Is THIS a Viable Solution to the Current Amtrak Funding Crisis?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

HSR for freigth and passengers are more expensive to build and to maintain than HSR that serve only passenger and some mail and parcel-trains. The question is whether the market niche is big enough to justify the higher costs. These costs would have to be covered by the freight trains alone, because any other solution would be a cross-subsidy which does not make sense economically. the problem is very simple. You can build a supply-chain based on almost any trip-time, supposed the trains arrive reliably. Why should a customer pay higher rates if the does not need the faster delivery? Parcels, mail and perishables are the only exception to this rule.

Furthermore, you need a fleet of decidated HSR-freight-cars, streamlined and equipped with electronicalle-controlled disc-brakes. So you have to transload the cargo at the end and at the beginning of the HS-run, or you have to buy an enormous fleet of these cars. In Europa, the fastet freight trains run at 100 mph, some perishable-trains from southern France to the North and limestone trains in Britan. But these are exceptions, and they run on the convetional lines, not the HSR.

The Germans tried to establish a HR-freigt-service. It failed on the commercial side, not from a technical or safety point of vue. Starting years ago, the French still run HSR-Mail trains on their HS-network, with yellow TGV-trainsets. I think, UPS is studying to introduce a similar service for parcels basing on PDG-airport as hub.

Entire Trucks - not only trailers or containers - on railcars is an idea practized in Europe for years. It is called the moving highway. It survives only because it is heavily subsidized by government. It is much cheaper not to haul the tractor and to hire a new tractor and driver for delivery of the trailer or container.

Martin,

There is another economic component besides the time sensitive commodity market. Warehousing is a capital cost that most distributors try to avoid or minimize whenever possible. The tendency toward the "just in time" economy favors quicker delivery of goods from the production facility to the consumer. The less time a commodity spends between production and eventual consumption, the better, regardless of whether it is a high value time sensitive commodity such as parcels or perishables, or a low value price sensitive commodity such as lumber or plastic pipe. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to think that the current practice of warehousing in transit is preferable to static warehousing. On the contrary, warehousing in transit is even less efficient than static warehousing, which itself is a waste of capital and rents.

You don't need specialized freight cars for HSR in the 100 to 125 mph range, other than a preference for electronic brakes, and a limit on the maximum weight per axle to allow for superelevation of curves. Streamlining in that speed range is overrated, and the current design of COFC, TOFC, and bi-modal consists is sufficient for that speed range and axle load limits for the most part. Even boxcar and tank car designs are sufficient. The only car types that might be a problem with air flow are empty centerbeams, while heavy grain and aggregate carloads would need to spread that weight over more axles. The point is, most current car designs would allow usage on both HSR and conventional rail operations, and the implementation of electronic braking can be done in conjunction with air brakes. The introduction of such car types can be done over time with the introduction of the new HSR corridors.

You mentioned the Germans trying a HSR freight operation. Was that only within the German borders? If so, I can see why it wouldn't be able to compete with Autobahn freight deliveries. The distances within Germany are not sufficient to allow the advantages of HSR freight. A European wide HSR freight system would be a different story, and the fact that certain freights already are running 100 mph over the conventional European rail system shows some promise. Of course, for the U.S., Canada, or Australia, the time niche differential in the major air freight and highway corridors is much more pronounced and therefore a service that fills that niche is much more promising. The standard air freight corridor cross country is overnight/24 hours, while the standard highway cross country trip takes three to four days. A surface transportation system that can travel cross country in the 48 hour range (and subsequently crossing half the country in the 24 hour range)opens up a whole new range of pricing possibilities between the two other modes. In essence, you are replacing warehousing costs with the costs of higher speeds, and it is assumed that latter will be less cost to the economy than the former, thus the advantage goes to HSR. And it is in this time/distance range that would favor passenger transport over both highway and air in the half cross country corridors, and to a certain extent the full cross country corridors.

[martin.knoepfel]

HSR for freigth and passengers are more expensive to build and to maintain than HSR that serve only passenger and some mail and parcel-trains. The question is whether the market niche is big enough to justify the higher costs. These costs would have to be covered by the freight trains alone, because any other solution would be a cross-subsidy which does not make sense economically. the problem is very simple. You can build a supply-chain based on almost any trip-time, supposed the trains arrive reliably. Why should a customer pay higher rates if the does not need the faster delivery? Parcels, mail and perishables are the only exception to this rule.

Furthermore, you need a fleet of decidated HSR-freight-cars, streamlined and equipped with electronicalle-controlled disc-brakes. So you have to transload the cargo at the end and at the beginning of the HS-run, or you have to buy an enormous fleet of these cars. In Europa, the fastet freight trains run at 100 mph, some perishable-trains from southern France to the North and limestone trains in Britan. But these are exceptions, and they run on the convetional lines, not the HSR.

The Germans tried to establish a HR-freigt-service. It failed on the commercial side, not from a technical or safety point of vue. Starting years ago, the French still run HSR-Mail trains on their HS-network, with yellow TGV-trainsets. I think, UPS is studying to introduce a similar service for parcels basing on PDG-airport as hub.

Entire Trucks - not only trailers or containers - on railcars is an idea practized in Europe for years. It is called the moving highway. It survives only because it is heavily subsidized by government. It is much cheaper not to haul the tractor and to hire a new tractor and driver for delivery of the trailer or container.

[CG9602]

As I've suggested in other threads . . put together some form of Rail Trust Fund. Compensate the landlord RR's in the form of additional track, capacity, or maintenance funds, in addition to the "rent" that the service operator would pay. One source of funding would be a ticket tax in the form of a disembarkation fee, paid to the State in which the passenger disembarked.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Donclark is on the right path. HSR would fill a time niche between highway and airline. Current standard 79 mph max rail operations do not beat highway travel door to door, freight or passenger. The only thing he's missing, and the most important variable for success with HSR is that it MUST be focussed on freight, first and foremost, then and only then can you add a passenger element. Freight makes money, ergo would attract the necessary private investment capital (although you would still need a significant government financial invovement, not necessarily using tax dollars but utilizing instead tax exemptions and credits). HSR freight would take market share from truckers mostly and also some airfreight, and these time sensitive freight components have higher profit margins.

Once you've establish HSR freight lines, it would be no problem to introduce passenger operations, even running as "mixed" consists. A HSR passenger operation over the medium distance corridors would make the most sense, since such could directly compete with medium haul airlines, but even long distance HSR passenger operations could probaby attract enough travelers to approach private sector profitability.

Hmmm. Sounds great...

EXCEPT,

Amtrak, when it ran express, had trouble keeping the cars on the rails at 79 mph...

Second, there are good reasons that neither the Japanese nor Europeans run a significant amount of HSR freight. Freight is heavier and much more dense than passengers. Trains must have heavier construction, track structures must be of both heavier construction and correctly engineered for freight including little or no super elevation that is often used on passenger lines especially HSR lines. Lets not forget that merely mixing freight and passenger trains on the same tracks is likely to create dispatching headaches similar to those felt now. For example, suppose freight speeds can be increased to 100 mph. That's great until you introduce 130 mph passenger trains on the same tracks. You quickly revert to the same problems felt when freight are at 50 to 60 mph and passenger at 79 mph.

Without a magic wand, it just isn't gonna work.

LC

It isn't the weight of the freight so much as it is the weight per axle. For example, using three axle trucks limited to 55,000 lbs per axle would allow a gross weight of 330,000 lbs for freight cars, which is more than the proposed 315,000 standard running on four 78,750 lb axles. A lower center of gravity for heavy haul HSR freight cars in combination with a 55k axle weight limit would allow for the re-introduction of superelevation to keep speeds from bogging. When I refer to HSR, I'm talking about 100 to 125 mph, speeds that were approached using steam engines running on jointed rail during the 1930's. We're not talking the 200 mph speeds of French and Japanese passenger trains. Thus, there is no great technological hurdles to be overcome to run HSR freight and passengers at the same speeds.

And there is no reason freight and passenger should run at different speeds, that seems to me to be an anachronism of 1930's logistics. They run at the same speeds in the air and on our highways, let them run the same spees over the rails.

All a freight oriented HSR system needs is to beat the truckers' door to door times for medium hauls is a speed sufficient enough to allow for the terminal delays wherein freight is tranloaded between modes. At 125 max speed, if we can get a 100 mph average over 300 miles, we can beat the truckers averaging 65 mph in a 400 mile corridor with time to spare even with 1 hour delays for each terminal transload. And any corridor over 400 miles would belong to the HSR system in terms of best door to door times.

Finally, although a freight oriented HSR would dominate time sensitive traffic, it could also take on the low value goods such as grain and coal, so it would not be limited in its market share.

[trainspotters]

The transportation problem in this country is more than just the railroads. While stopped at a truck stop, a conversation with a trucker revealed he was running bi-weekly trips from Mich to Calif hauling truck chassis. Where is the sense in this when we all must realize how much more efficient RR is.
When Fred Pena was Sec'y, he promised to integrate the network, in order to minimize duplication, but got nowhere. We desprately need a better system to move both goods and people, and neither air, truck or RR is the only answer.
Now before you all get in an uproar about more gov't control, take a look at what "competition" has done for airlines, and telephone, after de-regulation.
Sure we could use trucks, but why not develop a way to cooperate: hauling trucks on trains (not just trailers)? The truckers could either stay in their homes on wheels, or perhaps a passenger coach could be included in the consist.
The arguement was made for door-to-door service, but actually even trucks are seldom door-to-door. In most cases goods are transferred from truck to truck at more than one distribution center.
We need to take advantage of the benefits of all modes of transportation in order to solve the problem of time, cost and energy without thinking any one mode is the ultimate answer to the question of life, universe and everything.
Does anyone have any ideas about how to implement this cooperation, or how about a better idea to minimize the traffic on the highways, and the almost constant delays at the airports? HSR in certain locations are great: I would love one between Denver and the ski slopes (probably from DIA). Flying long distances is sometimes the best solution, but overnight trains would be fine, too.
Well, that is enough for now.
Thanks for listening.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Donclark is on the right path. HSR would fill a time niche between highway and airline. Current standard 79 mph max rail operations do not beat highway travel door to door, freight or passenger. The only thing he's missing, and the most important variable for success with HSR is that it MUST be focussed on freight, first and foremost, then and only then can you add a passenger element. Freight makes money, ergo would attract the necessary private investment capital (although you would still need a significant government financial invovement, not necessarily using tax dollars but utilizing instead tax exemptions and credits). HSR freight would take market share from truckers mostly and also some airfreight, and these time sensitive freight components have higher profit margins.

Once you've establish HSR freight lines, it would be no problem to introduce passenger operations, even running as "mixed" consists. A HSR passenger operation over the medium distance corridors would make the most sense, since such could directly compete with medium haul airlines, but even long distance HSR passenger operations could probaby attract enough travelers to approach private sector profitability.

Hmmm. Sounds great...

EXCEPT,

Amtrak, when it ran express, had trouble keeping the cars on the rails at 79 mph...

Second, there are good reasons that neither the Japanese nor Europeans run a significant amount of HSR freight. Freight is heavier and much more dense than passengers. Trains must have heavier construction, track structures must be of both heavier construction and correctly engineered for freight including little or no super elevation that is often used on passenger lines especially HSR lines. Lets not forget that merely mixing freight and passenger trains on the same tracks is likely to create dispatching headaches similar to those felt now. For example, suppose freight speeds can be increased to 100 mph. That's great until you introduce 130 mph passenger trains on the same tracks. You quickly revert to the same problems felt when freight are at 50 to 60 mph and passenger at 79 mph.

Without a magic wand, it just isn't gonna work.

LC

[Anonymous]

Donclark is on the right path. HSR would fill a time niche between highway and airline. Current standard 79 mph max rail operations do not beat highway travel door to door, freight or passenger. The only thing he's missing, and the most important variable for success with HSR is that it MUST be focussed on freight, first and foremost, then and only then can you add a passenger element. Freight makes money, ergo would attract the necessary private investment capital (although you would still need a significant government financial invovement, not necessarily using tax dollars but utilizing instead tax exemptions and credits). HSR freight would take market share from truckers mostly and also some airfreight, and these time sensitive freight components have higher profit margins.

Once you've establish HSR freight lines, it would be no problem to introduce passenger operations, even running as "mixed" consists. A HSR passenger operation over the medium distance corridors would make the most sense, since such could directly compete with medium haul airlines, but even long distance HSR passenger operations could probaby attract enough travelers to approach private sector profitability.

[Anonymous]

I recently flew from DFW to Las Vegas.... on AirTrans..... Yes, I got there fast and on an airliner that has cheap fares..... But notice, from DFW there are three places to fly to with AirTrans: Las Vegas, Atlanta, and Fort Lauderdale..... In fact, the flight to Fort Lauderdale was an extension of this flight.....

However, there were snafus..... When the aircraft got to Las Vegas, we had to wait a half hour for another aircraft to leave the terminal before we could pull in...... And it happened again at DFW, except this time it was a 45 minute wait...... MAYBE THERE IS PLENTY OF SPACE IN THE AIR, BUT SPACE IS GETTING SHORT ON THE GROUND!

The pilot blamed bad weather up north which caused all of the delays...... Bad weather! Is this the transportation system of the future? Is it getting worst? When will we wake up and realize that the major urban airports are already at capacity? Build another terminal, build another runway..... Come on, are you so deceived that the 20 new gates will only create breathing space for a year or two...... and then we're back were we were...... Its the same with adding lanes to urban freeways..... They fill in practically no time......

Two or three train coaches can replace any airliner..... A train can pull as many as needed..... just add more locomotives to pull more and more cars..... on real estate that takes up about two lanes of traffic..... for double track main lines.....

Take a look at some city pictures taken from satellites. My favorite is a view of Dallas.... In it notice how wide freeways and their frontage roads, notice how little space DART's double track light rail takes..... A little bridge over RL Thornton freeway downtown shows the reality..... barely a two lane bridge over a 12 lane freeway....

Then take a look at DFW airport..... Footprint.....means government owned land..... the size of Arlington, Texas practically..... Railroads closed to major terminals and stations can be tunneled underground leaving valuable real estate to be developed by private sources.....adding to the tax roles instead of just the opposite.....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevarc

Ok, you want an explaintion
2. To Charter a bank would take an Act of Congress to creat. Chances of that ever happening are slim to none.

4. Where would the money come from? As a charter bank it needs deposits and after seeing amtraks track record with money, no fund or retiremen fund manager in their right mind would put money there. The lawsuits for failing thier fiduciary duties would be unreal. NOt only that,, but a bank MUST pay interest on their deposits and the return at this time is not going to encourage deposits.

Overall NO!

#2 NO. Most banks are state chartered, but insured by the Feds (FDIC). Only the real big guys have a true federal charter. Check out where most of your credit card money goes (my old hometown - Delaware). A lot of banks have charters in many states and are actually many different banks under one holding company (Bank One).

#4 Yes. Banks need a form of deposits to then reissue as loans with higher interest. Deposits can be of many design (Cash, Credit Transactions, Fees, Loan Interest, Insurance)

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

I am with LC on this one.

Gabe

Thanks Gabe. Guess somebody didn't like my long form answer. Sometimes the truth hurts, I guess. Like trying to turn a donkey into a canary. With a lot of genetic engineering and a few generations time you can get close, but it'll never really work...

LC

Good analogy. Like turning a donkey into a canary, attempting to do that with Amtrak would only result in the person making the attempt making an "***" out of themselves.[;)]

Gabe

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

I am with LC on this one.

Gabe

Thanks Gabe. Guess somebody didn't like my long form answer. Sometimes the truth hurts, I guess. Like trying to turn a donkey into a canary. With a lot of genetic engineering and a few generations time you can get close, but it'll never really work...

LC

[ajmiller]

What's the difference between saving energy and saving money? If HSR would save money vs. jets, then Southwest airlines would think about building HSR between Houston and Dallas.

I know I know, private airlines get unfair subsidies for their infrastructure, so why not trains. But I have to think that airports are still cheaper to build (and they're already built) than 100's of miles of new HSR tracks.

I don't think HSR will get a serious look until all other existing forms of transit are saturated.

[gabe]

I am with LC on this one.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

Most of the airlines flying into a lot of small cities and into all of the larger cities, i.e., the major carriers, are losing money. The only airlines that is turning a profit, these two or three keep coming up: Southwest, AirTrans, and JetBlue....have cherry picked routes serving underserved cities..... It happens that most of AirTrans routes serve Atlanta and either Orlando or Fort Lauderdale, Florida, wherever the other cities are.... I would not consider any of the above a nationwide airline......not even Southwest.....

AirTrans, for example, is a new airline.... I'm not sure whether its twenty years of age.... AirTrans would not have grown as much recently if it had to buy and build new airports, terminals, and parking garages serving them..... It has grown by taking over other airlines gates at the airports it serves.....

ANY NEW PRIVATE PASSSENGER RAILROAD COMPANY WOULD HAVE TO EITHER BUILD NEW RIGHT OF WAY OR TAKE OVER (BUY) AN EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY!

For example, I would like to travel by HSR to Houston from Dallas..... Since the only right of way is owned by Union Pacific, and since Union Pacific does not desire to lose any of its slots along this right of way, any new company would have to build new tracks to Houston.....

You know what this means..... Unlike the nineteenth century when the railroads were granted right of way along property which was owned by no one(yes, the governments).... today that is not the case......

No private entity that I know of could possibly fund the HSR line between two of the top 10 largest cities in America without some sort of government subsidy either at the state of national level..... The right of imminient domain would be nice for any private entity to use to keep the price of real estate from skyrocketing beyond a fair price for the land involved.....

The cheapest direct route as far as real estate is concerned is owned by the state of Texas, its right of way alongside I-45..... only one owner to barder with.....

Now if the railroad could sell the bonds to build a HSR line alongside this right of way, how much should the state ask for its right of way? TGV twenty years ago almost came up with the ca***o do so..... had sold the investors and the banks of a profit along a similar route.... What defeated that agenda was Southwest Airlines refusal and its pull among legislators to eliminate any state help building the HSR line.....

Its okay for the state or the feds to help the airlines, but its not okay for the state and the feds to help build HSR? Something is amiss here......

What is boils down to is similar to the electric utillities earlier.... Without government intervention and help, we would be without electricity today especially in the rural areas...... think about it......

Governments that do actually want to cut down on our energy use, and become self efficient in energy, SHOULD BE ABLE TO HELP BUILD HSR ACROSS THE COUNTRY!

And that includes the United States of America...... Trains can move more people and use less energy than any airliner...... and can do so in a shorter time period at a medium distance.....

[kevarc]

Ok, you want an explaintion

1. Snow is an idiot. He darned near ruined CSX. He has no business being a position of power.

2. To Charter a bank would take an Act of Congress to creat. Chances of that ever happening are slim to none.

3. From what I can gather, Greenspan is NOT a fan of amtrak and so I see no help coming from that quarter.

4. Where would the money come from? As a charter bank it needs deposits and after seeing amtraks track record with money, no fund or retiremen fund manager in their right mind would put money there. The lawsuits for failing thier fiduciary duties would be unreal. NOt only that,, but a bank MUST pay interest on their deposits and the return at this time is not going to encourage deposits.

5. Face it, without gov subsidies, amtrak is DOA. No one in their right mind is going to finance anything without a fed guarantee and what would the difference in a direct subsidy and that? Nothing.

6. ergo -it is best to either let amtrak die or let the states that want it pay for it.

[K. P. Harrier]

Limitedclear:

“No”? Why? And, could ANYTHING else ‘pacify’ almost everyone?


donclark:

Isn’t there a distinct difference between a corporation’s owners (stockholders) and WHAT A CORPORATION DOES to generate revenue and profits?


kevarc:

Your reply is an emphatic no also. Why? Do you have anything constructive to offer? Or, will the same old thing prevail? (i.e., the ones with the most political clout will win.)

[kevarc]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Snow was a waste at CSX.

[Anonymous]

However, its true that corporations do sell stock to raise capital..... something Amtrak cannot do..... Then again, who would buy stock in a company that doesn't turn a profit?

Amtrak's is a nationwide passenger railroad government service..... To start over with a private passenger railroad company, it would have to start small and grow slowly at the same time turning a profit.... For this to happen, this small company would have to have government subsidies similar to the railroads of the nineteenth century.....large land grants.....or something similar.....

And if one new small company started this and got the federal and state subsidies the railroads received in the nineteenth century, this new railroad would of course be state of the art HSR.....

The question that remains is, Wouldn't it be cheaper for the government to build HSR nationwide? And a second question remains, Would private enterprise operate a HSR nationwide better?

These are the two questions that envelope Amtrak today!

[oltmannd]

Might as well just set Amtrak up with a money printing press. That would solve the problem, too.

[Anonymous]

The answer to the question is "NO".

LC

[K. P. Harrier]

It is well known in financial circles that money can be created by a mere banking redeposit process, and is a basic, fundamental premise of American economics. It is a concept known all too well by now Federal Treasury Secretary (and ex-CEO of CSX Railroad) John Snow, as well as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

IF Amtrak became a special federally chartered BANK in charge of billions and billions of dollars in assets and a multiplicity of redeposit funds expanding the economy, profits earned from loans could be applied to the money losing national intercity passenger train network. And taxpayers perhaps could eventually become totally out of the picture and unaffected.