trial balloons someone sends up to see if something that may happen or be proposed gets a good reception. [:)]

motor

[Anonymous]

BNSF crew operate Seattle's Sound Transit Sounder commuter service, and dispatch the entire thing, including those portions which are not run on BNSF tracks, on a contract basis. This is not rare.

Secondly, I have a tendency to dismiss the comments of *certain posters* who believe that Graham Claytor ever ran an agency known as "AMTRACK".