AMTRAK and Airline Passengers

[cordon]

In all the recent fuss about cancelled airline flights the news media, specifically, the Dallas Morning News, for one, have not mentioned AMTRAK as an alternative.  For example, the Texas Eagle is an excellent work-around for someone headed for Little Rock, St. Louis, or Chicago.  It gets one there the next day instead of spending the night in a motel and taking chances that the airline might have a flight available anytime soon.

Is passenger rail really so invisible or disliked that it doesn't even get a passing word?

 

 

[Dakguy201]

I did see a stand up piece from O'Hare on TV sometime Thursday in which a reporter mentioned train (not specifically Amtrak) as an alternative.  The sad thing is that Amtrak does not have the spare capacity in equipment to respond to the kind of demand this situation is likely to generate.

It is too bad they don't, with all the misery airlines put their customers through, this might have been an opportunithy to win some repeat business. 

[DMUinCT]

  Boston, New York, Washington, no problem!  Forget about Air.

  Sit down and streach out in a train less than 10 years old.  Clean Trains, Elite Crews.  A train every hour!  When you add Airport Time, the train is faster and runs in all weather.

It's called ACELA by Amtrak.

[Paul Milenkovic]

The 40 year old NARP party line on passenger trains as part of a balanced transportation system aside, what about Amtrak as an alternative?

I see three fallacies with this line of reasoning.  The current airline situation is the result of FAA inspections turning up mechanical problems (possible faults in wires or wire connectors) in certain type of airplanes.  What about the Talgos being taken out of service?  What about the low availability of the TurboTrains and Metroliners back in the day?  I am not being snarky here with "You think the airlines have problems, what about Amtrak?"  My point is that all common carrier modes are regulated by safety authorities, and all common carrier modes are at risk that big chunks of transportation capacity be taken off line on account of a safety concern.  I don't see trains as having any special immunity.

The second fallacy is that Amtrak or trains in general provide an alternative to the poor grade of service provided by the airlines.  Without going into the accounts of Amtrak horror stories matching airline horror stories, again, customer service is one of the consideration with any common carrier mode of transportation.  Again, I don't see anything inherent in Amtrak or in trains that they would provide better customer service; given that Amtrak receives direct government subsidies, there is some reason to believe that the culture and incentive systems for Amtrak may result in a somewhat lower standard of customer service than the airlines.

The final fallacy is one that Amtrak is the alternative or backstop to a major disruption of airline operations.  You were not my first choice to ask to the prom, but Amy Cheerleader, who is much more sought after by all the guys than you, didn't even return my phone call, and I really think you should drop whatever you are doing, spend a ton of money on a dress you will wear once, and go out with me.

If Amtrak was that capable and that available, why was Amtrak not a first choice in place of a ride on an American Airlines MD-80?  OK, it is underfunded because we placed all of our eggs in the airline basket.  OK, supposing it wasn't underfunded, would it be somehow differently placed than the airline industry that it would be immune from safety concerns of aging equipment and from the indignity of employees who were not maximally sensitive to the concerns of stranded travelers?

Another telling argument the mention of "spare capacity in equipment to respond to the kind of demand this situation is likely to generate."  What is is about railroad rolling stock that people believe that it makes economic sense to have large quantities of it parked in a coach yard to meet the demand of such surges?  As far as I can tell, railroad rolling stock is more expensive to own and maintain than airliners (we had a thread about the staffing of Amtrak maintenance relative to a freight railroad and relative to airline maintenance needs) -- this is largely the case because of the vastly higher utilization of airline equipment owing to the higher speed of airplanes, and this was discussed in Trains Magazine already back in the early 1960s.

In the matter of comparing trains with airplanes, airplanes are cheaper to operate than passenger trains, cheaper in crew costs, cheaper in ownership and maintenance of the "rolling stock."  The only cost where trains have an edge is in fuel, but even with the high cost of oil, it is only a slight advantage because current trains are far from optimized with regard to fuel economy, and the fuel cost advantage is counterbalanced by those other factors.

[Anonymous]

I was on the road this past week, having flown from San Antonio to Norfolk, Virginia via Atlanta. While I was on a Delta flight and not affected, a co-worker with an American Airlines itinerary was not as fortunate. They did end up being booked on a Continental flight from Norfolk to Houston, but they had to drive the rest of the way to San Antonio (approximately 200 miles).

Meanwhile another Airline (Frontier) declared bankruptcy this past week, but will remain flying according to the news.

I hope Amtrak was able to pick up up some passengers in areas where they have good frequency of service.

 

[cordon]

I did not mean to suggest that we view AMTRAK as a backup to airlines or that we fund it to fill that role by buying a lot of extra equipment.  I merely noted that the local media had a lot of focus on Dallas - Fort Worth Airport and discussed 1000's of people stranded and inconvenienced without once mentioning passenger rail.

I am sure from my experiences on the Texas Eagle that there were some vacancies this past week that AMTRAK would gladly have filled.  My point is that my curiosity is unsatisfied because my local news media didn't say anything.  And I'm wondering why they did that when AMTRAK is pretty much right under their nose in Dallas.

I will send the Dallas Morning News a short e-mail asking them. 

Several years ago a fierce rain/snow storm closed almost all airports in southern New England and the New York area while I was on business in New London, CT.  I changed from plane (Providence, RI, to Washington, DC) to train and had to stand in the end vestibule all the way to New York because a lot of other people did the same thing.  Although tunnels in New York had been flooded, they were clear by the time my train arrived.  Once I got a seat, the remainder of the trip was great. 

Speaking of fuel consumption, have any of you noticed that airliners lately fly at about 400 MPH instead of 500 plus?  That's what my GPS is telling me.  I suspect that they very carefully take into account load and weather, etc., to optimize the flight profile for fuel use.  I think in the "old days" they went for shortest flight times.

Do RRs do anything to minimize fuel consumption?

 

 

[tomikawaTT]

Just for once, the media might have gotten it right.

With the number of flights cancelled and the number of people wanting transportation, filling every seat on every Amtrak train would have barely shortened the line of people waiting to use restrooms in air termini.  That assumes that there is Amtrak service to start with.

In the case of my home town, site of one of the busiest airports in the country, Amtrak is something that happens a long way away in an inconvenient direction.  The only alternative to flying is a road trip through some of the most desolate countryside this side of Mars - assuming that the stranded traveler can get a motor vehicle to use outside of the County limits set by most rental agencies.

If the media had even breathed, "Amtrak," thousands of strandees would have besieged the local ticket offices - only to discover that the ocean liner they needed was actually a bass boat in relative passenger capacity.

Chuck

[DMUinCT]

  Trains in the Northeast Corridor are now "All Reserved", Regional trains can have "standies" at certian times, like snow storms.

  The Acela is Business Class (2 & 2 across seating) or First Class (1 & 2 across seating) only, and "standies" are never allowed.  All persons on-board are listed, ticked or not. Big windows, reclining seats, fold down large tables, 115 volt electrical outlets by the seats, Beer On Tap in the Grill car, they beat the Airlines in there 500 mile run.

[oltmannd]

Outside of the NEC and it's branches, Chicago, California and perhaps a few other places, Amtrak is almost completely invisible.  I doubt 1 in 10 Altantans even know that their city is served by Amtrak and only 1 in 10 of those have any idea where the train comes from or goes to.

[edbenton]

At least Amtrak has one advantage if the Engines fail you are not meeting the ground at TERMINAL VELOCITY aka a CRASH were they sort out the pieces of the plane from the passengers with a microscope. 

[Amtrak77]

  Boston, New York, Washington, no problem!  Forget about Air.

  Sit down and streach out in a train less than 10 years old.  Clean Trains, Elite Crews.  A train every hour!  When you add Airport Time, the train is faster and runs in all weather.

It's called ACELA by Amtrak.

*** GOOD POINT

If I was in the airport and my fly got cancelled, this would be the next thing on my mind or better yet! if I was working with the airlines and I got a bunch of mad, yelling, cussing people.  I would write a big sign and hold it up and the beginning of my line that reads:

"AMTRAK OR GREYHOUND!" take your pick and keep moving! cause your complaints will do nothing but aggrevate others

[cordon]

Outside of the NEC and it's branches, Chicago, California and perhaps a few other places, Amtrak is almost completely invisible.  I doubt 1 in 10 Altantans even know that their city is served by Amtrak and only 1 in 10 of those have any idea where the train comes from or goes to.

All the more reason I would expect the media to offer the information as part of their service to the public.

I sent my e-mail to the Dallas Morning News.  We'll see how they respond.

There was a letter in today's paper suggesting the U.S. of A. should have a modern passenger rail system like those of other modern nations.  Please see "We need to Get On Board."

 

[Mailman56701]

Outside of the NEC and it's branches, Chicago, California and perhaps a few other places, Amtrak is almost completely invisible.  I doubt 1 in 10 Altantans even know that their city is served by Amtrak and only 1 in 10 of those have any idea where the train comes from or goes to.

All the more reason I would expect the media to offer the information as part of their service to the public.

I sent my e-mail to the Dallas Morning News.  We'll see how they respond.

There was a letter in today's paper suggesting the U.S. of A. should have a modern passenger rail system like those of other modern nations.  Please see "We need to Get On Board."

 

  It'll be interesting in the next decade or so to see how many of the "other modern nations" are able to keep funding those trains.

  How to fund their social services in the near future is already a major concern.  Something may have to give (besides their immigration policies; that card has already been played).

[oltmannd]

Outside of the NEC and it's branches, Chicago, California and perhaps a few other places, Amtrak is almost completely invisible.  I doubt 1 in 10 Altantans even know that their city is served by Amtrak and only 1 in 10 of those have any idea where the train comes from or goes to.

All the more reason I would expect the media to offer the information as part of their service to the public.

Is the media under any obligation to be a service to the public?  Are they even under any obligation to be "fair" about their reporting? 

I think neither.  They are about making money and historically have been about taking sides on issues.  In the first 100 years or more, the media was all about taking sides politically.  Nobody even expected "fair and balanced" reporting -- or even truthful reporting!

Occasionally, when Amtrak's budget battles become national news, the local paper will do a pro-passenger rail op-ed piece, but other than that, Amtrak is below the radar most of the time, even for the media.

[cordon]

"Is the media under any obligation to be a service to the public?"

I don't think newspapers are under any obligation.  The Federal Communications Commission used to require radio and TV stations to provide a certain degree of public service, but I don't know if that is still true.

Here is a simple example of what I'm thinking.  When the paper reports on a street or intersection that rain has flooded out, it normally includes suggested routings to avoid the inconvenience.  At my age, I've grown accustomed to that kind of service, so I was surprised that my newspaper didn't do it (they didn't mention buses, either).

I agree with you about AMTRAK being below the radar most of the time, and I think that's kind of sad. 

 

 

[gregrudd]

I agree with you about AMTRAK being below the radar most of the time, and I think that's kind of sad. 

 

 

Thats probably due to how much advertising Amtrak does with the media outlets concered.

[Phoebe Vet]

Outside of the NEC and it's branches, Chicago, California and perhaps a few other places, Amtrak is almost completely invisible.  I doubt 1 in 10 Altantans even know that their city is served by Amtrak and only 1 in 10 of those have any idea where the train comes from or goes to.

And that, sir, is the problem.  Advertising is the engine that drives business, and Amtrak does practically none.

I rode the Amtrak Crescent twice last weekend.  It was exactly on time, and full to capacity.

[oltmannd]

Outside of the NEC and it's branches, Chicago, California and perhaps a few other places, Amtrak is almost completely invisible.  I doubt 1 in 10 Altantans even know that their city is served by Amtrak and only 1 in 10 of those have any idea where the train comes from or goes to.

And that, sir, is the problem.  Advertising is the engine that drives business, and Amtrak does practically none.

I rode the Amtrak Crescent twice last weekend.  It was exactly on time, and full to capacity.

You can thank Wick Moorman and NS for that.   Did you know that part of the employee bonus this year is based on train performance and all the NS operated Amtrak trains are included in the calculation AND the Crescent, Lake Shore and Capitol are monintored and reviewed in detail every week?

You might be able to say that the UP and CSX don't care about the Amtrak trains, but you can't say it about NS.

[alphas]

Cordon,

So one person wrote a letter to the editor saying the USA should have a passenger rail system like Japan or Europe.   Big deal.  I bet the letter writter didn't mention the cost of what it would take to do it throughout the country--or the annual subsidized deficits.   US passenger train travel works in a very few places such as the NE corridor with its dense population (although last I heard most travelers going the full distance from Boston to Baltimore/DC area still prefered to fly).   Otherwise, the market isn't there.

As for comparing USA travel to those countries, there's one big difference everyone overlooks-the size of those countries in comparison to the USA.   Heavily subsidized passenger rail makes sense in Belgium or the Netherlands.    It doesn't in a large country with tremendous rural areas such as the USA. 

Question for someone who's more familiar with government owned railroads abroad:  Am I correct in assuming that they, unlike the privately owned USA freight railroads, do not have to pay property taxes to the local governments?    

[Phoebe Vet]

Cordon,

So one person wrote a letter to the editor saying the USA should have a passenger rail system like Japan or Europe.   Big deal.  I bet the letter writter didn't mention the cost of what it would take to do it throughout the country--or the annual subsidized deficits.   US passenger train travel works in a very few places such as the NE corridor with its dense population (although last I heard most travelers going the full distance from Boston to Baltimore/DC area still prefered to fly).   Otherwise, the market isn't there.

As for comparing USA travel to those countries, there's one big difference everyone overlooks-the size of those countries in comparison to the USA.   Heavily subsidized passenger rail makes sense in Belgium or the Netherlands.    It doesn't in a large country with tremendous rural areas such as the USA. 

Question for someone who's more familiar with government owned railroads abroad:  Am I correct in assuming that they, unlike the privately owned USA freight railroads, do not have to pay property taxes to the local governments?    

If you quote Boston to DC, you are right, but if you check NYC to DC, More people travel by rail than by air.  If you check NYC to Philadelphia, almost 70% travel by rail.

The faster the trains go, the more people use them.  Somewhere around 4 hour trips is when the airlines start to pull ahead.

Spend a couple of hours in the station in Baltimore and observe the number of people who get on and off each train.  The market is there, it is just being inadequately served.

[alphas]

Phobe Vet,

Yes, more people travel by rail on the NYC to DC runs (and I assume NYC to Boston although that one I'm not sure of).  That is a perfect example of where the non-private auto travelers' market definitely favors rail.  Chicago to Milwaukee is another one that makes great sense.   But the problem is there aren't that many rail-favorable markets outside the NEC.   And the NEC is blessed with not having to worry about 60 or more freights per day trying to use the same tracks (I know, it hosts a few freights-but not a great number).  

There definitely is a place for inter-city passenger rail in the USA but its not the current Amtrak.   Existing Federal government-run passenger rail will never grow dramatically since DC politics will dictate that you have to spend money to satisfy too many politicians' home districts rather than focus your finances and efforts on travelers' markets with good potential.    

 

[JT22CW]

the problem is there aren't that many rail-favorable markets outside the NEC

Utterly false. There are numerous "rail-favorable" markets outside that particular 450-mile corridor between Boston MA and Washington DC with NYC in the middle. And average population density more than justifies them, for those that like to play population-density games.

It's all a matter of average speed, not population density. That's the only thing that makes the Northeast Corridor work. Drop average speed down to 40 mph, and you won't see as many people on the trains between New York and Washington DC, because your train is going to get from one station to the other in 5 hours 38 minutes.

(Want to talk population density? New Jersey has an average population density of 1,134 people per square mile, yet its passenger rail network is concentrated in the northern half of the state, is severely truncated from what it was in the past, and is capable of serving only 5 percent of the population.)

Existing Federal government-run passenger rail will never grow dramatically since DC politics will dictate that you have to spend money to satisfy too many politicians' home districts rather than focus your finances and efforts on travelers' markets with good potential

If that were 100 percent true, then the NEC would suffer from that as well.

Back on topic: This airline problem is not going to go away very quickly. We got a taste of it back during 9/11. A shift of spending away from airports and highways (which were supposed to be self-sufficient eventually, remember?) and towards intercity rail would not hurt in the slightest, compared to maintaining the status quo.

[oltmannd]

the problem is there aren't that many rail-favorable markets outside the NEC

Utterly false. There are numerous "rail-favorable" markets outside that particular 450-mile corridor between Boston MA and Washington DC with NYC in the middle. And average population density more than justifies them, for those that like to play population-density games.

It's all a matter of average speed, not population density. That's the only thing that makes the Northeast Corridor work. Drop average speed down to 40 mph, and you won't see as many people on the trains between New York and Washington DC, because your train is going to get from one station to the other in 5 hours 38 minutes.

(Want to talk population density? New Jersey has an average population density of 1,134 people per square mile, yet its passenger rail network is concentrated in the northern half of the state, is severely truncated from what it was in the past, and is capable of serving only 5 percent of the population.)

Existing Federal government-run passenger rail will never grow dramatically since DC politics will dictate that you have to spend money to satisfy too many politicians' home districts rather than focus your finances and efforts on travelers' markets with good potential

If that were 100 percent true, then the NEC would suffer from that as well.

Back on topic: This airline problem is not going to go away very quickly. We got a taste of it back during 9/11. A shift of spending away from airports and highways (which were supposed to be self-sufficient eventually, remember?) and towards intercity rail would not hurt in the slightest, compared to maintaining the status quo.

80% of NJ lives in the northern 1/2 of the state so why shouldn't the rail service be concentrated there.  Are you saying that NJT & Amtrak have routes that only serve 5% of NJ poplulation?  Where was it "severly truncated".  That's news to me! And, I lived in NJ from 1965 to 1998!

[Anonymous]

The average load factor for the Crescent in 2007 was 47.4 per cent of seat miles offered, which was near the Amtrak system average.  In 2007 the Crescent's on time arrival percentage at its end points was 42.9, as compared to 41.6 per cent for the long distance trains.  Unless there has been a dramatic improvement in load factor and on-time performance since October, you had an unusual experience on the Crescent. 

There are three potential rapid speed rail corridors in Texas:  Dallas to Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth to San Antonio, and Houston to San Antonio.  Between Dallas and Houston there are two communities that could generate significant riders.  There are no major communities between Houston and San Antonio.  There are three good size communities between Dallas/Fort Worth and San Antonio.

The car and airplane culture is as strong in Texas as any place in the United States.  Getting people out of their cars or off the airplanes would require trains that reliable, quick, and frequent.  This is especially true if they are to garner a significant share of the business trade, which is where the per passenger money is in the NEC.

Business people in any of the aforementioned communities are used to getting on a plane in the morning, arriving in their destination an hour or so later in time for a full day of business, and arriving back home in time for dinner.  Until a train can duplicate this kind of performance, it does not have chance of even covering its variable costs, let alone the capital costs. 

Here is an example of what a rapid rail corridor between Dallas and Houston would be up against.  Southwest Airlines has approximately 60 flights a day between Dallas and Houston.  Fares range from $59 to $134.  The gate to gate time is one hour.  It has 30 flights a day between Dallas and San Antonio, as well as frequent service between Dallas and Austin, Houston and Austin, and San Antonio and Houston.  This is just Southwest.  American and Continental are also major carriers between the big Texas markets.

As more people move downtown, as is happening to some extent in Texas' major cities, there could be a market for rapid intercity rail.  Unfortunately, most business people or other potential passengers in Texas live in the suburbs.  Those who travel frequently tend to favor communities within a reasonable distance of the state's airports.  So any enhanced rail system would have to construct numerous suburban rail stations to capture some of the suburban traffic.  Also, it would be competing with close-in airports in Dallas, Austin, and Houston. 

A train would not have to duplicate air travel time between the cities mentioned above.  But it would have to be quick enough to allow a person to catch a train at 7:30 a.m., as an example, that gets him to his destination by 10:30 a.m.   This would give him time to conduct four or five hours of business before catching a train to get back home before the wee hours.  Otherwise, it will not work. 

In 1950 the Burlington's Sam Houston Zephyr ran from Dallas to Houston in four hours for an average speed of 62.5 miles per hour.  The Southern Pacific's Sunshine ran off the distance in four hours and 25 minutes.  To cover the distance in three hours would require an average speed of approximately 84 mph.  I don't know how much money would be required to upgrade the existing line for that kind of speed, but I suspect that it would be substantial.     

Starter corridor systems have been proposed for Houston to Galveston and Austin to San Antonio.  They could be starter segments for a system that eventually links the cities in the Texas Triangle.  However, the state legislators have balked at funding them.  In fact, the legislators will not authorize the Council of North Texas Government cities to have a vote to raise their sales tax to get the funds to join in the expansion of commuter and light rail in North Texas.  It is the most densely populated area of the state.

A passenger rail system that connects Texas's major cities will not happen until highway and air congestion become much worse.  There are practically no air traffic delays due to congestion between Texas's major cities.  The delays are usually caused by weather.  The highways near the major cities are clogged during the rush hours, but the delays are less than most motorists believe, and traffic flows reasonably well during non-rush hours.  Motorists who know how to beat the system can work around many of the major traffic tie-ups.    

[alphas]

Oltmann,

You beat me to the punch.    I'd also like to know where all these "numerous intercity rail markets" are that JT22CW mentions.   When I mention "limited" intercity rail markets I'm being realistic because I'm only including those that wouldn't require huge amounts of capital to get them going, as opposed to those that do have the population but don't have anywhere near the needed intrastructure for frequent, and decent speed, service.  (And of course population density matters!  If you don't have enough people, you don't have a market.)   As for his "severly truncated" remark, since he includes South Jersey I'm assuming he's harkening back to the days when many, many people rode the rails to get to most of the seashore towns--now long gone and they aren't coming back, especially with the rails no longer existing for most of the routes.    

[passengerfan]

Lets take a look at routes that should be speeded up and have the passengers to support them.

Seattle - Portland

Seattle - Vancouver

Los Angeles - San Francisco

San Jose - Sacramento

Sacramento - Bakersfield

Oakland - Bakersfield

Santa Barbara - San Diego

Salt Lake - Denver

Los Angeles - Las Vegas?

Kansas City - Chicago

Dallas - Houston

Houston - San Antonio

San Antonio - Austin - Dallas

New Orleans - Birmingham - Atlanta

Jacksonville - Miami

Chicago - St. Louis

Chicago - Minneapolis

Chicago - Memphis

Chicago - Detroit

Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville

Cleveland - Dayton - Cincinnati

Pittsburgh - Philadelphia - New York

Cleveland - Detroit

Buffalo - New York

Just one man's opinion but I don't see much hope for any other corridors in the US The cost of upgrading any of these lines to Acela type service would be prohibitive but upgrading to 79 mph overall average is not out of the question. One train or two over these routes is not worth the trouble either. In the case of many of these routes six or seven trains per day would offer a serious alternative to the Airlines. At the same time fuel prices are crippling Amtrak almost as much as the airlines. In short corridors such as I have mentioned Electrification would be the long term solution. Expensive yes! But has anyone compared the cost of widening highways lately with electrification. Here in California the coost to widen highways is almost out of sight and is only going to get worse.  

 

[al-in-chgo]

Lets take a look at routes that should be speeded up and have the passengers to support them.

Seattle - Portland

Seattle - Vancouver

Los Angeles - San Francisco

San Jose - Sacramento

Sacramento - Bakersfield

Oakland - Bakersfield

Santa Barbara - San Diego

Salt Lake - Denver

Los Angeles - Las Vegas?

Kansas City - Chicago

Dallas - Houston

Houston - San Antonio

San Antonio - Austin - Dallas

New Orleans - Birmingham - Atlanta

Jacksonville - Miami

Chicago - St. Louis

Chicago - Minneapolis

Chicago - Memphis

Chicago - Detroit

Chicago - Indianapolis - Louisville

Cleveland - Dayton - Cincinnati

Pittsburgh - Philadelphia - New York

Cleveland - Detroit

Buffalo - New York

Just one man's opinion but I don't see much hope for any other corridors in the US The cost of upgrading any of these lines to Acela type service would be prohibitive but upgrading to 79 mph overall average is not out of the question. One train or two over these routes is not worth the trouble either. In the case of many of these routes six or seven trains per day would offer a serious alternative to the Airlines. At the same time fuel prices are crippling Amtrak almost as much as the airlines. In short corridors such as I have mentioned Electrification would be the long term solution. Expensive yes! But has anyone compared the cost of widening highways lately with electrification. Here in California the coost to widen highways is almost out of sight and is only going to get worse.  

 

I wish people would stop treating that old ICC 79 miles-per-hour limit as a mandate from God.  Since the 1960s, Canadian National has been running diesel-electric-hauled passenger equipment of all kinds, including slab-sided conventional, and have done so at speeds of up to 90 mph and without crossing catastrophes.  Why can't that be done here?

I'm not saying rules are made to be broken; I am saying obsolete rules should be amended.

Because if "the rules say" one's choice is 79 mph or spend a lot of money to achieve up to 90 mph, I feel fairly confident what will happen -- nothing.  After all, this topic has been kicking around since the Seventies and turbo-trains, in the USA anyway.  How long can we stir and stir and stir on this???

Sign me Frustrated, al

 

[passengerfan]

Al

I to am frustrated by the lack of progress where trains are concerned here.

I was a frequent traveller in the Montreal - Toronto corridor and remember the Rapidos and Turbos very well. This was one passenger who was sorry to see the Turbo go. I particularly remember one morning in February boarding Turbo Club in Toronto for Montreal and finding an MLW FPA-4 coupled ahead of the Power dome. It was due to the winter problem regarding the Turbines with only one operating it was used for hotel power. On time the train departed in a cloud of Alco smoke and that old MLW diesel brought the Turbo into Montreal 3 minutes ahead of schedule. It was easy to figure out why as the Turbos were quite slow accelerating when changing tracks or for the three scheduled stops and the crew change at Kingston. The FPA-4 did not have trouble getting up to track speed with the lightweight Turbo.

Al-in-Stockton

[JT22CW]

80% of NJ lives in the northern 1/2 of the state so why shouldn't the rail service be concentrated there. Are you saying that NJT & Amtrak have routes that only serve 5% of NJ poplulation? Where was it "severly truncated". That's news to me! And, I lived in NJ from 1965 to 1998

NJ Transit's rail network is mostly in the northeast, with a lot of holes in it. Most lines radiate out no further than 50 miles from Manhattan; the exceptions have limited service. NJT gives more bus coverage, but the bus service falls victim to the traffic on the highways and local roads, so you end up with a very low average speed.

The severe truncations, and I may as well focus on the northeast alone(!), are as follows:

• Former CNJ cut back from border of PA to High Bridge (the Aldene Plan speaks for itself); potential for restoration of rail service to the Lehigh Valley thus stunted
• No service on Erie Northern Branch (Ridgefield, Leonia, Englewood, Tenafly, Cresskill, Demarest, Northvale etc.)
• No service on West Shore Line (and this line has room for four tracks in a lot of places; Ridgefield Park, Teaneck, Bergenfield, Dumont, Harrington Park, Norwood, parts of Rockland County NY)
• No service on NYSW line, whose use as a freight line has been declining (Little Ferry, Bogota, Hackensack, Maywood, Lodi, Paterson, Hawthorne, Wyckoff, Oakland, Pompton Lakes, Butler, Newfoundland, Sparta)
• No service on Erie Newark Branch (Belleville, Nutley, Allwood section of Clifton)
• No service on "Southern Secondary" (former CNJ Southern Division)
• Former Greenwood Lake line between Hoboken and Montclair closed by NJ Transit, cutting off the Arlington section of Kearny as well as parts of Belleville, Bloomfield and Glen Ridge)
• No service on Elizabethport & Perth Amboy (former CNJ; connects Elizabeth with Tremley Point, Carteret, Port Reading, Sewaren, and Butler section of Perth Amboy and used to be an alternate route for the North Jersey Coast Line)
• No service on LVRR west of Aldene (Clark, North Edison, South Plainfield, Manville, Neshanic et al)
• No service on former Reading between Bound Brook and West Trenton since the early 1980s (Manville, Belle Mead, Hopewell, Pennington)

Amtrak serves exactly one corridor in New Jersey. It used to serve two, at one time. Potentially, it was going to serve a different second corridor; then the Carter cuts came along.

Population distribution in NJ is changing. Does such density have to be in the thousands per square mile before it's deemed worthy of any kind of rail service?

Here is an example of what a rapid rail corridor between Dallas and Houston would be up against. Southwest Airlines has approximately 60 flights a day between Dallas and Houston. Fares range from $59 to $134. The gate to gate time is one hour. It has 30 flights a day between Dallas and San Antonio, as well as frequent service between Dallas and Austin, Houston and Austin, and San Antonio and Houston. This is just Southwest. American and Continental are also major carriers between the big Texas markets.

As more people move downtown, as is happening to some extent in Texas' major cities, there could be a market for rapid intercity rail. Unfortunately, most business people or other potential passengers in Texas live in the suburbs. Those who travel frequently tend to favor communities within a reasonable distance of the state's airports. So any enhanced rail system would have to construct numerous suburban rail stations to capture some of the suburban traffic. Also, it would be competing with close-in airports in Dallas, Austin, and Houston.

A train would not have to duplicate air travel time between the cities mentioned above. But it would have to be quick enough to allow a person to catch a train at 7:30 a.m., as an example, that gets him to his destination by 10:30 a.m. This would give him time to conduct four or five hours of business before catching a train to get back home before the wee hours. Otherwise, it will not work.

In 1950 the Burlington's Sam Houston Zephyr ran from Dallas to Houston in four hours for an average speed of 62.5 miles per hour. The Southern Pacific's Sunshine ran off the distance in four hours and 25 minutes. To cover the distance in three hours would require an average speed of approximately 84 mph. I don't know how much money would be required to upgrade the existing line for that kind of speed, but I suspect that it would be substantial

Tilt-trains running on traditional railroad infrastructure can (and do) achieve average speeds of between 110 and 120 miles per hour, which would connect Dallas with Houston in two hours ten minutes at the low estimate and two hours flat at the high estimate. (Now you know how fast the Cascades Talgo is potentially capable of being.) Cost to upgrade a traditional railroad would be lower than building a dedicated high-speed corridor; but on the latter option, average speeds can be as high as on the Shinkansen (145 mph), which gets you from Dallas to Houston in 1 hour 40 minutes. (This is assuming stops in between. The more stops you cut out, the higher your average speed can get.) This technology dates back 20 to 30 years.

A passenger rail system that connects Texas's major cities will not happen until highway and air congestion become much worse

You mean that jet fuel price won't affect airlines and air travel? nor gasoline/diesel prices affect highway travel? But this is happening already. It's the crux of the problems with both; congestion is not. Congestion is not a driving force in the Northeast for reopening many railroad lines for passenger service (see above).

I'd also like to know where all these "numerous intercity rail markets" are that JT22CW mentions

Have a look at most airlines' domestic route maps and you'll see them. Of course, we don't have any trains that run at speeds of 186 miles per hour to connect them with at present, so you won't see those markets in action until trains are put into them with such capabilities.

And of course population density matters! If you don't have enough people, you don't have a market

That matters at the endpoints, not alongside the route. That's why France sustains their TGV network despite having an average population density of 280 people per square mile, which is just 3 people per square mile higher than Ohio.

As for his "severly truncated" remark, since he includes South Jersey I'm assuming he's harkening back to the days when many, many people rode the rails to get to most of the seashore towns--now long gone and they aren't coming back, especially with the rails no longer existing for most of the routes

Long gone? NJ Transit used to operate rail service to Atlantic City, Ocean City and Cape May even into the 80s (with Conrail as operator). There are several existing rail routes in Gloucester County, IINM, where the rails are still very much active. No need for PATCO, the "River Line" and Atlantic City Line to be the be-all-and-end-all.

I wish people would stop treating that old ICC 79 miles-per-hour limit as a mandate from God

I wish the FRA would stop doing that as well. I also wish that they would stop throwing ephemeral "track classes" into the fray, with the express purpose of making it more expensive to run varnish any faster than 79 mph. (Most freight railroads use Class 4 track, IINM; for 110-125 mph operation, FRA requires Class 7.)

[Anonymous]

No one in Texas is considering seriously a rapid rail system to connect the state's major cities, with the exception of Austin and San Antonio, as per the Texas Transportation Institute.  And most people think it is at least a decade away. 

The plans for the Trans Texas Corridor include a rail right-of-way, but the focus is on freight traffic as opposed to passenger traffic.  In fact, the corridor is being designed to bypass all the cities between Laredo and the Oklahoma border.  The rail corridor won't even go into the center of any city.   

The increase in the cost of fuel has pinched the pocketbooks of most Texans, but there has not been a noticeable decrease in driving.  Most economists believe that gasoline will have to hit $5.00 a gallon before it will cause a major shift in how Texans get to and from work.

Most advocates of rapid or high speed passenger rail seem to believe that automotive technology will remain static and vehicles will continue to rely on gasoline fueled power plants.  Two weeks ago GM, as an example, announced that it has developed an electric vehicle that will be able to run 300 miles at highway speeds on a single charge.  It is not ready for prime time, but it will be in a decade or so.  In the mean time, the automobile manufactures are readying a new fleet of more fuel efficient vehicles to be introduced over the next couple of years.  Included in the offerings will be a line of clean diesels that will get good mileage.

Southwest Airlines newest Boeing 737s are 30 per more efficient than the airplanes that they have replaced.  The Boeing 787 is 40 per cent more efficient than the long haul airplanes that it is designed to replace.  Airplanes of the future will be even more fuel efficient.  The airlines have raised their fares to cover the increases in their fuel costs, but flying is still a good deal, especially for one person.  As in a business person who wants to go from Dallas to San Antonio and back in one day.

Speaking of fuel costs, increases have crimped Amtrak's bottom line.  Presumably they would be an equally challenging problem for high speed rail in Texas, unless the line was electrified, which would really balloon the cost. 

Increases in the cost of driving will cause some Texans to change their lifestyle.  They will tend toward more fuel efficient vehicles.  Some of them will move closer to work.  A few will even move into the center city.  And some, although not many, will use public transport.  But most folks will continue to drive or fly.

Part of the challenge for passenger rail in Texas is the culture.  Unless you live in Texas, which I don't sense that you do, you are not likely to understand the culture or the layout of our cities or the state's living patterns.  And they all have an impact on the potential for passenger rail service.  This is a much different place than the Northeast or, for that matter, any other place in the United States.  Most Texans will find a way around the fuel issue and increases in the cost of flying.  They are headed in that direction now.  They are not going to get on a train unless congestion overwhelms the highway and air traffic system.  And we are long way from that scenario.