Convicted One I believe that those in a decision making capacity for passenger rail in this country, much like my local bus company, the LAST thing in the world they want is to grow ridership. This is because they "lose" money on every trip, (ie farebox proceeds do not cover the cost of operation) so growing the business is like making a bad thing worse.
I believe that those in a decision making capacity for passenger rail in this country, much like my local bus company, the LAST thing in the world they want is to grow ridership. This is because they "lose" money on every trip, (ie farebox proceeds do not cover the cost of operation) so growing the business is like making a bad thing worse.
i'm having trouble deciding if your opinion of the business understanding of those in decision making capacities is that deficient. Did you mean that literally, or is it just stretching reality to indicate they could manage better?
Except when growing the business means far less need for extremely expensive highway widening, conversion of real estate to parking lots, massive airport expansion, etc. But, in general, this does not effect the LDs.
It's time that I vented a little bit of "conspiracy theory" on the subject.
Their only true goal is to preserve their sincure.
I really wonder what results you might get if you took a poll of how travelers would prefer to travel trips of 75, 150, 300, and 500 miles (air, rail, bus, boat, car) what percentage of respondents under the age of 35 would prefer "rail"?
I really suspect that the lions share of those among all ages who specify "rail" would be nostalgists. And that (IMO) is a segment best served by specialty contractors (765.org etc)
Couldn't you treat them similarly to the way haz mat shipments are handled? (throw in an idler car)
But really, I'm just throwing out the concept as part of a broader "more personal freedoms than with flying" promo
Convicted One It might be interesting to offer a smoking lounge car and see if demand upticks?
It might be interesting to offer a smoking lounge car and see if demand upticks?
Can't do 'er; a little smoke would travel to at least the cars on either side with every entry and exit, and sensitive noses would be alerted. Leakage upstairs is what defeated the OLD smoking lounges.
Quoting Convicted One: " Does Amtrak offer smoking lounges?" I know of none, and there is no smoking on board. Some station stops, particularly at division points, are long enough for smokers to get their relief.
Johnny
Well, you've GOT to provide something the people want. And if you can do so uniquely, you've got an exclusive.
Being "surface" transportation, the trains can offer something that airlines can't....interim access to points between the ultimate destinations. Does Amtrak offer smoking lounges? I know a number of smokers who dread the time away from their beloved pass time when forced to fly. So "personal freedoms" might be a marketable aspect.
But personally, when forced to travel, minimizing transit time and inconvenience are paramount. High Speed rail might offer a unique combination between points within 400 miles of one another, but that pretty much falls outside of the parameters of this thread. And rail tourism just isn't going to serve a big enough need to allow economy of scale.
Perhaps if we cut off politically based foreign aid to all the countries we try to subscribe to our world vision, and instead spent the money locally creating jobs to build a (shudder "socialism") state of the art national passenger rail network, you might get what you want. But we'd have to give up on the idea of being the world's policeman...and I doubt that is a sacrifice that big money is willing to make.
Well then I guess the beer train would just go in slow circles and no one would much care.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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?
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.
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!
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!
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?
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.
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).
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!
Murphy SidingI'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?
- Paul North.
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.
Given current prices, nothing in our lifetime...
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.
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. (?)
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?
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
dakotafredMost 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.
Larry 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...
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.)
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?
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]
MILW West lets CP run freight on it from Big Timber to Bensenville Yard.
What would it take?... Higher taxes. Ask the Brits and the other Europeans about the cost of their systems.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.