I spent two days on a road trip to the east coast. The total gas for the round trip came to approx. $128 (2500 round trip @ 20 mpg/3.00 gal) Hotel over 100.00, two meals times 4 days driving about $120 and incidentals (Fluids, toliteries etc) less than 50.
Call it 400.00 and about 5 day's total time lost to actual driving of the required distance.
Later on, I was to fly the same distance to and from for less than 400- on Southwest and it took maybe half a day to get there and a day to get back. The reason for the day was KBWI, Midway, KSTL, KLIT with about 30 minutes to 2 hours lost between landing/take off at each airport.
I could get a sleeper on Amtrack for a bit more and do it in two.
There is always packhound.. uh. Greyhound Bus which is one thing I did several times in course of work related trips and will never ever do again. No amount of money can make up for the lost time between buses, crazy hours and long slow slogging through every single little bitty town off the beaten path.
Which method did I like best? Airline. I was functional the morning after arrival and rested.
Falls Valley RR wrote: I spent two days on a road trip to the east coast. The total gas for the round trip came to approx. $128 (2500 round trip @ 20 mpg/3.00 gal) Hotel over 100.00, two meals times 4 days driving about $120 and incidentals (Fluids, toliteries etc) less than 50.Call it 400.00 and about 5 day's total time lost to actual driving of the required distance.Later on, I was to fly the same distance to and from for less than 400- on Southwest and it took maybe half a day to get there and a day to get back. The reason for the day was KBWI, Midway, KSTL, KLIT with about 30 minutes to 2 hours lost between landing/take off at each airport.I could get a sleeper on Amtrack for a bit more and do it in two.There is always packhound.. uh. Greyhound Bus which is one thing I did several times in course of work related trips and will never ever do again. No amount of money can make up for the lost time between buses, crazy hours and long slow slogging through every single little bitty town off the beaten path.Which method did I like best? Airline. I was functional the morning after arrival and rested.
Don't forget you probably burned thru about $20 of tires and $20 of oil change, plus some some incremental costs for other maint. items. IRS gives you about 14 cents a mile for gas plus other incremental, direct variable costs, so the real total, out of pocket cost for a 2500 mile trip is probably north of $300, plus meals and lodging. And, not counting that, you are now 2500 miles closer to needing to replace your car.
If all you are trying to do is "get there" and the trip is more than 300 miles or so, flying - or a combo of flying and driving - will win every time. If the trip itself is part of the goal, then flying will never do the trick.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Falls Valley RRs post referred to the costs incurred by a single adult traveler. Now, add a second adult traveler:
Business travelers and confirmed bachelors travel alone. Almost all other travel is done by family or other groups traveling together. For the latter, unless distance is extreme, time is REALLY critical or there's an ocean in the way, the POV is the only way to 'fly' (a fact borne out by travel statistics.)
Chuck
tomikawaTT wrote: Falls Valley RRs post referred to the costs incurred by a single adult traveler. Now, add a second adult traveler:Airline - second ticket, maybe discounted, probably not. No difference in rental-car cost.Train - second full-price ticket, and all secondary expenses doubled.Private vehicle (RAV4) - minimal increase in fuel consumption, slight additional lodging cost, offset by faster travel with two drivers.Business travelers and confirmed bachelors travel alone. Almost all other travel is done by family or other groups traveling together. For the latter, unless distance is extreme, time is REALLY critical or there's an ocean in the way, the POV is the only way to 'fly' (a fact borne out by travel statistics.)Chuck
...unless you're trying to get from Richmond VA to NYC on Nov 21st!
...or any route through Metro Atlanta,
...etc.
I don't think anybody sees intercity rail travel becoming the predominant mode that it was in 1900. But that is not to say that it won't be an important niche player in markets that make sense, justified by avoided very high capital expenditures for air and highway.
I agree...trying to make the train as fast as flight or as convenient as the automobile or the cheapest way to go is a losing proposition. Passenger rail marketers need to determine which segment of the travelling public would be most inclined to use rail...I would look at people who are relatively well off and who have lots of time on their hands...hmmm...the baby boomers are getting older and will be starting to retire in droves over the next ten to twenty years. Can you spell OPPORTUNITY? There's just one target market that should be explored. Another target might be people who don't want to drive and are afraid of flying (in part maybe due to the fallout of 911)...there's another target market.
Look at how the cruise business has taken off over the last 20 years...some thing like that on rails might work...maybe a transcontinental train that meanders from coast to coast with stops at points of interest...Man...there's so much opportunity...Amtrak, VIA, are you listening?
Ulrich wrote: I agree...trying to make the train as fast as flight or as convenient as the automobile or the cheapest way to go is a losing proposition. Passenger rail marketers need to determine which segment of the travelling public would be most inclined to use rail...I would look at people who are relatively well off and who have lots of time on their hands...hmmm...the baby boomers are getting older and will be starting to retire in droves over the next ten to twenty years. Can you spell OPPORTUNITY? There's just one target market that should be explored. Another target might be people who don't want to drive and are afraid of flying (in part maybe due to the fallout of 911)...there's another target market. Look at how the cruise business has taken off over the last 20 years...some thing like that on rails might work...maybe a transcontinental train that meanders from coast to coast with stops at points of interest...Man...there's so much opportunity...Amtrak, VIA, are you listening?
...those retired baby boomers will be more reluctant to drive as they age.
I think that GrandLuxe deal with Amtrak might be the start of something. Apparently, they're still working thru which routes, where and when match the market.
One of the reasons I like Acela service is the service in both first class and business class. Either choice provides roomy accomodations and at seat services. The high speed makes it practical for me (as a business traveler) and the services make it attractive/appealing.
One change occuring in airline travel (for longer trips of 5+ hours) is the introduction of "lie flat" seating in first and business class (http://www.flatseats.com/). Would the re-introduction of first class seating on some long distance trains make them more attractive (ie. parlor cars with at seat food cart service, lie flat seats for overnight trips) It would be a step short of providing "slumbercoach" rooms, but a step forward from existing long distance coach seats.
Before being accused of being lazy , I do acknowledge that getting up and moving around the train IS an advantage over flying (being strapped in); however, the at seat services are also nice when trying to work on a project, or avoiding lines in the AmCafe.
Why did cruising become popular? That industry made the shift from taking people from A to B and turned into taking people out and back again. Maybe examining those reasons/changes would help diagnose potential changes to long distance Amtrak trains to make them more popular, too.
Paul F.
Ulrich wrote:Look at how the cruise business has taken off over the last 20 years...some thing like that on rails might work...maybe a transcontinental train that meanders from coast to coast with stops at points of interest...Man...there's so much opportunity...Amtrak, VIA, are you listening?
And VIA really has moved in the direction of the "cruise train" concept in the last couple of decades. Outside the corridor, it's left the local/intercity market almost entirely. Its long-distance trains are three-day-a-week propositions, aimed at the international traveller who wants to "see Canada", with the emphasis on the food, service and accomodation rather than the schedule. They are selling the experience, not the transportation.
If you were around the Corridor, Amtrack is serious about running people on that line. 150 mph serious. (Cannot they do any better? Sheesh)
Out here west of the big river, I hear crickets in between freight trains. Passenger travel by Amtrack is one train to or from Chicago in the middle of the night with at least 4 hours prior to or past schedules. Sometimes they are late.
Now if we had a Corridor between Little Rock St Louis, Chicago and similar groups of cities elsewhere... we be talking intercity travel done right in the USA.
Sooo.. what's the problem Amtrack?
Falls Valley RR wrote:If you were around the Corridor, Amtrack (sic) is serious about running people on that line. 150 mph serious. (Cannot they do any better? Sheesh)
Falls Valley RR wrote:Out here west of the big river, I hear crickets in between freight trains. Passenger travel by Amtrack (sic) is one train to or from Chicago in the middle of the night with at least 4 hours prior to or past schedules. Sometimes they are late.Now if we had a Corridor between Little Rock St Louis, Chicago and similar groups of cities elsewhere... we be talking intercity travel done right in the USA.Sooo.. what's the problem Amtrack? (sic)
No need for the apology. I like a good discussion. If you felt disrespectful.. well.. I cannot help that. I did take your reply as one where I learn some things and move forward. Im past petty feelings on the internet because it is counter productive.
Yes I do advocate a dedicated high speed rail that is isolated from grade crossings, freight schedules or traffic and anything that will interfere with it's safe transit at 150 and up.
If Amtrack aint got the funds or the moxie required to do it, and Congress has no stomach for railroad buiding, why then... we should kill it off and keep the NEC as a National Treasure.
I recall this Nation paved a little bit of Concrete for a road for a mile or two a century ago and eventually that small strip of road got the entire USA "Out of the mud" and made auto travel possible and later.. trucking.
I have not forgotten about Monorail or Maglev. Im just trying to talk Amtrack here as we know it today.
Falls Valley RR wrote: No need for the apology. I like a good discussion. If you felt disrespectful.. well.. I cannot help that. I did take your reply as one where I learn some things and move forward. Im past petty feelings on the internet because it is counter productive.Yes I do advocate a dedicated high speed rail that is isolated from grade crossings, freight schedules or traffic and anything that will interfere with it's safe transit at 150 and up.If Amtrack aint got the funds or the moxie required to do it, and Congress has no stomach for railroad buiding, why then... we should kill it off and keep the NEC as a National Treasure.I recall this Nation paved a little bit of Concrete for a road for a mile or two a century ago and eventually that small strip of road got the entire USA "Out of the mud" and made auto travel possible and later.. trucking.I have not forgotten about Monorail or Maglev. Im just trying to talk Amtrack here as we know it today.
First, Amtrak (BTW, it's not spelled with a "c") doesn't have funds of its own, it's a government run and financed agency to operate passenger trains. And it's hard to have "moxie" when your purse strings are controlled by the government. The idiotic notion that a passenger rail system can be self supporting is a fable that's been coming out of Washington for several decades now. They need to wake up to reality.
The Northeast Corridor is not a dedicated passenger corridor, and is not grade separated in most areas. The amount of money required just for land purchase to do this in that area would fund the Iraqi War for a couple weeks. Then there's enviornmental and social impact studies to be done. Bottom line, it would be a long term commitment of regular funding just to build a short segment that would live up to the description you gave, just like the "bit of concrete" you mentioned above. The problem with "killing it," is that the NEC handles more than half of the intercity passengers between DC and NYC, there's no way the roads or airways could handle that.
One other point about the 150 MPH in the NEC, there's only about 15 miles where that is allowed. Most of the rest of the corridor (outside terminals) is 90 to 120 MPH limit. The majority of the corridor was designed and built in the early 1900's by a private entity (the Pennsylvania Railroad), and 100 MPH was considered a high speed line at that time. The development around this corridor since then has pushed up the value of the land to the point that expansion or modification requiring more land would be out of reach financially.
Time to weigh in with yet another perspective...
One aspect of this that seems to be only touched on is the raison d'etre (reason to be) for passenger rail service. A number of commentaries here have pointed out that the economics and reasons for passenger rail were quite different when railroading first began and it has been evolving ever since. Feel free to criticize anything said here.
When railroading was established in the nineteenth century, it was the only viable and reliable method of medium to long range transportation. The economics and politics of the time also held a different sway as the railroads served two functions: cater to the elite and provide settlement capabilities to the North American west. By the way, they were heavily subsidized and wouldn't have been built were they not. Add in cash incentives, land grants, tax abatements and the railroads had a pretty good thing going in the latter part of the 1800's.
As time passed and the automobile emerged life in general also continued to change and railroads went along with it. In the early part of the twentieth century the impetus became competition and skyrocketing corporate expansion: the passenger trains became marketing tools more than mere modes of transportation, save for the most remote communities. Through the twenties and thirties people moved toward the ever expanding network of roadways and the scheduling freedom afforded by the devil may care attitude of the personal motor vehicle. With post war prosperity and the advent of air travel the situation continued to change as long distance travel now became a more comfortable proposition. The "in your face" head butting style of corporate competition disappeared as people tuned into the new electronic media and the railroads no longer viewed their high profile name trains as effective advertising tools: now they were cost centers mandated by the government.
Any business worth its salt knows that to survive you don't operate under an outdated and unprofitable business model. That's where the trouble really lies for those yearning for the experience. To this day most of the class 1's operate using basic fundamentals developed over one hundred years ago. Yes, they have evolved and improved tremendously, and in many ways bear no resembleance to their predecessors. However, the attitude continues to be that "passenger trains" are an expensive, inconvenient hinderance to profitability.
Long distance rail travel should indeed be laid to rest except for those wishing to pay unsubsidized rates for the experience. If the market is truly there then a business case can surely be made and a company or companies, class 1 or otherwise, can develop, market and operate a profitable venture to serve that market niche. As a pure mode of transportation it is a ludricous idea to think that they can operate like an airline on trips covering thousands of miles. Westjet, Southwest etc. have it right and good for them.
Short haul ventures already exist in the form of commuter rail - don't let anyone try to disguise the fact that the Acela trains on the NEC are merely glorified light rail services with beverage cars. Allow Amtrak to continue in this arena, along with NJT, Metra, Railrunner and everyone else operating that form of transportation. As a goverment mandated public private partnership the model works well.
That pure passenger rail being discussed will likely work most effectively if it is restricted to medium range ventures where air travel is itself impractical, and highway congestion on the nearest arteries is a major concern. The class 1's will also have to become willing partners at the very least as they need to stop charging astronomical trackage rights for so called liability costs when it is really done to deter a part of railroading that is seen as an inconvenience. If a third party carrier is set up properly, the insurance cost is its to bear and can be effectively distributed among the fare paying passengers at no cost to the host. Perhaps instead of trackage raights per mile a passenger railroad could offer a reasonable portion of the revenues in lieu, or would that be thinking too far outside the box for a class 1 executive...?
Ulrich wrote:It's no secret that the big class 1 railroads are doing very well with operating ratios at or below 80%. They are profitable, and I'm glad I'm a shareholder in some of them. But I really wonder why the taxpayer is still being asked to support passenger rail operations in both Canada and the United States..it doesn't seem fair with the railroads cherry picking the good stuff and leaving the rest for the taxpayer to support.I appreciate that the railroads are in business to make a profit....but where does it state that passenger service cannot be profitable? Look at Southwest Air...an airline with one of the safest records, and they have similar high capitable investment requirements, and they're very profitable. With the right managment passenger rail can be very profitable. The governments should get out of the pasenger rail business and instead perhaps offer rail carriers a tax incentive and maybe other incentives to take back and run the trains. An added benefit would be a return to variety in trains that reflect the regions they run through. The railroads would also be able to showcase their operations to shippers and the public at large.
It's no secret that the big class 1 railroads are doing very well with operating ratios at or below 80%. They are profitable, and I'm glad I'm a shareholder in some of them. But I really wonder why the taxpayer is still being asked to support passenger rail operations in both Canada and the United States..it doesn't seem fair with the railroads cherry picking the good stuff and leaving the rest for the taxpayer to support.
I appreciate that the railroads are in business to make a profit....but where does it state that passenger service cannot be profitable? Look at Southwest Air...an airline with one of the safest records, and they have similar high capitable investment requirements, and they're very profitable. With the right managment passenger rail can be very profitable.
The governments should get out of the pasenger rail business and instead perhaps offer rail carriers a tax incentive and maybe other incentives to take back and run the trains. An added benefit would be a return to variety in trains that reflect the regions they run through. The railroads would also be able to showcase their operations to shippers and the public at large.
Prairietype wrote:I wonder about market factors in the old days, specifically was part of the low profitability the result of many railroads having to compete and interact with each other. If, today, the several giant railroads operated passenger rail service, could they make a profit from the benefit of their huge systems?
I wonder about market factors in the old days, specifically was part of the low profitability the result of many railroads having to compete and interact with each other. If, today, the several giant railroads operated passenger rail service, could they make a profit from the benefit of their huge systems?
kvtrains wrote:Any business worth its salt knows that to survive you don't operate under an outdated and unprofitable business model. That's where the trouble really lies for those yearning for the experience. To this day most of the class 1's operate using basic fundamentals developed over one hundred years ago. Yes, they have evolved and improved tremendously, and in many ways bear no resembleance to their predecessors. However, the attitude continues to be that "passenger trains" are an expensive, inconvenient hinderance to profitability.Long distance rail travel should indeed be laid to rest except for those wishing to pay unsubsidized rates for the experience. If the market is truly there then a business case can surely be made and a company or companies, class 1 or otherwise, can develop, market and operate a profitable venture to serve that market niche. As a pure mode of transportation it is a ludricous idea to think that they can operate like an airline on trips covering thousands of miles. Westjet, Southwest etc. have it right and good for them.
Most people I meet on long distance trains aren't there for the "experience," enjoyable as it may be. People on long distance trains are just trying to get somewhere in a way that is convenient for them. Even with outdated technology, unrelieble timekeeping, and inconsistent service quality, Amtrak's long hauls still tend to fill up more often than not. That suggests to me that there is a market for the service, but other factors impede development of that market.
The biggest impediment to modernization is lack of capital. That was the case in the 1950s, when the railroads were trying to compete against the publicly funded highways and airports, and it is still the case today. Yes, rail travelers were lured away by the convenience of the automobile and speed of the airplane, but it didn't help that passenger trains were stuck with obsolete technology. If the railroads had the capital to upgrade right along with the highways and airports, they would be in a much stronger competitive position today.
Trains probably are no longer appropriate for most transcontinental trips. But that does not mean trains are only suited to short hauls. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, almost half of all trips in the 750-1,000 mile range are still done on the ground. Amtrak's long hauls are very competitive with driving or flying in those markets, especially out west, and in fact Amtrak's "average" long distance traveler comes in close to that distance range. The beauty of a long distance train is that it can serve many different trip lengths, both below and above "average," with a single vehicle on a single run.
INTERESTING ULRICH IN WHAT YOU SAY.ABOUT 6 YEARS AGGO I WAS IN WASHINGTON,D.C. FOR A MEETING WHERE I MET RPSS CAPON EXEC DIR OF NARP.DON PHILLIPS.WHO AT THE TIME WAS TRQANSPORTATION REPORTER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST,ANDWRITING AZ MONTHLY EXCLUSIVE COLUMN FOR TRAINS AS HE SY=TILL DOES.AT THIS MEETING WHERE ALSO SEVERAL AMTRAK OFFICIALS.I BRIOUGHT UP AND IDEA WHICH AT THE TIME I WAS LAUGHED AT NOT LITERALLY BUT FIRGUATIVELY,ANYWAY I PROPOSED THAT ALL CLASS 1 RAILRODS CONTRIBUTE TO AMTRAK A 1/4 OF 1 PERCENT OF THEIR GROISS OPERATING PROFIT .
LF COURSE THIS DIDNT GO ANYWHERE.BUT ODDLY ENOUGH 2 OF THE BIGGEST CLASS1 RAILROADS HAVE SAID THEY WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO ACCEPT MORE PASSENGER TRAINS ON THEIR RESPECTIVE SYSTEMS.I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO FIRGUE EHO THE 2 CLASS 1'S ARE. REGARDS, GRAND AVE,LEES SUMMIT,MO
Mr. Toy wrote: kvtrains wrote:Any business worth its salt knows that to survive you don't operate under an outdated and unprofitable business model. That's where the trouble really lies for those yearning for the experience. To this day most of the class 1's operate using basic fundamentals developed over one hundred years ago. Yes, they have evolved and improved tremendously, and in many ways bear no resembleance to their predecessors. However, the attitude continues to be that "passenger trains" are an expensive, inconvenient hinderance to profitability.Long distance rail travel should indeed be laid to rest except for those wishing to pay unsubsidized rates for the experience. If the market is truly there then a business case can surely be made and a company or companies, class 1 or otherwise, can develop, market and operate a profitable venture to serve that market niche. As a pure mode of transportation it is a ludricous idea to think that they can operate like an airline on trips covering thousands of miles. Westjet, Southwest etc. have it right and good for them.Most people I meet on long distance trains aren't there for the "experience," enjoyable as it may be. People on long distance trains are just trying to get somewhere in a way that is convenient for them. Even with outdated technology, unrelieble timekeeping, and inconsistent service quality, Amtrak's long hauls still tend to fill up more often than not. That suggests to me that there is a market for the service, but other factors impede development of that market. The biggest impediment to modernization is lack of capital. That was the case in the 1950s, when the railroads were trying to compete against the publicly funded highways and airports, and it is still the case today. Yes, rail travelers were lured away by the convenience of the automobile and speed of the airplane, but it didn't help that passenger trains were stuck with obsolete technology. If the railroads had the capital to upgrade right along with the highways and airports, they would be in a much stronger competitive position today. Trains probably are no longer appropriate for most transcontinental trips. But that does not mean trains are only suited to short hauls. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, almost half of all trips in the 750-1,000 mile range are still done on the ground. Amtrak's long hauls are very competitive with driving or flying in those markets, especially out west, and in fact Amtrak's "average" long distance traveler comes in close to that distance range. The beauty of a long distance train is that it can serve many different trip lengths, both below and above "average," with a single vehicle on a single run.
I'm OK with everything except the lack of capital explanation.
Post WWII, a mountain of capital was spent trying to get the passenger business humming. Streamlined equipment was purchased. The largest single order for coaches up to that time was placed by the NYC. New diners, new lounges, all new trains with all kinds of new ammenities - theaters, play rooms, on-board phones. The fast Congressional and Sentors on PRR. The ACL's push for 100 mph service and 24 hr NY-Miami runs. 100 mph running on the IC main. Sub-16 hrs NY-Chicago schedules on the Broadway and 20th Century.
Money poured down a rat hole. None of this worked.
So, the RRs tried experimenting with even more radical stuff. Highspeed, lightweight train sets. Aerotrain, Train X/Xplorer, Talgo. But by this time, they were out of capital to invest and what they did have they needed to keep the physical plant from sinking into the swamp.
And, finally in the 60's when the gov't did show up, it was chump change for the Metroliner and TurboTrain.
So, if you're talking about lack of capital in the late 40s and early 50s, I can't agree. Late 50s, I can agree, but the RRs really weren't asking for it. Mostly, they wanted out.
MILW205 wrote: I don't have any hard data handy, but I seem to recall reading once that passenger trains didn't make money back in the day -- rather that mail contracts subsidized passenger service. Is anyone else familiar with this notion?
I don't have any hard data handy, but I seem to recall reading once that passenger trains didn't make money back in the day -- rather that mail contracts subsidized passenger service. Is anyone else familiar with this notion?
That was a huge factor in the formation of Amtrak, when mail contracts ended in the sixties you almost immediately saw railroads attempting to cut back existing passenger service (fewer cars, reduced maintenance) and submit requests to government to discontinue now-unprofitable passenger trains. It wasn't long until the railroads pretty much gave up and asked the government to take over passenger service.
oltmannd wrote:Post WWII, a mountain of capital was spent trying to get the passenger business humming. Streamlined equipment was purchased. The largest single order for coaches up to that time was placed by the NYC. New diners, new lounges, all new trains with all kinds of new ammenities - theaters, play rooms, on-board phones. The fast Congressional and Sentors on PRR. The ACL's push for 100 mph service and 24 hr NY-Miami runs. 100 mph running on the IC main. Sub-16 hrs NY-Chicago schedules on the Broadway and 20th Century.Money poured down a rat hole. None of this worked
I think Don's (oltmann) version corresponds most closely to what I remember, and what I've been read and told.
The fed'l gov't did not merely pursue a policy of "benign neglect" in its historical animus toward railroads. The Metroliner was indeed "chump change" compared to the Japanese HST and its progeny over most of the rail-intense world, except N. America. The fed. attitude toward railroads in general ranged from "Don't change anything" at the ICC to "Curl up and die (attitude not words)" in the many, many people who were advocating for more roads and aerospace.
Maybe now that Amtrak is laying concrete ties that industry will smile on us as well? Not that I think that the concrete-lobby was a big factor in passenger trains' decline. lol
JT22CW wrote:Actually, it was starting to work. Then 1950 rolled around, and ICC mandated new signaling requirements for passenger train operation at and above 80 mph, and told the RRs that they had to fund the upgrades themselves. (In many countries of Europe, the level of signaling that the ICC and FRA restrict passenger speeds to 79 mph at, passenger operation is permitted 100 mph at.) And of course, the federal government was funding the infrastructure of the competition at an accelerated pace.
It was, in today's terminology, an unfunded federal mandate. This is related to what I was talking about above. Lack of capital for upgrades. Even the post WWII investments in streamliners was essentially an investment in more pre-war technology (except for the addition of domes). And these trains, as of 1950, were forced to operate at slower speeds than in the 1930s! How could these railroads hope to compete under those conditions? High speed technology was just around the corner, but if there was no capital to fund federal signaling mandates, there certainly was no capital to invest in high speed technology.
Mr. Toy wrote: JT22CW wrote:Actually, it was starting to work. Then 1950 rolled around, and ICC mandated new signaling requirements for passenger train operation at and above 80 mph, and told the RRs that they had to fund the upgrades themselves. (In many countries of Europe, the level of signaling that the ICC and FRA restrict passenger speeds to 79 mph at, passenger operation is permitted 100 mph at.) And of course, the federal government was funding the infrastructure of the competition at an accelerated pace.It was, in today's terminology, an unfunded federal mandate. This is related to what I was talking about above. Lack of capital for upgrades. Even the post WWII investments in streamliners was essentially an investment in more pre-war technology (except for the addition of domes). And these trains, as of 1950, were forced to operate at slower speeds than in the 1930s! How could these railroads hope to compete under those conditions? High speed technology was just around the corner, but if there was no capital to fund federal signaling mandates, there certainly was no capital to invest in high speed technology.
I know about the 79 mph limit, but not so sure it made much, if any difference in schedules.
RRs had been previously "forced" to install train control on their busiest division and some had done significantly more than the minimum. NYC had quite a bit of inductive train stop which allowed passenger speeds up to 90 mph. This stuff wasn't ripped out until the PC era. ATSF still has long stretches of train stop on their transcon route. Even with all that cab signal equipment, the PRR never allowed > 80 mph (that I know of) - even on the NEC.
To be convinced, I'd like to see some schedules from the late 1930s and early 1950s compared. Anybody have some squirrelled away?
The idiotic notion that a passenger rail system can be self supporting is a fable that's been coming out of Washington for several decades now. They need to wake up to reality.
That sentiment is a recurrent theme in the passenger train advocacy community and language like "idiotic", "fable", and "need to wake up to reality" applied to opponents of Amtrak funding or perhaps those who are on the fence; in my opinion, this is why passenger train advocacy has been fighting a losing political battle these past 30 years.
My question is whether the social goodness of passenger trains is so self-evident that the funding level of Amtrak should be whatever it takes to get the service, or if the passenger rail advocacy community would accept some metric, any metric, of what fractional percentage of Amtrak costs ought to be recovered from fares.
Now I know we have rules around here for getting off the topic of trains and into the realm of politics, but I need to speak my peace on this: I have heard about the public expenditure on the Iraq War as a data point with which to compare the miniscule spending on Amtrak, and I have heard this argument repeated both among the virtual-world and the brick-and-morter world passenger rail communities with which I associate.
Let's just say for sake of argument that leaving out the cost in lives of our young men and women at arms that the expenditure on the Iraq War is somehow justified in terms of securing the Middle East oil supply, not just for ourselves but for our trading partners and everyone else. Let's say the Iraq War is costing 150 billion/year -- yes, I know there are higher and lower estimates, but bear with me on an "order of magnitude" analysis.
Airline travel is 100:1 over Amtrak and auto travel is 500:1 over Amtrak. Let's say we increased the Amtrak subsidy 100-fold to get a 100 fold increase in train travel as a substitution for 15 percent of air and auto travel. NARP tells us that Amtrak train travel is 30 percent more energy-efficient than auto or air. That means that a 150 billion per year Iraq-War sized expenditure on Amtrak would save 5 percent on transportation oil usage and perhaps 3 percent on total national oil usage. Three percent savings is not going to get the level of energy independence that would make what happens in the Middle East moot.
Now I know what people are going to say -- the Iraq War has actually increased the price of oil, if we spent 150 billion/year on Amtrak (about 4 times the highway budget by the way and without the benefit of the gas tax cost recovery), the trains would all be electrified or there would be research money for energy-efficient train designs, and so on. And before someone tells me that spending Iraq War levels of money on trains is a straw-man argument and that nowhere near that amount of money would be needed to get really good trains, I have seen numbers that the Japanese expenditure on the Shinkansen network has been of that size in order-of-magnitude terms -- yes, they have a really good train system for that money, but they still need to import oil from the Middle East.
There are men and women of good will who believe that the Iraq War was a terrible mistake, and there are other men and women of good will who believe that the Iraq War is a terrible price to be paid for something that needs to be done, but I would like to retire, once and for all, mention of the Iraq War in connection with an appropriate level of Amtrak funding. The country is badly divided on the Iraq War -- supporting the Iraq War is not a winning political path, but opposing the Iraq War is not a strong majority position either, and the Lautenberg-Lott 19 billion over 6 years for Amtrak Senate bill passed with a veto-proof 70 votes. We need to get people on both sides of the Iraq War divide to support trains.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote: The idiotic notion that a passenger rail system can be self supporting is a fable that's been coming out of Washington for several decades now. They need to wake up to reality.That sentiment is a recurrent theme in the passenger train advocacy community and language like "idiotic", "fable", and "need to wake up to reality" applied to opponents of Amtrak funding or perhaps those who are on the fence; in my opinion, this is why passenger train advocacy has been fighting a losing political battle these past 30 years.My question is whether the social goodness of passenger trains is so self-evident that the funding level of Amtrak should be whatever it takes to get the service, or if the passenger rail advocacy community would accept some metric, any metric, of what fractional percentage of Amtrak costs ought to be recovered from fares.Now I know we have rules around here for getting off the topic of trains and into the realm of politics, but I need to speak my peace on this: I have heard about the public expenditure on the Iraq War as a data point with which to compare the miniscule spending on Amtrak, and I have heard this argument repeated both among the virtual-world and the brick-and-morter world passenger rail communities with which I associate. Let's just say for sake of argument that leaving out the cost in lives of our young men and women at arms that the expenditure on the Iraq War is somehow justified in terms of securing the Middle East oil supply, not just for ourselves but for our trading partners and everyone else. Let's say the Iraq War is costing 150 billion/year -- yes, I know there are higher and lower estimates, but bear with me on an "order of magnitude" analysis.Airline travel is 100:1 over Amtrak and auto travel is 500:1 over Amtrak. Let's say we increased the Amtrak subsidy 100-fold to get a 100 fold increase in train travel as a substitution for 15 percent of air and auto travel. NARP tells us that Amtrak train travel is 30 percent more energy-efficient than auto or air. That means that a 150 billion per year Iraq-War sized expenditure on Amtrak would save 5 percent on transportation oil usage and perhaps 3 percent on total national oil usage. Three percent savings is not going to get the level of energy independence that would make what happens in the Middle East moot. Now I know what people are going to say -- the Iraq War has actually increased the price of oil, if we spent 150 billion/year on Amtrak (about 4 times the highway budget by the way and without the benefit of the gas tax cost recovery), the trains would all be electrified or there would be research money for energy-efficient train designs, and so on. And before someone tells me that spending Iraq War levels of money on trains is a straw-man argument and that nowhere near that amount of money would be needed to get really good trains, I have seen numbers that the Japanese expenditure on the Shinkansen network has been of that size in order-of-magnitude terms -- yes, they have a really good train system for that money, but they still need to import oil from the Middle East.There are men and women of good will who believe that the Iraq War was a terrible mistake, and there are other men and women of good will who believe that the Iraq War is a terrible price to be paid for something that needs to be done, but I would like to retire, once and for all, mention of the Iraq War in connection with an appropriate level of Amtrak funding. The country is badly divided on the Iraq War -- supporting the Iraq War is not a winning political path, but opposing the Iraq War is not a strong majority position either, and the Lautenberg-Lott 19 billion over 6 years for Amtrak Senate bill passed with a veto-proof 70 votes. We need to get people on both sides of the Iraq War divide to support trains.
The Iraq vs. Amtrak argument is a red herring.
Because I spend $1000 on heat and hot water a year, that makes toothpaste @$10 a tube a good deal?
I have to agree as to the need for capital expenditures - I myself am involved in trying to re-establish rail service to a route abandoned years ago (code of ethices will end my comments there) and this is a huge impediment. Although there are groups willing to get involved in such ventures, capacity is a nearly unvanquishable windmill in todays class 1 reality. Getting passenger service up and running is pretty tough when all you hear from the potential class 1 host is that it couldn't handle even one more train unless somebody double tracks the route in question.
One part of the argument that seems to have gone un-noticed for a very long time when people discuss the unequal distributution of government capitalf or infrastructure upgrades is who owns the properties. Unlike air and highway transportation, in railroading the carriers literally own the road.
Highways and airports are owned by the taxpayers, and it is only right for them to expect their tax dollars to go toward upgrading and upkeeping the things thay own. I wouldn't expect a total stranger to walk up to my front door, indicate displeasure with how my home looks and then hand over a bundle of cash to change things. It's my home - if I want to improve it or change it then it's up to me to pay for it. If I like it the way it is, no one can force me to change it.
Transport companies own their freight terminals and willingly pay to keep them at a standard they can live with. Motor coach companies generally have their own facilities, and airlines own and operate their own offices, hangars and maintenance facilities. However, they can't dictate to the government as to how things are done. They must instead abide by the systems and protocols put in place by the various jurisdictions they connect with. Despite federal standards, different airports operate differently. Highways are surfaced differently in different states/provinces, even within townships and municipalities. Truckers and bus companies don't have a thing to say unless the general public also sees the need to change something.
To make it an apples to apples comparison, let's say that BNSF and UP handed over ownership of their respective right-of-ways to the federal government. The yards, shops, and the physical plant contained therein etc. would continue to be their property and their responsibility. The government would then have to step up to the plate and provide the infrasrtucture between cities/towns/ports etc. Then and only then can you make the argument for equal capital funding between modes. Conversely, though, it would open the door for all carriers large and small to operate on the same federally controlled right-of -ways, perhaps paying a per ton "toll" or something. UP, CN, BNSF, NS and everyone else would simply queue up along with regionals, short lines and tourist operations, all of whom had equal access to the rail lines.
Radical I know, but unless you adopt that type of model then the funding argument isn't logical.
This should be interesting...
kvtrains wrote: I have to agree as to the need for capital expenditures - I myself am involved in trying to re-establish rail service to a route abandoned years ago (code of ethices will end my comments there) and this is a huge impediment. Although there are groups willing to get involved in such ventures, capacity is a nearly unvanquishable windmill in todays class 1 reality. Getting passenger service up and running is pretty tough when all you hear from the potential class 1 host is that it couldn't handle even one more train unless somebody double tracks the route in question.One part of the argument that seems to have gone un-noticed for a very long time when people discuss the unequal distributution of government capitalf or infrastructure upgrades is who owns the properties. Unlike air and highway transportation, in railroading the carriers literally own the road.Highways and airports are owned by the taxpayers, and it is only right for them to expect their tax dollars to go toward upgrading and upkeeping the things thay own. I wouldn't expect a total stranger to walk up to my front door, indicate displeasure with how my home looks and then hand over a bundle of cash to change things. It's my home - if I want to improve it or change it then it's up to me to pay for it. If I like it the way it is, no one can force me to change it.
You don't live in a neighborhood with at Home Owner's Association!
kvtrains wrote: Transport companies own their freight terminals and willingly pay to keep them at a standard they can live with. Motor coach companies generally have their own facilities, and airlines own and operate their own offices, hangars and maintenance facilities. However, they can't dictate to the government as to how things are done. They must instead abide by the systems and protocols put in place by the various jurisdictions they connect with. Despite federal standards, different airports operate differently. Highways are surfaced differently in different states/provinces, even within townships and municipalities. Truckers and bus companies don't have a thing to say unless the general public also sees the need to change something.To make it an apples to apples comparison, let's say that BNSF and UP handed over ownership of their respective right-of-ways to the federal government. The yards, shops, and the physical plant contained therein etc. would continue to be their property and their responsibility. The government would then have to step up to the plate and provide the infrasrtucture between cities/towns/ports etc. Then and only then can you make the argument for equal capital funding between modes. Conversely, though, it would open the door for all carriers large and small to operate on the same federally controlled right-of -ways, perhaps paying a per ton "toll" or something. UP, CN, BNSF, NS and everyone else would simply queue up along with regionals, short lines and tourist operations, all of whom had equal access to the rail lines.Radical I know, but unless you adopt that type of model then the funding argument isn't logical.This should be interesting...
There is a middle position between private and public ownership where public investment in private enterprise can be justified. In practice, the public investment usually generates an improved business climate or other public benefit. Examples would be the Conrail Pittsburgh Line clearance project and NS's Heartland Corridor project where state and some Federal $$ were spent to improve commercial prospects of local ports. Many state gov'ts have shortline programs were state $$ are invested in the ROW of shortlines to improve the business climate along the route. The CREATE project proposed for Chicago would improve commuter train performance and reduce freight and highway congestion in Chicago.
There are two big public/private partnerships now brewing. NS's I-81 corridor project where a relatively modest public investment in the RR would eliminate the need for a rather large public investment in a highway. The other is CSX's I-95 corridor project where a public investment would improve both frt and passenger service along the I-95 corridor. Amtrak, for one, would gain improved access to operate on the corridor in exchange for the public investment.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.