The Future of Passenger Trains in North America, my opinion...

[luterram]

Here's an idea in the event that Amtrak long-distance trains cease to exist.

Since the 1960s, when they bowed out of the passenger business, freight railroads have seen a huge increase in high-priority intermodal traffic. These "Z" trains, as they are called on UP and BNSF, move at perhaps 2/3 the average speed of Amtrak LD trains, sometimes approaching Amtrak speed. They originate and terminate in large cities, and stop in intermediate large cities to pick up/drop off cars. I bet the freight railroads would much rather deal with a few cars tacked onto the end of these trains than with stopping all of their Z trains to give Amtrak priority.

Freight railroad typical revenue: 3 cents per ton-mile
Weight of Superliner coach: 60 tons
Capacity of baggage coach: 62 people
Ton-miles Portland-Chicago: 2200 miles*60 tons: 132,000
Cost at 3 cents per ton-mile: $3960
Cost per passenger, assuming freight railroad earned $3960/car: $64
Add on car attendants, switching, station fees, maintenance: ~$100-140
Current cost of trip (Amtrak low bucket coach): ~$180 (averaging peak and off-peak season prices)
Current cost of trip (Greyhound): $184

Many would object to treating passengers like freight, but the main advantages would be:
1) Negligible greenhouse gas emissions. Amtrak trains are way over-powered, with 2-3 4000 hp locomotives pulling 10-12 cars. Freights use three 4000 hp engines to pull over 100 cars, and tacking a few cars on the end wouldn't increase energy use by very much.
2) Cheap, self-supporting cross-country travel. No subsidies required.

Of course, this would require a different sort of self-contained car, with batteries/generators to provide heat and power rather than HEP, and I'd love to see a high-capacity sleeper design like the "couchette" cars that I was introduced to in Europe. Passengers would bring their own food, with some basics available for purchase in case folks came unprepared. Smoke/fresh air breaks would correspond to crew change/refueling points. Transit times would be guaranteed (e.g. Portland to Chicago in under 65 hours), as is the case with Z trains anyway, and the cars would typically arrive at their destinations ahead of these deadlines. Satellite internet would allow passengers to continue business on the train, partially offsetting the long travel times. Stations would be located close to intermodal yards, with minimal services, and cars would be switched on and off the train along with cuts of freight cars, keeping the passenger cars at the rear.  Trains would only stop at major cities (e.g. only Spokane and St. Paul between Portland and Chicago).  The train would not spot cars at intermediate stations (e.g. St. Paul). Rather the train would stop in an intermodal yard and cars for St. Paul would be removed while cars loaded in St. Paul in advance of the train's arrival would be added on, and the train would continue with minimal delay. In effect the cars would be self-contained habitable spaces, maintained during the journey by a crew of two attendants and serviced at the terminating stations.

I don't want $22 steak dinners. Sightseer lounges are nice but I don't need them. What I want is a way to get across the country cheaply in relative comfort (warm, safe, flat surface to lay on at night, electricity to run my laptop) with lots of baggage in tow and with minimal energy output/greenhouse gas emissions. I'm sure it will never happen, but I can dream...

Mark

[carnej1]

luterram

Here's an idea in the event that Amtrak long-distance trains cease to exist.

Since the 1960s, when they bowed out of the passenger business, freight railroads have seen a huge increase in high-priority intermodal traffic. These "Z" trains, as they are called on UP and BNSF, move at perhaps 2/3 the average speed of Amtrak LD trains, sometimes approaching Amtrak speed. They originate and terminate in large cities, and stop in intermediate large cities to pick up/drop off cars. I bet the freight railroads would much rather deal with a few cars tacked onto the end of these trains than with stopping all of their Z trains to give Amtrak priority.

Freight railroad typical revenue: 3 cents per ton-mile
Weight of Superliner coach: 60 tons
Capacity of baggage coach: 62 people
Ton-miles Portland-Chicago: 2200 miles*60 tons: 132,000
Cost at 3 cents per ton-mile: $3960
Cost per passenger, assuming freight railroad earned $3960/car: $64
Add on car attendants, switching, station fees, maintenance: ~$100-140
Current cost of trip (Amtrak low bucket coach): ~$180 (averaging peak and off-peak season prices)
Current cost of trip (Greyhound): $184

Many would object to treating passengers like freight, but the main advantages would be:
1) Negligible greenhouse gas emissions. Amtrak trains are way over-powered, with 2-3 4000 hp locomotives pulling 10-12 cars. Freights use three 4000 hp engines to pull over 100 cars, and tacking a few cars on the end wouldn't increase energy use by very much.
2) Cheap, self-supporting cross-country travel. No subsidies required.

Of course, this would require a different sort of self-contained car, with batteries/generators to provide heat and power rather than HEP, and I'd love to see a high-capacity sleeper design like the "couchette" cars that I was introduced to in Europe. Passengers would bring their own food, with some basics available for purchase in case folks came unprepared. Smoke/fresh air breaks would correspond to crew change/refueling points. Transit times would be guaranteed (e.g. Portland to Chicago in under 65 hours), as is the case with Z trains anyway, and the cars would typically arrive at their destinations ahead of these deadlines. Satellite internet would allow passengers to continue business on the train, partially offsetting the long travel times. Stations would be located close to intermodal yards, with minimal services, and cars would be switched on and off the train along with cuts of freight cars, keeping the passenger cars at the rear.  Trains would only stop at major cities (e.g. only Spokane and St. Paul between Portland and Chicago).  The train would not spot cars at intermediate stations (e.g. St. Paul). Rather the train would stop in an intermodal yard and cars for St. Paul would be removed while cars loaded in St. Paul in advance of the train's arrival would be added on, and the train would continue with minimal delay. In effect the cars would be self-contained habitable spaces, maintained during the journey by a crew of two attendants and serviced at the terminating stations.

I don't want $22 steak dinners. Sightseer lounges are nice but I don't need them. What I want is a way to get across the country cheaply in relative comfort (warm, safe, flat surface to lay on at night, electricity to run my laptop) with lots of baggage in tow and with minimal energy output/greenhouse gas emissions. I'm sure it will never happen, but I can dream...

Mark

 Unfortunately, I suspect that insurance and liability issues would make that mixed train concept a non -starter..

Your idea does bring to mind an interesting proposal that senior management at Amtrak put forward back in the mid-to-late 90's. They wanted to operate a network of long distanced mixed trains that would more parcel/express freight than passengers. It was a non-starter for a variety of reasons..

[BaltACD]

I would hate to think of the ride quality in passenger cars tacked onto the rear of a 7000 to 9000 foot intermodal train using freight car braking technology with slack run-in and run-out as undulating terrain is encountered.  Spotting passenger cars at the rear of a 9000 foot train for station stops would be a unique experience.  While your thinking is 'out of the box' it is too far out of the box to provide a acceptable service that someone would pay money to use in this day and age.

luterram

Here's an idea in the event that Amtrak long-distance trains cease to exist.

Since the 1960s, when they bowed out of the passenger business, freight railroads have seen a huge increase in high-priority intermodal traffic. These "Z" trains, as they are called on UP and BNSF, move at perhaps 2/3 the average speed of Amtrak LD trains, sometimes approaching Amtrak speed. They originate and terminate in large cities, and stop in intermediate large cities to pick up/drop off cars. I bet the freight railroads would much rather deal with a few cars tacked onto the end of these trains than with stopping all of their Z trains to give Amtrak priority.

Freight railroad typical revenue: 3 cents per ton-mile
Weight of Superliner coach: 60 tons
Capacity of baggage coach: 62 people
Ton-miles Portland-Chicago: 2200 miles*60 tons: 132,000
Cost at 3 cents per ton-mile: $3960
Cost per passenger, assuming freight railroad earned $3960/car: $64
Add on car attendants, switching, station fees, maintenance: ~$100-140
Current cost of trip (Amtrak low bucket coach): ~$180 (averaging peak and off-peak season prices)
Current cost of trip (Greyhound): $184

Many would object to treating passengers like freight, but the main advantages would be:
1) Negligible greenhouse gas emissions. Amtrak trains are way over-powered, with 2-3 4000 hp locomotives pulling 10-12 cars. Freights use three 4000 hp engines to pull over 100 cars, and tacking a few cars on the end wouldn't increase energy use by very much.
2) Cheap, self-supporting cross-country travel. No subsidies required.

Of course, this would require a different sort of self-contained car, with batteries/generators to provide heat and power rather than HEP, and I'd love to see a high-capacity sleeper design like the "couchette" cars that I was introduced to in Europe. Passengers would bring their own food, with some basics available for purchase in case folks came unprepared. Smoke/fresh air breaks would correspond to crew change/refueling points. Transit times would be guaranteed (e.g. Portland to Chicago in under 65 hours), as is the case with Z trains anyway, and the cars would typically arrive at their destinations ahead of these deadlines. Satellite internet would allow passengers to continue business on the train, partially offsetting the long travel times. Stations would be located close to intermodal yards, with minimal services, and cars would be switched on and off the train along with cuts of freight cars, keeping the passenger cars at the rear.  Trains would only stop at major cities (e.g. only Spokane and St. Paul between Portland and Chicago).  The train would not spot cars at intermediate stations (e.g. St. Paul). Rather the train would stop in an intermodal yard and cars for St. Paul would be removed while cars loaded in St. Paul in advance of the train's arrival would be added on, and the train would continue with minimal delay. In effect the cars would be self-contained habitable spaces, maintained during the journey by a crew of two attendants and serviced at the terminating stations.

I don't want $22 steak dinners. Sightseer lounges are nice but I don't need them. What I want is a way to get across the country cheaply in relative comfort (warm, safe, flat surface to lay on at night, electricity to run my laptop) with lots of baggage in tow and with minimal energy output/greenhouse gas emissions. I'm sure it will never happen, but I can dream...

Mark

[blue streak 1]

Instead of placing the passenger cars at the end of a 9000 ftr train place them between the first and second locomotive. Makes station stops very predicable, HEP from a lead or trailing loco, can switch out the front or rear of train without too much problem just like present manifest trains do now, no slack action, no chance of pull aparts on the passenger equipment,  etc.

Passengers would need to understand the possibility of running early sometimes and to meet the train as rescheduled. Would not be a problem with internet, facebook, twitter, etc.  

[uphogger]

blue streak 1

Instead of placing the passenger cars at the end of a 9000 ftr train place them between the first and second locomotive. Makes station stops very predicable, HEP from a lead or trailing loco, can switch out the front or rear of train without too much problem just like present manifest trains do now, no slack action, no chance of pull aparts on the passenger equipment,  etc.

Passengers would need to understand the possibility of running early sometimes and to meet the train as rescheduled. Would not be a problem with internet, facebook, twitter, etc.  

There's a reason for separate passenger and freight operations.  While having a relaxed schedule on some branchline mixed train back in the day might have been workable, scheduled long distance passenger operation requires its own equipment and facilities.  And the key is scheduling.  Have yourself and baggage where you need to be at the time you need to be there.  Get there too late?  Take the next train.  The railroad is not going to twitter you.  Placing cars at the rear of a long train?  You're overlooking one of the primary reasons the railroads got rid of the caboose: severe slack action.  Do you think it won't be a problem if the cars are on the front?  You've never ridden a freight train, have you?  I've run both.  The things you can do with passenger equipment will come back to bite you if you try them with freight.  The support needed for the difference in operations is also a major consideration.  There was a reason back when railroad passenger service was king as to why they were kept separate.  What makes you think things have changed?  Simplicity is the key to railway operations and equipment.  Combine things like some of you have proposed and you violate that principle.  The key thing is not to "think outside the box" but to convince management that there is some sort of profit to be made, either through revenue or through subsidy.  If you cannot do this, you are merely blowing smoke.

[atsfkid]

Read carefully the last two sentences of uphogger's post.  He is precisely on target.  IMHO the biggest problem Amtrak has is there is no profit incentive inherent in its operation.  

[Dragoman]

But you are not "blowing smoke" if you are trying to provide a public service as best you can with the resources available.  And isn't that what Amtrak does -- provide what has been judged a needed public service, in an industry (passenger rail) that nearly everyone has decided is incapable of profitable private-industry operation?

Isn't the only way "to convince management that there is some sort of profit to be made" in this arena is to actually "think outside the box"?

I for one do believe that, under proper circumstances, profitable passenger rail operation might be possible, but only if the key players do indeed think outside the box and at least consider options not considered currently.

I believe that it was Albert Einstein who said :

“The world we have created today, as a result of our thinking thus far, has problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them.” 

[atsfkid]

Einstein was right; our problem we can't decide what we really want.  Effective mass transit by rail that is run with a profit incentive is very likely not practical when we think we want a train to take us from Chicago to Seattle the way the Empire Builder, backed up by the Western Star, did 60 years ago.  Concentrate the resources where it makes sense and build the best "...all-weather" transportation system we can and run with profit incentives to all who bring in the trains with High customer sat ratings, on-time performance, and convenient schedules.  Let the long distance stuff be given over to people who can assemble high quality trains and run them with whatever frequency would be profitable to them.  I'll be they would always fill up.  Someone suggested let the National Park Service run the LD trains as a mobile park that teaches what it used to be like.  

[henry6]

There are so many reasons a mixed train (passenger and freight) of the deminsion we are talking about is unpractaical.  The physics and dynamics of the two, for one.  Plus the cost of stopping and starting, including the distance needed to stop and to reacclerate, would make it a circus to say the least..  Oh, maybe one or two coaches and perhaps two dozen freight cars might work...but the Abington Branch mixed dissappeared long ago as did its usefulness. 

Return on investment!  That's the problem.  There is a quick and easy return on investment when the commodity being moved doesn't need to have heat and airconditioning, food, windows, chairs, lavatory facilities, doors at both ends (and in the middle, too, if possible), and people to tend to it at every stop and while the train trundles.  Get rid of these amenities and costs and you've got freight.  Business to business has greater return on investment than business to people, so why bother?  Especially when you have to pay the insurance man more and keep a barnful of lawyers on staff (who tell you not to carry people). 

[schlimm]

atsfkid

Einstein was right; our problem we can't decide what we really want.  Effective mass transit by rail that is run with a profit incentive is very likely not practical when we think we want a train to take us from Chicago to Seattle the way the Empire Builder, backed up by the Western Star, did 60 years ago.  Concentrate the resources where it makes sense and build the best "...all-weather" transportation system we can and run with profit incentives to all who bring in the trains with High customer sat ratings, on-time performance, and convenient schedules.  Let the long distance stuff be given over to people who can assemble high quality trains and run them with whatever frequency would be profitable to them.  I'll be they would always fill up.  Someone suggested let the National Park Service run the LD trains as a mobile park that teaches what it used to be like.  

Good idea.  Either that or cruise trains.  Wait, cruise trains have been tried before and even with high quality service (and high fares) it hasn't worked.  The few folks who ride the Amtrak LD trains do so only with about a 50% subsidy.

[luterram]

Interesting responses to my out-of-the-box post.  Personally I like Amtrak quite well, and I hope they continue to run their current trains and perhaps add a few more.  My intent was to suggest a way that we might continue moving people by rail in the absence of a passenger railroad or a freight railroad interested in running passenger trains.

As some have pointed out, slack action might be sufficient to nix the idea, but I'm not convinced it couldn't be ameliorated somewhat with proper placement in the train and/or modern cushioning devices in the couplers.

My idea was not so much to create a mixed train as to add "people cars" to high-priority freight trains.  Cars would provide their own power and heat and be otherwise self-contained.  As far as BNSF was concerned they would have two more cars on, say, Z-SSECHC, one bound for MSP and one bound for Chicago.  No intermediate stops; cars would be switched on and off the train along with cuts of TOFC flats in major cities.  Terminal switchers would ensure that departing cars are ready to go when the train leaves and that arriving cars are spotted at the station.  Departure and arrival times would be somewhat unpredictable and speeds would be slow, but prices would be low and it would provide a way across the country for folks who are unable/unwilling to fly or drive or who, like me, just love riding trains.

Better than Amtrak?  Definitely not.  Better than no long distance passenger options?  Definitely, at least in my opinion.

 

 

[jclass]

luterram

My idea was not so much to create a mixed train as to add "people cars" to high-priority freight trains.  Cars would provide their own power and heat and be otherwise self-contained.  As far as BNSF was concerned they would have two more cars on, say, Z-SSECHC, one bound for MSP and one bound for Chicago.  No intermediate stops; cars would be switched on and off the train along with cuts of TOFC flats in major cities.  Terminal switchers would ensure that departing cars are ready to go when the train leaves and that arriving cars are spotted at the station.  Departure and arrival times would be somewhat unpredictable and speeds would be slow, but prices would be low and it would provide a way across the country for folks who are unable/unwilling to fly or drive or who, like me, just love riding trains.

 

Interesting idea.  A friend of mine bought passage on a cargo ship a couple summers ago from Montreal to Sweden to get a feel for what his ancestors experienced when they emigrated to America.

Also brings to mind John Kneiling's "tramp steamer trains on the iron ocean" idea of years ago.  He wrote about trains being equipped with "crew cars".  The crew would run and stay with the train throughout its travels, maybe a couple weeks at at time.

If your "people cars" stayed with the train, maybe the terminal costs would be lower?  Would limit need for poorly-used station facilities?  A "drive-on, drive-off" car for autos, too?  One can dream...