Trains.com

What would it take?

4370 views
67 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
What would it take?
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:58 PM

To have some successful passenger trains operating in our freight dominated railroad system?

     

     

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Sunny (mostly) San Diego
  • 1,920 posts
Posted by ChuckCobleigh on Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:01 PM

Lots of riders?

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:05 PM

     Obviously, but I've read that there are a lot of areas that might have enough population to provide lots of riders.  There might be suburbs of San Diego that have a higher population than my state, so we're probably off the A-List.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:08 PM

Murphy Siding

To have some successful passenger trains operating in our freight dominated railroad system?

     

     

 

Wings.

Or maybe, first, a definition of success.

 

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,018 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:13 PM

Murphy Siding

To have some successful passenger trains operating in our freight dominated railroad system?

Riders, obviously, but I think the real issue is the interface between the freight and passenger side.  

Even for freight alone, the thing that makes best use of available capacity possible is consistent speeds.  This has been discussed here before.  

Whatever the happy medium (speed) is, anything that runs too fast or too slow tends to gum up the works.  There have been accounts here in several threads about the disruption that an Amtrak train can cause.  

NYC and PRR had specific tracks for freight and passenger on their four track main lines.  

I suspect that some variation of that practice might help the process along.  Unfortunately, many of the possible secondary routes that might make that possible have been torn up.  

It's been argued that there are successful passenger trains even now.  Something we seem to lack is the political will to make passenger service a more desirable option.  Some politicians seem to be taking a page from the railroads of the early sixties in making the trains less desirable.

 

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:14 PM

These, and lots of them.

 

These, and lots of them.

Norm


  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:18 PM

Okay.  I got my snark out of the way.

Lets assume successful is corridor-like multiple trains a day at highway competitive door to door speeds.

You'd need a good, existing, straight, flat route suitable for 90 mph without moving much dirt.  Ideally the ROW would already be graded for mulitple tracks. 90 mph is all you are going to get out of the frt RRs, at least for now.

You'd need a lot of money for track and equipment.  

You'd need to be adding a lot track.  Maybe adding full double track to a single track route, or lots of triple to a double track route.  This is because the frt RRs aren't going to allow even on extra minute of delay to their trains when you add on the passenger trains.

That equipment you need is pretty pricey.  Bring money and have a plan to keep it moving and full.

You'd need sharp, knowledgable negotiatore to deal with the frt RRs to navigate past the stiff-arms you'd get initially.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:23 PM

oltmannd

Okay.  I got my snark out of the way.

Lets assume successful is corridor-like multiple trains a day at highway competitive door to door speeds.

You'd need a good, existing, straight, flat route suitable for 90 mph without moving much dirt.  Ideally the ROW would already be graded for mulitple tracks. 90 mph is all you are going to get out of the frt RRs, at least for now.

You'd need a lot of money for track and equipment.  

You'd need to be adding a lot track.  Maybe adding full double track to a single track route, or lots of triple to a double track route.  This is because the frt RRs aren't going to allow even on extra minute of delay to their trains when you add on the passenger trains.

That equipment you need is pretty pricey.  Bring money and have a plan to keep it moving and full.

You'd need sharp, knowledgable negotiatore to deal with the frt RRs to navigate past the stiff-arms you'd get initially.

 

Governor Moonbeam will be here shortly to espouse the benefits of his proposal. (Sounds more like a proposition.) Whistling

Norm


  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:25 PM

     I guess my definition of success would be that it's somewhat self-sufficient in funding, it meets a need of the ridership, and it works well with the owners of the tracks it's using.

     Do the commuter lines running into Chicago share some rail space with freight trains?  For example I've ridden the line in from Schamburg.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:02 PM

The BNSF line to Aurora and the UP West Line to Elburn utilize major freight routes.  The Southwest line (ex-Wabash) crosses several major freight routes.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 229 posts
Posted by bedell on Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:07 PM

What would it take?... Higher taxes.  Ask the Brits and the other Europeans about the cost of their systems.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:21 PM

MILW West lets CP run freight on it from Big Timber to Bensenville Yard.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, December 10, 2015 4:37 PM

    I've read arguments for local governments kicking in some of the capitol for rail projects for the greater good of the constiuents involved.  For example when improving a rail line takes freight and trucks off nearby traffic lanes so that the highways don't need expensive improvements like added lanes.  Is there places where a similar mindset would make a passenger train feasable?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:55 PM

Murphy Siding

    I've read arguments for local governments kicking in some of the capitol for rail projects for the greater good of the constiuents involved.  For example when improving a rail line takes freight and trucks off nearby traffic lanes so that the highways don't need expensive improvements like added lanes.  Is there places where a similar mindset would make a passenger train feasable?

We could shut down the NEC and find out what the impact is on I-95 and the other feeder routes as an experiment in real time. [/sarcasm]

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Thursday, December 10, 2015 8:26 PM

The main thing is our willingness to subsidize passenger transportation that can never support itself but is seen as desirable.

Most places, rail will be at an obvious disadvantage to planes and often even cars and buses when it comes to turnaround time of crew and equipment. But even the airlines, with their speed advantage, make out only in the best of economic times, and couldn't do it then, either, if its weren't for all the help with terminals and communications they get from taxpayers.

But obviously modern life wouldn't be possible without airlines, so we put up with the expense and even numerous aggravations as they get bolder in their heedlessness of our comfort and little things like our baggage.

In markets in which we decide we could use the train alternative, despite its inherent inefficiency, we'll swallow the cost and have it. Simple as that. It will be useful to have folks like us around to remind the powers of the existence of the rail option. (They don't always remember it by themselves.)

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,018 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, December 10, 2015 9:11 PM

dakotafred
Most places, rail will be at an obvious disadvantage to planes and often even cars and buses when it comes to turnaround time of crew and equipment.

Seems like I've read that the break-over is around 500 miles, maybe a little less.  Under that distance, relatively direct trains have a certain level of competition with air.

The issue with cars is the lack of transportation at many destinations.  Where one used to be able to get off one's train and immediately board a trolley (or the like) that would get one near their destination, that's no longer the case.  Thus people like to drive, so they have transportation when they get to their destination.

I've heard many times that the NEC is competitive with the airlines in the markets both serve, both in price and travel time.  Doing so, however, requires speeds much higher than are available for most long and medium distance passenger trains.

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, December 10, 2015 9:15 PM

If we could accept the need for the government to provide the capial for infrastructure, as they do for highways and airlines, some corridors could break even or turn a profit.  The NEC does here. Many German ICE (HSR) and French TGV routes do.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,138 posts
Posted by Gramp on Thursday, December 10, 2015 10:59 PM

I'm waiting (hoping) for Texas Central to blaze the trail.  I think that could open a lot of minds.

In the current Amtrak world, I'd like to see Ed Ellis' Chicago-Indy train service run on a ROW that can sustain a 50-55mph schedule.  Chi-StL?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, December 11, 2015 12:21 AM

With the current freight traffic levels on routes that would have sufficient passenger traffic demand to warrant passenger SERVICE (ie. more than a train a day each way) it will at the least require separate passenger service tracks - track sufficiently distant from the freight tracks as to not be affected by the rules concerning passing trains with HAZMAT involvement.  Service would tend to mean sufficient passenger volume to warrant trains operating each direction bi-hourly or more frequently during the 0600 to 2359 operating span.  Such a level of operation could not be handled on existing freight routes without seriously affecting freight service.

Amtrak can do what they do on the NEC because they have no through freight trains operating on the line.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Friday, December 11, 2015 10:14 AM

BaltACD

With the current freight traffic levels on routes that would have sufficient passenger traffic demand to warrant passenger SERVICE (ie. more than a train a day each way) it will at the least require separate passenger service tracks - track sufficiently distant from the freight tracks as to not be affected by the rules concerning passing trains with HAZMAT involvement.  Service would tend to mean sufficient passenger volume to warrant trains operating each direction bi-hourly or more frequently during the 0600 to 2359 operating span.  Such a level of operation could not be handled on existing freight routes without seriously affecting freight service.

Amtrak can do what they do on the NEC because they have no through freight trains operating on the line.

 

It would seem to me that the most important issue to increasing passenger trin traffic would be the underligned and highlighted part of BALTACD's statement above.

  The more recent rules to control HAZMAT transportation by various Federal Regulators could be a real game changer for mixing passenger, and freight trains in many parts of the country.  The exception mentioned by Balt is the NE Corridor where freight traffic is controlled to the point that it's mixing with passenger traffic is avoided/separated (?) during high-passenger traffic hours. (?)

  Not sure how AMTRAK trains are currently handled in an environment where they are transiting primarly freight railroad lanes.    Chicago being an area where there are a high percentage of passenger train traffic ; do they have their own protocols for handling the integration of passenger trains and freight trains?    How do they handle those issues out in California?

 Is there a protocol for an AMTRAK train 'meeting' or passing a freight train with a high percentage of chemicals on tank cars, or a crude oil tank train ( empty or loaded). 

 

 


 

  • Member since
    August 2008
  • From: Cape Coral, Florida
  • 412 posts
Posted by billio on Friday, December 11, 2015 10:45 AM

Given current prices, nothing in our lifetime...

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, December 11, 2015 1:10 PM

samfp1943

Not sure how AMTRAK trains are currently handled in an environment where they are transiting primarly freight railroad lanes.    Chicago being an area where there are a high percentage of passenger train traffic ; do they have their own protocols for handling the integration of passenger trains and freight trains?    How do they handle those issues out in California?

 Is there a protocol for an AMTRAK train 'meeting' or passing a freight train with a high percentage of chemicals on tank cars, or a crude oil tank train ( empty or loaded).

On my carrier, as long as the freight train with HAZMAT is moving there are no big issues in operating with Amtrak.  The problem is when the freight train with HAZMAT gets stopped by an emergency brake application.  When the UDE happens, NO TRAIN can pass the stopped train until the stopped train has been given a walking inspection and all HAZMAT have been verified as being on the rail - once all HAZMAT has been inspected other trains can be permitted to pass at Restricted Speed.  The Restricted Speed restriction on the adjacent track remains in effect until the UDE train announces that their train is complete and normal trainline air pressure has been restored.  The first train operating on the track that was occupied by the UDE train must operate at Restricted Speed from the location of the rear end of the UDE train at the time the UDE happened to the location of the head end when the UDE train finally came to a stop.  With most all merchandise freight trains having at least one HAZMAT, adjacent track can be restricted from movement by rule for quite some time.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 4,819 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Friday, December 11, 2015 1:22 PM

According to the FRA ridership is up 50% over what it was in 2000. The demand is growing, not declining.  VIA is looking at building its own dedicated rail line in the heavily travlled Ontario/Quebec corridor. That's probably the best answer longterm. Keep freight and passenger separate wherever possible.   

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, December 11, 2015 4:47 PM

BaltACD
 
samfp1943

Not sure how AMTRAK trains are currently handled in an environment where they are transiting primarly freight railroad lanes.    Chicago being an area where there are a high percentage of passenger train traffic ; do they have their own protocols for handling the integration of passenger trains and freight trains?    How do they handle those issues out in California?

 Is there a protocol for an AMTRAK train 'meeting' or passing a freight train with a high percentage of chemicals on tank cars, or a crude oil tank train ( empty or loaded).

 

On my carrier, as long as the freight train with HAZMAT is moving there are no big issues in operating with Amtrak.  The problem is when the freight train with HAZMAT gets stopped by an emergency brake application.  When the UDE happens, NO TRAIN can pass the stopped train until the stopped train has been given a walking inspection and all HAZMAT have been verified as being on the rail - once all HAZMAT has been inspected other trains can be permitted to pass at Restricted Speed.  The Restricted Speed restriction on the adjacent track remains in effect until the UDE train announces that their train is complete and normal trainline air pressure has been restored.  The first train operating on the track that was occupied by the UDE train must operate at Restricted Speed from the location of the rear end of the UDE train at the time the UDE happened to the location of the head end when the UDE train finally came to a stop.  With most all merchandise freight trains having at least one HAZMAT, adjacent track can be restricted from movement by rule for quite some time.

 

   Am I understanding that right about "as long as the hazmat train is moving...."?  A hazmat carrying freight train in the siding with an Amtrak passenger train going by on the main- and vice versa- would typically not be a problem?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, December 11, 2015 8:12 PM

Murphy Siding
BaltACD
samfp1943

Not sure how AMTRAK trains are currently handled in an environment where they are transiting primarly freight railroad lanes.    Chicago being an area where there are a high percentage of passenger train traffic ; do they have their own protocols for handling the integration of passenger trains and freight trains?    How do they handle those issues out in California?

 Is there a protocol for an AMTRAK train 'meeting' or passing a freight train with a high percentage of chemicals on tank cars, or a crude oil tank train ( empty or loaded).

On my carrier, as long as the freight train with HAZMAT is moving there are no big issues in operating with Amtrak.  The problem is when the freight train with HAZMAT gets stopped by an emergency brake application.  When the UDE happens, NO TRAIN can pass the stopped train until the stopped train has been given a walking inspection and all HAZMAT have been verified as being on the rail - once all HAZMAT has been inspected other trains can be permitted to pass at Restricted Speed.  The Restricted Speed restriction on the adjacent track remains in effect until the UDE train announces that their train is complete and normal trainline air pressure has been restored.  The first train operating on the track that was occupied by the UDE train must operate at Restricted Speed from the location of the rear end of the UDE train at the time the UDE happened to the location of the head end when the UDE train finally came to a stop.  With most all merchandise freight trains having at least one HAZMAT, adjacent track can be restricted from movement by rule for quite some time.

   Am I understanding that right about "as long as the hazmat train is moving...."?  A hazmat carrying freight train in the siding with an Amtrak passenger train going by on the main- and vice versa- would typically not be a problem?

HAZMAT train on #1 track moving at track (or any other permissible) speed and Amtrak on #2 track moving at track (or any other permissible) speed.  No Problems.  HAZMAT stopped account UDE on any adjacent track (Main or Siding) - Problems until all HAZMAT in train have been confirmed as being on the rail - Nothing Moves!

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Friday, December 11, 2015 9:39 PM

Murphy Siding
I've read arguments for local governments kicking in some of the capitol for rail projects for the greater good of the constiuents involved.  For example when improving a rail line takes freight and trucks off nearby traffic lanes so that the highways don't need expensive improvements like added lanes.  Is there places where a similar mindset would make a passenger train feasable?

Morris County NJ has been trying to get NJ Transit commuter service extended to the west for about 20 years now, perhaps as far as the PA Pocono mountain area.  The thought is that would postpone or eliminate the need to widen I-80 - often a linear parking lot during the rush hours - through the county.  Said widening will cost in the millions per mile - I drove it a couple weeks ago, and just the rock removal and ROW acquisitions will be staggeringly huge numbers.

- Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Friday, December 11, 2015 10:01 PM

BaltACD

 

 
Murphy Siding
BaltACD
samfp1943

Not sure how AMTRAK trains are currently handled in an environment where they are transiting primarly freight railroad lanes.    Chicago being an area where there are a high percentage of passenger train traffic ; do they have their own protocols for handling the integration of passenger trains and freight trains?    How do they handle those issues out in California?

 Is there a protocol for an AMTRAK train 'meeting' or passing a freight train with a high percentage of chemicals on tank cars, or a crude oil tank train ( empty or loaded).

On my carrier, as long as the freight train with HAZMAT is moving there are no big issues in operating with Amtrak.  The problem is when the freight train with HAZMAT gets stopped by an emergency brake application.  When the UDE happens, NO TRAIN can pass the stopped train until the stopped train has been given a walking inspection and all HAZMAT have been verified as being on the rail - once all HAZMAT has been inspected other trains can be permitted to pass at Restricted Speed.  The Restricted Speed restriction on the adjacent track remains in effect until the UDE train announces that their train is complete and normal trainline air pressure has been restored.  The first train operating on the track that was occupied by the UDE train must operate at Restricted Speed from the location of the rear end of the UDE train at the time the UDE happened to the location of the head end when the UDE train finally came to a stop.  With most all merchandise freight trains having at least one HAZMAT, adjacent track can be restricted from movement by rule for quite some time.

   Am I understanding that right about "as long as the hazmat train is moving...."?  A hazmat carrying freight train in the siding with an Amtrak passenger train going by on the main- and vice versa- would typically not be a problem?

 

HAZMAT train on #1 track moving at track (or any other permissible) speed and Amtrak on #2 track moving at track (or any other permissible) speed.  No Problems.  HAZMAT stopped account UDE on any adjacent track (Main or Siding) - Problems until all HAZMAT in train have been confirmed as being on the rail - Nothing Moves!

 

But hazmat train not stopped for UDU, but stuck in the siding while Amtrak passes on the main is no problem?

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, December 12, 2015 12:04 AM

If the crew has made a normal stop without the train going into emergency - No Problems.  

The key in all cases - did the HAZMAT train have a emergency application of the brakes - if yes, then the HAZMAT must be verified as being on the rail before ANY OTHER train can pass on an adjacent track.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Saturday, December 12, 2015 8:47 AM

Murphy Siding
successful passenger trains operating in our freight dominated railroad system

 

In one word "demand"  ....If you can build a product having sufficient demand, all the other problems will solve themselves.

 The trouble is, passenger rail is a niche market, dominated by sentimentalism.

 I can fly coast to coast in under 6 hours including homeland security hassles, and then spend three days in a resort for what Amtrak would charge me for sleeper service between the same points. SO really, unless the customer is WANTING to savor the "rail experience", there isn't much of a draw the way things currently are.

What could one do to increase demand?  Well, what about "vice" trains?  Perhaps a gambling car or a car where bad girls are known to frequent might serve as a draw? (people always crab about how the railroads are supposedly immune to local authority, so why not give that idea a little test?) Or perhaps "meet a celebrity" opportunities?  Cool

 

Other aspects of hedonism might work as well, the cruise line industry has made a good bit of money playing that angle.  So, suppose a man has business in Denver on Monday morning? He could fly  in Sunday night, or  as an alternative he COULD leave by rail Saturday afternoon, and arrive Monday morning ready for business with a big smile on his face?  Worth considering.

Otherwise you are left with cost and convenience as bargaining chips. The former leaves little incentive to the service provider, and the latter, except where the desired travel is city center to city center and the destination  is within foot distance of the remote terminal, isn't going to happen.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, December 12, 2015 11:36 AM

     Well then I guess the beer train would just go in slow circles and no one would much care.  BeerStick out tongue

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy