What would have to happen here is that the local authority would have to see a need for passenger rail even if does not make $$$ as a quility of life and a economic stimulas that they cant live without. For example The New Orleans-Gulf Coast-Pensicola does not have hub airports but needs a way to get people to the Beach and the economy needs them.
We would have to all (Goverment,Buisness and Public) that Intercity Passenger Rail is a nessesary public good and service and needs to be procured somehow. Goverment does a lousy job of running buisness efficiantly but does a good job at oversight and getting funds. For Profit buisness wants to look good and make money.
[quote user="oltmannd"]
V.Payne "Wouldn't it be intersting to experimently try these theories out? Pick one LD route. Make sure it provides a premium level service: reliable schedules with superior service and clean, reliable equipment; have at least 2 trains a day, approximately 12 hours apart, and maybe a 3rd schedule that maximizes some other characteristic (best connections, hitting the top intermediate stops at the best times, whatever); have enough equioment to quickly meet changes in demand; and try it out for 12 months. Whether by Amtrak or a contracted operator, I suspect that the results would positively surprise many." Yes, I can see it suprising many as there is nothing special about a 300 mile corridor that makes it perform better, particularly as the average trip length for the LD trains is a bit more than 500 miles when artificial limits are removed from the market's desires. I would nominate the Crescent route, the entire way NYC to NOL for a second added flipped schedule service. Yes, the gain in passenger miles would be more than double, as two schedules open up more possible departure and return trips due to the differing times. The issue is the Congress does not want to expand service on a route and there seems to never have been a serious proposal by NRPC to do so in recent times (there was even a arguement that the Crescent shouldn't have been taken over in 1979). Here is an interesting professional survey from 1972 talking about even then (with the cities at the height of decay and flight and prior to the 1973 fuel crisis) the high level of public support for expanded railroad passenger service of a conventional kind, clean, reasonably convenient. The longer route coach only trains perform better than the shorter route coach only trains and there is no evidence that sleepers drag the LD trains down. The only hatchet job report I am aware of assumed all food service, checked baggage, and a second locomotive was soley assigned to sleepers to show a marginal loss and even then admitted that sleepers should be kept on the same basis as coach at least. I believe Congress has been shapped by the professional sillyness of the highway lobby (driven by truckers and their lobbyists) claiming the incremental fuel tax pays for the incremental use of high grade roads while all the time trying to figure reasons to explain away the desire of citizens for something better in ground transportation that might actually come sometime soon. There seems to be significant frustrated demand. Perhaps the contract, that is needed for another operator, becomes the vehicle to disply the financial arguements about relative financial efficiency per passenger mile with expanded offerings.
"Wouldn't it be intersting to experimently try these theories out? Pick one LD route. Make sure it provides a premium level service: reliable schedules with superior service and clean, reliable equipment; have at least 2 trains a day, approximately 12 hours apart, and maybe a 3rd schedule that maximizes some other characteristic (best connections, hitting the top intermediate stops at the best times, whatever); have enough equioment to quickly meet changes in demand; and try it out for 12 months. Whether by Amtrak or a contracted operator, I suspect that the results would positively surprise many."
Yes, I can see it suprising many as there is nothing special about a 300 mile corridor that makes it perform better, particularly as the average trip length for the LD trains is a bit more than 500 miles when artificial limits are removed from the market's desires.
I would nominate the Crescent route, the entire way NYC to NOL for a second added flipped schedule service. Yes, the gain in passenger miles would be more than double, as two schedules open up more possible departure and return trips due to the differing times. The issue is the Congress does not want to expand service on a route and there seems to never have been a serious proposal by NRPC to do so in recent times (there was even a arguement that the Crescent shouldn't have been taken over in 1979).
Here is an interesting professional survey from 1972 talking about even then (with the cities at the height of decay and flight and prior to the 1973 fuel crisis) the high level of public support for expanded railroad passenger service of a conventional kind, clean, reasonably convenient.
The longer route coach only trains perform better than the shorter route coach only trains and there is no evidence that sleepers drag the LD trains down. The only hatchet job report I am aware of assumed all food service, checked baggage, and a second locomotive was soley assigned to sleepers to show a marginal loss and even then admitted that sleepers should be kept on the same basis as coach at least.
I believe Congress has been shapped by the professional sillyness of the highway lobby (driven by truckers and their lobbyists) claiming the incremental fuel tax pays for the incremental use of high grade roads while all the time trying to figure reasons to explain away the desire of citizens for something better in ground transportation that might actually come sometime soon.
There seems to be significant frustrated demand. Perhaps the contract, that is needed for another operator, becomes the vehicle to disply the financial arguements about relative financial efficiency per passenger mile with expanded offerings.
A day train between NY and Atlanta would probably dry up most of the shorts on the Crescent.
[/quote[quote user="oltmannd"]
[/quote
oltmanndA day train between NY and Atlanta would probably dry up most of the shorts on the Crescent.
oltmannd V.Payne "Wouldn't it be intersting to experimently try these theories out? Pick one LD route. Make sure it provides a premium level service: reliable schedules with superior service and clean, reliable equipment; have at least 2 trains a day, approximately 12 hours apart, and maybe a 3rd schedule that maximizes some other characteristic (best connections, hitting the top intermediate stops at the best times, whatever); have enough equioment to quickly meet changes in demand; and try it out for 12 months. Whether by Amtrak or a contracted operator, I suspect that the results would positively surprise many." Yes, I can see it suprising many as there is nothing special about a 300 mile corridor that makes it perform better, particularly as the average trip length for the LD trains is a bit more than 500 miles when artificial limits are removed from the market's desires. I would nominate the Crescent route, the entire way NYC to NOL for a second added flipped schedule service. Yes, the gain in passenger miles would be more than double, as two schedules open up more possible departure and return trips due to the differing times. The issue is the Congress does not want to expand service on a route and there seems to never have been a serious proposal by NRPC to do so in recent times (there was even a arguement that the Crescent shouldn't have been taken over in 1979). Here is an interesting professional survey from 1972 talking about even then (with the cities at the height of decay and flight and prior to the 1973 fuel crisis) the high level of public support for expanded railroad passenger service of a conventional kind, clean, reasonably convenient. The longer route coach only trains perform better than the shorter route coach only trains and there is no evidence that sleepers drag the LD trains down. The only hatchet job report I am aware of assumed all food service, checked baggage, and a second locomotive was soley assigned to sleepers to show a marginal loss and even then admitted that sleepers should be kept on the same basis as coach at least. I believe Congress has been shapped by the professional sillyness of the highway lobby (driven by truckers and their lobbyists) claiming the incremental fuel tax pays for the incremental use of high grade roads while all the time trying to figure reasons to explain away the desire of citizens for something better in ground transportation that might actually come sometime soon. There seems to be significant frustrated demand. Perhaps the contract, that is needed for another operator, becomes the vehicle to disply the financial arguements about relative financial efficiency per passenger mile with expanded offerings. A day train between NY and Atlanta would probably dry up most of the shorts on the Crescent.
If we look at it from the point of view of what the public needs, rather than how to fix the finances of a particular existing train, then NY-Atlanta day travel is a natural, with all the intermediate metropoleis. Atlanta-NO is also a useful day corridor, though obviously would not be patronized at the same level.
All this brings us back to two NY-NO trains a day, one leaving each end at 8 AM and the other at 8 PM, one continuing as the night train Atlanta-NO and the other as the night train NY-Atlanta. You have to believe that would more than double current ridership on the Crescent alone.
Tiesenhausen
TiesenhausenAll this brings us back to two NY-NO trains a day, one leaving each end at 8 AM and the other at 8 PM, one continuing as the night train Atlanta-NO and the other as the night train NY-Atlanta. You have to believe that would more than double current ridership on the Crescent alone. Tiesenhausen
If a real passenger rail service (fast, convenient and frequent) were offered on the ATL-DC corridor, the numbers served could be huge. But that would require a modern RoW, as the current trackage is too crowded with incompataible private freight. Adding a day train to the current mix is a drop in the ocean.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
There is a limited return with respect to trip frequency past a certain point. I don't know that I agree with the level of detail in the FRA CONNECT model but the graph below is a conceptual illustration of the Revenue to Operating Cost ratio plotted relative to train frequencies.
Rest assured corridor train promoters, this is for a "Core Express" type of corridor operation with heavy capital investment. So it would suggest you can get to the highest operating return with just 4 round trips. Why not try say 2-3 round trips with more limited capital investment? Yes, the ratio will be less, and perhaps will be less than one without the capital investment, but that is the same deal roads run. Overall, without the large capital to get to "Core Express" speeds the total Financial investment per passenger mile is more appealing. Maybe the contract for the purchased services operator is the mechanism to explain this financial balancing point?
It is customary to indicate what jargon such as "Core Express" means as well as contextual explanations.. Also what do "low medium and high" refer to in the graph? Is "trains per day" defined as one-way or round trip? And the highest operating return does not appear to be achieved at 4 trains per day.
schlimmIt is customary to indicate what jargon such as "Core Express" means as well as contextual explanations.. Also what do "low medium and high" refer to in the graph? Is "trains per day" defined as one-way or round trip? And the highest operating return does not appear to be achieved at 4 trains per day.
schlimm, he's quoting out of the FRA Connect PowerPoint he provided as a red link in the post. Some of the stuff you're wondering about is "explained" in there. Somehow an O&M cost recovery ratio expressed in decimals instead of percent gets transmuted into "Operating Recovery Ratio" on the y-axis; I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to be because its units are funny. Hopefully V.Payne can explain a bit more.
Core Express is the FRA term for 125 mph or greater up to 220 mph (dedicated ROW HSR), here is an example of the term in context from Midwest HSR. It has been in use by them for a few years now. Low, medium, and high are levels of revenue estimation, as there is uncertainty as it is a model. Trains per day seems to be one way trips, so four round trips is eight trains per day, which is the peak Operating Recovery Ratio (Revenue divided by Operating and Maintenance), neglecting capital.
V Payne and Wizlish: Thanks!!
trackrat888 Amtrak would still be Amtrak and take care of reservations and stations and have a national system map. The Class ones and twos would provide/lease equipment with some help from grants from the feds and the states and provide crews. The enigines would still say Amtrak operated by BNSF Amtrak operated under contract by Genesee and Wyoming ext ext.
Amtrak would still be Amtrak and take care of reservations and stations and have a national system map. The Class ones and twos would provide/lease equipment with some help from grants from the feds and the states and provide crews. The enigines would still say Amtrak operated by BNSF Amtrak operated under contract by Genesee and Wyoming ext ext.
A few years back the then president of the New York, Susquehanna and Western was talking about a scheme similiar to what you propose.
He believed that the freight railroad industry could effectively operate Amtrak's long distance and, in some cases; regional routes if paid an subsidy. He proposed that Amtrak's locomotives and rolling stock would be held in a commonly owned pool akin to TTX..
However, I've never read any comments frommanagement folks at the Class 1's expressing interest in the idea..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Remember that Amtrak WAS set up this way, purchasing service from the railroads the operated over: train crews, station agents, track access, relief locomotives, servicing.
As Amtrak matured, it took over many functions, most notibly train crews. At the time, Amtrak saved money this way as it's agreements with crews allowed them to move past the 100 mile day and full crew.
I suspect there is nothing stopping Amtrak from going back to a purchase of service arrangement. CSX crews ran the Cardinal until quite late and CN never gave up operating the Montrealer in Canada until Amtrak discontinued it. I recall watching a CSX crew switch out the Silver Meteor in Jacksonville when it had road railers on the back.
Another question would be the reaction of Amtrak's unions. The only reason such an arrangement would make sense for Amtrak is if they saved money. If they did, it might be because they were able to eliminate Assistant Conductors or otherwise make the change at the expense of labor. But Amtrak's unions have powerful influence in Washington. Don Phillips just wrote in Trains that Boardman owes his career to the unions and several of his predisessors were fired because of union pressure.
I think what those who dream of this sort of thing want is for someone else to take over the management of the trains so they can be improved. But that is not how the Metra purchase of service agreement works. The Iowa Pacific deal is kind of a reverse purchase of service, where Iowa Pacific takes over marketing and management of the train and has a purchase of service agreement with Amtrak so Amtrak provides crews and reservations.
It should also be noted that there is language in the PRIIA legislation that encourages contracting out a route (or more than one route) to freight railroads, but so far nothing has come of it. One reason is that Amtrak routes typically involve multiple freight railroads. For example, UP could run the St. Louis-Chicago service, but would have to work with CN to get from Joliet to Union Station.
Amtrak took over control and management of crews and other aspects of operations because leaving it up to the individual freight railroads wasn't working. This is like the idea of re-privatizing passenger trains. Amtrak was formed because that didn't work. How about we just work to improve what we've got, rather than seesaw back and forth between public and private; Amtrak operation and freight railroad operation?
Tom
ACY Amtrak took over control and management of crews and other aspects of operations because leaving it up to the individual freight railroads wasn't working. This is like the idea of re-privatizing passenger trains. Amtrak was formed because that didn't work. How about we just work to improve what we've got, rather than seesaw back and forth between public and private; Amtrak operation and freight railroad operation? Tom
+1 There are no indications that private freight railroads are interested in passenger service and it is unlikely they would since it isn't profitable. Even in the Golden Age of Vanderbilt, he said they lost money. Making a profit is not the only criterion or measure of utility nor is it necessarily the only way to provide excellence and efficiency.
On the contrary, there are indeed indications that freight railroads are interested in some aspects of passenger service.
However you are indeed correct that it all comes down to money. The original poster was positing that Amtrak purchases the service and therefor we would assume that this would be at a rate that would make the freight railroads interested.
If you want to get private passenger trains, you have to make them profitable for private companies. Purchase of service is one way, though it might in fact not make sense for Amtrak. Another is the British model where operators bid to operate and manage a franchise. Some are indeed profitable and the bid includes a fee paid back to the treasurery. Local and regional service is generally the other way - companies get the franchise because they propose less subsidy than the other options. For states, PRIIA has started to move things in that direction, where other operators (such as Iowa Pacific) may be able to take over service at less cost - still subsidized, just at a lower rate.
conductorchrisOn the contrary, there are indeed indications that freight railroads are interested in some aspects of passenger service. Another is the British model where operators bid to operate and manage a franchise.
Another is the British model where operators bid to operate and manage a franchise.
1. Examples of US freight railroads discussing getting into the passenger business?
2. In Britain, the RoW is owned and maintained by a government corporation, after the accident-ridden attempt at privatization. In the US, the RoW is already owned and operated by private freight railroads.
IMO, most US freight lines would be happy if the passenger trains operating on their RoWs went away tomorrow.
Discussions about the freight railroads interest in running passenger trains take place behind closed doors, but I am aware of it happening with three class 1's, each a few years ago. As well as several regionals. Obviously the terms of such an arrangement matter and obviously nothing has come of it since -- except for the Florida East Coast Railroad. The real question is "what's in it for them?" Make it worthwhile and they will be interested. However if you sweeten the pot enough to make this outcome happen, it might involve spending more money than the current arrangement.
conductorchris Discussions about the freight railroads interest in running passenger trains take place behind closed doors, but I am aware of it happening with three class 1's, each a few years ago. As well as several regionals. Obviously the terms of such an arrangement matter and obviously nothing has come of it since -- except for the Florida East Coast Railroad. The real question is "what's in it for them?" Make it worthwhile and they will be interested. However if you sweeten the pot enough to make this outcome happen, it might involve spending more money than the current arrangement.
Remember at one time both B&M and C&NW ran passenger services outside their "home" territory albeit commuter service.
C&NW operated Rock Island's service briefly under a management contract with the RTA (this was prior to the formation of Metra) about the time that Rock Island became a directed service operation.
Or like Network Rail in Great Britain, with individual passenger rail companies umbrellaed underneath i.e Great Western, Virgin Railway, East Coast Midlands, etc.
Amtrak as the government body with private companies within the corridors etc.
zkr123 Or like Network Rail in Great Britain, with individual passenger rail companies umbrellaed underneath i.e Great Western, Virgin Railway, East Coast Midlands, etc. Amtrak as the government body with private companies within the corridors etc.
Network Rail in GB has been a government-owned corporation since 2014 following the disastrous failure of the privatized Railtrack. It has responsibility for track, bridges, stations, telecom and signaling. It was a non-profit from 2002 to 2014. So when you draw your analogy, are you therefore suggesting US rail infrastructure should be a quasi-government corporation (like Amtrak)?
Exactly except it would have companies under it privately held one example would be each each rail line ran by amtrak could become it's own rail company.
You loose economies of scale, and operations become even less economically viable.
zkr123 Exactly except it would have companies under it privately held one example would be each each rail line ran by amtrak could become it's own rail company.
Gee - except for the NEC and the Michigan line. All the other lines Amtrak operates over are already their own rail companies and privately owned to boot!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD zkr123 Exactly except it would have companies under it privately held one example would be each each rail line ran by amtrak could become it's own rail company. Gee - except for the NEC and the Michigan line. All the other lines Amtrak operates over are already their own rail companies and privately owned to boot!
zkr123
I think he means 'company' more in the sense of something like Virgin, where you have a separate passenger operator assuming the service, and running over what are essentially trackage rights on whatever railroad actually owns the physical plant and continues to run freight service.
We've been over THAT ground before!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.