schlimm You really aren't addressing the issue. Comparing with airline and road traffic in this case is as pointless as the advocacy groups endless banter about subsidies. If the necessary infrastructure for several short to medium corridors is put in place, the amount of traffic will grow very quickly as the public becomes increasingly aware of the advantages, just as the public has in the NEC as its speed has increased and times between major nodes has decreased. Since Acela shows a net plus on revenue minus operating expenses, it is not irrational to conclude the same will gradually occur on other, well-selected corridors.
You really aren't addressing the issue. Comparing with airline and road traffic in this case is as pointless as the advocacy groups endless banter about subsidies. If the necessary infrastructure for several short to medium corridors is put in place, the amount of traffic will grow very quickly as the public becomes increasingly aware of the advantages, just as the public has in the NEC as its speed has increased and times between major nodes has decreased. Since Acela shows a net plus on revenue minus operating expenses, it is not irrational to conclude the same will gradually occur on other, well-selected corridors.
How much capital spending went into Acela, what is the ridership, and how does it compare with NextGen?
Let's see, does the NEC including Acela and Regional account for half Amtrak passenger miles. So we are talking about .5 percent of the passenger miles NextGen is supposed to accomodate. What is .5 percent of 50 billion dollars -- 250 million dollars? Are you telling me that the NEC capital input that enabled Acela was 250 million dollars?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
We have to stop thinking just air, just rail and just highway and think moving people economically and efficiently.; Once that is established and designed, then the cost and funding can be incorporated.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Paul M: You always cite the Vision Report as though it were gospel and the only way of looking at passenger rail. Perhaps US passenger rail needs to move out of the Amtrak dead end and undertake what it should be doing in short to medium corridor where its share of traffic will be much more than 0.1%. On the correct routes like the NEC, even Amtrak is able to grab a large share of the traffic.
Paul M: You always cite the Vision Report as though it were gospel and the only way of looking at passenger rail. Perhaps US passenger rail needs to move out of the Amtrak dead end and undertake what it should be doing in short to medium corridor where its share of traffic will be much more than 0.1%. On the correct routes like the NEC, even Amtrak is able to grab a large share of the traffic.
Yes, the Vision Report. I remember that when it came out, it was widely and uncritically praised by the passenger train advocacy community, just as the infamous Inspector General Report wanting to Spartanize (corridor-ize?) the long-distance trains was condemned. This is without people in the community scrutinizing the assumptions and numbers in either report or without people reflecting on the meaning on consequences to the passenger rail cause of what was revealed about passenger operations in those two reports.
The Vision Report, by the way, was pretty much recommending development of a mix of near-HSR on multiple regional centers after the pattern of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative together with the HSR in California and maybe Florida. I didn't see anything for the traditional model (or at least the since 1940's model) of long-distance train in the mix.
The Vision Report, however, is derivative of the European passenger rail experience. In other words, the level of government spending or subsidy required to get the level of train service they enjoy in Europe was "baselined" as what it would cost to get the service proposed in the Vision Report. Am I treating the European model as gospel and the only way of looking at passenger rail?
If 50 billion spent on NextGen is a boondogle, let's find out the increase in airline passenger miles NextGen is intended to serve, and let that be our benchmark in passenger train advocacy. Give "us" 50 billion dollars and we will be "less of a boondogle" in providing more service with that money than the airlines.
This self-serving press release http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=12439 from a government agency claims that NextGen is facilitating a doubling of airline traffic. The increment of traffic represent a 100-fold increase in Amtrak. So that is our benchmark, that is our goal. Give us $50 billion dollars in capital and increase Amtrak ridership by a factor of 100. That is our goal, so how do we get there?
blue streak 1 As for next gen --- a $40 -50 B investment subsidized by the taxpayers. While traveling the airways most of what is ballyhooded is already taking place. Was able to get direct most times to initial arrival fix. It still comes down to the congestion at airports landings and takeoffs.
As for next gen --- a $40 -50 B investment subsidized by the taxpayers. While traveling the airways most of what is ballyhooded is already taking place. Was able to get direct most times to initial arrival fix. It still comes down to the congestion at airports landings and takeoffs.
So NextGen is a $50 billion boondoggle?
The Vision Report asks for $500 billion on trains to transport 1% of US passenger miles. $50 billion on trains would transport .1 % of passenger miles -- a second Amtrak. .1% of passenger miles is 1 percent of what the airlines carry -- 10 percent of passenger miles.
I don't know what fraction of increase in airline traffic NextGen is to facilitate, but I kinda figure it is bigger than 1 percent, which is "phone modem line noise."
So tell me please, which is the bigger boondoggle, NextGen or spending the same amount of money on Amtrak. The thing is that NextGen is a big pile of money, but whatever big or small amount of money is spent on Amtrak, it doesn't generate many passenger miles.
We go round-and-round on this forum about the amount of subsidy money "going to those other guys." We need to get our own house in order and stop using the money spent on other modes as an excuse.
blue streak 1 Sam1 Good points! Wanna relieve airport congestion? Use bigger airplanes. The argument about airport congestion is a bit overblown. Those who make it are overlooking the development of NextGen, which will be a significant improvement over the current air traffic control system, as well as using larger airplanes. bigger airplanes? watch out -- takeoff and landing separation has to be increased when following a larger plane. from 2 miles for small planes to 3 miles for B-737 type airplanes, to 5 - 6 miles following a B767, B777, to maybe 7 miles following a 747-400, A-380. The effect of newer planes uning super critical wings and winglets on the planes' downdrafts have not been studied enough. SO scaling up with larger planes does not necessarily increase the capacity by number of seats added. Would like to know the number of takeoffs an hour at JFK or LAX airport when the big international departure rushes occur ( almost all planes then are the above mentioned heavys ) with the airports each using 2 runways for takeoff. Just wait for the first wake turbulence caused landing or takeff accident to gum up the works. As for next gen --- a $40 -50 B investment subsidized by the taxpayers. While traveling the airways most of what is ballyhooded is already taking place. Was able to get direct most times to initial arrival fix. It still comes down to the congestion at airports landings and takeoffs.
Sam1 Good points! Wanna relieve airport congestion? Use bigger airplanes. The argument about airport congestion is a bit overblown. Those who make it are overlooking the development of NextGen, which will be a significant improvement over the current air traffic control system, as well as using larger airplanes.
Good points! Wanna relieve airport congestion? Use bigger airplanes.
The argument about airport congestion is a bit overblown. Those who make it are overlooking the development of NextGen, which will be a significant improvement over the current air traffic control system, as well as using larger airplanes.
bigger airplanes? watch out -- takeoff and landing separation has to be increased when following a larger plane. from 2 miles for small planes to 3 miles for B-737 type airplanes, to 5 - 6 miles following a B767, B777, to maybe 7 miles following a 747-400, A-380. The effect of newer planes uning super critical wings and winglets on the planes' downdrafts have not been studied enough. SO scaling up with larger planes does not necessarily increase the capacity by number of seats added. Would like to know the number of takeoffs an hour at JFK or LAX airport when the big international departure rushes occur ( almost all planes then are the above mentioned heavys ) with the airports each using 2 runways for takeoff. Just wait for the first wake turbulence caused landing or takeff accident to gum up the works.
Higher capacity airplanes are part of the answer. Better scheduling is also part of it. Works between Melbourne and Sydney. Can work for many corridors in the U.S.
Higher capacity airplanes does not necessarily mean a heavy. For example, Southwest is upgrading its fleet to incorporate B-737-800 models. They have 38 per cent more seating capacity than the 700 models.
In the United States the heaviest air corridors are LA to SFO, NY to Wash, etc. LA is served by four airports; SFO by three, NY by four or five, and Wash by three.
NetGen will be paid for like most of the airways in the United States. By user fees!
My point of view is that a properly run passenger rail system providing service and reliability would garner ridership and perhaps pay for itself...but my discussion is not there yet. We are not trying to reduce losses here, but butld a service that will actually do the job as outlined above.
However, I have to take issue with the overnight businessman's trip, etc. Even same day trips for business. Though still commonplace, a lot of travel has been cut back by the internet and all the connections and technologies available. Yes, there are still reasons for face to face meetings and travel, but I believe it is becoming less and less thus, less and less important.
What is most important is that planners look at the needs to move people and goods over the next 10, 25, 50 75 and 100 years and make preperations for a transportation system...be it automobile, bus, truck, train, motor boat, commercial air, privatge plane or personal air jet pack! That is where transportation and infrastructure planners must put their attention and efforts. We can argue our favorite passenger train concept all we want. And it should be more than just considered, it should be used. But used in the overall picture of transportation modes and not as a stand alone technology.
It appears that there is no effort by most posters to try to reduce the long distance losses. I have worked on a thread to address those problems but have been diverted several times. I found that the latest article from NARP to be enlightning.
http://narprail.org/news/press-releases/2084-long-distance-trains-multipurpose-mobility-machines
Although I do not agree with everything it has some important points. The most important IMHO is what would happen to ridership on the Lakeshore if it split and not go NYP - CHI. Another point id that over 40% of all revenue comes from LD trains. Do we really think AMTRAK could survive just running corridor trips?
Dragoman 2) Of the 5 hours for the trip be plane, how many of those hours are truly productive? You can't do much productive work on the way to or from the airport, waiting in the various lines, or on most of the flight. You don't get a meal, so you shouls add that time to the total air trip. So, you lose maybe 3-4 hours of productive time on that trip. A well-equipped train, with services and facilities catering to the business traveler, nearly all of the time could be productive. So which option is really wasting more time?
2) Of the 5 hours for the trip be plane, how many of those hours are truly productive? You can't do much productive work on the way to or from the airport, waiting in the various lines, or on most of the flight. You don't get a meal, so you shouls add that time to the total air trip. So, you lose maybe 3-4 hours of productive time on that trip.
A well-equipped train, with services and facilities catering to the business traveler, nearly all of the time could be productive.
So which option is really wasting more time?
To continue your line of discussion, Dragoman, the idea that business people must travel by the fastest possible way is rooted in the traditional workplace with work being accomplished sitting in an office at a desk. To get more work out of an employee you tether him or her to a desk for more hours. But increasingly companies are looking at quantity and quality of work rather than desk hours. In fact many companies no longer give employees desks; employees work at home or at other places and use the internet and cellphones.
Consider Joe or Joan worker getting up in the morning, going to the local train station, swiping the e mail boarding pass for a ticket, getting on the train, sitting down and plugging in. After a full day's work and a little relaxing the train pulls in about a thousand miles away. The next day is a day of meetings and another night's sleep. The return trip is mostly writing reports and orders generated at the meetings. The following two days are typical work days working at home. It seems to me to be not totally misguided.
It is an obscure song I sing to myself all the time. It apparently means nothing unless you read the lines and sing it to yourself. I call it the Passenger Train-Plane Hop Blues.
henry6Big money between big places, not enough for big money in between. Again, I reiterate...and everyone's argurment support this...we need an integrated, intermodal, rationalized transportation sytem of services. Two hour train hops to support four hour train hops to support 2 hour plane hops, etc. and whatever.
Is that supposed to mean something or is it the lyrics in some obscure rap?
schlimm If airports close or services are reduced to a few small planes connecting to hubs, it is because the traffic no longer supports the prior services.
If airports close or services are reduced to a few small planes connecting to hubs, it is because the traffic no longer supports the prior services.
Only partly true. We still have segments of the business and investment population that believe bigger is better. Takeing a large plane from NY to CHicago is better than taking any plane from NY to Chicago and landing everywhere in between like a railroad train or a bus. Smaller planes drive away customers just as much as anything. Big money between big places, not enough for big money in between. Again, I reiterate...and everyone's argurment support this...we need an integrated, intermodal, rationalized transportation sytem of services. Two hour train hops to support four hour train hops to support 2 hour plane hops, etc. and whatever.
Never have so many words been expended in saying so little that is rational. If airports close or services are reduced to a few small planes connecting to hubs, it is because the traffic no longer supports the prior services. Population and economic activity is dynamic. Much of the talk of serving places like B'hampton, Scranton etc. is viewing those places as though we were stuck in the 1950's or earlier. Look again. Scranton 1930: 143,333; 2010: 76,089. Binghampton 1950: 80,674; 2010: 47,376. While overall US population has soared from 1930: 123,203,000 to 2010: 308,745,000, many of those rust belt towns have dramatically shrunk and become economic wastelands. Why would any government or corporation build an expensive infrastructure to serve places like that when growth areas have none? Nostalgia for the "good old days" makes for a pleasant reverie, but not as a part or guiding element in a rational transportation infrastructure and service.
Even the title of this thread is inaccurate. The service proposed was hardly "low speed" even if not truly HSR.
According to Travelocity, Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport has at least 14 flights a day by three airlines to DFW. All of the flights connect through a major hub, which means that practically any destination served by the airlines can be reach from Wilkes-Barre Scranton with good air service.
Wilkes-Barre Scranton is approximately two hours driving time from Newark, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg, which have excellent airline service. That is not likely to change.
Without a realistic plan to get to the end point, discussing the end point is visionary but lacks nuts and bolts substance. Many of the world's governments, as well as international businesses, have given up on the idea of a highly structured, top down central solution. This is especially true for large, diverse countries like the United States and organizations like P&G.
The government can facilitate a framework for passenger rail as part of a transportation network in the United States. But as soon as it begins to micro-manage the process, which it tends to do, it is likely to result in a sub-optimum outcome.
What is missing in all of our discussions is how a nation with a $16 trillion debt and at least $48 trillion of unfunded liabilities is going to pay for a passenger train network that is not and is not likely to be supported by the markets; that is to say, by the people who use it.
First, it is ok to call a point of view anything you want. Calling a person names, etc, however, is totally wrong. We are discussing points of view, etc. not you personally. You have a major market approach to everything which is not always valid. Yeah a bigger airplane form New York to Chicago or LA is perfect. But serving Scranton, Binghamto, Youngstown, Chattanooga, Topeka, and Casper it is an abusrdity in economic use. As I noted, Scranton Wilkes Barre is talking closing and smaller planes of subcontracted small carriers are doing the landing and take offs at more and more airports in between the big markets. Bigger planes for bigger cities, but smaller planes for smaller airports that will still be open.
And I am looking well beyond Amtrak for answers, solutions, and services. At this point it doesn't matter who becomes the oversight of an integrated transportation system, getting to an intigrated transportation system is more important. It that can be agreed upon then the mechinism for oversight is a matter of agreement. It could be a goverenment agency or a private orginization either for profit or non profit structure paid for by its users: transportation companies, portion of ticket price, dues, what ever is decided upon by the partricipants. Getting there first, however, is more important.
henry6 Sam1 ] \points! Wanna relieve airport congestion? Use bigger airplanes. This is absurd and impossible. Unless you are talking top 50 markets to top 50 markets, you are talking further economic disaster to the air industry. They already have pulled out of many airports in markets above the top 50 in favor of contracting out to smaller companies with smaller planes. Some airports were built for bigger planes but have not needed the plant but settle for these small planes. Your answer is a major market answer but not the answer needed for over 90% of the Americna airports or population. This is why a coordinated, rationalized, intermodal or interactive transportation system has to be divised and implimented.
Sam1 ] \points! Wanna relieve airport congestion? Use bigger airplanes.
]
\points! Wanna relieve airport congestion? Use bigger airplanes.
This is absurd and impossible. Unless you are talking top 50 markets to top 50 markets, you are talking further economic disaster to the air industry. They already have pulled out of many airports in markets above the top 50 in favor of contracting out to smaller companies with smaller planes. Some airports were built for bigger planes but have not needed the plant but settle for these small planes. Your answer is a major market answer but not the answer needed for over 90% of the Americna airports or population. This is why a coordinated, rationalized, intermodal or interactive transportation system has to be divised and implimented.
Apparently you did not read my posting regarding the use of inflammatory language, i.e. calling another person's point of view absurd. It may be different, but that does not make it absurd.
Air service is a dynamic. It expands in some areas and contracts in others. With the exception of several remote locations in the western part of the United States, most people are within an hour to two hours driving time of a commercial airport with acceptable service.
As soon as an airline, usually a regional, reduces service to a location, folks claim that air service is going away. Actually, overall it is expanding, although sometimes it means a connection as opposed to a non-stop.
Recently, American Airlines announced that it was reducing its American Eagle flights. What was not noted is that it is switching many of them to another carrier with different airplanes.
From 2007 through 2011 the nation's major commercial airlines had net operating profits of $7.4 billion. However, after adjusting for the losses sustained by American Airlines, net income was <$463 million>. And this includes the disastrous years of 2008 and 2009, which were the result of a severe recession.
Who is going to coordinate your rationalized, intermodal or interactive transportation system? The federal government? It can establish a framework, but hopefully the outcomes will be determined by the market. And that includes allowing passenger rail to flourish in the few markets where it could be viable today, as well as future markets.
Those who favor a high centralized, federally coordinated solution need look no further than Amtrak. It has lost more than $28 billion on-balance sheet and millions more in off-balance sheet subsidies. It is a prime example of a federal government program gone wrong.
warren wilson I read this article. Amtrak made the ill conceived decision to remove two of the "typically" four tracks before selling selling "their" lines to the freight companies? Oh? The millions of "taxpayer" dollars it cost to remove the tacks. Oh? Someone takes this guy seriously?
I read this article. Amtrak made the ill conceived decision to remove two of the "typically" four tracks before selling selling "their" lines to the freight companies? Oh? The millions of "taxpayer" dollars it cost to remove the tacks. Oh?
Someone takes this guy seriously?
Amtrak did not dismantle tracks...New York Central, Penn Central, and Conrail did. Amtrak's Corridor has remained the same as has the route to Boston. Amtrak never sold any of these lines to any freight companies but has been at their mercy when it comes to infrastructure or has had to ante up to pay for the needed improvements and facilities to accomodate passenger trains and services.
Read history of any of the above railroads including Amtrak...check your library for the many available.
Sam1 henry6 Dave has an excellent point. It is easy to talk NY-Chicago as a non stop service...in the air. But it need not be on the ground. People in intermediate towns have to get somewhere, too, and need to be served. My concept of local districtes and a "main line" train servicing ony the end points of each district is much like what railroad used think, commuter services in this country often do, and European rail services strive for. It does take transets and people. Trainsets are equipment investments, real tangable assets, banks and bottom liners understand and embrace. People are a waste of money, labor, no tangable value, detracts from the bottom line, and therefore the cost that elminiates American business acumen from dealing with rail passenger service...service, not running trains. Bottom liners (presumably you mean accountants and financial analysts) point out whether the users of a product or service pay for them. If they don't pay for them, someone else has to tote the note, i.e. taxpayers, other product line users, etc. Bankers embrace investing in equipment only if they believe the buyer will be able to pay back the loan. Otherwise, no dice. Proponents of passenger rail, irrespective of location, are not able to get commercial loans because the bankers know that the users will not pay for it. This is why most projects are funded by governments or given a government guarantee.
henry6 Dave has an excellent point. It is easy to talk NY-Chicago as a non stop service...in the air. But it need not be on the ground. People in intermediate towns have to get somewhere, too, and need to be served. My concept of local districtes and a "main line" train servicing ony the end points of each district is much like what railroad used think, commuter services in this country often do, and European rail services strive for. It does take transets and people. Trainsets are equipment investments, real tangable assets, banks and bottom liners understand and embrace. People are a waste of money, labor, no tangable value, detracts from the bottom line, and therefore the cost that elminiates American business acumen from dealing with rail passenger service...service, not running trains.
Dave has an excellent point. It is easy to talk NY-Chicago as a non stop service...in the air. But it need not be on the ground. People in intermediate towns have to get somewhere, too, and need to be served. My concept of local districtes and a "main line" train servicing ony the end points of each district is much like what railroad used think, commuter services in this country often do, and European rail services strive for. It does take transets and people. Trainsets are equipment investments, real tangable assets, banks and bottom liners understand and embrace. People are a waste of money, labor, no tangable value, detracts from the bottom line, and therefore the cost that elminiates American business acumen from dealing with rail passenger service...service, not running trains.
Bottom liners (presumably you mean accountants and financial analysts) point out whether the users of a product or service pay for them. If they don't pay for them, someone else has to tote the note, i.e. taxpayers, other product line users, etc.
Bankers embrace investing in equipment only if they believe the buyer will be able to pay back the loan. Otherwise, no dice. Proponents of passenger rail, irrespective of location, are not able to get commercial loans because the bankers know that the users will not pay for it. This is why most projects are funded by governments or given a government guarantee.
Bottom liners will see that it costs to have a trash receptical, for instance, so orders the getting rid of them and not ordering more; then they''ll not allow the hiring of people to clean up or add to the burdon of already overworked people making them less productive and more unhappy. The point is that while one thing may not be an income or even profit source, its importance to the whole operation has to be taken into account and discounted if necessary. In dining, do we really need a salad, a dinner, and dessert fork when one will do? Where do you draw the lines of service or civility? Bottom liners would eliminate even the forks if they thought a spoon would do! So, we should not pick servce operations apart piecemeal but take in the whole picture. As for ROI on equipment purchases, I think that is or is going to be turning around as the need for passenger rail services increases in a rationalized and planned transportation system emerges over the next 5 to 20 years. We are moving toward a non carbon based fuel use society in an ever increasing population density. Personal economics as well as environmental and social adaptatins will lead us to more public (not necessairly owned or operated by government) transportation becomes a need and a reality.
IMHO Henry6 is n the right track and probably would expand these concepts in the future. A few additions.
1. each route that will have to be considered with different ridership metrics so will only post here the NYP - CHI as an example
1. The present mileage from NYP - CHI is listed as 959 miles but could change slightly with some track construction.
2. It is not the top high speed that speeds service but the elimination of slow order sections.
3. if acceleration, deccelation, and no terminal restriction a non stop at 150 MPH would take approximately 6;15. at 110 MPH it would take only 8;45.
4. this is only 2;30 more at 110 MPH.
5. Now with some slop this difference can be considered taking in station stops, acceleration times, throat times, maintenance , etc.
6. the intermediate passengers of course would experience even less difference in trip times.
7. I can see scheduled overnight trains NYP- CHI of 11;00 leaving CHI at 8;00 PM and NYP at 10;00 PM arriving at the other end at 0800 AM. This would be a perfect business person's trip. The consist could be a mixture of sleepers, business class and lounge cars.
8. sales could be CHI - BUF / ALB / NYP and for those days demand is sufficient cars for those origination / destinations could be placed with occupancy at reasonable times.
9. crew costs for all trips would be dramatically reduced. with operating crews changed at buffalo 4 engineers ( 2 for the longer than possible 6 hr ) and 4 conductors / assistant conductors there wold be a great reduction there.
10. on board service crews would not require dorm space for the 11;00 CHI - NYP legs .
11. have not considered cleveland and toledo passengers.
12. this would only require 2 sets of equipment with long turn times at each terminal giving substitution to other trains a much easier time and keep equipment in better shape.
oltmannd So, we're talking about a huge investment to get us roughly what we already have? What's the point of doing it? About the only way to justify it would be if NY - Chicago was capacity constrained and the rail option was cheaper to build out than airport expansion. But, if that was true, it might be cheaper to relieve airport congestion at Chicago and NY by building out other shorter haul routes.
So, we're talking about a huge investment to get us roughly what we already have? What's the point of doing it?
About the only way to justify it would be if NY - Chicago was capacity constrained and the rail option was cheaper to build out than airport expansion. But, if that was true, it might be cheaper to relieve airport congestion at Chicago and NY by building out other shorter haul routes.
A quick train makes sense in highly congestion corridors where it can outperform the airplane and the car. Philadelphia to New York or Washington comes to mind as does New Haven to New York.
Qantas uses B767s on many of its Melbourne to Sydney flights, which is a bit like connecting New York and Washington. In fact, they also use through B747s, i.e. LA to Melbourne and on to Sydney. Frequently, when flying from Melbourne to Sydney, I was booked on a 747.
daveklepper Agreed, a frequent NY - Chhicago 10-hour service could not make it on NY-Chicago passsengers alone. But with 125 mph top speed, good maintenance and good timekeeping, and service leaving NY and Chicago every two hours from 6AM to 2 pm running through, with 4, 6, and 6 pm departures from both ends running to Buffalo only, and 6, 8, and 10 AM departures in both directions from Buffalo, the corridor could be viable, not because of NY - Chicago business alone, but because of reliable short corridor service between the stations in between, such as Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, and the points on the current Empire service. Whether or not an overnight train with sleeper service would continue to be operated or not would depend on the overall economics. With the day train schedule in place, an experiment might be tried with a sleeper leaving on the 6pm to Buffalo, then attached to the 6AM departure from Buffalo to Chicago, giving an 17 hour trip with 6.5 hours spent sitting in Buffalo, and the reverse. It would represent an upgraded, extended, and near state of the art expansion of the present Empire Service between NY and Buffalo, where a majority of riders are not end-to-end. I would bet a majority of the existing Lake Shore's riders are not end-to-end today!
Agreed, a frequent NY - Chhicago 10-hour service could not make it on NY-Chicago passsengers alone. But with 125 mph top speed, good maintenance and good timekeeping, and service leaving NY and Chicago every two hours from 6AM to 2 pm running through, with 4, 6, and 6 pm departures from both ends running to Buffalo only, and 6, 8, and 10 AM departures in both directions from Buffalo, the corridor could be viable, not because of NY - Chicago business alone, but because of reliable short corridor service between the stations in between, such as Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, and the points on the current Empire service. Whether or not an overnight train with sleeper service would continue to be operated or not would depend on the overall economics. With the day train schedule in place, an experiment might be tried with a sleeper leaving on the 6pm to Buffalo, then attached to the 6AM departure from Buffalo to Chicago, giving an 17 hour trip with 6.5 hours spent sitting in Buffalo, and the reverse. It would represent an upgraded, extended, and near state of the art expansion of the present Empire Service between NY and Buffalo, where a majority of riders are not end-to-end.
I would bet a majority of the existing Lake Shore's riders are not end-to-end today!
I am not sure about the Lake Shore Limited, but approximately 10 per cent of the long distance train riders west of Chicago ride end point to end point. For the CZ, last time I looked, it was approximately five per cent.
If the market you describe between Chicago and New York existed, the CSX or a group of venture capitalists would step forward and take advantage of the opportunity. The hard fact is the market is not there, and it is not likely to be there in the near future.
Bottom liners (presumably you mean accountants and financial analysts) point out whether the users of a product or service pay for them. If they don't someone else has to tote the note, i.e. taxpayers, other product line users, etc.
Dragoman Sam1 ... Serious business people are not going to spend nine or ten hours on a train to get from A to B when they can fly there in a couple of hours. ... Even if those "nine or ten hours on a train" gives them 9 or 10 productive hours that day, while the "couple of hours" on, and getting on and off of, a plane, only gives them 4 or 5 or 6 productive hours during the same period? At least for some?
Sam1 ... Serious business people are not going to spend nine or ten hours on a train to get from A to B when they can fly there in a couple of hours. ...
...
Serious business people are not going to spend nine or ten hours on a train to get from A to B when they can fly there in a couple of hours.
Even if those "nine or ten hours on a train" gives them 9 or 10 productive hours that day, while the "couple of hours" on, and getting on and off of, a plane, only gives them 4 or 5 or 6 productive hours during the same period? At least for some?
The number of business people who would spend up to 10 hours on a train would be very small. Business today is far more competitive than when I started my business career with a Wall Street bank in 1964. Most business people have to fly, as well as use every communication tool available to them, if they want to beat the competition.
I fly commercially five or six times a year. It is not the hassle that some people portray. It seldom takes me more than 10 minutes to clear security. Moreover, being on an airplane does not mean that people cannot be productive. On most flights as soon as the bird is in the air, people wipp out their iPads, laptops, etc., Many of them are business people working.
When I worked in New York I frequently took overnight trains to my destination. I was unusual. But to say that I got a good night's sleep would be a stretch. I realized eventually that I was better off flying to my destination and getting a good night's sleep in a comfortable hotel bed.
Another interesting point from Don....the intermediate stops. The situtation in the east right now is such that many smaller city airports are having to cut back in size and service if not existance. Scranton-Wilkes Barre for instance is talking actually talking of closing and scores of others play host to only smaller commuter aircraft. With that people who fly in these cigar like tubes don't feel comfortable nor look upon it as a service. A well planned and operated rail service/schedule with amenties could actually provide a usable and desired service in place of major airline full bodied plane services. It is why we need a coordinated, integrated, rationalized, inermodal transportatin policy in this country. Not a federally operated system, but a system of service and services overseen by some authority or enterprise or cooperative entity.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.