Putting aside the endless, circular discussions about long distance trains and comparative subsidies, a question comes to mind. What would you consider a good candidate(s) for short distance 110 - 125 mph (minimum) corridors?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Since you ask, Schlimm, how about New Orleans to Mobile with stops at Gulfport and Biloxi. The Mississippi Gulf Coast has attracted a lot of new people with casinos and there is now a lot more travel between along there. After Katrina Amtrak stopped service and it has never been reinstated. One problem with the shortened Sunset Limited it that many people who used to get on east of New Orleans would continue west of New Orleans so Amtrak has kicked a lot of customers off that train.
Of course we could think about a New Orleans to Jacksonville reinstatement and also a Mobile to Birmingham reinstatement to connect with the Crescent. But those go beyond your question.
When Jefferson and Varina Davis lived at Beauvoir, Sarah Dorsey's home in Biloxi, the Davises were able to travel to New Orleans by train. That is not an argument; it is only a reminiscence.
You can't just pair cities for form corridors to run trains. You've got to find reasons for people to travel from one terminal to another and take into considereation intermediate markets. Historic movements of people, present movements, and projected movements between all points have to be explored and understood. IT is easy to pick a top 50 or 100 market or market pairs and have a fair expectation. But there may be even top 200 city/market pairs which would acutally be more productive or prosperous. It is easy to choose Chicago and go to Milwaukee or Minniapolis for choosing a corridor, but there actually may be better prospects Milwaukee-Janesville or Janesville-Milwaukee-Green Bay based on the known movement of people. Industry and business at each terminal and inbetween terminals will help decide. Yeah, New Orleans-Mobil sound like an easy paring but how many in Mobil need go to New Orleans on a corridor markeitng plan when a several exisiting style trains will do...but New Orleans to say Huston might be perfect. This is an intereseing excercise and I'm anxious to see the city/market parings and the reasons why one thinks it will work.
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.
The Ohio corridor (Cleveland - Columbus - Dayton - Cincinnati) made sense in terms of two criteria, distance (270 miles) and population centers, but fell victim to politics. Houston - San Antonio (200 miles) at first glance looks OK, but there is little in between. San Antonio - Austin - Waco - Dallas (280 miles) might work if the speed were there and Texans could be convinced to try the train.
schlimm The Ohio corridor (Cleveland - Columbus - Dayton - Cincinnati) made sense in terms of two criteria, distance (270 miles) and population centers, but fell victim to politics. Houston - San Antonio (200 miles) at first glance looks OK, but there is little in between. San Antonio - Austin - Waco - Dallas (280 miles) might work if the speed were there and Texans could be convinced to try the train.
SCHLIMN has the correct idea.
1. I really like the idea of a hub at Cincinnati with runs to Indianapolis - CHI; Louisville - St. louis / Nashville
2. LAX - Phoenix - Tucson but would not have a whole lot of intermediate traffic.
3. Atlanta in no particular order to ;
a. Chatanooga - Nashville / Knoxville
b. Birmingham
c. Montgomery - Mobile might be a little long
d. Macon - Savannah
e. Columbus Ga ( Ft Benning expansion has really gummed up I-185
f . Greenville / Spartanberg - Charlotte
4. Present Charlotte plans
a. Columbia - Charleston / augusta
b. Raleigh - Richmond - Wash
5. any of the Florida major metropolitan areas
6. PHL - Pittsburgh
7. St. Louis - Kansas city
All of the above are locations with a high population growth since the last of the great RR routes disappeared and probably could support these routes.
The Federal Railroad Administration site has a map showing the anticipated high speed rail corridors. The URL is: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/203.shtml.
I would like to see the Dallas/Fort Worth to San Antonio corridor, known to Texans as the I-35 corridor, developed. It is the most populous corridor in Texas. Also, I would like to see the proposed privately funded and operated corridor between Dallas and Houston come to fruition.
Texans will use public transport if it meets their needs. After all they are the ones who helped launch Southwest Airlines, which today is America's largest commercial airline. It is also public transport. As Texas becomes more congested, especially along the I-35 corridor, more Texans may look to passenger rail as a viable transport option. It will need to be frequent, quick, comfortable, safe and affordable.
Aside from Amtrak, Sam1, who would bid on it? From the private sector in this Country? It has been hammered into everybody's head that passenger service loses money, that freight service is the only rail commodity that makies money, that passenger service has to be handed off to public agencies so that fthe private sector doens't get burdened, etc. I guess the real quesiton is, "is there anybody, corporate or indivudually, who believes in rail passenger service a profit making business who will bid on this or any rail passenger proposition?" I doubt there are any believers in the US. If so, they would seek government subsidies anyway, so what have you achieved?
henry6 Aside from Amtrak, Sam1, who would bid on it? From the private sector in this Country? It has been hammered into everybody's head that passenger service loses money, that freight service is the only rail commodity that makies money, that passenger service has to be handed off to public agencies so that fthe private sector doens't get burdened, etc. I guess the real quesiton is, "is there anybody, corporate or indivudually, who believes in rail passenger service a profit making business who will bid on this or any rail passenger proposition?" I doubt there are any believers in the US. If so, they would seek government subsidies anyway, so what have you achieved?
Private investors are sponsoring programs in Italy and Florida. In addition, Australia's Great Southern Railways'trains have been operated by a private company for several decades. And private investors are attempting to put together a proposal to offer private passenger rail services between Dallas and Houston.
Whether the private operators will require governmental subsidies remains to be seen. The Great Southern Railway, which runs three of the country's long distance trains, gets subsidies. But they are less than what it cost the government to run the trains.
Contracting is one of the major advantages of privatizing passenger rail. If the contractor fails to meet the required performance standards necessary to receive subsidies, the government can withhold them. Or if it awards the contract, it can rebid it. This is a powerful tool. It drives efficiencies.
A privatized passenger rail system built on the Amtrak model or any other government model is sure to fail. If it is to succeed, it must be different. As noted in another thread, it needs to rid itself of the passenger train mind set that has been extant, and focus on innovation designed to meet today's needs. Not the needs of the 1950s! And not the needs of every provincial politician in the land.
The purpose of this thread was to examine what we, those of us in this forum. thought might be some good candidates for short corridor routes, not merely reiterating what some study has proposed or what some investors are proposing. And it was an attempt to put to one side, for purposes of a fruitful discussion, the issue of subsidies and who runs the trains. But I guess for some, continuing the circular arguments are more important than advancing towards the goal of designing a modern, 21st century passenger rail service.
I guess I misunderstand "privitizing". I believe it to mean private enterprise, private monies, invested to produce a product or perform a service. Once it relies on subsidies, it is no longer a private enterprise. Providing a service to a government agency is also does not sit as private enterprise in this situtaiton as the government is providing the service by paying someone else to operate it. In my beliefs private enterprise owns or leases the track, owns or leases the equipment, and operates the service for better or for worse. If a government owns or leases the track, owns or leases the equipment, then hires a private contractor to operate it, it is a public enterprise and not private capital. Contracting is not privatizing passenger rail but either a slight of hand or play on words to deflect what is really happening.
schlimm The purpose of this thread was to examine what we, those of us in this forum. thought might be some good candidates for short corridor routes, not merely reiterating what some study has proposed or what some investors are proposing. And it was an attempt to put to one side, for purposes of a fruitful discussion, the issue of subsidies and who runs the trains. But I guess for some, continuing the circular arguments are more important than advancing towards the goal of designing a modern, 21st century passenger rail service.
Unfortunatealy, Schlimm, any line drawn on a map between any two or more cities or markets can qualify as a corridor; whether the points at each end or in between would support or even need the service is inconsequential. Too many of us are more pragmatic than that. If you were to draw a line 200-500 miles long out of New York city, there would be dozens of lines which could provide a corridor like appearance but not be worth the lead or ink used. As a railfan, I'd love to see lots of trains running on lots of corridors and lots of rail lines. But I know that it is really neither profitable nor sensable. As my mantra goes, it is not running trains but providing a service. And that service has to make sense to make dollars.
I'm with Henry. I see absolutely no difference between the government hiring an employee and the government hiring a company other than the fact that the business has to hire the employee and mark up the cost so that the business can make a profit, too.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
henry6 schlimm The purpose of this thread was to examine what we, those of us in this forum. thought might be some good candidates for short corridor routes, not merely reiterating what some study has proposed or what some investors are proposing. And it was an attempt to put to one side, for purposes of a fruitful discussion, the issue of subsidies and who runs the trains. But I guess for some, continuing the circular arguments are more important than advancing towards the goal of designing a modern, 21st century passenger rail service. Unfortunatealy, Schlimm, any line drawn on a map between any two or more cities or markets can qualify as a corridor; whether the points at each end or in between would support or even need the service is inconsequential. Too many of us are more pragmatic than that. If you were to draw a line 200-500 miles long out of New York city, there would be dozens of lines which could provide a corridor like appearance but not be worth the lead or ink used. As a railfan, I'd love to see lots of trains running on lots of corridors and lots of rail lines. But I know that it is really neither profitable nor sensable. As my mantra goes, it is not running trains but providing a service. And that service has to make sense to make dollars.
For example, in Germany, here are four major corridors serving major end points with some intermediate stops on routes 1 and 2..
1. Hamburg - Frankfurt 316 miles, 6 hours by auto, 4:05 on an ICE. (relatively slow, with 4-5 intermediate stops)
2. Frankfurt - Berlin 360 miles, 6 hours by auto, 4:10 by ICE (six intermediate stops and possibly one cross-platform change) On this route, there are a dozen ICE's between 7 am and 12 noon.
3. Hamburg - Berlin 180 miles 3 hrs. by auto, 1:40 on ICE
4. Frankfurt airport - Cologne 180 miles, 2+ hrs by auto, 56 minutes by ICE
henry6 I guess I misunderstand "privitizing". I believe it to mean private enterprise, private monies, invested to produce a product or perform a service. Once it relies on subsidies, it is no longer a private enterprise. Providing a service to a government agency is also does not sit as private enterprise in this situtaiton as the government is providing the service by paying someone else to operate it. In my beliefs private enterprise owns or leases the track, owns or leases the equipment, and operates the service for better or for worse. If a government owns or leases the track, owns or leases the equipment, then hires a private contractor to operate it, it is a public enterprise and not private capital. Contracting is not privatizing passenger rail but either a slight of hand or play on words to deflect what is really happening.
I disagree with your perspective of privatization. It is a world of difference to have a private contractor run a service, with some monies directly or indirectly provided by government.
Discussing privatization in a thread on passenger rail corridors is appropriate. It is an option for developing rail corridors in the United States. As noted in my initial post to this thread, I believe a strong case can be made for developing corridors between DFW and San Antonio as well as DFW and Houston. I hope that the private investor initiatives are successful.
The scope of the subjects discussed in our forums has been wide and varied. I don't have a problem with it. If people want to push the outside of the scope envelope, I am perfectly willing to have them do it. If I don't like it, I won't respond. Or I can quit!
sam1: While I agree that the subject of contracting for discussion routes out on bids would be a good subject, the point of this thread was to simply look at one element, namely which corridors have the most potential for early development. One of the major trends in the US over the past 60 years has been the decline of many of the once prosperous population centers in the northeastern and midwestern US states, while overall population has doubled. For example, many (not all) of the cities along the Susquehanna River valley have seen populations drop by nearly 50% and the loss of most of their productive economic base. Many of the train routes in the 'golden age" were in areas like that. At the same time, many population areas in Texas, the west coast and the southeast have grown tremendously, but in many cases, have meager service at best. So developing routes out of the Atlanta hub, within Florida, and between various cities in Texas makes sense, at least from the perspective of serving the most people.
John WR: "When Jefferson and Varina Davis lived at Beauvoir, Sarah Dorsey's home in Biloxi, the Davises were able to travel to New Orleans by train. That is not an argument; it is only a reminiscence."
John, you remember when the president of the Confederacy and his wife lived in Beauvoir? I thought I was one of the oldest contributors to these forums, but you have me far oustripped.
Johnny
Well, I was only there the last few years Jeff and Varina were next door. Occasionally we caught the train to New Orleans together.
Going back to the original question, the trouble with picking pairs of cities out of the blue for train service is that if these already do not have regular service, you need to change the attitudes of the people there, and mental inertia is difficult to overcome. There also needs to be good public transit at each end so your passengers won't be stranded. I would love to see this happen around here, and there have been discussions for years about New Orleans--Baton Rouge or New Orleans--Mobile service, but I don't think either one would have enough traffic to justify it.
I think the way to handle this is to plan primarily on extending existing corridors. The southern end of the NE corridor comes to mind. I would suggest connecting Atlanta with D.C. might be worthwhile. As the existing service in Virginia and North Carolina improves in speed and frequency of service, it can be extended into South Carolina and eventually Atlanta. Of course, there should be regular, frequent 79 MPH service at the extended portions of the route which would be upgraded as traffic increases. It doesn't make sense to jump in with an expensive high-speed route, then wait for people to decide to use it.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
A) The connection from the NEC to at least Charlotte and probably Atlanta is already in the works. I believe it is going to be 110 mph service.
B) My thought on choosing new corridors is to pick two medium/large cities a couple hundred miles apart with moderate population density between them. The test to see if there is a market could be if there are several nonstop flights between them now. If one of the cities is already part of an existing corridor, so much the better. Part of the market would be connecting the intermediate population to the larger city airports. There are also many people who work in large cities but do not want to live there. I bet they would rather ride than drive and deal with the hassle of big city parking. Park and ride lots in the middle and mass transit hub of some kind at the big city terminal.
1. Spokes radiating from NEC - beef up and improve
2. Create new hubs at ends of NEC spokes.
3. Chicago and California
Where first? Look at map of likely interstate congestion in 2040. Find routes where incremental improvement to 110 mph is feasible. Do these first. I'd guess that these would include many already in the works/studied. RF&P, Empire State, Norfolk, Roanoke, Piedmont in NC & SC, Atlanta. Atlanta could be a future hub. From Chicago, Cleveland, Cincy, Indy, Columbus, St. L, KC, Minneapolis, Detroit. California - WYSIWYG
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Phoebe Vet A) The connection from the NEC to at least Charlotte and probably Atlanta is already in the works. I believe it is going to be 110 mph service.
Phoebe; At first though the ATL - WASH route seems a little long. However the intermediate stops make all the difference.
1. The Crescent's route of 634 miles ATL - WASH has good stops at Greenville & Spartanburg , SC, Charlotte, Greensboro, Danville, Lynchburg, Charlottesville. Those stops + the small stations will fill the many station pairs that seem to fill long distance trains.
2. If its route could average 80 MPH then 6 hrs ATL - WASH would allow the crescent to be a great train leaving NYP & ATL at 8;00 PM with arrival at other end at 0700 AM. That would truly make the Crescet a great overnight train.
3. Day trains could originate ATL, GREENVILLE, CHATLOTTE, GREENSBORO ? , then follow to Raleigh and the "S" line to Petersburg. Unfortunately that route to WASH will be 60 miles farther so ATL - WASH would be an extra 35 minutes. This route has advantages of connecting ATL & SC citys to Richmond which has not been around since before the advent of AMTRAK. AGAIN many good intermediate city pairs.
4. CRESCENT on its present route probably is the best but maybe split off cars at CLT could be implemented.
LOSSAN corridor - still with a 90MPH max speed and a fair number of slow spots.
BlueStreak:
The new corridor will not turn north at Greensboro as the Crescent does. It will go on to Raleigh before turning north to Petersburg and Richmond.
While there is currently no direct route to Richmond from Atlanta, there is from Charlotte. The Carolinian runs from Charlotte to NYP via Raleigh and Richmond. The new corridor will not follow the same route as the Carolinian, either. They are reactivating the ROW north out of Raleigh.
http://www.sehsr.org/
Phoebe Vet BlueStreak: The new corridor will not turn north at Greensboro as the Crescent does. It will go on to Raleigh before turning north to Petersburg and Richmond. While there is currently no direct route to Richmond from Atlanta, there is from Charlotte. The Carolinian runs from Charlotte to NYP via Raleigh and Richmond. The new corridor will not follow the same route as the Carolinian, either. They are reactivating the ROW north out of Raleigh. http://www.sehsr.org/
It would seem to be a good idea to re-route the Crescent via Raleigh once the HrSR connection to Petersburg is in place - provided it still exists....
However, don't abandon service north of Greensboro. Instead run a pair of trains Roanoke - Lynchburg - DC. (extend existing Lynchburg train and add "Crescent replacement")
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.