Now that the railroads are going to a more scheduled format the time might be right to reconsider mixed (passenger/freight) trains in some corridors. Stops might be made to coincide with major cities and crew change points to avoid holding up the freight. Put a couple or five passenger coaches behind the locomotives as opposed to the end of the train to minimize stopping and to give crews the benefit of having passenger amenities on their trains like a snack bar or a place to lay down.
Just an idea...but maybe something to consider seriously as there are numerous positives.
It's not quite as simple as it sounds. For example, let's consider a Chicago-Kansas City run over the former Burlington. Passenger equipment would run from Chicago Union Station to Clyde, stop to pick up its freight consist, run to North Kansas City, drop off the freight, and continue to Kansas City Union Station. Clyde is almost entirely intermodal, so the freight would have to be restricted to that, and presumably the intermodal would have to be forwarded to Argentine at the other end after being dropped off. This would have to be an overnight run and there would be no en route block swaps, such as Eola, Galesburg, etc. Intermediate passenger stops would also have to be minimal.
A Chicago-Twin Cities mixed over the former Milwaukee Road would be handicapped by the fact that Bensenville is not on the direct route to Milwaukee and points beyond. I'm sure that the same situation applies in other metro areas.
I think with a bit of tweaking the idea is viable. There is no commandment that states "Thou shallt keep freight and passenger separate".
This is what it might look like for a Chicago - NY train over NS on the hottest of hot intermodal trains:
lv Union Station 4AM with passenger cars
travel to Englewood and PU frt train, lv 5AM
arv Elkhart 7:45AM
arv Toledo 10:40 AM, depart 11:40AM after PU
arv Cleveland 2:28PM
arv Pittsburgh 6:45PM (can't use Amtrak Sta. - clearance issue)
arv Harrisburg 2:05AM
arv Croxton 8:10AM
avg speed is 33 mph. That's pretty slow. Is that fast enough to attract travellers? Departing Chicago at 4AM - is that a deal killer?
How to fill the gap between Croxton and NY? Set out at Bound Brook and let NJT handle it? Let Amtrak take it from Harrisburg on what ever the "next" Harrisburg to NYP train is - since arrival at Harrisburg will be too unreliable to guarantee a specific train.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Might not work on every train or route...but on some maybe. Like any idea there would need to be some determination as to where this could be used, time lines, implementation, not to mention direct and indirect cost associated with infrastructure improvements.
Here in Canada Ontario and Quebec are considering high speed passenger rail...the cost would be in the billions yet cheap flights and busfares are already available in this market.
The mixed train concept might work in markets that don't have ready access to air service and where driving might not be the best option...like in the mountains of BC in the wintertime.. Lots of coal trains go through there all the time, and while it wouldn't be the fastest way to go it might be an option if you've got the day to spare.
Branchline mixed trains were usually a situation which the daily or less-than-daily freight on the line carried an old coach or a stretched caboose to handle the occasional passenger.
Mainline mixed trains were a little different. The "Portland Rose" between Kansas City and Denver comes to mind. They were usually secondary passenger trains on their last legs with minimal ridership and some intermodal was tacked onto them to reduce the losses.
At any rate, ridership on mixed trains was all but non-existent.
Bad guess...I've heard of it and am familiar with it. I also know that Amtrak was experimenting with perishables as well.
An "expensive model collector"
Looking at the traditional "mixed" from a British perspective, I suspect that "mixed train" would have to be carefully defined. No one (apart from dedicated railfans) would want to wait while the mixed spots or picks up cars. Perhaps a new definition is needed, say a "dual purpose consist" . Does this have any resonance in your minds ?
Dennis (Germanium)
I think the niche would be a some pass. cars tucked behind the locomotives on some of the faster intermodal schedules, particularly on routes w/o service now.
I don't know if there would be enough there there to make it go, tho'.
But it is an interesting question!
No one has mentioned Amtrak's legal monopoly on most non-commuter passenger rail service. I'm sure Amtrak would love to get into the actual freight business to make some money. I'm just as sure the freight carriers would fight it tooth and nail. So it would be a stalemate which means it isn't going to happen.
alphas wrote: No one has mentioned Amtrak's legal monopoly on most non-commuter passenger rail service. I'm sure Amtrak would love to get into the actual freight business to make some money. I'm just as sure the freight carriers would fight it tooth and nail. So it would be a stalemate which means it isn't going to happen.
If my memory is right, Amtrak stretched the law a bit when it made the push for the mail and express business in the Warrington regime. Hauling the mail was not challenged since that was historically handled in passenger trains, but there was a problem with the freight railroads over the definition of express and what it actually included. As it turned out, the express business barely covered its own costs and any contribution to the bottom line was minimal.
What's to stop a joint venture? Amtrak as a customer on a van train.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.