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

[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.

 

 

[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.

[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). 

[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.  

[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]

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.  

[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.

[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.  

[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

[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..

[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

[schlimm]

That may be true,  but there is nothing in the Rail Passenger Act of 1970 putting a time limit on the arrangements.

[oltmannd]

The basic deal with Amtrak expired somewhere in the 1990s.  New arrangements with each road were negotiated.  Not sure how those specifics relate to the original law.  I know they included basic compensation and incentive payments for performance.

[schlimm]

I would think it means if Amtrak chooses a new route, the freight rails (except on SR and DR&W tracks, as their track was in 1970) have to allow it, and it becomes part of the basic system in two years.  Certainly it does not mean "nothing beyond the original basic system."  My only caution would be if some subsequent legislation altered that provision.

[HarveyK400]

Thanks for the refresher - pretty broad, yet vague on compensation. 

Would seem to have no right over former SR or DRGW except by respective mutual agreements; and what about proposed IAIS to Iowa City?

[schlimm]

oltmannd

 

The whole deal that created Amtrak was full of trade-offs.  I'm not claiming any unfairness.  The deal is not for however many trains where ever and when ever.  Never was.  Isn't now.  It's for the routes and trains of 5/1/71 with changes to be negotiated over the years.  [emphasis mine]

After examining the original Public Law that established Amtrak, I'm not so sure that statement is exactly true.

SEC. -103. NEW SERVICE.
(a) Tho Corporation may provide intercity rail passenger service
in excess of that prescribed for the basic system, either within or out
side the basic system, including the operation of special and extra
passenger trains, if consistent'with prudent manairement. Any inter
city rail passenger service provided under this subsection for a con
tinuous period of two years shall be designated by the Secretary as
a part of the basic system.

[jclass]

YoHo1975

Someone a few pages ago mentioned Wisconsin ultimately networking up Green Bay and that got me thinking. ... Travel from Chicago to Green Bay could be significant as FIBs... hit Door County and the surrounding tourist towns...again, assuming proper connections. 

As an exFIB, I can relate to your thinking.  Door Cty. and Chicagoland have had the perfect symbiotic relationship.  Chicago people pay what they see as low prices, and Door merchants see themselves as selling at high margins.

Unfortunately the rail routes aren't conducive to suitable service now.  The Valley line would be very slow-going, and the Lake line has been broken up with abandoned and out-of-service segments.

During the last year or so, United has had a daily direct flight between Appleton and Denver, which has been good for connecting out west.  But, it will be ending soon, because it hasn't attracted enough business travelers.  It's attracted a good volume of nonbusiness travelers, but the business trade is needed to make the flights profitable.

Where rail tourist biz in Wisconsin could really do better is on the Empire Builder route.  Wisconsin Dells historically has been the #1 tourist destination in the Midwest.  The Builder calls there at an excellent location.  Popular indoor waterparks and other activities now make for year-round tourism.

[oltmannd]

Dragoman

 

oltmannd:

 

 ...

"The freight RRs, by the government's own measure, are not currently making enough money to stay in business long term.  There are no "excess profits" to be extorted  - or spent on goodwill projects.  In fact, the frt RRs are hunting around for public money for capital projects that have public benefits.  Check out NS's Crescent Corridor, for example."

 

 

A lot of investors, including the likes of Warren Buffet, seem to disagree as to their long-term prospects.  And as to "hunting around for public money", they seem to have discovered that, if the public entities want passenger service enough, and the "freight RRs" whine and complain and drag their feet enough, they will get the infrastructure improvements they want, on the public dime. 

Interesting, how they can be so clear that theirs is private property, but they are oh so willing to go to the public trough when it is in their interest.

 

oltmannd:

 

"The frt RRs are not currently fully compensated for the Amtrak trains that operate over their territory - that appears to be the extent of their goodwill...."

 

 

How do you support the assertion that they "are not currently fully compensated for the Amtrak trains that operate over their territory"? 

(1)  They negotiate -- hard -- for the compensation that Amtrak has to pay.  And that assumes that they don't just refuse the Amtrak proposals, as UP has done in various California routes for several years now.

(2)  Let us not forget that, where it not for Amtrak's enabling legislation, the "freight RRs" would probably still be forced to continue to operate passenger services by the ICC (or successors) and various state PUCs.  The deal back in 1971 was that they would be relieved of the passenger obligations (and associated operating losses), in exchange for allowing Amtrak to operate whatever trains it chose (while compensating the RRs for the services provided).

(3)  There should not be a concept of "freight" RRs.  There are railroads, which have been given their rights/franchises/etc, to act in the public interest as a common carrier of freight and passengers.  Their passenger obligations have been taken on by Amtrak, but the RRs do -- or should, in my opinion -- continue to have obligations -- to cooperate with Amtrak and local agencies, and to continue to operate in the public interest, just the same as every other privately-owned but regulated industry, such as utilities, broadcasters, other common carriers, etc.  Let us also remember that Amtrak's common stock is owned by ... (wait for it, now) ... the railroads!

Sure.  The RR industry may yet be revenue adequate.  Some roads have been over the bar in recent years.  NS and BNSF for example.  Buffet is no fool.  But, the industry as a whole, is not and hasn't been!

The whole deal that created Amtrak was full of trade-offs.  I'm not claiming any unfairness.  The deal is not for however many trains where ever and when ever.  Never was.  Isn't now.  It's for the routes and trains of 5/1/71 with changes to be negotiated over the years.  The compensation does not cover all direct and indirect costs (such as line capacity) incurred by the railroads.  Even Amtrak will acknowledge that.

The basic tenet of a PPP is the RR pays the share based on RR benefits and the public pays for their benefits.  VA may chip in of the Crescent Corridor if it can delay adding lanes to I-81.  Why shouldn't they?

[oltmannd]

YoHo1975

What percentage of intercity Railroad travel in the US is business vs pleasure? Especially on medium distance routes?

 

Someone a few pages ago mentioned Wisconsin ultimately networking up Green Bay and that got me thinking. Aside from the ability to live in some of the wonderful small towns between Green Bay and Milwaukee, there is a significant potential tourist interest in such a route. Certainly 10 days a year (8 regular season and 2 preseason games) any trains between Green Bay and Anywhere would be packed. And during the summer, assuming proper connecting services, Travel from Chicago to Green Bay could be significant as FIBs(If you don't know I can't tell you here, and I was one of them) hit Door County and the surrounding tourist towns...again, assuming proper connections. 

I can't imagine such traffic would support daily multi-train service, but it would certainly represent non-trivial numbers. 

I'm a bad example for this, but I'll give it anyway, I'm born and raised in Chicagoland, my family owns property in Door County Ws. I live on the west coast. Right now, to visit the cottage is a long flight to Chicago or Milwaukee and an equally long car ride in either a rental or, if I can coordinate it, with friends, up north. I could fly in to Green Bay, but not directly and the price would be significant. 

Passenger service to Green Bay (or Manitowoc/Kewanee even),assuming a price comparable to what Amtrak California charges on the Surfliner or Amtrak charges on the Cascades, would be an extremely attractive option to me...again, assuming appropriate connections in GB. Which could mean a rental car, but at a lower cost for fewer days. 

 

Of course, I don't think such a thing justifies the route, just commenting on a potential source of revenue. Certainly the Pacific Surfliner out west makes money transporting tourists as well as business people. 

The entire business model proposed looks like it's similar to the San Joaquins. which certainly works in California, though at of course, a subsidy. 

Given that the profitable tourist operations charge in the neighborhood of buck a mile and Amtrak charges about 1/4 of that to cover about half the cost of operation, you'd probably have to be able to charge somewhere in the 50 cents to a buck a mile range to turn a sustainable profit. 

That's kind of pricey....

[Dragoman]

oltmannd

 ...

"The freight RRs, by the government's own measure, are not currently making enough money to stay in business long term.  There are no "excess profits" to be extorted  - or spent on goodwill projects.  In fact, the frt RRs are hunting around for public money for capital projects that have public benefits.  Check out NS's Crescent Corridor, for example."

A lot of investors, including the likes of Warren Buffet, seem to disagree as to their long-term prospects.  And as to "hunting around for public money", they seem to have discovered that, if the public entities want passenger service enough, and the "freight RRs" whine and complain and drag their feet enough, they will get the infrastructure improvements they want, on the public dime. 

Interesting, how they can be so clear that theirs is private property, but they are oh so willing to go to the public trough when it is in their interest.

oltmannd

"The frt RRs are not currently fully compensated for the Amtrak trains that operate over their territory - that appears to be the extent of their goodwill...."

How do you support the assertion that they "are not currently fully compensated for the Amtrak trains that operate over their territory"? 

(1)  They negotiate -- hard -- for the compensation that Amtrak has to pay.  And that assumes that they don't just refuse the Amtrak proposals, as UP has done in various California routes for several years now.

(2)  Let us not forget that, where it not for Amtrak's enabling legislation, the "freight RRs" would probably still be forced to continue to operate passenger services by the ICC (or successors) and various state PUCs.  The deal back in 1971 was that they would be relieved of the passenger obligations (and associated operating losses), in exchange for allowing Amtrak to operate whatever trains it chose (while compensating the RRs for the services provided).

(3)  There should not be a concept of "freight" RRs.  There are railroads, which have been given their rights/franchises/etc, to act in the public interest as a common carrier of freight and passengers.  Their passenger obligations have been taken on by Amtrak, but the RRs do -- or should, in my opinion -- continue to have obligations -- to cooperate with Amtrak and local agencies, and to continue to operate in the public interest, just the same as every other privately-owned but regulated industry, such as utilities, broadcasters, other common carriers, etc.  Let us also remember that Amtrak's common stock is owned by ... (wait for it, now) ... the railroads!

[YoHo1975]

What percentage of intercity Railroad travel in the US is business vs pleasure? Especially on medium distance routes?

 

Someone a few pages ago mentioned Wisconsin ultimately networking up Green Bay and that got me thinking. Aside from the ability to live in some of the wonderful small towns between Green Bay and Milwaukee, there is a significant potential tourist interest in such a route. Certainly 10 days a year (8 regular season and 2 preseason games) any trains between Green Bay and Anywhere would be packed. And during the summer, assuming proper connecting services, Travel from Chicago to Green Bay could be significant as FIBs(If you don't know I can't tell you here, and I was one of them) hit Door County and the surrounding tourist towns...again, assuming proper connections. 

I can't imagine such traffic would support daily multi-train service, but it would certainly represent non-trivial numbers. 

I'm a bad example for this, but I'll give it anyway, I'm born and raised in Chicagoland, my family owns property in Door County Ws. I live on the west coast. Right now, to visit the cottage is a long flight to Chicago or Milwaukee and an equally long car ride in either a rental or, if I can coordinate it, with friends, up north. I could fly in to Green Bay, but not directly and the price would be significant. 

Passenger service to Green Bay (or Manitowoc/Kewanee even),assuming a price comparable to what Amtrak California charges on the Surfliner or Amtrak charges on the Cascades, would be an extremely attractive option to me...again, assuming appropriate connections in GB. Which could mean a rental car, but at a lower cost for fewer days. 

 

Of course, I don't think such a thing justifies the route, just commenting on a potential source of revenue. Certainly the Pacific Surfliner out west makes money transporting tourists as well as business people. 

The entire business model proposed looks like it's similar to the San Joaquins. which certainly works in California, though at of course, a subsidy. 

[oltmannd]

Did you really mean "Someone should tell the Freight RR to enter the HSR business (through a subsidiary ) or share a fixed percent of the profits from the same in return for their contribution if they don't want to undertake any goodwill gestures. " in the Fred Fraily blog?

That sounds like you want to extort "goodwill" from the freight railroads.  Goodwill is a voluntary action, by definition.

The freight RRs, by the government's own measure, are not currently making enough money to stay in business long term.  There are no "excess profits" to be extorted  - or spent on goodwill projects.  In fact, the frt RRs are hunting around for public money for capital projects that have public benefits.  Check out NS's Crescent Corridor, for example.

The frt RRs are not currently fully compensated for the Amtrak trains that operate over their territory - that appears to be the extent of their goodwill....

[Empirebuilder18]

Hello All,

I am new to this forum and I have been reading the replies. I am amazed by the pragmatism displayed by all of you in this contentious issue.

Does this mean that things are dark for Passenger Rail transport in North America? I hope not.

Well, the level of Passenger service and Passenger Rail utilization in Europe is spectacular, but one must not forget the sorry state of affairs of the Freight business in the EU. In fact, EU took the opposite path of the US, focusing on Passenger Travel and ignoring freight. The result was inevitable; Freight business lost to Truckers. Today, despite many attempts to revive Freight, the success has been modest to say the least. This is the same situation faced by Passenger travel in North America.

The situation faced by EU is faced by a number of nations with a strong Passenger transport, some of them are building Dedicated Freight Corridors to boost business in high traffic freight zones.

Why not a Dedicated Passenger Corridor(s) ? I presume that NE corridor and the Commuter and transit lines are reasonably successful because of their historically being huge volume passenger lines which in turn give them an indirect priority. DPCs will also solve the problem of delays and scheduling with the Freight RR. The HSR proposals are obviously dedicated lines, some of them will definitely run at a profit and will be extremely popular (going by experiences in other nations)( the present hulabaloo is probably because of the airline lobby which stands to lose huge business as it has happened in Europe, Airfrance-KLM is entering the HSR business man! ) 

What I mean is DPCs for the normal routes covering states and cities where train travel would be convenient and a fast alternative to the automobile. It need not dethrone the car, but it is just a question of how many more people are willing to travel by train. I also read that during the Dark Ages for Passenger travel, many viable lines were abandoned. So why not resume passenger traffic on those lines? What matters most is Coverage and Frequency. In my opinion, there could be different levels of speed for varying requirements that could remove the incentive of using the automobile. Could it be a fact that the enviable levels of service that you had were lost because of RRs embracing dieselization rather than electric traction? and DPCs should all be electrics because the starting speed may well be in the 125mph range and increased as per market and demand conditions. The people should also be persuaded of the lowest carbon footprint of RR in general and electrification in particular.

Finally funding is a problem though.

[Anonymous]

daveklepper

Maybe this is the thread to make the suggestion:  In the event of cancillation of a state funded rail projects, why cannot the effected communities that really want and are willing to help pay for the service form a transportation authority, vote to pay the necessary taxes, real-estate/added-value on purchases, parking, and apply for the Federal funds and take over the project?

The short answer is most major cities in the U.S. are in deep financial trouble.  For some their balance sheet looks worse than their state government's and the federal government's.  More than 1/3rd of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) monies went to cities or their school systems in an attempt to bail them out of the travails brought on by the recession. 

[HarveyK400]

I wouldn't get too worried about the number of trains as long as a partnership is maintained in public support for capacity improvements for the desired level of service.  This means half-hour service in the peaks and hourly the rest of the day between Chicago and Milwaukee which is difficult enough with Metra, let alone the CP.  

This is needed on the NEC as well; but when you look at 320 passengers on an Acela compared to 1,400 on NJT you can understand priorities.  I have "rethought" high speed; and maybe the answer is to increase capacity to "compete" with suburban demand, even if it means a reduction in speed but mitigated by reduced waits beween trains. 

Every two hours probably would be adequate for Saint Louis and Michigan corridors.

[blue streak 1]

oltmannd

There is a point of diminishing return on HP/ton.  It'll vary by the route.  But, I'd guess that a single 4000 HP locomotive ought to be good for trains in the 5-10 car range most places.  Really high HP/ton will kill the fuel economy benefits pretty quickly.

Oltmannd:

You are correct. However we do not know how many trains will be allowed by class-1s on any route. If the number of trains is limited say CHI - STL and traffic is very high then 14 - 16 car trains may be required. This is not meant to be a prediction but can be a possibility.

The more stops and slow track sections on a route the more HP you need on that route. I look at Auto Train at the present and a 44 car train (about equal passenger cars and auto carriers) over the Thanksgiving holiday had only 2 P-42s. Pulled out slower than normal out of Sanford but a return trip from Lorton (at the 70mph limit) arrived 1:45 early Sanford because of no need to stop except at the Florence crew change.

IMHO a non stop CHI - Springfield may be a viable option? There is just no way of knowing how fickle passengerf traffic may be?

The same way in Florida this past weekend. Visiting Florida this weekend i NOTED ALMOST rush hour type traffic Sunday on the turnpike, I-4, and I-95. Can HSR or maybe even MSR attract those persons? I dare not venture a guess. Maybe some Amtrak figures for the ///thanksgiving traffic will put a little light on the subject. Not only passengers carried but more important how many turned away? Maybe how many callers turned away or internet inquires?

[oltmannd]

blue streak 1

 

Of course it is not the top speed that is as important as reducing the slow orders. Just think even the NEC is not 110 average speed yet! Hopefully the new Electric motors Amtrak has ordered will have enough HP to quickly accelerate trains to the top allowed track speeds. I wonder if the CHI - STL MSR (110 MPH) will require 2 P-40s (being rebuilt to 110mph) or P-42s to achieve optimal acceleration?

For comparison's sake, Empire service uses single 3200 HP locomotives to haul 5 - 6 car trains on 100+ mph territory.  Amtrak used to use a single F40 on 8-9 cars on the NH - Boston route at speeds up to 100 mph.  

There is a point of diminishing return on HP/ton.  It'll vary by the route.  But, I'd guess that a single 4000 HP locomotive ought to be good for trains in the 5-10 car range most places.  Really high HP/ton will kill the fuel economy benefits pretty quickly.

[Paul Milenkovic]

HarveyK400

Dragoman:

Why do people have to give up their cars, as if this should be an eithe/or proposition?  I doubt I will ever "give up" my car, but I will use transit -- and especially rail -- when it is available & convenient.

It's having the choice that is important.  It seems to me that where people have that choice, they have used rail (and still keep their cars!)..

 

The usual hyperbole is that "People will not give up their cars" to take a train.  In that sense, people do give up their cars to ride trains - not that they would sell their car.

My first desire is to retire the notion that trains, with their present form and cost structure, are going to make any meaningful contribution to the energy crisis or the climate change crisis.

My second desire is to retire the notion from the anti-train people that "people will not give up their cars" but also retire the notion from the advocacy community that people giving up their cars will make much difference.  You can build more trains, and more people will indeed ride them, here as they do in Europe, but they will continue to cost 20 cents a mile in direct subsidy because as reported in the Vision Report appendices with regard to the European experience, the trains do not enjoy any economy-of-scale in reducing the subsidy.