Another Amtrak Question

[Anonymous]

Jay,

Your ignorance is getting old. Do you not have the ability to discern between "all" road funding and funding that is primarily interstate (as opposed to Interstate) in nature? Most interstate road systems get the majority of their federal share of funding via user fees. That is a statement of fact. What the states do to take care of their share of interstate highway is of their own discretion. The fact that some states choose to pay for some interstate road funding with methods other than user fees is not an issue for the federal government to have any say over. The fact remains: The federal share of interstate road funding comes from user fees.

I and others on this forum have NEVER claimed that all government (inclusive of federal, state, and local) road funding comes from user fees. We have been very carefull to make the distinction between federal and non-federal road funding.

Germain to the subject matter, Amtrak gets most of its funding from the federal government, and this federal share is NOT from user fees, but from the general tax funds, in direct contrast to road and waterway funding. Outside the NEC, Amtrak is solely an operating company, not an infrastructure owning entity. Therefore it is axiomatic that federal funding for Amtrak is diametrically opposed to the federal funding methods for highways.

The Waterways Association is pissed because there is funding available in the Waterways trust fund that is being used to help buttress the federal budget rather than being expended on needed waterway improvements. In this instance, Bush is being rather Clintonesque.

When we say that the federal government only funds the infrastructure portions of other modes, you know that the context of that statement is in comparing infrastructure to transporter operations. The three levels of government all are involved in infrastructure construction and maintenance for all non-rail modes, but only states and localities are involved in funding transporter operations for those other modes. The federal government in general does not fund any transporter operations over highways, waterways, or air corridors (the airline bailout notwithstanding, a one time deal at most). That's what makes Amtrak an anomoly, only passenger rail operations are getting federal funding, and this funding is not from any user fees. There are no bus lines, no airlines, no cruise ships that are getting a federal subsidy for operations.

I would like nothing more than to see an equalization of funding methods among all modes, but as long as the railroad companies desire to hold onto their rail ROW's at all costs, there can be no equalization. And without equalization, there can be no functional passenger rail service.

[Paul Milenkovic]

How big of a money pit is the NEC? Where is the money all going? What were the notably bad decisions?

Part of why I am interested is there is this thing called the Midwest Rail Initiative that is supposed to bring 110 MPH trains to all over the Midwest, from Iowa to Wisconsin to Illinois to Indiana and I guess even Ohio. The reason for the 110 MPH is that with the right kind of signals you can go that fast, but you are not allowed to go faster without eliminating all the grade crossings.

Now the Midwest has some flat, straight stretches of track -- the CP route taken by the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Minneapolis I believe is the stretch that the old Milwaukee Road Hiawathas were doing 100 MPH+. I am told there are stretches through Indiana that are either the Pennsy or NYC Chicago-New York main line. There is the BNSF 3-track "Aurora Speedway" westbound out of Chicago.

But apart from that, what they are considering is essentially reproducing the NEC in the Midwest over many more route miles and with much fewer dollars (they are talking about 7 billion).

I asked someone in the know about things rail and things Amtrak, and the answer I got is that the electric wire is what soaked up all the money on the NEC and that the Midwest thing was going to be high-speed Diesel. There is no reason that Diesel -- either locomotives like the P42's or DMU cars like the Colorado Railcars or that Danish Flexliner DMU can't go that fast, although there are some issues of getting good acceleration with Diesel power compared to the enormous HP's at speed you can get with electric. I guess gas turbine keeps coming up (latest proposal from Bombardier) but gas turbine has a reputation of being a gas guzzler.

What did they do wrong and what did they do right on the NEC? My guess is that the AEM-7 pulling Amfleet cars was something they did right. My guess is that the jury is still out on the Bombardier Acela -- heavy, trouble-prone (can you say PC-DOT Metroliner? I knew you could!), more marketing sizzle than cost-effective technology. I guess kicking the freight trains off the NEC is something they did right, but it was at a big, big cost of the passenger trains having to pay for all the track costs.

[daveklepper]

There are freight trains on the NE Corridor. The Providence and Worcester is proud of providing freight service on portions of the line north and east from Stamford and features freights passing Acelas on their calender. I understand that NS uses the corridor for one fast freight each way every weekday evening, but I am unsure of this at this particular time. It runs with diesel power, not with Amtrak's electrics. And the Providence and Worcester also is all-diesel. I think Guilford and CSX also use part of the Corridor near Boston. All of this does of course (1) bring some additional funds for Amtrak above the additional maintenance expenses of the track, and (2) preserves rail access for some industries.

[siberianmo]

The question is: If Amtrak is "junked" will the freight railroads take over? I think if they do the freight roads will do a better job.

My response: Lots of very interesting information contained in the responses, some threads have gone way off track - so to speak - but nevertheless, pretty informative and somewhat emotional opinions.

You know, the longer one stays around (as in living) the more likely it is to see some of the past repeat it self. That may be wishful thinking insofar as the freight railroads wanting to get back into passenger operations. They wanted out - they made train travel for passengers intolerable for many - they cut the ties. Now, they didn't do this all by themselves - several other factors were involved in the mix. But freight railroads in the U.S. are not about to bring back passenger trains. Can't see it.

On another forum, BEFORE the announced budget cut for Amtrak, I posted a reply to a question regarding the future of the American passenger train. Because so much has been said here - I thought I'd repeat my comments - Here goes:

Several years ago I terminated my affiliation with a group of people who meet in our state capital (Jefferson City, Missouri) for quarterly meetings with government - Amtrak - chambers of commerce - tourism organizations and passenger rail enthusiasts (represented by a group, rather than individual). This organization was put together as a semi-governmental body with the purpose of putting together reasonable solutions to the operating, administrative and budgetary problems encountered by Amtrak and therefore, the traveling public.

For now, I would rather not get into the particulars insofar as the major players were - for many of them probably are still at it. So please let me continue with this caveat: What I have to say represents my thoughts based on my involvements and observations at four years of meetings - that's about 16 in total.

In Missouri, Amtrak has two intra-state trains totally subsidized by our taxpayers. These trains cross the state daily from St. Louis to Kansas City/Kansas City to St. Louis. There are two others that operate on subsidies from an adjacent state and of coure, the federal government, providing daily service between Kansas City - St. Louis and Chicago/Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City. Additionally, four Amtrak trains traverse our landscape as long distance trains - the Texas Eagle (north & south) and the Southwest Chief (east & west). No state subsidies are provided for these long distance trains.

About 12 years ago, Amtak threatened to do one of two things impacting our intra-state trains: (1) Cut back service by one-half or (2) eliminate service entirely. These threats were made as a result of insufficient funds to meet the operating costs projected for the ensuing fiscal year. I became very invoved with an effort to let Amtrak know that many of us simply would not put up with the cessation of passenger train service without a fight. As a result, many of us were able to put together effective petition lists demanding help from our state and federal governments. At the time, I was with our local police department and wound up getting over 1,000 signatures to help with our cause. (Hmmm, I always wondered about that connection!) To make a long story short - we won - more or less. The trains are still operating within our state.

Many of the people who sat at that large rectangular table during our quarterly meetings had not ridden a passenger train in decades - if ever. Others simply were there representing their particular communities along the intra-state route in question - the Chamber of Commerce people along with the Tourism folks and either the Mayors from the towns/cities or their representatives. The decisions we came up with ran the spectrum from more bicycles on the train to cleaner station restrooms to better on time performance to more advertising to ...... I'm sure you get my point.

At no time during my four years of attendance and interaction do I recall any serious discussion of getting on board with a high speed rail corridor and of course, a demand for a state and national transportation plan that would take us into the future. Nah, we were more concerned with the comparative minutia and mundane than the actual future of passenger rail service. So, I simply stopped going.

Now, a little about me: I love passenger trains and I ride 'em whenever possible, even if it is only a day trip to and from Jeffereson City or Kansas City. My wife and I have ridden Via Rail trains for nearly 15 years and will continue to do so. To compare what is offered north of our border to what we have with Amtrak is to say that the old Marx electric trains are an equivalent to the Lionel trains of the day. Just no comparison. But is that to say that there are no problems in Canuckistan? (Sorry, that just slipped out! We are a Canadian-American family, so perhaps I can get by with it this time!) Of course there are. Whenever government gets involved, you wind up having to pander to those who have no clue regarding the difference between a truck (railroad) and a truck (highway)! When legislators take to the floor and pontificate for hours on end about this or that, you can be sure they are buying time for their interns to come up with something profound that they can use to wrap up the discussion on which they really have very little or any knowledge of! Sorry for those of you who may be more politically inclined than I, but again, I refer to MY thoughts and observations.

So, what's the future for the American Passenger train? Grim is the word that comes to mind. The reasons are all well documented in the four pages I have read on this discussion forum. Much of what has been said I fully agree with and others somewhat, with yet a slim few falling outside of my ability to reason. I do think that Amtrak will wind up as a regional entity and I believe that long distance travel will be dramatically changed from the way it is today. It appears to me that more of a point to point day trip system will be put into place. For example, take a trip from Chicago to Seattle. With a morning departure in Chicago the train would stop at whatever point is reasonable for a day trip - perhaps 12 hours. Passengers would have to stay in hotels for the night, then board either the same or a different one for the continuation along the way. Now, before you jump all over me about what a stupid and ridiculous idea this is - please think about it first. I am not saying that this idea is a good one or the best one or one that every one will accept, but I do see it as an alternative to where we are headed a present time.

I have heard this notion discussion before - it is not entirely from my aging gray matter. In fact, there are some north of our border who have openly kicked around the idea as well. Why? Because long distance trains just cost too much money in equipment and personnel compared to what is recouped at the cash box. It is that simple. These trains have to be staffed with sleeping cars and attendants - full service diners - along with all the supplies and provisions required. Dropping those cars and employees spells savings in dollars - real and projected; operational and maintenance.

What I want to happen is not what I think will happen. My love for the passenger train will stay with me for the remainder of my life. There is one thing that no one, including government, can take from me. When those passenger trains become a distant memory, at least I will have the memories!

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

Think about it--why were the railroads so eager to give up their passenger service in the first place?

Three factors listed below = red ink.

1. Subsidized competition in a regulated environment.
2. Lost mail contracts
3. Culture change - "suburbanization" of the US

[jchnhtfd]

Paul -- I'm not quite sure I'd term the NEC a money pit. It does cost money, that's quite true, but from my point of view 'money pit' is a rather loaded negative term.

I'd like to tackle several different things on this one, though.

First, the NEC is an integral -- and absolutely essential -- part of the transportation network in the area from Washington, DC to Boston. While there are parts of it which are less travelled (notably from New Haven, Connecticut, to Providence, Rhode Island), all of it is pretty well used by passengers. In large hunks of it, it is extremely heavily used by passengers who live in outlying communities and have to get to work in the major cities (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington). In one form or another, with one operator or another, it simply has to exist.

This is the reason that freight traffic is restricted on it: during much of the day (say from 06:00 AM to perhaps 9:00 PM) there simply are no available slots to run anything but a passenger train in; the demand is that high. The remainder of the day can be, and is, used for some freight service.

The remainder of the day is also used, however, for essential maintenance! That much traffic on a line causes a good bit of wear and tear. Further, and perhaps even more relevant, Amtrak and its predecessors (the New Haven and Pennsylvania railroads) didn't have enough money to spend on really good preventive maintenance for many years, starting in the '50s. As a result, much of the infrastructure (catenary, rails, signalling, bridges, stations -- you name it!) is, to put it kindly, elderly -- and like us elderly people, elderly infrastructure takes more, and more expensive, maintenance to keep it (or us!) up and running.

New catenary, mostly on the New Haven (the section from New York to Boston) was expensive. Some of it was installed from scratch -- from New Haven, CT, to Boston -- and this was very expensive. The stretch from New York to New Haven is being replaced, and has to be -- the old New Haven catenary, while an excellent design for the day (about 1905) simply wasn't up to today's world. Not only was it exceedingly maintenance intensive, it was also accident prone: the design was not capable of maintaining adequate tension in the running wire, and pantographs were forever 'picking' the wire and tearing it down... not good...

Electrification was extended from New Haven to Boston mostly to eliminate an engine change at New Haven, which was very time consuming. Was it really worth it? I would have to say 'yes' -- in the long run; traffic is heavy enough to make the advantages of using through engines significant, and it has allowed electric working into Boston, which is a very real advantage.

I agree that the AEM-7 hauled trains worked -- and work -- well. I suppose that the jury is still out on the Acela, although from my point of view as an engineer, it is a success. It has had some well-publicized problems, mostly stemming from the terrific beating it takes on such heavily used track. I would not say it has a weight problem, given the various regulatory requirements with which it has to comply. It has not reached the full schedule improvements of which it is capable, true. But this is not the fault of the Acela or its design, but rather that the infrastructure (which Amtrak would like to improve, but can't afford to improve) can't handle the higher speeds. In the short stretch in Rhode Island where it was possible to bring the infrastructure up to snuff, it runs very happily at 150 mph.

I would also note that electrification perhaps is not a luxury on routes with this density of traffic. As you note, quite accurately, an electric hauled train has the advantage of truly stunning short term power, and hence acceleration; with diesel haulage, either you have a lot of excess horsepower most of the time, or you simply can't accelerate that fast. Acceleration is necessary to get good schedule times on the NEC, as stops are relatively close together and if one is to avoid delaying other traffic (or one's self!) one needs to be able to get up to speed very very quickly.

There is another advantage in an area such as the NEC, though: the power is generated at a power plant, and distributed. This means two things: first, there is a much more constant demand for power, overall -- most trains are cruising while only one or two will be accelerating. Second, the air pollution created may be somewhat easier to manage at a stationary power plant -- particularly if some of it is not generated by fossil fuels. Considering the air quality in the NEC, this is significant.

[eastside]

QUOTE: ... But I seriously doubt the freight railroads want anything to do with it, or there would already be service out there somewhere. Passengers need a lot more "care and feeding" than freight...stations, comfortable rolling stock, parking areas, ticket agents, etc.

Not to mention also the exorbitant insurance rates they'd have to pay. I'll bet that alone would be a show stopper.

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all,
I'm glad someone else realizes that the Interstate system was designed by and for the military. Most roads and any other government projects get done because the military says it needs them. As a result, the feds sink their money into the project. As I recall, the Interstates were an 80/20 deal with Uncle Sugar picking up the 80. Here in Georgia we have fine Interstates. Everyone zips by my Geo Metro on Georgia interstates but when I go out of state, say northward to PA, I pass everyone at 65 because those highways are so poorly kept (or built) that other people slow down to 55. About the only car to pass me on my northbound trip to Orbisonia, PA and the East Broadtop was a Mercedes 300SL gullwing and it was 50 years old.
Railroads have always been taxed to the max because governments saw them as an easy target. For a long time, they were the only target being as they were the only BIG business around. In the 20th century, they helped pay for airports and roads which lightened their loads of both passengers and freight.
California ought to quit spending money on commuter rail and spend it on roads? It has been proven that you cannot ever overcome road traffic with more roads because if you build it they will come. That is why California began building up a commuter rail system in 1972. the state is seen as the leader in intelligent commuter transportation. I wish Georgia's great leadership was so forward thinking. But that is only wishful thinking. Georgia leadershiip, both Democratic and Republican, would like to follow W's plan of pushing the funding down a level and push it off on the counties. With such a system, Atlanta's MARTA has seen its fleet of buses and trains start to wear out. And while the outlying counties refused to join MARTA's rail system because they were afraid African Americans would move to their communities, the burden has fallen on Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb counties. Meanwhile the 'burbs were beginning to overflow with new residents, many of whom came from areas of the country which had commuter rail and would love to take the train now but can't. Our governor mandates that they take their car and about 600 square feet of highway space each morning and evening.
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA