Why can't the big class 1s take ownership for passenger service?

[paulsafety]

Picture a train that started in NYC, then spent a day in Philadelphia, home of the Liberty Bell, and the original capital of the USA, then a day in the District of Columbia, where the train station is withing walking distance of the Capitol, Ford's Theater, and the mall where all the Smithsonian Museums are.  A day in Richmond, the capital of the Confereracy where you can tour the Museum of the Confederacy and the Confederate White House.  Then a day in Williamsburg, VA with it's "discovery of the new world" and early sellers museums.  Then to Charlotte, the epicenter of NASCAR, home of the NASCAR Hall of Fame and most of the race teams.  Most of their shops are open to visitors. Then to Atlanta with all it's Civil War history. Finally ending in New Orleans.

They have something like that already -- charter buses for group tours.

Paul:

Buses go EVERYPLACE trains go.  Trains are much more pleasant to ride than buses.  Have you ever slept on a bus?  What, exactly, is your argument.

The point of my suggestion was the railroads should actively compete.  Buses are slow and uncomfortable, and airlines cannot land in center city.  Add to that the idiotic paranoid "security" and it is just too offensive and inconvenient to go to the airport.

Trains should play to their strength.  I merely cited one example, I was not suggesting abandoning transportation as a concept.

I agree with others in here that scheduling is Amtrak's poorest attribute, but it doesn't seem to be under their control as long as they use other railroad's tracks.

1) What is my argument (exactly)?  Uh, I was just making a statement in jest, but I can explain what motivated it......

a)  Amtrak already does provide a more subtle variation of what you seem to be proposing -- check out their reservations site for "regional tour packages" -- if these are successful, you'll be sure to see that area expand.  If not, then we won't.

b) Your suggestion, while interesting, seems to mirror services already provided by another industry that has tons more experience and would probably offer a more attractive tour package than Amtrak would be able to do (the motor coach industry caters to the travel world more effectively -- better deals with casinos, tourist destination operators, etc.)  For one example -- Amtrak's botched attempt to capture a slice of the casino travel trade in Atlantic City.  The bus lines made better deals with the casinos, dropped passengers at the door and offered a highly competitive price (which was usually rebated in the form of coupons for drinks, meals or chips.)  The net result?  Millions spent on reviving R-O-W to an AC terminal that was located on the outskirts of town, and ultimately, abandonment of services *(by Amtrak) to AC.  I just think that they shouldn't gamble (pun) with my tax money on tour services when they aren't that good at it (no offense, Amtrak!)

c) I think Amtrak needs to focus on running it's business really, really well.  This is not the same argument as "be more competitive" (ie. steal business from other transportation industry silos).  There is still room for Amtrak to run a railroad operation proficiently before they need to worry about expanding into areas that they are not as competent in handling.  

You said... "Trains should play to their strength.  I merely cited one example, I was not suggesting abandoning transportation as a concept." ... Great!  We agree!  All I said was that motor coaches already offer the services you mentioned.  Nothing more or less.

Finally, have I slept on buses?  Yes.  I used intercity coaches extensively during my college years (and I didn't say that I thought that sleeping on buses or trains or planes was fun or comfortable - I've done each (including sleepers) and they're all uncomfortable).  

Paul F.

[Phoebe Vet]

Paul:

I wasn't criticizing, or trying to pick a fight. Just a suggestion off the top of my head.  Not a plan or proposal.  I think it's disgusting what we have allowed to happen to our railroads.

I would like to see passenger rail competing in the private sector, but there doesn't seem to be any interest on the part of providers.

Perhaps Richard Branson would like to expand his Virgin Train system.  He seems to be making money with passenger rail.

[Anonymous]

The point has been made about train service timeliness.  You would still have to beat 600 mile per hour speed of an aircraft, and there isn't a train around capable of doing that.  The only time trains are capable of "competing" with airliners is when people spend more time in the airport trying to get to their final destination than riding a train.

Mourning the loss of a passenger train is about as useful as mourning the loss of riverboats on the Mississippi.  There was a time when the majority of freight and passenger service was by boat.  I don't see any hue or cry for a return to the riverboat, or suggestions of subsidy for the Merchant Marine of the United States... which is too bad: we used to have the best Merchant Marine in the world.  Just like we had the best railroads in the world.

Our best bet is to have railroads do what they do best- move freight.  I can see government subsidies for improvement to Class 1's if they can prove that the railroad removes trucks from the Interstate highway system. 

If fuel prices continue up, passenger service might become economically viable for some metro areas- but it will ALWAYS be mass transit, not "cruise train" accomodations.  No one loves riding the Long Island Railroad, but they have to. 

[kvtrains]

Picture a train that started in NYC, then spent a day in Philadelphia, home of the Liberty Bell, and the original capital of the USA, then a day in the District of Columbia, where the train station is withing walking distance of the Capitol, Ford's Theater, and the mall where all the Smithsonian Museums are.  A day in Richmond, the capital of the Confereracy where you can tour the Museum of the Confederacy and the Confederate White House.  Then a day in Williamsburg, VA with it's "discovery of the new world" and early sellers museums.  Then to Charlotte, the epicenter of NASCAR, home of the NASCAR Hall of Fame and most of the race teams.  Most of their shops are open to visitors. Then to Atlanta with all it's Civil War history. Finally ending in New Orleans.

They have something like that already -- charter buses for group tours.

Paul:

Buses go EVERYPLACE trains go.  Trains are much more pleasant to ride than buses.  Have you ever slept on a bus?  What, exactly, is your argument.

The point of my suggestion was the railroads should actively compete.  Buses are slow and uncomfortable, and airlines cannot land in center city.  Add to that the idiotic paranoid "security" and it is just too offensive and inconvenient to go to the airport.

Trains should play to their strength.  I merely cited one example, I was not suggesting abandoning transportation as a concept.

I agree with others in here that scheduling is Amtrak's poorest attribute, but it doesn't seem to be under their control as long as they use other railroad's tracks.

1) What is my argument (exactly)?  Uh, I was just making a statement in jest, but I can explain what motivated it......

a)  Amtrak already does provide a more subtle variation of what you seem to be proposing -- check out their reservations site for "regional tour packages" -- if these are successful, you'll be sure to see that area expand.  If not, then we won't.

b) Your suggestion, while interesting, seems to mirror services already provided by another industry that has tons more experience and would probably offer a more attractive tour package than Amtrak would be able to do (the motor coach industry caters to the travel world more effectively -- better deals with casinos, tourist destination operators, etc.)  For one example -- Amtrak's botched attempt to capture a slice of the casino travel trade in Atlantic City.  The bus lines made better deals with the casinos, dropped passengers at the door and offered a highly competitive price (which was usually rebated in the form of coupons for drinks, meals or chips.)  The net result?  Millions spent on reviving R-O-W to an AC terminal that was located on the outskirts of town, and ultimately, abandonment of services *(by Amtrak) to AC.  I just think that they shouldn't gamble (pun) with my tax money on tour services when they aren't that good at it (no offense, Amtrak!)

c) I think Amtrak needs to focus on running it's business really, really well.  This is not the same argument as "be more competitive" (ie. steal business from other transportation industry silos).  There is still room for Amtrak to run a railroad operation proficiently before they need to worry about expanding into areas that they are not as competent in handling.  

You said... "Trains should play to their strength.  I merely cited one example, I was not suggesting abandoning transportation as a concept." ... Great!  We agree!  All I said was that motor coaches already offer the services you mentioned.  Nothing more or less.

Finally, have I slept on buses?  Yes.  I used intercity coaches extensively during my college years (and I didn't say that I thought that sleeping on buses or trains or planes was fun or comfortable - I've done each (including sleepers) and they're all uncomfortable).  

Paul F.

Given the somewhat divergent nature this topic has evolved into, I'll approach your part of the discussion.

Take a look at the following URL and see if perhaps somebody is indeed doing what you might wish to see.

 http://members.shaw.ca/stampedecityrail/

Darcy

 

[JT22CW]

Perhaps Richard Branson would like to expand his Virgin Train system. He seems to be making money with passenger rail

Well, he is, as long as Network Rail keeps the infrastructure up to scratch.

The point has been made about train service timeliness. You would still have to beat 600 mile per hour speed of an aircraft, and there isn't a train around capable of doing that

Not correct. All you have to do is beat average speed from city to city. If we ran a lot of super-express high-speed trains between major US cities, the airlines would be looking over their shoulders, and why? because the average speed of such trains is capable of being quite high, and with the top speed of such trains increasing, so would average speed.

And there is still something to being the fastest mode on land. If someone in New York knew that they could be in Chicago four hours later on the train, how would that influence his travel plans?

The only time trains are capable of "competing" with airliners is when people spend more time in the airport trying to get to their final destination than riding a train

That would be all the time, correct? People were complaining about this before 9/11 as well. And this was due to airport congestion rather than security concerns.

The USA consumes about 13 billion gallons of jet fuel a year for domestic flights. The common estimate that the media puts out to the public is that trains consume about a fifth the fuel of other modes per passenger (planes included), and electrified rail is more efficient than that by leaps and bounds. Already, the price of jet fuel is making a number of airlines ground a large number of planes, and a plane that isn't flying isn't making money. Given that consuming is 70 percent of the US market, that's a bad, bad sign.

Mourning the loss of a passenger train is about as useful as mourning the loss of riverboats on the Mississippi. There was a time when the majority of freight and passenger service was by boat. I don't see any hue or cry for a return to the riverboat, or suggestions of subsidy for the Merchant Marine of the United States... which is too bad: we used to have the best Merchant Marine in the world. Just like we had the best railroads in the world

Don't understand the point of your rant. Seems like a lot of apples/oranges comparisons that don't reach a conclusion. Seeing that passenger trains are nowhere near the limits of their technology, does it make sense to abandon said technology when its growth and efficiency potential remains high?

Our best bet is to have railroads do what they do best- move freight. I can see government subsidies for improvement to Class 1's if they can prove that the railroad removes trucks from the Interstate highway system

Who says that railroads move freight "best"? They move quite a bit of bulk very efficiently, but fast freight is all but dead, thus the ability to really compete with trucks is stymied. You don't have trucks with "cab signals" in them, nor do truckers have to observe wayside signals or "qualify" on certain highways; not to mention, they don't have to worry about a "decertification" the first time they're busted for speeding (the hogger can't evade being busted for an overspeed).

If the railroads were truly "best" at a single thing, then all railroads ought to have been grown based on that. But nowadays, railroads are continuing to shrink and are not being replaced in areas where they could be construed to have increased viability, as it were.

As for the Merchant Marine, what replaced it? Container ships from China? This is desirable, or the mark of a superpower? (not us as a superpower; and this might be a separate issue, no matter how poignant)

If fuel prices continue up, passenger service might become economically viable for some metro areas- but it will ALWAYS be mass transit, not "cruise train" accomodations. No one loves riding the Long Island Railroad, but they have to

Please, sir; you're peppering your statements with prejudicial language and fallacies. Nobody is forced to ride the LIRR; and many people actually love the experience of riding that railroad. If I were to say "No-one loves driving on the Long Island Expressway, but they have to" or "No-one loves riding the Hampton Jitney bus, but they have to", would those be true statements?

There's also your "cruise train" fallacy. No LD train I was ever on was regarded by its passengers as the equivalent of a "cruise". The only service that fits such a description is Grande Luxe (fka American Orient Express). (Should we castigate VIA Rail for their focus on what some of us are trying to stereotype as "cruise trains"? or vilify the real Orient Express too? or are we just limiting our arguments to the USA?)

What's the criteria for economic viability, though? That's a missing, and often fluid, quantifier.

[oltmannd]

Sure is getting deep here!  What a tangled mess.

600 mph flying?  No.  Not lately, anyway.  Most airlines currently fly in the low 500s.  But that's not the point, anyway.  It's not even solely trip time.  It's many factors, including the utility of the time spent and the convenience.  How many steps are there to the whole trip?  How large are the chunks of time for each step?  What can you do with that time?

Compare JetBlue with Acela from NYP to Boston.  Price for JetBlue is $183, for Amtrak it's $179 - no advantage for the train.  Schedule time 1:05 to 1:25 for JetBlue vs. 3:30 for Acela.  Big advantage to JetBlue (although that's <200 mph avg speed).  So why would anyone take Acela?

It's the whole rest of the trip that needs considered. 

Lets say you live in suburbia on the North Shore of LI. 

To fly, you'd probably drive 40 minutes or so to the airport.  Driving on LI is never pretty and the only thing you can do with your time is listen to the radio.  Then you park at the airport and have to navigate by foot or shuttle bus to the terminal - another 10-15 minute or so of time shot.  Then you wait in line at security - another 20-40 minutes shot.  Then you navigate to the gate - another 10 minutes gone.  You wait at the gate for 30 min to one hour (you had to leave extra time because you never know how it's going with TSA on any given day).  Maybe you grab a bite to eat.  At least at the gate, you can sit down and read or pay for WiFi or talk on the phone.  Finally you're on the plane for 1:30 of uniterrupted time - you might get to use your computer for 30 minutes of that time - if you can figure out how to hold it in a position you can actually see the screen and use the keyboard at the same time.  Finally, you land, navigate your way throught the airport to the taxi stand and get to where you're going (let's assume a suburban Boston location)

By rail, you'd probably drive a few miles from your house and take the LIRR to Penn Sta.  Figure 1:15 or so for this trip.  You can nap, read or use a laptop.  At NYP, it's a short walk and a 20 or 30 minute wait to board the train.  You board the train and ride for 3:30.  Once again you can read, nap, talk on you cell phone or work on your computer or even grab a bite to eat.   Finally you arrive, walk down the platform to the taxi stand and get where you're going.

The train won't save you time or money, but it does provide useable blocks of time that provide many options for you to live your life while getting from A to B.  A lot of the time spent flying comes in chunks too small to do anything useful or in places where you have limited chioces.

Energy use?

Amtrak is only 15% more efficient that flying or driving.  I have never seen any numbers that show any train, any where, at any time that is 5x more efficient than flying.  Maybe the NYC TA is 5X better than one guy in a Gulfstream.....

Electrification "leaps and bounds" better than diesel electric?  No.  The engine-gen set on a locomotive has a thermal efficiency on a par with a coal fired power plant (for electrical generation).  Once you add in transmission losses, the D-E loco wins.  There are lots of good reasons to electrify, but energy efficiency is not one of them.

The notion that people HAVE to travel?  (LIRR, LIE, whatever).  No.  People make choices on where and how to live based on many factors, transportation being one of them.  Hardly anybody would live in Suffolk Co. NY and work in Manhattan if the LIRR wasn't there.

Railroads are continuing to shrink?  Really?  This has not been true for 25 years by any measure.

No LD passengers regard their Amtrak trip as a "cruise"?  Maybe not in the strictest sense, because most cruises go from A to A, not A to B, but what exactly do you call a trip with a small "stateroom", meals included and an area devoted to sightseeing?  Many LD riders use the train as an integral part of their vacation, not just a way to get to a vacation destination.  The LD trains might not be GrandLuxe or a bus tour, but they are most certainly not just A to B transportation. 

The market for LD trains is the sum of many niche markets, one of which is the experience of the trip itself - which is pretty darn close to a "cruise" in my book. 

Fast freight on the RRs is dead?  Depends on your definition of terms, I suppose, but RRs are certainly competitive for single drive truckload traffic >500 miles and they move quite a bit of USPS mail and UPS packages - which I consider "fast".  BNSF's transcon route has pretty much dried up a lot of the truck traffic on I-40 thru AZ and NM, too. 

[kvtrains]

Perhaps Richard Branson would like to expand his Virgin Train system. He seems to be making money with passenger rail

Well, he is, as long as Network Rail keeps the infrastructure up to scratch.

The point has been made about train service timeliness. You would still have to beat 600 mile per hour speed of an aircraft, and there isn't a train around capable of doing that

Not correct. All you have to do is beat average speed from city to city. If we ran a lot of super-express high-speed trains between major US cities, the airlines would be looking over their shoulders, and why? because the average speed of such trains is capable of being quite high, and with the top speed of such trains increasing, so would average speed.

And there is still something to being the fastest mode on land. If someone in New York knew that they could be in Chicago four hours later on the train, how would that influence his travel plans?

The only time trains are capable of "competing" with airliners is when people spend more time in the airport trying to get to their final destination than riding a train

That would be all the time, correct? People were complaining about this before 9/11 as well. And this was due to airport congestion rather than security concerns.

The USA consumes about 13 billion gallons of jet fuel a year for domestic flights. The common estimate that the media puts out to the public is that trains consume about a fifth the fuel of other modes per passenger (planes included), and electrified rail is more efficient than that by leaps and bounds. Already, the price of jet fuel is making a number of airlines ground a large number of planes, and a plane that isn't flying isn't making money. Given that consuming is 70 percent of the US market, that's a bad, bad sign.

Mourning the loss of a passenger train is about as useful as mourning the loss of riverboats on the Mississippi. There was a time when the majority of freight and passenger service was by boat. I don't see any hue or cry for a return to the riverboat, or suggestions of subsidy for the Merchant Marine of the United States... which is too bad: we used to have the best Merchant Marine in the world. Just like we had the best railroads in the world

Don't understand the point of your rant. Seems like a lot of apples/oranges comparisons that don't reach a conclusion. Seeing that passenger trains are nowhere near the limits of their technology, does it make sense to abandon said technology when its growth and efficiency potential remains high?

Our best bet is to have railroads do what they do best- move freight. I can see government subsidies for improvement to Class 1's if they can prove that the railroad removes trucks from the Interstate highway system

Who says that railroads move freight "best"? They move quite a bit of bulk very efficiently, but fast freight is all but dead, thus the ability to really compete with trucks is stymied. You don't have trucks with "cab signals" in them, nor do truckers have to observe wayside signals or "qualify" on certain highways; not to mention, they don't have to worry about a "decertification" the first time they're busted for speeding (the hogger can't evade being busted for an overspeed).

If the railroads were truly "best" at a single thing, then all railroads ought to have been grown based on that. But nowadays, railroads are continuing to shrink and are not being replaced in areas where they could be construed to have increased viability, as it were.

As for the Merchant Marine, what replaced it? Container ships from China? This is desirable, or the mark of a superpower? (not us as a superpower; and this might be a separate issue, no matter how poignant)

If fuel prices continue up, passenger service might become economically viable for some metro areas- but it will ALWAYS be mass transit, not "cruise train" accomodations. No one loves riding the Long Island Railroad, but they have to

Please, sir; you're peppering your statements with prejudicial language and fallacies. Nobody is forced to ride the LIRR; and many people actually love the experience of riding that railroad. If I were to say "No-one loves driving on the Long Island Expressway, but they have to" or "No-one loves riding the Hampton Jitney bus, but they have to", would those be true statements?

There's also your "cruise train" fallacy. No LD train I was ever on was regarded by its passengers as the equivalent of a "cruise". The only service that fits such a description is Grande Luxe (fka American Orient Express). (Should we castigate VIA Rail for their focus on what some of us are trying to stereotype as "cruise trains"? or vilify the real Orient Express too? or are we just limiting our arguments to the USA?)

What's the criteria for economic viability, though? That's a missing, and often fluid, quantifier.

Am I misinterpreting here, or does the main sticking point in the discussion seem to be the debate over whether passenger rail is a business or a public service? If it is the former, then kudos to VIA, Grand Luxe, The Royal Canadian Pacific and all the others in the rail cruise arena. They have figured out (or at least give the impression of) how to do it and at least break even. They cater to the "experience" side of the argument and do a darn fine job in the process. No, I'll likely never be able to afford it either, but for those who can it is one hell of an opportunity to be a Vanderbuilt or Dupont for a week or so.

On the flip side, as a mode of transportation, it should indeed be examined as to its raison d'etre. For large volume transport over medium to short haul distances it can be highly competetive with buses and private vehicles. Again, though, there needs to be a reason for its existence. IMHO anything long distance that has to be priced beyond what is perceived as reasonable for the amenities provided in order to break even should probably be laid to rest. As has been pointed out, if the reason for the trip is necessity and the individual's funds are limited, buses go everywhere that trains go.

Having a unique perspective (I have personally been negotiating rights for such a venture) I can state for real that the biggest single stumbling block has not been any of the aforementioned argument

[alphas]

JT22CW:

By the end of 2008, maybe by Fall, the preferred road route for Harrisburg to Altoona will be about 126 miles via I-99 and US 322.  All but about 10 miles of it will be either interstate or interstate quality highway.   And no tolls.    

[Paul Milenkovic]

The USA consumes about 13 billion gallons of jet fuel a year for domestic flights. The common estimate that the media puts out to the public is that trains consume about a fifth the fuel of other modes per passenger (planes included), and electrified rail is more efficient than that by leaps and bounds.

Even NARP "brags" about how Amtrak is 30 percent more efficient than airlines. 

My issues with Amtrak are like those of Dr. Evil (Mike Meyers) with his son Scott (fellow SNL actor Dana Carvey) born of Frau Farbissine: "You are not sufficiently evil, you are semi-evil, you are quasi-evil, you are the 1-calorie Coke of evil . . ."  Whether Amtrak is 10 percent or 30 percent more fuel efficient than flying makes it semi-fuel efficient, quasi-fuel efficient, the corn-to-ethanol of fuel efficient.

Again, using my rough round numbers approach, if trains used a fifth of the fuel of planes, replacing most air travel with a combination of conventional and high-speed trains would save 10 billion gallons and perhaps 30 billion dollars per year at retail fuel prices.  Given the subsidy rate of Amtrak per passenger mile (about a billion in subsidy per year to carry 1 percent of the air travel market), it would perhaps take 100 billion per year to Amtrak (a multiple of the current highway budget) to do this -- like you were paying 10 dollars per gallon for fuel.   Spending that amount of money on Amtrak would allow you to build an extensive high-speed network, but it is not out of line of what is required for high-speed trains given what Japan has spent on theirs and the U.S. covering much more land area, and it is not out of line with what we spend on oil security on the War That Shall Not Be Named on This Forum.

If you could get a five-fold reduction in energy use for substituting trains for other modes, I would be telling people that until I was blue in the face.  But you don't get that kind of energy efficiency out of Amtrak, and you certainly don't get it out of baggage-crew dorm-diner-lounge-sleeper style trains that many people in the passenger-rail advocacy community think is what trains are all about.

My guess is that the Amtrak corridor consist of Genesis locomotive, 4 Horizon cars, and unpowered cab unit is probably about twice as energy efficient as flying -- somewhere in the 1500 BTU/passenger mile range compared with intercity buses that run about 1000 BTU/passenger mile -- 1500 BTU/passenger mile is comparable to two people sharing the ride in a Toyota Corolla on a highway driving at legal speeds.  That means that the LD trains must be energy hogs to get the Amtrak system average.

My guess is that Colorado Railcar DMUs could bring enough weight reduction and streamlining to the table to cut the energy use to 750 BTU/passenger mile (4 times reduction over flying) and that the late Alan Cripes lighweight streamlined automotive-Diesel powered Fasttracker DMT train could do even better.

But passenger rail energy efficiency is not even on the table; Amtrak doesn't seem to care about it and the people I have talked with in the virtual and bricks-and-morter passenger rail advocacy worlds don't want to be bothered with the issue and are content with the general ignorance of the subject that "trains are good for the environment" is a valid talking point.  Can anyone even tell me what a corridor consist and what an LD consist gets in train-miles, car-miles, or passenger-miles per gallon?  Amtrak doesn't seem to know or even care.

The point has been brought up that Amtrak doesn't have money to buy new equipment let alone run its current operation, so how does Amtrak afford Colorado Railcar DMU's or some fancy lightweight streamlined train?  First thing they could do is find out the breakdown of their energy consumption by consist and type of service, second would be to make an environmental-energy security case for improved train designs, and third, go before Congress asking for at least funds for a demonstration project of the new equipment.  An attitude from Amtrak and many of its defenders is "just give us our subsidy money and don't bother us about our assumptions about how green we are."

I had someone in the advocacy community tell me that fuel costs are such a small part of Amtrak expense that it is not worth the bother working on fuel efficiency gains.  Of course that is the case -- if your fuel use is roughly comparable to airlines but your highly-subsidized costs are some multiple of airlines, fuel expense doesn't even show up on the radar.

There is plenty of blame to place on the Amtrak critics and the John Sununu's of the world taking potshots at Amtrak, but there is enough blame to place on the advocacy community for complacent assumptions about the social benefits to Amtrak and an inflexible defense of the status quo.

[oltmannd]

Perhaps Richard Branson would like to expand his Virgin Train system. He seems to be making money with passenger rail

Well, he is, as long as Network Rail keeps the infrastructure up to scratch.

The point has been made about train service timeliness. You would still have to beat 600 mile per hour speed of an aircraft, and there isn't a train around capable of doing that

Not correct. All you have to do is beat average speed from city to city. If we ran a lot of super-express high-speed trains between major US cities, the airlines would be looking over their shoulders, and why? because the average speed of such trains is capable of being quite high, and with the top speed of such trains increasing, so would average speed.

And there is still something to being the fastest mode on land. If someone in New York knew that they could be in Chicago four hours later on the train, how would that influence his travel plans?

The only time trains are capable of "competing" with airliners is when people spend more time in the airport trying to get to their final destination than riding a train

That would be all the time, correct? People were complaining about this before 9/11 as well. And this was due to airport congestion rather than security concerns.

The USA consumes about 13 billion gallons of jet fuel a year for domestic flights. The common estimate that the media puts out to the public is that trains consume about a fifth the fuel of other modes per passenger (planes included), and electrified rail is more efficient than that by leaps and bounds. Already, the price of jet fuel is making a number of airlines ground a large number of planes, and a plane that isn't flying isn't making money. Given that consuming is 70 percent of the US market, that's a bad, bad sign.

Mourning the loss of a passenger train is about as useful as mourning the loss of riverboats on the Mississippi. There was a time when the majority of freight and passenger service was by boat. I don't see any hue or cry for a return to the riverboat, or suggestions of subsidy for the Merchant Marine of the United States... which is too bad: we used to have the best Merchant Marine in the world. Just like we had the best railroads in the world

Don't understand the point of your rant. Seems like a lot of apples/oranges comparisons that don't reach a conclusion. Seeing that passenger trains are nowhere near the limits of their technology, does it make sense to abandon said technology when its growth and efficiency potential remains high?

Our best bet is to have railroads do what they do best- move freight. I can see government subsidies for improvement to Class 1's if they can prove that the railroad removes trucks from the Interstate highway system

Who says that railroads move freight "best"? They move quite a bit of bulk very efficiently, but fast freight is all but dead, thus the ability to really compete with trucks is stymied. You don't have trucks with "cab signals" in them, nor do truckers have to observe wayside signals or "qualify" on certain highways; not to mention, they don't have to worry about a "decertification" the first time they're busted for speeding (the hogger can't evade being busted for an overspeed).

If the railroads were truly "best" at a single thing, then all railroads ought to have been grown based on that. But nowadays, railroads are continuing to shrink and are not being replaced in areas where they could be construed to have increased viability, as it were.

As for the Merchant Marine, what replaced it? Container ships from China? This is desirable, or the mark of a superpower? (not us as a superpower; and this might be a separate issue, no matter how poignant)

If fuel prices continue up, passenger service might become economically viable for some metro areas- but it will ALWAYS be mass transit, not "cruise train" accomodations. No one loves riding the Long Island Railroad, but they have to

Please, sir; you're peppering your statements with prejudicial language and fallacies. Nobody is forced to ride the LIRR; and many people actually love the experience of riding that railroad. If I were to say "No-one loves driving on the Long Island Expressway, but they have to" or "No-one loves riding the Hampton Jitney bus, but they have to", would those be true statements?

There's also your "cruise train" fallacy. No LD train I was ever on was regarded by its passengers as the equivalent of a "cruise". The only service that fits such a description is Grande Luxe (fka American Orient Express). (Should we castigate VIA Rail for their focus on what some of us are trying to stereotype as "cruise trains"? or vilify the real Orient Express too? or are we just limiting our arguments to the USA?)

What's the criteria for economic viability, though? That's a missing, and often fluid, quantifier.

Am I misinterpreting here, or does the main sticking point in the discussion seem to be the debate over whether passenger rail is a business or a public service?

It's both!

The problem with Amtrak is they are not very good at either.....

[ndbprr]

Lots of opinions and wishful thinking expressed here without looking at some real problems.  most poeple don't live in the city anymore.  To get to a train station and to and from your home is a hassle as is getting to your destination.  Look at the amount of parking at an airport and where it is located.  Ever see that near a railroad station?  Ever see a major one where the people are?  All transportation needs to be flexible.  Trains are not.  Airlines can go local, regional, national or international at the drop of a hat using publically paid for facilities.  Got a ruote not paying on an airline?  Pick another destination to utilize your equipment.  how are you going to do that with a fixed route railroad?  Want trains back?  Only way it is going to happen and the only way railroads will take them back is if it is profitable- very profitable.  Commuter service is not and never will be.  Corridor makes money.  Why?  Less hassle than flying for those using it.  Pick what works in the model and see if it can be replicated.  Europe?  Yep same population density.  Anywhere else? nope too spread out.  Where do trains survive with large distances?  Poor countries where given a choice poeple would chose something else.  Allign the stars, tax fuel, force people to get in them and they will still hate them and jump at the earliest possibility.  Sorry the train is a 19th century conveyence for the most part who's time has come and gone never to return.  Railroad lines even for frieght are continually being cut back.  You may live to see the day there are no railroads if you are young.  My granddaughter is five and saw her first real train a week a go and was terrified. Customer service that serves continues to cut into commodity goods on railroads.  Communities don't want them.  they would rather have trucks.  Containers don't care how they get to their destination.  End user wants his x box when it is advertised.  Railroads do a crappy job of everything they touch.  Who needs any of it?  state of the art in the late 1800's.  I'm not so sure any more. And I don't think they will be the ultimate answer.  i don't know  what will but it won't be trains for anything freight or passenger.  maybe we will just beam stiff where it needs to go like Star Trek but railroads decline every year for a reason.  Putting band aids on what ails the industry only hastens its demise.  Rail passenger service does that in spades.

[Ulrich]

I would agree with you on the lack of flexibility...but on the other stuff the rails have come around on all fronts including service. Alot of my freight (I own a freight brokerage and trucking biz) that used to go by truck now goes rail.. More of my customers are asking me to look at rail options where five years ago rail wasn't even on the radar for most of these shippers.

But I agree with you on the passenger business in that we will never see passengers return to the rails in droves unless all other options are taken away. Passenger trains as transportation won't come back BUT passenger trains that offer tours in much the same way that the cruise ship lines do have much greater potential. The shipping industry stopped selling ships as passenger transportation a long time ago...they now sell vacation, adventure, and relaxation instead. Maybe the railroads could do as well by rethinking their own marketing efforts.  

[ndbprr]

yes but bad analogy in many respects.  Cruise ships offer ports of call that are flexible, scantily clad young women, gourmet buffets, etc.  Trains go on a fixed route without showers, clear water to look at and no duty free shopping.  It is an entirely different animal.

[Ulrich]

But the broad idea...vacation and adventure as opposed to transportation may work... It's already working quite well on a limited scale with trains like the Rocky Mountaineer...a concept that can be expanded. It would not of course be a cruise ship on wheels. Trains can offer showers...gourmet meals...and even scantily clad women..why not? 

 This type of a service could be sold to the same crowd who now buy RVs... instead of driving all over the place you can book yourself a roomette for a week on a tour train.  

Apart from the above tour angle...I've always preferred train travel...it's a much nicer and more memorable experience. I wonder how many people fondly recollect a 2000 mile bus ride? The train is more than point A to B transport...it's a great experience...and a life well lived is full of such.

[Dakguy201]

  Cruise ships offer ... scantily clad young women...

Now I have an idea to attract people to the rails.  If Hooters can have an airline, why not a railroad?

 

[passengerfan]

The SCL operated an all Pullman Train from New York to Florida and in winter months They had models wearing the latest in bathing suits in the dining car south of Washington DC. I can't think of the train name for the life of me this AM but it was originally operated by the ACL.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The SCL operated an all Pullman Train from New York to Florida and in winter months They had models wearing the latest in bathing suits in the dining car south of Washington DC. I can't think of the train name for the life of me this AM but it was originally operated by the ACL.

The train was the "Florida Special".  While it was a winter-season train, it was not an all sleeping car train.  It also lasted a few years into the Amtrak era.

[Grand Ave]

in comparing jet blue to amtrak in the boston-new york corrider.did you by any chance take the time to consider this.First yu have to get to both airorts.While Boston's Logan isnt that far from downtown,the airports in New York are over 1 hr away at the closet.Then you have to gho thru security to even get on the plane,then if your lucky there wont be any further delays.Amtrak takes you from the heart of New York To downtown Boston wuith no security check or other delays.Sorry I diasgree with you but here in the Midwest we have the same problemn,in that from fares are much diffeerence,but with the travel time to and from bth airports,security,delays etc not much advantage airlines over amrak.Sorry to be so blunt but it appears that you favor flying over rail of which you have good norheast service on.

Grand Ave,Mo.

[ndbprr]

Did you ever consider not using either one?  Schlep into a city or schlep through airline security.  It doesn't matter.  Short haul go by car avoid both hassles and have peace and quiet when and where you want to go faster than either choice up to about a five hour drive.

[tomikawaTT]

But the broad idea...vacation and adventure as opposed to transportation may work... 

 This type of a service could be sold to the same crowd who now buy RVs... instead of driving all over the place you can book yourself a roomette for a week on a tour train.  

Apart from the above tour angle...I've always preferred train travel...

The main problem with this idea is that the price of a roomette for a week would probably be a fair chunk of the price of a small, used RV!

Don't get me wrong.  I, too, love to travel by train - and not just to get from Alpha to Omega.  The economics aside, Americans (including Yours Truly) are hooked on the idea of having their personal wheels available, along with the ability to make unplanned changes to the trip itinerary in response to immediate stimuli ("Hey, that joint is advertising a wet T-shirt contest...")

Now if someone would figure out how to run a double-stack for occupied vehicles...

Chuck

[JT22CW]

The economics aside, Americans (including Yours Truly) are hooked on the idea of having their personal wheels available

So are the residents of countries that actually have high-speed intercity rail.  However, the competitive alternative is made available so that they can rest easy in the knowledge that they'll be saving quite a bit of money not only on fuel, but also regular scheduled service (LOF, tires, wipers, tuneups, coolant exchange ad nauseam), expensive long-term service related to wear and tear (cylinder head gaskets, shocks, struts, fuel pumps, rust, O-rings, valve jobs, yada yada), so that their personal "wheels" will thus last them for far longer than they would if they had to be effectively forced to rely on them for every transportation need. 

Not to mention, coming from a veteran road-rager and extreme commuter (used to have to drive 100 miles each way to work, for a while), the stress level would go way, way down, and if necessary, you're ahead of the rest of the other "snowbirds" that use rail when the other modes aren't operating.

It's good to have a choice, isn't it?  One choice is missing in this country, for the most part.

All transportation needs to be flexible. Trains are not

That's a blanket statement, and it's full of holes, with all due respect.  Please tell us which of the road or air modes that are not specifically for private transportation do not run on a schedule? (or a fixed route, for that matter.)  Can planes land anywhere their pilots wish?  Can buses and taxicabs go where there are no roads?

Fact is, where there is sufficient rail capacity, even a scheduled service offers advantages and flexiblities that road and air travel cannot.  And the bare fact of having the available choice is advantage enough—unless our goal must be to pigeonhole ourselves insofar as available transportation modes?

[ndbprr]

By flexible I mean where it can run.  A railroad would be hard pressed to service a customer two blocks away through a residential area for example.  A truck can easily.  A mainline services communities on it and no others.  A truck can deviate from its route to pick up a new customer.  An airline can go around a storm.  A railroad must slog through it.  There is no flexability in route or towns or businesses serviced unless of course you want to buy some real estate from the railroad.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

By flexible I mean where it can run.  A railroad would be hard pressed to service a customer two blocks away through a residential area for example.  A truck can easily.  A mainline services communities on it and no others.  A truck can deviate from its route to pick up a new customer.  An airline can go around a storm.  A railroad must slog through it.  There is no flexability in route or towns or businesses serviced unless of course you want to buy some real estate from the railroad.

Airlines don't do a very good job of getting around storms, consider the number of delays and cancellations whenever thunderstorms or heavy snows hit a major hub airport.

[Modelcar]

...Standing on the sidelines and watching freight cars go by I'm wondering how all that bulk product {along with misc. other freight}, will be moved throughout the country as you say {ndbprr}, it won't be moved by rail in the future....How will a 150 car train of coal {for example}, move several hunderd miles....?  And grain and lots of other products too.

[ndbprr]

Well being futuristic while considering other methods currently being used.  There are none of those items that can not be moved by barge on pipeline.  Radical - yes.  Practical - in some cases.  Railroads don;t have a lock on anything and the public is fickle.  Here in New Lenox Illinois we have a two track ex Rock Island mainline that Metra and Iowa Interstate run trains on frequently.  Two miles away the town is having a cow over the CN purchase of the EJ&E and increase in trains from 8 to 28 per day.  So on one side of town you have a railroad that currently holds up traffic on all north south streets next to route 30 but two miles south it would be a major inconvenience and safety issue to block the very same streets.  Go figure.  Unless the rail industry starts thinking like a 21st century industry it is doomed eventually.  Suburban sprawl will not permit railroads to access the new industry and business if it forms outside their corridors.  They better start thinking about futuristic scnarios instead of thats the way we do it so take it or leave it because eventually it will be left for something better as has a good portion of their business from the past.  there will always be a small portion of the business that rail is the superior mode of transportation.  I thought the idea was rail should be the superior mode of transportation for all goods.

[tomikawaTT]

Well being futuristic while considering other methods currently being used.  There are none of those items that can not be moved by barge on pipeline.  Radical - yes.  Practical - in some cases.  Railroads don;t have a lock on anything and the public is fickle.  Here in New Lenox Illinois we have a two track ex Rock Island mainline that Metra and Iowa Interstate run trains on frequently.  Two miles away the town is having a cow over the CN purchase of the EJ&E and increase in trains from 8 to 28 per day.  So on one side of town you have a railroad that currently holds up traffic on all north south streets next to route 30 but two miles south it would be a major inconvenience and safety issue to block the very same streets.  Go figure.  Unless the rail industry starts thinking like a 21st century industry it is doomed eventually.  Suburban sprawl will not permit railroads to access the new industry and business if it forms outside their corridors.  They better start thinking about futuristic scnarios instead of thats the way we do it so take it or leave it because eventually it will be left for something better as has a good portion of their business from the past.  there will always be a small portion of the business that rail is the superior mode of transportation.  I thought the idea was rail should be the superior mode of transportation for all goods.

If you can figure out how to move cargo across the Mojave Desert by barge, please advise!  Barges work where the rivers and canals already exist, but don't help much in places where getting enough water to drink is a major issue.

The whole country is NOT identical to the Upper Midwest (except in the prevalence of NIMBYs screaming about any change to their status quo.)  Unless someone can come up with a better answer than trucks, the railroad will reign supreme as long as massive amounts of heavy commodities have to be moved over considerable distances.

Rail is not the superior transportation mode for all goods, but there is a tradeoff.  If you have to deliver to a point without rail service (even if there is a triple-track main line right across the street, no siding equals no rail service) you will use a truck, at least for the final leg.  OTOH, unless you are handling medical casualties or organs for transplant a helicopter doesn't make much sense for routine haulage.  It makes a LOT of sense when you are taking things into or out of wilderness places where the terrain stands on edge.  The difference is, a century ago the truck was a horse-drawn wagon and the helicopter was a not-very-accurate sketch by DaVinci.  Now, which mode is used is driven by total transportation cost - one type does NOT fit all.

Getting back to passengers, which is where this all started, they are a classic case of trying to cram the genie back into the bottle.  People as cargo were never a paying proposition for railroads - it was the cargo they accompanied that paid the freight (pun intended.)  OTOH, railroads were never really convenient for people.  As soon as the Model T gave people the option of choosing their own departure time and route, they took it in droves.  As vehicles and roads improved, the railroad-side suffering spread from locals to mid-distance trains to the great limited expresses of the post-WWII era.  Unless it becomes impossible to travel cross-country by private vehicle, there will never be a significant resurgence of rail passenger traffic outside of the few corridors where high speed rail competes with air travel and parking costs are astronomical.

Chuck

[ndbprr]

At least the midwest is not dumb enough to run a viaduct from the Colroado river to LA through a desert and not cover it. The water loss must be astronomical. Granted that is not the location for barge traffic but a pipeline would work for most commdities including coal. I do think there is potential for rail travel. It somehow needs to be tied to light rail to service the sprawl. obviously no one has figured out how yet. I do envision the possibillity of a private car that is more like a motel room on wheels being available for suburbanites to board near their house. Travel over light rail until it is tied to a series of cars going to another city and finally near the destination through light rail. Stocked with sufficinet food and a microwave it should be feasible. Practical - it could be much more so then traveling into a city station or airport and above all enjoyable. Cost is an entirely different matter.

[cordon]

What a thread!  I read the whole thing, anticipating a discussion of moving rail passenger service back to the railroads.  Instead, we covered the cost-benefits of rail passenger service, and I think everyone has done a very good job of that.

I would like to add to the cost-benefit discussion my observations from growing up in the 1950s.  The commuter trains to my town, and the one long distance train I rode, were almost always full in the early 50s.  But the automobile/steel/oil businesses were booming.  Everyone wanted their own car, so they could go where they wanted, when they wanted.  The people abandoned the trains, not the other way round.

The railroads cancelled the trains, but they lost lots more money waiting for the Interstate Commerce Commission to give them permission to cancel the trains. 

Even with the passenger levels of the late 1940s and early 1950s we read and heard that the Long Island Railroad was the only one in North America that made a profit on passengers.  I think that answers the question of whether passenger rail is a business or a public service, which appeared a few posts back.  I think that it is a public service and that we should treat it that way.

Most of the airlines aren't making money, either.  In fact, the newspapers say that the airlines are losing several billion dollars a year, despite the fact that cities pay for most of the airport facilities and that the federal government pays for air traffic control, security, safety regulation, and many other things.  Plus, if the U.S Government had not been paying for the continuous development of large jet bombers since before World War II, our aircraft companies never would have been able to produce the civilian airliners that we have today.  That is a different kind of subsidy, but a subsidy nevertheless.

So, passenger travel is a money-losing business, whether air or rail, with a couple of exceptions.  Getting back to the thread's question, I think the answer is obvious - the big class 1s can very easily take over passenger rail service.  They can lose money just like AMTRAK does.  Someone will still have to make up the difference, though.  If we don't give the RRs a direct payment for their losses, then we will see rail freight rates go up to cover them.  And the government will most likely find a way to increase over-the-road (truck) freight rates to keep the competition on a level playing field.

Here's why might we want to do that.  As previous posts have pointed out, the RRs act like AMTRAK is a burden and an interference to their business, and they make every excuse to make life difficult and expensive for AMTRAK.  Whatever the inherent problems of passenger rail are, the class 1s make them a lot worse under the current arrangement.  On the other hand, AMTRAK is all too quick to blame the RRs for everything they can.  This kind of arrangement, where AMTRAK runs trains over RRs that it doesn't own, is a direct cause of unnecessary overhead and other inefficiencies.  The general feeling that AMTRAK life is better in the Northeast Corridor, where they own the track and facilities, lends support to this idea. 

Even so, our government leaders have been talking about separating AMTRAK from the rails and right of way in the Northeast Corridor.  That will only drive costs up, not down, due to administrative, legal, and contractual costs that don't exist now, not to mention the inefficiencies resulting from the finger-pointing attitudes I mentioned above.  I believe we should move in the opposite direction.

Therefore, consider the case where the class 1 RRs operate passenger rail as a public service.  The government continues to pay the difference between revenue and costs and provides monetary incentives for good service.  I believe the RRs would then find it really easy to interleave the different types of trains without any burden or interference.  They already do that with high-speed freight trains and lesser priority freight trains.  The unproductive administrative, overhead, legal, and contract costs would go away.  Passenger rail service would improve and the costs of subsidy would decrease.

 

 

[chefjavier]

What Amtrak needs is Managers/Staff from the hotel business to help run their trains in the hospitality aspect. If you take care of the customer and give them explicit service. The customer would come back and pass the information to another 50 people. This was study from done by the University of Cornell Journal of Hospitality School.

>Train the staff in the basic service fundamentals;

 

[Railway Man]

At least the midwest is not dumb enough to run a viaduct from the Colroado river to LA through a desert and not cover it. The water loss must be astronomical.

Typical water losses in a canal due to evaporation are 0.25-1 percent of the flow.  Seepage losses are typically much greater than evaporation losses for unlined canals and especially canals overlaying high water table (e.g., most of the Midwest), but most of the canals in the desert southwest such as the All American and the Coachella are lined. 

 

Granted that is not the location for barge traffic but a pipeline would work for most commdities including coal.

Slurry pipelines require large amounts of water which is often not available, have high operating costs, high capital costs, high dewatering costs, and expensive environmental impacts.  As a result slurry pipelines are relatively uncommon; some of the few in the U.S. include two phosphate ore pipelines, one from Vernal, Utah, to Rock Springs, Wyo., and another from Soda Springs to Pocatello, Idaho.  The 275-mile coal slurry pipeline from Black Mesa, Arizona, to Mohave, Nevada, closed in 2005 and is unlikely to reopen.

Slurry pipelines are not viable for grain or for mineral commodities that do not move in extremely large volumes over fixed origin-destination pairs for long periods of time.  Liquid pipelines are not viable for most chemicals (quantities too small, too hazardous, too caustic).

RWM