Amtrak funding

[Anonymous]

Oh, thank goodness it was hypothetical. The late Pioneer was and is such a can of worms even today here.... our delegation actually tried to get Amtrak to re-innaugurate this train a few years back as a Boise-Portland run.

Agh! I made darn sure my reps knew that trying to add another train while Amtrak is going bust, and in a small density corridor, was a bad bad mistake.

I tell you. I don't like mixing politics into this TOO much, because often partisan choices are emotional- I know people on both sides who I agree with, and the other way around too. It can get in the way if we only pay attention to affiliation.

Unfortunately that is often how Congress is. Sure would be nice to get Amtrak out of that and keep them from making it another porl barrell election football.

Did I mention: Agh!

(Hold onto your seats this fall!)

[Anonymous]

Elvis,

Do you remember the fellow who posted a while back stating a double stack car had to generate $8000 on a coast to coast run to make a profit for the railroad? Assuming a typical stack train is 40 cars (probably way too low) how many passengers and what ticket price would break even for a coast to coast trip?
Some candidates for price & passenger combinations:
2000 passengers . . . $160 ticket
1000 passengers . . . $320 ticket
800 passengers . . . $400 ticket
640 passengers . . . $500 ticket
500 passengers . . . $640 ticket
400 passengers . . . $800 ticket
320 passengers . . .$1000 ticket
It appears from this that you just can't get enough people on a train to make a profit. - Ed

[Anonymous]

You have not seen the light. Go to Europe and see the light.

So many have posted that the range for high speed rail is 250 miles, the distance from Paris to Lyons. However, TGV has extended that line northward to Calais where new construction from the Chunnel to London started this year, and even further north soon to Amsterdam, and southward to Marsailles, within the next ten years you should be able to go futher west and south all the way to Seville, and further east of Marsailles to Milan and Venice and south to Rome....TGV and ICE have built high speed track from Paris to Brussels to Hanover, beyond the Ruhr, and are building high speed track all the way to Berlin. ICE has plans to build high speed track from Stuggart thru Munich to connect with the Italian high speed track near Venice. Notice that the EU is building a high speed rail network, a big box with extensions. While ours might be slightly larger in mileage, the same ideal will work here in America. One needs to see the vision.

Now lets look at some distances of the high speed rail plan between the major hub cities in America, and a few cities inbetween. Starting from Texas, the distance from Dallas to Houston is 250 miles (ideal distance), the distance from Dallas to Atlanta is 790 miles (not so ideal), the distance from Dallas to Chicago is 930 miles, the distance from Boston to Washington DC is 440 miles (see we already have Acela high speed rail running further than 250 miles already on the northeast corridor), the distance from Washington DC to Atlanta is 630 miles, and the distance from Atlanta to Miami is 660 miles, the distance from Atlanta to Chicago is 710 miles, the distance from Chicago to New York City is 820 miles, the distance from Chicago to Cleveland is 350 miles, the distance from New York City to Pittsburgh is 390 miles, the distance from New York City to Toronto is 500 miles, the distance from Chicago to Minneapolis is 410 miles. Please notice I built a parralegram, a near box, with a Chicago to Atlanta slash along with extensions to other possible major cities.

A high speed train averaging 150 mph, well below TGV's average, could get you to Chicago from New York City, some 820 miles, in less than 5 and a half hours. The same average speed could get you from Chicago to Dallas in a little more than 6 hours. One can easily catch a train in Dallas at 8 am in the morning and be in New York City at 8 pm in less than 12 hours...that is if one wanted to go that far! Someone can get to Miami from Washington DC in 8 and a half hours. There will no longer be any need for sleepers.

Yes, airliners can beat these times in the air, but considering that Amtrak asks people to arrive a half an hour early, whereas the airliners asks people to arrive at least 2 hours early, and with delays in taking off and landing, and sometimes waiting for a gate, not to mention up to an hour to get your luggage, the high speed train can be competitive in the hauls between these hubs..... The 6 hours to Chicago from Dallas is not in question, but the 12 hours to New York City from Dallas is. However, many may choose to get off in Saint Louis, or Cleveland.

As for the funding, the misguided Senator Hollins plan to upgrade the freight track at $5 billion a year over 10 years could accomplish our goal with dedicated track for high speed passenger rail in 20-25 years. The DOT spends more on airports and highways each year.

While it might cost twice as much, putting passengers on dedicated high speed track is far safer than running passenger trains at 150 mph on freight track with very long slow freight trains running at 50 mph.

DOT has a real problem, lately they have been reconfiguring runways and building terminals there ain't any space left to build more runways and terminals at most of our major airports, much less any airspace at some. i guess we could start building major airports at $7 billion each, the price of Denver's new airport, 100 miles out of cities centers, because it will be close to impossible to build them anywhere near their urban sprawl, or suburbs.....The results of the NIMBY effect. So add another 2 hours just to get to an airport.

[Anonymous]

Obviously, Amtrak is bidding too low....

[Anonymous]

I almost agree. However, there has to be a vision, a long term plan, much like the interstate highway system. The keystones will be the major population centers of the Northeast (New York City/Washington DC), the Midwest (Chicago), Florida (Miami/Orlando/Tampa), and Texas (Dallas/Houston), and of course California (Oakland/Los Angeles). Transcontinentals won't survive, they cannot compete with the airliners. Since Seattle already has a TGV train, it will have to make do with it. Of course, Seattle will want the faster engines and electrified track eventually.

Yes, it will take time, but 20-25 years is not unreasonable. Start in California, Florida, Texas, and the Midwest, eventually, tie them together. Improve the Acela tracks on the northeast corridor, and viola, it will be accomplished. Furthermore, don't stop, keep building slowly like the Europeans...

The Rockies are another problem altogether. It would cost as much to put one line in west of Denver as the rest of the network. I also do not see where we would attempt to put high speed rail anywhere else throught the Rockies.

I suggest we kill the daily hotel trains, and concentrate keeping passenger trains on the routes earmarked for high speed rail. Amtrak as it exists today will not survive for long. For starters, other than its Acela trainsets and the Cascades trainsets, its equipment is obsolete compared to the Europeans. If were going to capitalize Amtrak with new trainsets, it might as well be TGVs, or nothing.

DOT has a problem, which will show its ugly face in the not to distant future. Our major airports are running out of real estate to put in new runways and terminals. The airport building boom will soon exhaust the available real estate. Some major airports are already out of airspace, see New York City. The closest a new $7 billion major airport for New York City would more than likely be at least 100 miles from Manhattan, and DOT will have to fight the NIMBY effect.....

Maybe it won't happen in this decade, but someday in the future, when we cannot build anymore airports anywhere near a major city, high speed rail will flourish.

[Anonymous]

Ed:

That joker who posted the $8000/car figure- was me! And BTW it was a figure for Chi-LA, from a Trains article on express intermodal.

Not sure where you are going with that table tho- maybe I'm just dense today. 2k pass x $160 = $320k; 1k pass x $320=$320k, etc....

Are you saying $320k is the cost of operations? If so, on what train?

Using your stats, I get the following:

For 500 passengers. If the average sleeper holds 20 people, you'd need 25 cars. 25 x $8k=$200,000/500p = $400 per ticket.

Now that is making a big assumption- that $8k per car will sustain Amtrak/passenger operations cost. We have not factored in locos, much less non revenue generating cars like diners, plus any staff there might be.

And if I'm Elvis you're Roy Orbison.

[Anonymous]

Don:

I do agree on the airport land issues. We have the same problems up here in Portland. PDX is hemmed in by industry and our only other airport is Hillsboro, too tiny to compete. There was talk of adding a new airport to the south, but the truth is, no one wants to have it near them, much less pay for it.

Hotel trains as you term them don't make sense- if they have a run longer than about 18 hours. Shorter than that, they might work, as Via has done between Toronto & Montreal/Quebec City. But if you can't make them 18 hours (or pref. 12,) and run them overnight, they can't compete.

Seattle's train (Cascades Service) isn't quite as sophisticated as TGV, or as expensive. But is does work very well. Spanish built Talgo sets, they work on existing track without major investment, which makes them attractvie for other corridors.

A Talgo set was scheduled for use in the LA-Vegas route, which is still held up pending it's EA from Ms. Whitman.

I also believe that the Chicago/Midwest corridor plans were looking at Talgos as well. They are certainly cost effective, especially as catenary does not need to be installed to support them.

As for piercing the Rockies? Well, Denver makes sense for a population based selection. But as far as easy crossings, the ATSF cuttoff through N. Texas, the UP line through Wyoming, and the GN line through Marias make the most sense, each being the best grades in their class. Indeed, the old GN route is the lowest crossing. However, each are plagued with lower populations.

I kind of expect the Raton route will be chosen, despite it's gradient, as it will be surplus from a freight point of view, and it will allow a Denver-Peublo-Albequeque-El Paso corridor to emerge.

[Anonymous]

I never thought of that. I have ridden the Sunset Limited and Empire Builder trains, and neither have the 37 tunnels the California Zephyr has. But I think Colorado could fund a local as well, if we funded high speed rail from Chicago to Denver. I have seen the ski train in Denver.

The biggest advantages of a high speed rail network will be frequency. Imagine what the 18 trainsets Amtrak uses on the hotel trains, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief each have 6 trainsets, as does the longer distacne but every other day Suset Limited, could do with frequency on the other lines today.

Look at how many trainsets it would take to achieve a frequency of every two to three hours on these high speed lines I proposed. Its 900 miles from Dallas to Chicago. Today the Eagle consumes 4 trainsets, with the same 4 trainsets averaging 150 mph, we could have a frequency of every three hours in between Chicago and Dallas instead of a daily going in each direction. With 6 trainsets, an additional 2 trainsets, we could have a frequency of every two hours. The same can be said of the others. For example, with two trainsets Chicago to Minneapolis would achieve a frequency of every two hours. With four trainsets Atlanta to Miami would achieve a frequency of every two hours. With six trainsets New York City to Chicago would achieve a frequency of every two hours. Are you getting the picture?

As I said, we would not need any sleepers any more. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to choose which train to take to get to Chicago in about 5 hours time from Dallas: the 8 am, the 10 am, the 12 noon, the 2 pm, the 4 pm, and the 6 pm everyday instead of what Amtrak delivers today, a train arriving 3 hours late in Dallas in both directions........

Almost half of Amtrak's service today is in the night hours. Look at what time Amtrak arrives today in Spokane, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Charlotte, Cleveland on the Lake Shore Limited, etc., etc...

[Anonymous]

Yeah, Don. Course, GN and NP served Spokane late at night too.... poor suckers up there in the Inland Empire, no wonder they never got any more powerful than they did. I mean, second fiddle, and to Portland!!!

Only thing is, there are a lot of sleepers still on the system, AND those Superliner cars aren't perfect for what you propose- they'd work but not well. What the heck are we gonna do with them all?

There's a lot of capital cash locked up in them, but without a market to sell them to they're useless to tap for new equipment capital. It's not like a car you can take to the dealer and trade in.

Course, there is the option of rehauling them. CalTrans uses similar cars for it's surfliners & such.... maybe the sleepers could be refitted to lounge-coaches. And the diners could convert to Bistro/Cafe cars with a smaller staff and scaled back menus. A little re-upholstery, new carpets and lights, maybe some electrical and phone jack plugs for internet access... make it really convenient.

Oh- you said deploy a train Atlanta-Miami. Are the clearances high enough for Superliners on that route?

As for poor Salt Lake... I think they're gonna get the short end of the stick on this one- they're just one the way to no where slow. MAYBE they could work into an extended Idaho system, but that's a big maybe.

[Anonymous]

I thought I have already said the equipment Amtrak operates other than the Acela and Cascade trains were obsolete. This might be a nautical term, but pay them off. TGV Thalys is the trainset to buy. They average over 160 mph. By golly, no need for an expensive long drugged out study. And, by the way, they are single deckers. Who is using old track. I want brand new high speed rail tracks, electrified too. It is unsafe to operate a train at 150 mph on tracks run by freight railroads. Do them a favor, and their dispatchers a favor, keep the passenger trains on dedicated track. No need to stop every 400 or so miles for thirty minutes to refuel.....Stopping to refuel for such a long length of time will kill the speed average. Load passengers at stations and depots, there will be fewer, in 3 to 5 minutes. No need to stop at every hick town.

I only been as far south as Jacksonville on the Silver Meteor. I know the Sunset Limited runs into Orlando, I don't know what the height restrictions are below Orlando, but I have read the problems lie in the area from Washington DC north to New York City, probably bridges and tunnels. But new track and single level cars should not be a problem....

As I said before in other threads, $120 billion will build a 4,000 mile system, a parallegram east of the Rockies with a slash, and a line between Oakland and Los Angeles, which comes to the same figure DART is spending and what the Texas DOT Trans Texas Corrridor plans to spend on double tracked, electrified, high speed rail: about $20 million per mile. One might think this is expensive, but the Texas Turnpike Commission is spending $428 million for 5 miles of 6 lane turnpike.....Ahhhhh, the 6 lane turnpike comes to $85 and a half million per mile.....Weeeeee!

[Anonymous]

And I wanted to add to the previous post that the Talgos and the trainsets the Cascades are using would make great examples for other states to emulate for their locals. However, I want Amtrak to use TGV Thalys electrified trainsets. Let Amtrak run the electrics, let the locals run the Talgos...

Another scenario. Someone in Memphis drives a couple of hours to Birmingham Alabama, catches the Thalys to Atlanta, waits an hour, and catches another Thalys to Washington DC. He should be able to leave Memphis at 8 am, arrive in Birmingham at 10-11 am, catches the Thalys at 11 am, arrives in Atlanta at noon, and catches another Thalys at 1 pm and arrives in DC before 6 pm. Not bad for a days journey. Keep in mind he can ride the Acela and be in New York City before 10 pm......Frequency and high speed rail will sell.......if not just for curiosity......

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Don:
I think you are on the right track regarding the long distance trains and high speed rail being a competitor to air travel. Your city pairs or corridors make sense as far as ridership goes. However, new trackage for high speed trains will be needed, as well as TGV type trains which can cruise at 180 - 190 mph, or which can average 150 mph. One of the problems I see with a Los Angeles-San Francisco high speed rail service (assuming a route down the Central Valley is used - it's shorter)is how to get the trains over the mountain ranges separating the San Fernando and the Central Valleys. You would certainly need electrified trains such as the TGV's for Los Angeles - San Francisco service because of the long distance and the high speed that would be needed to make the portal - portal travel time competitive with air.

[Anonymous]

Elvis,

You 'da man!

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Don:
I think your Memphis - Washington scenario with high speed trains is a little ambitious considering somebody could fly from Memphis to Washington in a little over two hours. You also forgot the one hour time change between Birmingham and Atlanta which would get you into Atlanta and points east an hour later.

In general a high speed train is only competitive with air travel on a portal - portal basis if the distance between final destination cities is in the 200 - 400 mile range, and the train makes very few stops. So this would rule out Atlanta - Washington which is greater than 600 miles. The Memphis - Birmingham or the Birmingham - Atlanta corridors may not have enough population to support hourly high speed rail service.

[Anonymous]

Elvis,

You'll have to enlighten me about Roy Orbison. All I know is he is a rock-an-roller (was he in the Doors? Am I lighting your fire???).

Sorry if callin' you a 'joker' was a problem. That is the same as 'some fella' in my vocabulary. If I was trying to be condescending I would have been more plain. I just couldn't remember who posted the $8000 figure and I wasn't going to look it up with the speed of this board and all.

Anyway, I took your $8k figure and expanded it for the whole train of 40 cars, which I think is woefully small figure but it is a starting point. With 40 cars at $8k per car, the train is worth $320k. Now if it takes $320 in revenue to make a suitable profit, then that comes out to 320 passengers at $1000 each. That is the basis for the table and the table shows how terribly high the tickets have to be to make a profit. Remember though that the figure of $320k is based on a stack train having 40 cars. I would be surprised if an average express stack train had only 40 cars but I am want to be generous.

The reason I factor it on a train load instead of a car load is because alot of the costs are measured per train. I am also trying to hammer home the point that it takes a lot of passengers going the same direction to make a train load.

Back in the early days, when people couldn't travel by auto or airplane, then you could expect to get large numbers. But now, with all the choices you have you can't fill 'em up. This is a fundamental portion of the problem and why I keep saying the market conditions don't exist in the U.S. to make passenger train travel viable. And like you say, if people don't want to fix their roof in Montana (didn't want to say Colorado or Oregon) then why should the people in Rhode Island pay for it. - Roy(?) (a.k.a. Ed)

[Anonymous]

Don,

I guess you want the Fed to pay the $120 billion? Why not the riders?

I am a little curious exactly where you are going to place your 4000 miles of track. My recollection is that it is 600 miles from Atlanta GA to Richmond VA and 400 miles from Atlanta GA to Jackson MS. How far is it from Atlanta GA to Miami FL? How about from Richmond VA to Boston MA? Then you have to get to Chicago IL and St Louis MO. You may want to bypass Jackson in favor of New Orleans. It just seems to me that you aren't finished after you have built 4000 miles of track. I just think that $120 billion is probably too low to make it happen and I don't think you can get popular support at the lowly sum of $120 billion. One thing to consider is that R/W is probably much less expensive in the Texas system then it will be in the Northeast. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Aw, c'mon, Ed, I don't buy it. The part about not knowing who Roy Orbison is, that is! Pretty Woman? Only the Lonely? Blue Bayou? C'mon!

Now, back to trains.

Now I understand where you are going.

So basically you are saying, $320k for a train. OK, now divide that by a reasonable ticket price for sleeper, say $640. Thats 500 passengers. Let's say the average sleeper holds 20 people. 500 / 20 = 25 cars. $320k / 25 cars = $12,800 per car. Might work.

Then take coach. Let's say a resonable ticket for a run of about 400 to 900 miles is $60. $320k / $60 = 5333 passengers. (yikes!) The average coach holds lets say 70 people. 5333 / 70 = 76 cars. (!!!) $320k / 76 cars = $4k per car. No way.

So according to this the formula that works for long distance is sleeper.

BUT these are all hypothetical numbers. Perhaps if Amtrak's accounting were more transparent we might know those figures.

[Anonymous]

The journey is not a race. As long as one can leave in the morning and arrive at their destination in the afternoon or evening, the journey will be competitive. I have heard for so long the 250 mile scenario, yet, in America we already have a 440 mile Acela northeast corridor. The mileage I used were from a Rand McNally road map chart, which uses interstates as much as possible and not necessarily the shortest route, which by the way is as the crow flies.

The 4,000 miles of high speed rail I propose will build rails from Washington DC to Miami 1040 miles(the norttheast corridor already exists to Boston), Atlanta to Dallas 790 miles, Dallas to Chicago 920 miles, Chicago to Philadelphia 770 miles via Cleveland and Pittsburgh , plus the slash in the parrelegram from Chicago to Atlanta 710 miles. Total is 4230 miles times $20 million per mile equals $84 billion 600 million dollars. Florida expected to build its high speed rail for $20 million per mile, Texas TTC reports expects high speed rail to cost $20 million per mile, DART is building light rail in an urban area at $20 million per mile. The TTC report includes the trainsets, track, and real estate into this figure. More than 90 percent of everyone living east of the Mississippi would live within 2 or so hours of the high speed tracks.

I used Memphis, a large city with a large airport as an example, but lets investigate another example of a small town without a large airport such as Jackson, Tennessee (the home of Casey Jones). The driving distance to Birmingham would be the same with the Memphis scenario except you would have to drive an hour to get to Memphis's airport to fly. Most citizens of Memphis would have to drive more than 15, even up to 30 minutes to get to the airport, while just about eveyone can get around Jackson, Tennessee in 5 minutes! Instead of finishing the journey in Washington DC lets end the journey in Charlotte, North Carolina. I doubt if there are any direct flights from Memphis to Charlotte, more than likely one would have to make flight connections in Atlanta. Surely, unless you owned your own aircraft, one cannot fly from Jackson, Tennessee to Charlotte, North Carolina directly. Keep in mind there is no more real estate at Memphis' airport to build another runway, nor much of any space to build another terminal either. FedEx selected Memphis for its hub in the first place because Memphis is not a hub of a lot of passenger traffic. Yet the FedEx flights clog its airspace....

So living in Jackson, Tennessee, one would have to drive an hour to park at an overcrowded parking garage at the airport in Memphis, get there two hours early to get through security, fly close to two hours to Atlanta, airlines like 2 hours of leeway with connections at Atlanta, and fly close to another hour to get to Charlotte and more than likely wait 30 minutes for your baggage. So your journey from Jackson, Tennessee to Charlotte, North Carolina took 7 and a half hours. Less distance, why is this more than a 2 hour flight to Washington DC? What if your destination was Rockingham, North Carolina. Add another hour to this trip!

See, as long as one can leave in the morning and arrive at their destination in the afternoon or evening hours, the journey will be competitive!

Railroads are linear, as they have found in Europe, and people do not necessarily travel the entire length of a train route. For example, recently I rode the California Zephyr. Westbound from Chicago more than half of the passengers departed at Denver if not before, and the trained filled up considerably at Reno and Sacramento. Eastbound, the same occured, the train emptied at Reno, and started filling up again after Denver.....

Consider a local bus route. Out in the suburbs the buses roll empty, but ask anyone who rides the buses, the buses fill up as they approach downtown. Under your argument, we should only run buses one mile from downtown when they are full, yet, if the buses don't run out to the suburbs there wouldn't be anyone on the bus in the first place. Airlines hop, trains and buses don't.

[Anonymous]

Can you imagine what just 2 high speed TGV Thalys trainsets could do on that corridor. Distance between Oakland and Los Angeles, downtown to downtown via interstate route is 380 miles. Even thhis scenario don't fit the 250 mile scenario. Over 20 million citizens live in these two large metropolitan areas. Two trainsets could have a frequency of every three hours easily, four trainsets could cut this down to an hour and a half, six trainsets could cut the frequency down to less than an hour, while it will still take two and a half hours to make the journey. The airlines want you to be at the airport two hours early! Amtrak only asks for half an hour. The question remains: Is it better to keep 6 two nighter Superliner trainsets between LA and Chicago of the Southwest Chief, or would it be better to have 6 Thalys trainsets between Oakland and LA doing it in two and a half hours?

One thing is for certain, Amtrak won't need as many employees as they do now.

[Anonymous]

Yes and if they did maybe they wouldn't have been the low bidder and out all that money.

[Anonymous]

I checked Amtrak site for the price of a single adult ticket to Chicago from Dallas, its $137 one way coach, or $274 round trip coach. Distance some 930 miles.

I checked American Airlines site for the price of a single adult ticket to Chicago from Dallas, its $262.50 one way coach, or $525 round trip coach. Mind you, I checked the cheapest fare, and there is a stop inbetween, too many potential cities to bother with. The flight to the destination is 5 and a half hours.

A high speed trainset, TGV Thalys, on designated high speed rails, can beat this price and time......More than likely Amtrak would be able to increase the prices on its tickets, matching this price to an airline ticket.

It seems today Amtrak charges about half the price of an airline ticket, coach. Who says Amtrak would not be able to steal customers from the airlines? I have done one scenario, others can do the same for other scenarios. How about Dallas to Atlanta for example.

Alexander, $60 is a wee bit cheap! If you doubled this price to $120, you would not need 76 cars, would you. If the speed of the train was able to beat a non nonstop airliner, you could charge $240. Now we are down to 18 cars. Since high speed rail will use half the energy of an airliner if not less, and have a crew consisting of an engineer, a conductor, and a bartender, we can reduce this down to 9 cars.....TGV Thalys have 8 cars, some of the trains are doubled and have 16 cars.......Profit beyond your dreams of avarice.....

[Anonymous]

I hoped I have dismissed the 250 mile theory for high speed rail-the distance from Paris to Lyons. Even the French have extended this line to the Chunnel and Marsailles.

I have shown increased frequency with the same number of trainsets, frequency that reflect airline frequency. Amtrak would be able to increase the prices of tickets to reflect the prices of airline tickets.

I have shown that the distance time up to 1000 miles is equivalent to a non-nonstop airline journey. One cannot fly from Dallas to Birmingham for example without a stop in Atlanta....You will be downtown when you reach your destination, not at an airport a half an hour to an hour away.The food will be better on a high speed train.

My 4,000 mile plan can be built easily for under $120 billion, maybe built for as little as $85 billion. Yes, it is a lot of money, but its only three to four years of federal highway funding, seven to ten years of federal airport funding.
And like Europe, it will attract riders, so many riders we will probably have to double deck the single level cars before long.....

Will it earn a profit. Operationally yes, but for upkeep and capital costs probably no...
But our highways and airports don't make money either......

It will take a vision, a plan, and the will to fund it.

[Anonymous]

Elvis,

Sorry about the Roy Orbison stuff. I am a fan of the big band era and I listen to Jazz. I know that I should know who he is but I don't know. But it is nice that you compare me to him, I think.

I just got back from playing golf. I'm gonna turn in early tonight. C U Tomorrow, - Roy

[Anonymous]

Don:

I stuck with $60 because Amtrak fares one way coach Portland - Vancouver BC run $55 or so, as of last fall. And the nearest competition at this time is either Grayhound, Grey Line, (both buses,) auto, (much cheaper,) and air at about $125-$250 for that corridor. Could you get more than $60? maybe. But it'll have to bear a competitive price to other modes to jump the system to life.

Otherswise most of your figures raise no eyebrows with me. Problem will be capital costs- using diesel powered talgo sets is much cheper to buy and requires less roadbed upgrades than a TGV system.

Think of it not as the end system but as an in-between from today's setup to a true HSR. Incrementalism is the key to success, as you can "sneak in" a lot of progress that way.

[Anonymous]

Benny:

Your thread threatens to become a rope!

And after all that math I expect an answer back, LOL.

Artie

[Anonymous]

Yes, the TGV roadbed costs more to build, but in the long run its cheaper to maintain... Diesels are heavier, much heavier, than an electric locomotive....The cars the Cascades trains use are of lighter weight than the Superliner cars Amtrak uses.....

What tears up the highways, trucks or automobiles. I think you are seeing the picture. Now, if only we could keep the heavy freight traffic off the high speed lines.....(the high speed track would last longer).....

[Anonymous]

Well yes, and in that respect, it would be better to increase poportionately the weight/mile tax, which would then keep lightweight loads (like ag- think hay) proifitable for smaller truckers & farmers, and also keep express shipments out on the road, but would discourage using triple (and potentially longer) trailer combos for heavy freight.

Course to do this one also has to provide for service to areas currently served only by truck, which may mean re laying track on abandoned grades...

Oops! Off topic again! Back to the sleeper car, er TGV lounge car!

(Know what I hate about Talgo and about TGV too? No observation car. Ok, elitest, isn't it? But still....

[Anonymous]

We could always add a lounge car. It is my favorite Superliner car. I wished the trains on the east coast, the Viewliner sleeper trains, had a sightseeing lounge car.....

[Anonymous]

Will someone please come back down to earth on this forum? Talk of high speed corridors hundreds and even thousands of miles long is ridiculous. High speed rail's potential is probably 300 miles tops even in Europe and Japan. The NE Corridor is actually two corridors - southern New England (Boston-Phil.) and Middle Atlantic (southern Connecticut-DC) There is very little through DC-Boston ridership. As for the absurd notion that people will drive from Memphis to Birmingham and then change trains several times enroute to do an all-day Memphis-NYC trip, that's what airplanes are for!

The tradgedy is that the politicians are just as bad as you railfans. Check the TRAINS website listing for all the federally approved high-speed corridors and see how many: A) are longer than 300 miles (either existing rail or interstate highway), or do not have a million-plus metropolitan area at each end (and consider how many such corridors meeting the above criteria are off the list)!

[Anonymous]

Anthony:

Ouch! Sting! Yowza!

Now, to your second point, on corridors for HSR whcih "do not have a million plus metropolitan area at each end."

Well two things- one, if some of these routes are feeders, the inention may be to gather traffic at the ends to feed into the higher desnity HSR segment.

However I agree that is not as effective as a city pair operational scheme.

For the latter, there are many ocrridors that violate that rule. One example is (sorry if I am being repetitive!) the Cascades Corridor. Does Eugene really deserve a daily train? Does Roseburg deserve to be called the southern terminus? No to both. Eugene is about, oh, 100-200k pop max. Waaaaayyyy too small.

But it's a pork barrell thing. The point was to a.) make the corridor look as big and impressive as possible, b.) stuff the corridor with "pre approvals" for fed funds, aka porking it up, and c.) placating the locals that "they are important too" to get their support in the next election.

I don't doubt this is similar to many other routes you critique. And yes there are also corridors that could and should be that aren't, because money that could be spent on, say, Houston-Dallas, is being wasted on Portland-Eugene.

Yet another reason to go to some form of funding requiring matching state funds- make the locals prove they're serious before you pour all your money down a hole.