Passenger Service

[sooblue]

I propose that passenger service has always had one redeeming value.
That is, It kept the RRs track in top shape, It kept the RRs on time ( scheduled )
It kept the RRs fleet in top condition.
Passenger service raised the bar. Gave the employees pride in the road.
Isn’t this what the RRs and their customers are looking for right now?
Even if they loose money the RRs should take back passenger service.
The government would save money if it would give the RRs the difference between loosing money on passenger service and breaking even.
Than no one looses.
Not being an expert I could be all wrong, but it seems as though the RRs went down hill after it unloaded passenger service.

What is your oppinion on this?
Sooblue

[Modelcar]

...We had a Poster on here some time ago who put up a very similar suggestion and he had it very well detailed....It sounded very much like a work able solution. Your idea is along the very same lines...It provided incentives for the participating railroads to opperate on time, etc. A refreshing approach. Anyone remember that proposal

QM

[dknelson]

One issue is, what level of passenger service? Some of us remember what level was offered immediately prior to Amtrak -- pretty pathetic on some lines (although there were railroads that maintained high standards to the last day). Is that the level?
It is important to remember that passenger service started to decline, not in 1960, not in 1950 but as early as the 1920s. And what caused the decline was not freeways and automobiles with airconditioning but Model As on 25 MPH roads.
Here is a practical example of how difficult this could be. here in Milwaukee the Chicago & North Western offered reasonable levels of passenger service right to the end. Amtrak decided not to use the CNW lines for its trains and used only the Milwaukee Road (later Soo Line, now CP Rail) between Milwaukee and Chicago and beyond. Well what was a C&NW passenger line rated for 100 mph in the 1930s became a line rated for 80 mph in the 1960s but after Amtrak began it is now a 10 mph line used mostly for light engine moves and hardly any freight trains. The cost of rehabbing that line would be incredible. I wonder if even one rail and even one tie and even one grade crossing could be salvaged for passenger use. The idea of that being cheaper for the government to compensate the railroad (now the Union Pacific) than it is to run Amtrak is unbelievable to me.
Dave Nelson

[Mookie]

I'll be brief: I live in a town of 225k, I ride the city owned bus 5 days a week - twice a day. (a rare one car family)

The city just bought new busses, they run really close to on time, you are never more than about 2-3 blocks from your destination and they run almost always pretty close to empty.

Except for someone who loves trains, would the general public ever accept passenger trains again?

[Modelcar]

...I understand you are using the 10 MPH road only as an example and we all know there are routes in most parts of this country that can come close to the standard to run 79 MPH trains. I agree the decline in passenger traffic did come way before the creation even of the interstates which had their effect too in more modern times. The overall idea of previous post seems to have as much merit as most of the ideas banded about now as solutions are sought. Especially the "priviate enterprise" idea to run the system at a "profit"...Ridiculous.

QM

[edblysard]

Hi Bule,
Which point of view first? As a stockholder, a railfan, or a railroader. You see, I am all three, so...Well, from the stockholders point of view, no, not now, not ever. Passenger service drained money faster than anything else, the cost to maintain even a bare bones operation would be beyond what anyone could afford. Look at Amtrak, even with goverment money they still cant break even. From the railfan, yup, would love to see streamliners back, thought they were the most beautiful things I ever laid eyes on. From a railroaders point of view, only if they run on seperated lines, away from freight lines. And the idea that the goverment should make up loses, well, depends on if the train serves your city. People in Miami wouldn't want to pay taxes so the residents of San Deigo could have a passenger train. And who would decide what level of service each train offers? And what would be the cost? You would have to have incremental taxiation to fund it, so that the Flordians dont pay for the Californians train, and vice versa. How would the goverment save money, 10 billion is still ten billion, regardless if you pay it to Amtrak, or Union Pacific. Who it goes to is ireverent, how much goes is. And the taxpayers would still be footing the bill.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Modelcar]

...Break even...Even the airlines as a whole don't "break even". Of course it would require enough Gov. money to make it break even. What level of service...and what would be the cost..?IF we can do Space programs and other modern engineering projects it would seem someone could figure out what level of passenger service, etc. is needed in this country. If Gunn's 1.2 Bil isn't forth coming we will see the orderly shut down of the whole system and then there will be clamoring from the folks who want the N E C to be put back into service and we'll all be taxed for just those folks to be transported to do their daily thing, etc. We all know it is a mess...Just like to see fresh ideas come along to kick around. Who knows, something may prove to be workable one of these days.

QM

[Anonymous]

So many secondary and short line passenger routes survived not from passengers, but from the express compartment and US mail. Train after train was pulled off the day after the Mail contract ended. The PO Dept. converted RPO and storage routes to truck as fast as they could in the 40's and 50's. But the RR's had the rolling stock from the passenger days still at hand. It's all gone now. Ain't coming back. Sorry.

[Modelcar]

...You're correct, what we don't need is a 40's and 50's railroad passenger structure. If we are to have a passenger service, it will have to be brought into the 21th century.

QM

[sooblue]

Hi Modelcar,
This isn't really a reply just to you, It is meant as a reply to all.

My original premise was that passenger service forced the RRs to be on time and instilled a sense of pride and kept the infrastructure up. As bad as that service may have been I was thinking it might have had one redeeming value.

I hate the phrase "it can't be done".
I think every invention we use today went up against that phrase. I think every retro-product for sale today has gone against that phrase too.
An example would be that 1957 t-bird.
Just look what the 2002 T-bird looks like and you can see at a glance that it's the new and improved version of a car of the past.

There may well come a time when passenger service will come back. I could come back now if people would see a need for it.
Every successful light rail project is an example of what happens when people see a need.
Commuter rail from Frederick MD. to Washington is so well patronized that people are asking for more space. My Brother in-law can't even park his car. The lot is full so he has to drive to work each day and he hates it.

Those busses that run empty could be full if there was a commuter line feeding them.

You would think that with all the past experience we have with passenger service we would know how to improve it to the point that people would want to ride it. I think we do know how to improve it we just don't see a need to.
OH WELL we'll see a need when the oil gets shut off. We may even see a return to steam!!
(DON'T LAUGH)
Sooblue

[edblysard]

Hi Blue,
Never said it couldnt be done, said it shouldnt be done, that way at least. Now, thats an opinion, not a statement of fact. Go to the TDOT website, Texas dept of transportation, and look at the trans texas corridor. Thats what I wouldnt mind financeing. Unless you make the incentive really, and I mean really profitable to the freight carriers, they wont participate. And as to the matter of pride, on time and all that, you may want to take a second look at the stats. BNSF wins awards after awards for on time from UPS, shipper groups, ect. My railroad is on time, period. We have no choice, not on time, no money. Real basic, real efficent motivator. ANd we take pride in what we do. Besides, if we(taxpayers) are going to foot the bill, and ultimatly we do, then I would want a railroad from scratch, with all the mistakes from the past corrected. I would want a TVG style, with commuter links, (park and rides for trains), and then you would see something great. As a past employee of the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General, I can promise you one thing, the frist and foremost thing on a employees mind is to guarentee their jobs will be there tomorrow. So if that means on time, bet on it. Federal management will see to it rates are cheap enough that anyone can afford it, because that will guarentee the trains will be full, which will make them look good, which will make sure their job is there tomorrow. If there is one thing they would be good at, it would be protecting their job. By the way, the freight roads do get an incentive, from amtrak, they are suppost to expidite amtrak across their system, and they get paid for it. They dont even have to provide anything but the track. You see how well that worked? But a railroad "owned" and run by the feds as a public service at taxpayers expense should work better than paying the exsisting railroads to start up something they tried so hard to get rid of on the first place.
Stay Frosty.
Ed

[Modelcar]

...Blue, all your points are well taken. And I must be the only "car guy", who hasn't seen a new 2002 retro T-Bird yet...Yes, I'm fully aware of what they are but never met one in the reality as of yet.

I suppose my point besides liking the idea that we've been stating on HOW to provide passenger service...is that it sure could fill a need in many parts of this country. I have enjoyed driving from place to place over the years and yet now when traveling on our interstates I find the fun has somehow been drained out of a lot of it by the bulk of traffic using these road ways. I suppose I'm contending there IS a need in many areas for an additional method of travel...Trouble is we've never created a viable desireable updated version [with some exceptions], for our citizens to want to use yet. If the product would be there, perhaps it would be used. We can only build so many more lanes on interstates...and in many places can't even do that.

As for running out of oil...I personally don't think that is a threat for some time...maybe the problem of WHO is handling it is...I suppose we're about to see some of that problem dealt with soon....On that, I hope for the best.

QM

[wabash1]

what is the reasoning that you say that the railroads are not in top shape. The class 1 roads let passenger service go becouse it was not a profitable service. bulk freight is where the money is. I myself do not want to see passenger sevice on the line i work and we wont see it ever again. Our line is in top pretty good shape and we run track speed. The main question i have is why is it so important for the railfan community to see a schedualed railroad. there is no timetable to run by anymore for classes of trains. unless we go to a priority system you will not see a schedual railroad.

[Anonymous]

I live in a city of over a million, a county of over 2 million, and a metropolitan area of over 5 million. DART just built a light rail line to Plano, another city of over 200,000 in a neighboring county with a population of almost 500,000 and the light rail trains are standing room only, all day!

Yes, people love to ride the trains.....as long as they are fast and on time.....

[Mookie]

They are talking a light rail from Lincoln to Omaha - which is practically the entire population of Nebraska - but doubt seriously if it ever gets off the ground. We just don't have the population to support anything like that - and we can't seem to get people out of their cars!

Amtrak thru Nebraska at 2 am is a joke. I don't think it is ever on time. Unfortunately you need to go thru here to get from point A to point B. I would love to ride the train, but can fly for practically the same price and in hours, not days. And as a working soul, I cannot afford the luxury of a "vacation" on the train. (But I can dream.)

[Anonymous]

At least some of you think like me. I step on my soap box one more time. For just a penny federal and state tax on gasoline, America could build over the years a high speed rail network the envy of the world.

I have proposed a starter parralegram from New York, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta of about 4,000 miles of new tracks. Lately I have looked at the population figures of our major metropolitan areas. At first we should build tracks for metros of over 5 million. Dallas/Houston, Miami/Orlando/Tampa-Saint Petersburg, Philadelphia/Cleveland, New York City/Toronto, Chicago/Detroit/Cleveland, Atlanta/ Washington DC, Los Angeles/San Francisco bay area. Boston/New York City/Philadelphia/Washington DC already exists (although there is a need for some improvements). Eventfully we shall link these lines to metros of 2.5 million. Dallas/Austin-San Antonio, Houston/San Antonio-Austin, Houston/New Orleans, New Orleans/ Atlanta, New Orleans/Jacksonville, Orlando/Jacksonville/Atlanta, New York City/Montreal, Chicago/Minneapolis-St. Paul/ Chicago/St. Louis/Kansas City, Kansas City/Denver, Kansas City/Dallas, Denver/Dallas, Denver/Minneapolis-St. Paul, Phoenix/Los Angeles, Portland/Seattle.

At this point my parralegram would be completed, with several branches. This would result in about 10,000 miles of high speed rail, it seems Denver is a long distance from the rest. At this point, if the high speed railroad has taken off and has become a success, we could then link to metros of a million.... I sent this as an email to Kay Bailey Hutchinson and she loved it....

The state of Texas says high speed rail can be built for $5 million a mile (plus right of way and overpasses and underpasses having already been built by other means of travel, the turnpikes of the Trans Texas corridors). The state of Florida says high speed rail can be built for $9 million a mile (including right of way, overpasses and underpasses, and stations); $12 million per mile if electrified ($3 million a mile more).

10,000 miles times $12 million a mile equals $120 billion.

[Anonymous]

You are still thinking in terms of slow trains. In Europe they have TGV trains that go 186 mph, and average with stops every now and then over 160 mph.

The distance from Dallas to Chicago is around 900 miles, Omaha to Chicago is around 800 miles. A fast train averaging 150 mph, which makes my math a whole lot easier, should travel the distance from Dallas to Chicago in 6 hours! One trainset can make 4 trips in one day. The days of having the one daily train arriving and leaving at 2 am will be history!

In fact, Amtrak operates 3 trainsets on the Texas Eagle route to provide a daily service. In the Dallas area Amtrak arrives and leaves in the mid to late afternoons, yet gets to San Antonio in the wee hours of the morning. Nobody rides that train because we much prefer to leave in the morning and arrive in San Antonio before dinner. However if Amtrak operated 3 trainsets, there could be a service of 12 trains per day going in each direction...That sounds like a short haul airline service to me....

It is the same with New York City and Chicago, Orlando to Atlanta, Chicago to Kansas City, etc., etc.

[Anonymous]

What do you consider fast? Fast track indeed. Amtrak's Texas Eagle averages on a stretch of track in Missouri south of St. Louis about 30 mph. From Dallas to San Antonio, Amtrak averages less than 30 mph. Check our Amtrak's time schedules, you will see the truth. The track is in pitiful shape.

What I consider fast is 186 mph. Anything less is a black mark on America, considering they go that fast in Europe!

[Mookie]

you get no arguments from me on what we could have, but would our business people really support that kind of service. I know the forum people from Texas support something of this nature, but not sure the tight-fisted, conservative Nebraskans would. It would either be "too expensive or too inconvenient" - and by the time the local govt got their fingers in it - it would be a disaster, just like most of the politics here in Nebraska!

[Anonymous]

Coming in late as usual, since I hate the up and down in this forum, but to the point: in the case you indicate (Up in MO. and TX>) there is almost no relationship between track condition and Amtrak scheduling. While I'm not a UP fan, I'm sure that the track is quite good- the issue becomes scheduling meets with other trains, overtaking other trains, padding to make up time, station dwell, and probably a dozen other things. You can never take the public timetable as an indication of anything other then when the train "might" get there.

[wabash1]

well the up tracks in texas and missouri might only be 30 mph in areas. and this might not be track conditions as much as the area. on the line i run there is speed restrictions on certain curves. but for most part we run 50-60 mph on the line i run. amtrak trains have many restrictions when meeting and its just a hassel. the best thing for any passenger service is to have its own road

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Dallas - Chicago is ~ 1000 miles, while Omaha - Chicago is ~ 500 miles. A high speed train averaging 150 mph between Chicago and Dallas would be out of the question just on the basis of the travel time alone while Chicago-Omaha high speed train service averaging 150 mph might not be practical from the ridership and population density standpoints.

However, Dallas - San Antonio high speed rail service would be practical from both the travel time and the ridership standpoints. In fact just such service was proposed for a Texas triangle which included Houston, Dallas'Ft Worth, Austin and San Antonio, but it never got off the ground.

[Modelcar]

...Surely a grand plan. I'm glad the Senator liked it...as she is a leader in Transportation if my memory serves me right. In the past she has been rather outspoken on such matters in a positive way.

QM

[sooblue]

Hi guys,
I really liked the point that Ed made about the pride that railroaders have in their work and their ability to be on time now. The point about a new line dedicated to passenger service really makes sense too. We need more choices for travel, short and long.
Sooblue

[sooblue]

Hi there,
It wasn't something I as a railfan wanted to see.
Many of the articles I have read lately make a point that the shippers want the RRs to be on time more.
I was wondering if having schedualed passenger service, even if the Gov. had to make it break even, would force more on time freight.
It was pointed out to me that the RRs are doing a pretty good job of being "on time" So now I wonder who is kidding who. Or will the shippers complain no matter what?
If you gave some people a million dollars they would complain that they didn't get a million and one dollar.
Sooblue

[edblysard]

One of the things no one seem to add into the equation is that A:, the TGV is partly owned/subsidised by the french goverment, cost overuns were kept in check, and the europeans already ride trains on "short trips".
B: most of the cities and stops the TGV make are a whole lot closer together that what the average American realizes, their entire country would just about fit inside Texas, and most of their cities were planned and designed for rail service.
C: with the exception of the northeast corridor, most of the American population is spread out over vast distances, yes, there are dense populations in and around all major cities, but look at how many cities we have, compared to france, and how far apart they are.
The vast majority of Europeans live within a few miles of where they work.
Commutting for them is diffrent that what we are used to.
Add to all of that is the culture diffrences.
Personal mobility has become such a part of our way of life that we no longer even think twice about driving miles to go grocery shopping, or to the movies and dinner. But there, market day is still a big thing, its planned a week in advance, they go and buy everything they need for a week or two. If the town or village where they live has a movie theater, then they go to the movies, if not, its a big deal to get on the train and go to a city which has a theater.
Most Amreicans fill up their gas tank, and dont really bother about the cost, its just a part of our daily life, over there, buying a liter of gas is a pretty good sized investment, its really expensive, automobiles come with a luxury tax, they cost more than we would think, even the compacts, and driving is not as casual as it is here.
And last but not least, railroads and the services they provide are a integral part of the french national goverments transportaion plans and policies, as in most european nations. The french goverment closed or re-routed roads that would have crossed the TGV rightof way, and those they couldnt close or move, they installed underpasses. The TGV can run at 200mph plus all day long and not have a grade crossing to worry about, due to the goverments participation in its design and construction.
Try gettin the lower 48 states to agree on something like that.
Now I am not a big time fan of the Trans Texas Corridor, I havent had time to really study all of the propaganda TDOT has put out, but it seems to me if each state tried something along those lines, under the umbrella of the federal goverment,with money in the form of matching funds, or a state fuel tax, and they followed a uniform desigin, then every one wins. The states get jobs building the thing, politicians get to declare how they saved the state, the wheel greasers get their cut, we get a transcontinental railroad that works, plus a lot of trucks off our overcrowded highways and freeways, less pollution, more trains,(thats the best part).
But there is no way you could do it as a private enterprise, the cost of just one track across the continent is way beyond any private corporation's ability to raise capital.
Maby after it had been there a while, the states could sell it to private contractors, but the start up would have to be under federal management.
And this, or any other plan, would only work if the American people decide they want it, and then tell their elected representives that they demand it. If your Senator or Congressperson dosnt hear from you, how will they know what you want?
For more info on the trans texas corridors, go to the TDOT website, or contact Senator Kay Bailey Hutchingson, she's big on commuter rail and light rail service.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Ralph, Your right, the tracks are pretty good, UP and BNSF are spending like mad replacing track, and double or triple tracking heavy traffic corridors. What really happens is the dispatcher "stabs" the Amtrak into a siding, and there it sits untill the moneymaking freights clear. I see and hear it everyday. Officialy, the carriers say they do their part to expidite Amtrak across their division, on the QT, they dont want it there, its in the way, it cost them in delayed freight trains, it never shows up on time, due in part to having been "stabbed" by the last dispatcher it had to deal with, so you cant plan moves around it, you never know when its getting to your patch of the railroad, and the libality of the passengers bother the carriers most, if something happens, well, a boxcar of auto parts isnt going to sue you if it gets derailed, or falls over, but you can bet any passenger hurt in a derailment of a Amtrak train will sue the carrier whos track it happens on.
If any Amtrak engineers or conductors are out there, they will back me up on this. Frieght railroad dont want passenger train on their tras, and will either get them across the division asap to get rid of them, or, most likley, sta***he Amtrak, untill their trains are where they need or want them to be.
Like I said, I see the latter more than I see the former.
Stay Frosty
Ed

[edblysard]

Blue,
No one is kidding anyone, we are getting it there on time. What happened is that the way business operate changed, and the railroads were not prepared for it, and had to play a lot of catch up. Before, getting it there was all that mattered, as long as it was close to the advertised, no one really cared. Because business warehoused a large quanity of product, and a day or two diffrence in delivery times made no real impact on their business, when it got there did not matter, as long as it got there. Then, almost overnight, everyone went to "just in time, or just on time" production schedules, because they realized it was cheaper to use the frieghtcars as rolling warehouses, and they planed productions shifts around the deliver time. When railroads couldnt keep up, business went to trucks for this service, after all, it easier for a truck to park for a while, and then drive up to your dock exactly on time, than it is to get a train to your dock on the money. You cant park a train for a few hours, so you can arive right on time, and you cant "speed" in a train to make up a couple of hours either.
Nowadays, General Motors plans pick up truck production around the deliver time of the frames in a rail car. They keep in constant contact with the railroad, and know, down to the half hour, when the train will be spotting their plant. It would take several pages to explain how we "caught up" and some problems still need to be addressed, but a large part is due to the Staggers act of 1985. That allowed railroads to really compete amongest themselves for the first time. After years of being told by the goverment what trains we have to run, and how much we can charge, we can now do away with trains that don't make money, and we can compete between carriers on prices. Passenger trains wouldnt do anything but get in our way. We dont schedule trains anymore, technology has done away with the need for it, as soon as the train is built and crewed, its gone. Scheduled passenger trains would throw a wrench in the works. It dosnt matter how many trains are ahead of me, going in the same direction, or how many I will meet comming at me, with the longer sidings and other improvements, we just keep on rolling, almost all of us at the same speed. And yeah, its is sorta like the guy who wins the Lotto, and then gripes about having to pay taxes.
Funny, if I won ten million, they could have 7 million, I think I could get by on a measley 3 million, plus interest.
Stay Frosty, dont get too blue,
Ed

[Mookie]

exactly - I don't see any of the population of Nebraska really supporting Amtrak right now - of course, this morning Amtrak came through at 4 am -it was due at 2 and a few months ago darn near killed a guy east of town because it went through
an unmarked crossing at about 5 am. It was his inattention that caused the accident; he didn't expect a train on those tracks at that time (I know this rule has a number in the book somewhere)

Even the light rail line proposed from Lincoln to Omaha - by the time the pols get done with it, there would be no practical reason to use it!

[Modelcar]

...I have been under the impression that Rail Carriers under the obligation of putting an Amtrak train through a Division were subject to a "fine" if held up unnecessary and by the same reasoning were compensated more if put through better than scheduled...I suppose if this even is true there is no one to follow up on these circumstances and or to inforce it.

I see today where the Bush Administration has the real cure for it all....Just to eliminate all long distance passenger trains...I wouldn't have expected any less from them.

If they do away with all of them then I think leader Gunn should shut it all down and let someone else figure out how to move people in the large Metro areas.

QM