As has been posted by many including this poster is that Amtrak LD trains and to a lesser extent the regional and state supported trains suffer timekeeping on slow sections. What if congress supplies funds to the FRA (no way to Amtrak) for it to allocate funds to each train route to eliminate a certain slow section. A formula would apply each year to say 500 miles of a route's operation for upgrades of 10 miles of that RR's track to at least 90 preferabilly 110 MPH. Example for The Crescent it would be the miles from ALX - Greensboro & CLT - NOL. For a route 1200 miles long FRA could allocate the 22 miles as one or 2 projects.
If a second or additional trains that operates on all or part of the route take 30% of each additional train's mileage and add that to the original train's total. Do not have good answer for very short lines especially loccal switching RRs. Amtrask owned tracks are a special example that have no good answer.
It would get complicated for the CSX "A" line but could be easily calculated. What mileage is not used rolls over to next year to add to route.
What this might do is give incentative to any RR to accept a new service. As well a second or third train on part of a route, NS's ATL - ALX is an example
There might be locations where reducing slow sections not possible but a more direct route with higher grades might work that the affected RR would get credit?
A separate consideration would be for track segments that has a high freight train delay metric that could allow for a 2nd HrSR main track. That would have to be funded at least by 50% by that RR.
Note: There might be a provision to consider Revenue passenger miles
You don't just upgrade a line to a higher speed and that's the end. It requires constant maintenance to keep it at that level. Especially with heavy freight trains pounding the track. I'm sure MC could tell you how much more it costs to increase the speed from 70mph to 90mph. The passenger trains would still have to dodge all the slower freights.
Backshop Especially with heavy freight trains pounding the track.
Especially with heavy freight trains pounding the track.
I wonder how much of a reduction in damage from frieght trains could be achieved by more intensive use of WILD detectors? "More intensive use" might inlude lower thresholds for requiring a car set-out, closer spacing of detectors and having detectors set up for detecting hunting if they don't do so already.
Based on what several people (e.g. Diesel Fried Chicken guy) have said in years past, intensive maintennance of both wheels and rail is needed to get long rrail lifetime with tonnage.
That would work but then you have to consider how the setouts would affect traffic fluidity.
Three things that affect track speed:
1. Maintenance to higher speed requirements. This is not a one time thing, it is a constant, on going effort. It is also paid for by the host railroad and is zero benefit for the host railroad. A railroad that runs in the 40-60 mph range doesn't benefit from having track good for 100 mph. Boosit freight train speeds to higher levels is VERY expensive from a fuel perspective.
2. Geometry. Tighter curves are speed restricted and no matter how much you surface the track, the curve will still be the same radius and still speed restricted. The superelevation might be increased but the freight trains will operate below the superelevation speed, increasing rail wear.
3. Freight traffic from both a wear and sorting perspective. It's not wheel impacts that tear up the track its having heaviy trains loading the track with normal rolling loading. Having 125 car trains of 286k lb cars rolling by at 50 mph flexes and pumps the track, affecting the track geometry. And having to dodge and weave freight trains is still going to be a problem. Increasing the passenger speeds will increase the problem. With freight trains, the concern is primarily with having meeting points for opposing trains. With passenger trains, they can overtake a freight train so not only does the passenger train have to meet opposing trains but has to pass trains in the same direction. A subdivision with enough sidings for freight trains will be short with passenger trains in the mix because more trains have to clear, both trains in the opposing direction and trains in same direction. The higher speed the the passenger train, the larger the "footprint" it has.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Speed for a passenger train requires that it consistently have CLEAR signals so that it can operate at Track Speed. When you have a railroad that is operating both freight and pasenger trains on the same physical plant - The operation of passenger trains 'at speed' seriously limits the operation of freights at any speed.
The most basic of signal systems presents signals of 'Clear', 'Approach', 'Stop'. At present the Class 1 carriers are in the process of changing signal spacing from two miles to three miles to allow for safe braking distances for the freight trains they are operating. Thus the 'footprint' of a freight train extends approximately six miles behind the rear car (or more). If a passenger train gets inside the CLEAR signal distance beind a freight train it is now operating a 'Medium Speed' prepared to STOP at the next signal.
Dispatchers, from my working experience, do everything possible to give passenger trains CLEAR signals with the operation of their territories - the more freight traffic in both directions that is on the territory the harder it is to give passenger trains clear signals - one thing that gets overlooked is that crossing a train from one track to another slows the train down to the crossover speeds for the time it takes the entire length of the train to negotiate the crossover.
A layman looks at a 100 mile territory and sees a blank canvas - a Dispatcher looks at the same 100 mile territory and sees all the issues in operating both freight and passenger over that territory.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Sounds like these points made are another reason to focus rail passenger travel where it is most needed and economical. Not burn up resources on mediocre routes to fill out a map.
GrampSounds like these points made are another reason to focus rail passenger travel where it is most needed and economical. Not burn up resources on mediocre routes to fill out a map.
I disagree, there is a niche for what Amtrak has already with Long Distance. They just have never made much of an effort to find it. People wrote off overnight trains in Europe and guess what? Dedicated marketing and a decent network and they are not doing too badly. Amtrak has a market for one nighter trains that depart in the PM and arrive in the AM.
Amtrak management does not like 400-500 mile corridor trains that originate after 9 or 10 p.m I was told by a WisDOT official when I suggested one between Chicago and Twin Cities. Not sure if it is a concern over crime or they do not want the station staff to be paid past a certain hour.
You do not need high speed to be convienent.
Longer than 500-600 miles they could try the cruise train concept but Amtrak will never will spend the money or make that effort...........so I would agree with you on that market segment.
There have been many occurrences of public entities offering to underwrite capacity and speed improvements on this or that rail line to increase and/or improve service...and the railroads said "no" because they're mean and nasty and hate passenger trains and... Okay, railroads are businesses and do things for business reasons. Why turn down "free" money for improvements to your railroad? (A lot of this has been touched on in previous comments so let's review.)
#1 All track needs maintenance. More track means more maintenance. Railroads will not pay for maintenance on track they don't need. Public entities have a habit of funding things in fits and starts. It's not their fault, such is the nature of public monies: no money until it's a crisis. No crisis? No money. Railroads, on the other hand, have to stay fluid at all times. Ergo, we have a glaring mismatch of priorities.
#2 The national "standard" (for lack of a better term) for passenger train speeds is (roughly) 80mph. This complies with the FRA class 4 standards for track which allows 80 for passenger and 60 for freight. Just because you raise the standard to FRA class 5, 90 pax/70 frt, doesn't mean the railroad would be inclined to run faster freights.
#3 Railroads are private property and pay property taxes based on the condition of their railways. Class 5 track will have a higher tax assessment than class 4. Who pays that? In some negotiations where improvements were made with public money a deal was made property taxes on the line were frozen for 10 years to allow for depreciation.
I shall cast mine eyes south, again, at Brightline Florida wherein all of these issues were mitigated before the start of construction. 'Nuff said.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
D.Carleton There have been many occurrences of public entities offering to underwrite capacity and speed improvements on this or that rail line to increase and/or improve service...and the railroads said "no" because they're mean and nasty and hate passenger trains and... Okay, railroads are businesses and do things for business reasons. Why turn down "free" money for improvements to your railroad? (A lot of this has been touched on in previous comments so let's review.) #1 All track needs maintenance. More track means more maintenance. Railroads will not pay for maintenance on track they don't need. Public entities have a habit of funding things in fits and starts. It's not their fault, such is the nature of public monies: no money until it's a crisis. No crisis? No money. Railroads, on the other hand, have to stay fluid at all times. Ergo, we have a glaring mismatch of priorities.
Not quite sure I agree fully here. Railroads and Amtrak would not install track not needed. When running an Amtrak train over a stretch, CPKC makes Amtrak pay for the trackwork initially but then takes over maintenance at some point because the additional track improves their system fluidity, though they could charge Amtrak a higher run or rent payment and amortize the maintenence amount of the additional track. Not sure which but I have my doubts CPKC would absorb the cost of anything here. Track maintained for higher speed I am sure boosts the rent charged for running Amtrak trains. I would guess that is the case for UP between Chicago and St. Louis.
That maybe true but suspect UP runs at 65-70 mph between Chicago and St. Louis when it can on the 110 mph track......I would be surprised if they held all freight trains to 60. 60 might make sense for some trains but not all. CPKC I thought was 65 for freight in some places on Chicago to Twin Cities but still 79 for passenger. BNSF and UP are 70 for frieght for some out in the boonies areas of Texas as well as out West in Wyoming and such or at least they used to be.
That is probably different for each project.
Some routes just aren't really fixable. Charlotte to Atlanta. The route is a roller coaster crossed with a snake. There just isn't enough tangent to get to 90 mph very often for very long.
https://blerfblog.blogspot.com/2023/04/amtrak-charlotte-to-atlanta.html?m=0
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I thnk LD train timekeeping is what it is... What you need to get passenger trains across main routes on traditional LD schedulesis more than a few infrastructure improvements. The current LD routes have been pared and quasi-PSR "optimized". You might get today's train across on time, but tomorrow, 4 hours late. That variability is the "voice of the process".
I've often thought about a semi-independent track for passenger along a freight route where the they would be connected and shared for meets and passes, but otherwise traffic segregated. This would only make sense with frequent corridor service. Doing something like this for the Empire Builder or Zephyr would be a bit much.
I question why LD trains have to go fast at all. If the customers are in a hurry, they'll fly. If they're taking the train for pleasure, taking longer would be more hours of fun.
Roughly stated.
Ed
7j43k I question why LD trains have to go fast at all. If the customers are in a hurry, they'll fly. If they're taking the train for pleasure, taking longer would be more hours of fun. Roughly stated. Ed
Waiting in a siding for hours while waiting on opposing freights is not fun. Missing connections is not fun. Paying for hotel reservations that you arrive at the next morning is not fun. Plus, flying is not always an option.
MidlandMike 7j43k I question why LD trains have to go fast at all. If the customers are in a hurry, they'll fly. If they're taking the train for pleasure, taking longer would be more hours of fun. Roughly stated. Ed Waiting in a siding for hours while waiting on opposing freights is not fun.
Waiting in a siding for hours while waiting on opposing freights is not fun.
Then fly.
Missing connections is not fun.
Then DON'T fly. Perhaps drive. I've been trying to talk my wife into driving around the country for forever. She believes she'll never find decent food if we go.
Paying for hotel reservations that you arrive at the next morning is not fun.
I'm sure. What's your point?
Plus, flying is not always an option.
7j43k MidlandMike 7j43k I question why LD trains have to go fast at all. If the customers are in a hurry, they'll fly. If they're taking the train for pleasure, taking longer would be more hours of fun. Roughly stated. Ed Waiting in a siding for hours while waiting on opposing freights is not fun. Then fly. Missing connections is not fun. Then DON'T fly. Perhaps drive. I've been trying to talk my wife into driving around the country for forever. She believes she'll never find decent food if we go. Paying for hotel reservations that you arrive at the next morning is not fun. I'm sure. What's your point? Plus, flying is not always an option. Well, then. There's buses. There's your own car or a rental. There's walking, though that WILL take longer than a slow train. Or is the entire country supposed to pay the cost of getting train passengers to their destination a few hours faster? When I go 100 MPH on Highway 5 so I can get their faster, no one is paying me extra to do it. In fact, if I'm not careful, I'LL be paying extra. Ed
All my answers were to your statement that extra hours on the train would be more fun, and I countered why they wouldn't be. None of your counterarguments gave any reason they would be fun. Instead you counter that people should fly or drive. Not everyone is physically or financially able to do those things. You also suggest buses, but buses no longer go everywhere. Flights to smaller cities are also becoming less frequent. Obviously Amtrak isn't for you, but many people with limited options find it useful.
MidlandMike All my answers were to your statement that extra hours on the train would be more fun, and I countered why they wouldn't be. None of your counterarguments gave any reason they would be fun. Instead you counter that people should fly or drive.
All my answers were to your statement that extra hours on the train would be more fun, and I countered why they wouldn't be. None of your counterarguments gave any reason they would be fun. Instead you counter that people should fly or drive.
They would not be fun for SOME, apparently including yourself. I am not sure why I am supposed to argue that they really WOULD be fun for you. I believe you.
I do counter that if traveling by train makes you miserable, for all the reasons you list, that you should use a different means of travel.
Not everyone is physically or financially able to do those things.
Yes. I am arguing that that does not entitle them to expect the rest of the country should pay the extra cost of getting them to their destination several hours sooner.
You also suggest buses, but buses no longer go everywhere.
Then perhaps you should be arguing for additional bus routes.
Flights to smaller cities are also becoming less frequent.
But when all those people who are not having fun traveling by train finally wake up and fly, there will be more demand, and those flights will come back.
Obviously Amtrak isn't for you,...
I am not seeing why you think Amtrak is not for me. I actually enjoy taking slow trains and enjoying the scenery. And the beverages in the lounge.
... but many people with limited options find it useful.
Then they are invited to join me in the lounge, as we leisurely travel the country at freight train speeds.
"Excuse me, sir. May I have another one of these; they are delicious."
oltmannd I've often thought about a semi-independent track for passenger along a freight route where the they would be connected and shared for meets and passes, but otherwise traffic segregated. This would only make sense with frequent corridor service. Doing something like this for the Empire Builder or Zephyr would be a bit much.
That is what is going to happen on the ALX <> Richmond route with VA DOT owning the eastern track and eventually another track to the east. Now the present Amtrak route from Lorton /Richmond to Selma NC now has 5 round trips a day. That IMO comes close to your proposal.
If Palmetto ever gets extended back to Florida that is 4 RT trains a day Savannah - South.
7j43kI do counter that if traveling by train makes you miserable, for all the reasons you list, that you should use a different means of travel.
I have traveled almost all of Amtrak's routes. It's been widely reported that train delays sour many to train travel. Things that drive passengers away threatens the viability of the system.
To my statement: Not everyone is physically or financially able to do those things.
7j43kYes. I am arguing that that does not entitle them to expect the rest of the country should pay the extra cost of getting them to their destination several hours sooner.
Again all passengers would be affected by the viability of the system.
7j43kBut when all those people who are not having fun traveling by train finally wake up and fly, there will be more demand, and those flights will come back.
Small town airports are losing flights, whether or not they have existing train service. At least with continued train service they would have that option.
Midland briings up an important item. Amtrask is a system not a set of individual state RR passenger trains. There are many systems in this country. The airliine system, the telephone system,intercity bus lines, power networks, rural electrification, universal access to the internet. TV networks. Balkanization efforts need to end in the USA,
The attitude should be " I got mine now everyone in the USA will benefit just a little bit".
blue streak 1Midland briings up an important item. Amtrask is a system not a set of individual state RR passenger trains. There are many systems in this country. The airliine system, the telephone system,intercity bus lines, power networks, rural electrification, universal access to the internet. TV networks. Balkanization efforts need to end in the USA, The attitude should be " I got mine now everyone in the USA will benefit just a little bit".
However, the overriding attitude in the USA these days is "I got mine, F off"
MidlandMike 7j43k I do counter that if traveling by train makes you miserable, for all the reasons you list, that you should use a different means of travel. I have traveled almost all of Amtrak's routes. It's been widely reported that train delays sour many to train travel. Things that drive passengers away threatens the viability of the system.
7j43k I do counter that if traveling by train makes you miserable, for all the reasons you list, that you should use a different means of travel.
Don't doubt it a bit. If trains traveled slower, they would blend in with the freights. As has been pointed out, speeding up the trains causes problems.
Yes, of course not. Those that cannot will have to make other arrangements.
7j43k Yes. I am arguing that that does not entitle them to expect the rest of the country should pay the extra cost of getting them to their destination several hours sooner. Again all passengers would be affected by the viability of the system.
7j43k Yes. I am arguing that that does not entitle them to expect the rest of the country should pay the extra cost of getting them to their destination several hours sooner.
Yes. It's terrible to have an un viable system.
7j43k But when all those people who are not having fun traveling by train finally wake up and fly, there will be more demand, and those flights will come back. Small town airports are losing flights, whether or not they have existing train service. At least with continued train service they would have that option.
7j43k But when all those people who are not having fun traveling by train finally wake up and fly, there will be more demand, and those flights will come back.
Your concern with keeping small town America connected with the rest of the country is commendable and proper. But that has nothing to do with increasing long distance passenger train speeds.
Could you please summarize your point in a few words?
I would appreciate it.
7j43kYour concern with keeping small town America connected with the rest of the country is commendable and proper. But that has nothing to do with increasing long distance passenger train speeds. Could you please summarize your point in a few words? I would appreciate it.
Slow trains discourage ridership. If ridership falls to the point that only those who have no other public option (such as loss of air service) are the only ones left riding the train, then even the train might not survive.
MidlandMike 7j43k Your concern with keeping small town America connected with the rest of the country is commendable and proper. But that has nothing to do with increasing long distance passenger train speeds. Could you please summarize your point in a few words? I would appreciate it. Slow trains discourage ridership.
7j43k Your concern with keeping small town America connected with the rest of the country is commendable and proper. But that has nothing to do with increasing long distance passenger train speeds. Could you please summarize your point in a few words? I would appreciate it.
Slow trains discourage ridership.
Thanks.Well stated.
I will first state that I think LATE trains discourage ridership much more than slow. People make plans based on scheduled arrival. Missing that window can be very irritating.
Still, we should look at speeding up trains increasing ridership. In particular, what will be the increase in ridership for any particularly sized speed-up? It seems unlikely that you'd LOSE ridership from a speed-up, so the increase would come from people who wouldn't have taken the train except for it going faster.
Now the question comes up: how big would the ridership increase be? And would that increased income offset the cost of the increase in speed?
Well, no, it wouldn't. That's my declaration, and if anyone really thinks I'm wrong there, I look forward to their data.
Since we now "accept" a financial loss for providing this increase in speed, we should decide how much of a loss is acceptable. Surely, there must be a limit--what is it?
If ridership falls to the point that only those who have no other public option (such as loss of air service) are the only ones left riding the train, then even the train might not survive.
Why wouldn't it survive? Once it's declared the passenger rail MUST provide access at all small towns dotted across these United States, it cannot be discontinued. However, I would suggest, as I have before, that if it's going to end up as a glorified bus service, that it be handled by RDC's. They are FAR more efficient than "regular" passenger trains. And they ARE better than buses. I speak from experience.
7j43kNow the question comes up: how big would the ridership increase be? And would that increased income offset the cost of the increase in speed? Well, no, it wouldn't. That's my declaration, and if anyone really thinks I'm wrong there, I look forward to their data.
Amtrak's data shows that the HrSR Northeast Corridor makes a slight profit, while the slower LD and corridor are money losers. Of course the NEC operational costs don't include ROW costs, but it is data, if that's what you are looking for.
Maybe we will find out something once the CHI-STL corridor speed increase has run long enough to compare with pre-project passenger numbers. Also we might eventually be able to compare Brightline vs Amtrak in the Orlando-Miami corridor.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.