New idea how to run our nations Passenger Rail bus

[Modelcar]

People interested in ideas how to run our Nation's Passenger Rail business should take a look at Susquehanna's Walter Rich's plans for Class 1s to operate it....See it in Trans.com website "news"...It is a fresh idea one would think has merit.

QM

[Anonymous]

*Railway Age* had a similar article or editorial several months ago re: the Class 1's resuming passenger service, quite thought provoking. It'd be interesting to get a debate going on this. What arguments would RRs have against it? Curious.

[Anonymous]

*Railway Age* had a similar article or editorial several months ago re: the Class 1's resuming passenger service, quite thought provoking. It'd be interesting to get a debate going on this. What arguments would RRs have against it? Curious.

[Anonymous]

Time magazine this week is a double issue about the environment. One of the short articles is about killing Amtrak and investing on regional high speed rail......something that might eventually lead to what the Europeans have. My favorite line was the need to have a vision......

[Anonymous]

The link to this article is
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/morrow/article/0,9565,338703,00.html

[Anonymous]

It is an idea brewing for a while. Turning the long hauls into autoveyer trains (also serving major locations enroute for nonauto-toting passengers) dovetails nicely into the railroad's intermodal operational infrastructure. Railroad intermodal yards are natural sites to double as autoveyer ramp/terminals, and the intermodal freight trains run at similar-to-passenger train speeds.

The high speed corridors are naturally oriented to regional entities, such as an organizational off-shoot of Metra managing the Midwest network.

The Northeast Corridor can be folded into Conrail Shared Assets, Metro-North screws Amtrak in the dispatching of the New Rochelle-New Haven segment of the Corridor that it owns, but Amtrak dispatchers and Penn Station towermen really stick it to NJ Transit and SEPTA commuter trains. Conrail would be a recreation of the PRR and manges all operations more fairly.

[Modelcar]

Lets hope the Walter Rich idea doesn't die a silent death, but gains some legs and somehow enters into some high level talks to hash it over and allow it to gain some momentum. Most of us realize we sure need a fresh system to control and run our rail transportation here in America.

QM

[Anonymous]

Here we go again! What on earth makes anyone think that transporting people anywhere is viable from a profitability point of view? It is true that government through it's control of Amtrak has thoroughly mauled intercity passenger trains. It is comparable to an elephant stepping on a tuba. That they should be out of it is a no-brainer. The only place Amtrak or any other rail passenger services are useful is in the corridors or on suburban routes. Americans want their cars, even if the interstates are crowded and hogged by unsafe drivers in horrid road conditions. That's just our culture and a fact of life. Face it, riverboats, conestoga wagons, stage coaches, DC-3's and intercity passenger trains are a thing of the past. If there comes a time when culture again evolves, the freight railroad infrastructure will still be there. If it's not, then we have a lot more problems with which to deal other than sleepers, diners, coaches and on-time incentives. The money needed to chase this folly would be better spent on relieving us of foreign oil dependancy and the development of "smart roads" like the one currently under development near Virginia Tech. Who knows, maybe the railroads could find a niche in that. You think? gdc

[Modelcar]

No where did I see where profitability was suggested in Rich's plan by running PassengerTrains from fare box revenues...And as far as the argument for or against the need of the train transportation in this country...we all know it has two sides and is an ongoing debate that has to be decided someplace other than here...Just a comment: Not too many airlines actually make a profit either, in fact almost none in this country.

QM

[Anonymous]

You made just my point...people want their automobiles. Airlines aren't making it even with heavy subsidy (runways, loans, etc. [It seems O'Henryi***o call them bailouts!]) Why do we need another drain in which to throw money? Let's go the way the wind's blowing and make all roads safer. That's where the majority of the public want to be. We can start by making intermodal freight more attractive to shippers, i.e quicker, better schedules; guaranteed deliveries; expanded rail infrastructure; ad infinitum. Who wants to look in their side mirror with the words "objects in mirror are closer than they appear" and see "Peterbilt"? Who said anything about profitability? As I read the article, putting rail passenger service in the hands of a TTX type subsidiary so that it could be run by people who know how to make a profit suggests that. All four of the big roads as well as the mid-size ones are profit driven...they don't want an endeavor that just breaks even, with or without tax breaks. And who can blame them? They are all forward-thinking management teams who know where they're going and are trying to get there. Rail company profitability will follow the economy, so why not have a win for the public and for the railroads too. gdc

[Modelcar]

...But not a profit generated by the fare box.

QM

[Modelcar]

I agree with the thought...Any movement,incentive, help of the right kind to move freight off the highways and on to the rails, I'm 100% in agreement with...That is the first step needed to improve our interstate highway system. Many locations there is no room left to expand the highway system, and if they could find space to do so, it would be filled up almost before it was officially open.

QM

[Anonymous]

A rose by any other name is a rose, is a rose, is a rose. It doesn't matter if losses are fare box or not, with or without other incentives. And here's a chilling thought...to model anything after Shared Assets would be better left to congress. And that's scratching on the blackboard.

[Anonymous]

Freeways are a thing of the past. In the future most new controlled access highways will be turnpikes. The interstate highway system has been built. In major cities they are rebuilding freeways that aren't even 30 years old, mainly to widen them.....
IF we are going to clean up our air, building more highways for more cars is not the answer. Most of the smog is caused by cars. The state of California is so concerned about losing federal highway funds, they have passed legislation whereby the automobile manufacturers will have to get into the golf cart business. In ten years.....
While we like our cars today, I am not so sure we will like our new cars in ten years. As Pogo once said, the enemy is us.
Here is news that everyone knows, but hardly participate in. IF more people will take public transit in the major cities, from 6 percent to 12 percent, to get to work and back, there wouldn't be any red or orange ozone days. IF 12 percent of the people took public transit everyday to work, we wouldn't need to import oil from the Persian Gulf....Funny thing is that the Europeans average 12 percent of its workers using public transit. Could it be the cost of fuel? If so, then it is time to double the price of gasoline. Then we would have a balanced budget again.....

[Modelcar]

The idea we're kicking aroung here...that is, the company running the passenger trains and collecting revenue from the fare box and of course that requires to be added to by tax incentives for them [predetermined], to then make a profit....Which is Mr. Rich's idea to allow the system to work. Running trains to make money and of course to serve the public...[Perhaps a lot better than being accomplished now].

QM

[Anonymous]

I agree with you whole-heartedly!. The only viable use for passenger rail is in corridors and suburban environments. I said that a couple of posts ago. But there still is no viable use for intercity,long-distance passenger trains. No one has come up with any plan, anywhere to make such service justified. Why do you think that is? The truth is that they can't! I'm all for expansion of heavy-rail suburban service, light rail (streetcars) or electric rubber tire transport (trolley buses). Automobiles should be much more fuel efficient and I drive a SUV, too! But inter-city passenger trains hopefully will be relegated to museums, model layouts and Christmas Tree loops! gdc

[Modelcar]

We really don't know just what the decision will be and when it will be made on intercity rail passenger operation...so right now one can only guess. Obviously it can go two ways and I sure can't tell anyone which way it will go regardless of how I would like to see it handled. The point that started this thread is...Someone had come up with a somewhat fresh idea how to manage and run passenger rail whatever it looks like when that time rolls around. I think it should be batted about a bit....There sure have been several ideas around by the "experts" that sounded a lot less workable.

QM

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I agree, Walter Rich's plan for rail passenger service has merit. It seems to me his plan is to form a private corporation that in a sense would buy out Amtrak. You have to wonder whether the problems we have with Amtrak today might not have been avoided had Walter Rich's plan been put into effect in May, 1971?

[Modelcar]

Now that's a thought...Too bad it wasn't available and put into place then. It's only a guess what might have happened, but surely it would have fared better than what we have today. Might it yet be tried, or at least something very close to it...

QM

[Anonymous]

Quite frankly, the government is the only organization on earth that is capable of purchasing new property for right of ways at market value. The government also has the tool of emminient domain if needed. While many keep posting that private enterprise is the solution, any successful future passenger railroad will need to be of high speed. I cannot see how any private company could ever force a farmer or rancher to sell his land for any new construction, at any price if the land isn't for sale.....
So much for private enterprise.....

[dmoore74]

In actual fact most railroads, since they are chartered as "common carriers", have the power of eminent domain. The same is true for pipeline companies. I seriously doubt that any current railroad has plans to build its own high speed passenger tracks.

[Anonymous]

Amen

[Modelcar]

I saw on the evening National News that business people are leaving the airlines in droves....Using their vehicles or rent a cars or gosh...Trains..!!...So, Mr. Gunn...if you can find some capitol to provide the service and manage to get the builder of Acela units to get the final fix into them perhaps there is some business out there to grab onto....

QM

[Anonymous]

No, but they are in company with the FRA to spend federal funds to upgrade their current tracks to high speed rail, well up to 120 mph. See the map of the high speeed rail corridor designations and extensions at teh FRA web site at
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rdv/hsgt/states/index.htm

The question remains whether we would be better off if we spent twice as much to build 186 mph tracks....and copy the Europeans, keep passenger trains off the freight tracks. It is the opinion of the Europeans that high speed passenger trains and slow freight trains running on the same track is NOT SAFE!

[Anonymous]

Quite frankly it seems that we are all forgeting 2 important points. One is that Americans and Canadians gobble more energy per capita than any other society in the world. A large part of this energy is oil which causes air pollution and leads to global warming.
The other point is that all modes of transportation are subsidized to one degree or another. The private automobile owner does not pay all of the costs of providing highway infrastructure from his license, fuel taxes and tolls and certainly does not pay for the damage to the environment caused by air pollution.
Roads have generally been deemed a public utility the way railroads once were. As other writers have said the interstate highway system is generally built. It may be rebuilt but it is highly unlikely that another one would be built to handle increased volume. Supporters of highways should remember that there is some truth to the addage of " build it and they will come". The same could also be said if monies were invested in rail, transit and even airports to provide seamless connections.
The town where I grew up has seen the highway re-engineered 3 or 4 times to take out hills and curves and eventually to make it 4 lanes. The railroad on the otherhand still exists in the same format it was when it was built. Whose money was used to do this? The taxpayers of course.
Who will pay for the damage caused to the environment? Our children of course.

[Modelcar]

Thanks for adding lots of fre***houghts pertaining to our whole transportation system...Yes, build it and they will come...I mentioned that some time back that if that would be the case to add more capacity to the interstate system, it would be filled up in a short amount of time and we'd be right back where we started from...My thoughts are perhaps we need to lean on ALL the systems.

QM