AMTRAK and Airline Passengers

[oltmannd]

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

(some material omitted) 

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.  

Al, is right about this --79 is an arbitrary number and is NOT carved in stone as carried down the mountain by Moses.  Either Congress or the Department of Transportation could insist it be reexamined, perhaps even including some real world data that might shed some light on the relative amount of protection afforded by the standard.

There is nothing magic about the number 79, but it's unlikely that you'll get the FRA to budge.  They rather desperately want the RRs to invest it PTS, but don't want to spend a dime.  They know they can't win an arm wrestling contest with the RRs in Congress, so they won't just issue a ruling to mandate it, so the 79 mph limit remains a carrot to try to pry some state money loose.

Is it working?  Yup.  Illinois and Michigan have already ante'd up some of their own money.

[Dakguy201]

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

(some material omitted) 

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.  

Al, is right about this --79 is an arbitrary number and is NOT carved in stone as carried down the mountain by Moses.  Either Congress or the Department of Transportation could insist it be reexamined, perhaps even including some real world data that might shed some light on the relative amount of protection afforded by the standard.

 

[alphas]

PassengerFan,

You would think that there would be more demand for Pittsburgh to Philly and NYC service but it just doesn't seem to be there.   Part of the problem is the mountain terrain just doesn't lend itself well to passenger rail.  The direct bus service from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg via the Turnpike is about 2 hours faster than going by on-time rail.  And the few local greyhounds running between the 2 taking the 322/22 route along with the one rail round trip seem to fill the local traffic needs.  At best, there could be the addition of one more rail round trip per day--but Gov. Rendell refuses to have the state help subsidize it.  Also, its only a short air flight between the 3 terminating cities (Pitt, Philly, and NYC).

[Amtrak77]

Channeling Rodney Dangerfield:

"So the rental car companies say they have this new thing.  You pick up a car in one place, you drive it for a while, and then you drop it off in another place.

They call that new?  As a kid, in my neighborhood, we did that all the time!"

now thats a car joke!!!

[Paul Milenkovic]

Channeling Rodney Dangerfield:

"So the rental car companies say they have this new thing.  You pick up a car in one place, you drive it for a while, and then you drop it off in another place.

They call that new?  As a kid, in my neighborhood, we did that all the time!"

[ndbprr]

Know for a fact they weren't.  I work right next to O'Hare.

[Mailman56701]

The premise of using train travel as an alternative has two big obstacles:

1. Price.  It is far more costly to use Amtrak then air.

2. Stupidity.  People at O'Hare last week were complaining bitterly how they had spent two rr three night at O'Hare in Chicago waiting for American to get flights back on schedule to places like St. Louis and Minneapolis.  If they don't have enough sense to get on a bus to a rental car company within the airport and be home in six or seven hours how do you expect them to find the train?

  Wouldn't be surprised if all the rental cars were already taken. 

[ndbprr]

The premise of using train travel as an alternative has two big obstacles:

1. Price.  It is far more costly to use Amtrak then air.

2. Stupidity.  People at O'Hare last week were complaining bitterly how they had spent two rr three night at O'Hare in Chicago waiting for American to get flights back on schedule to places like St. Louis and Minneapolis.  If they don't have enough sense to get on a bus to a rental car company within the airport and be home in six or seven hours how do you expect them to find the train?

[Paul Milenkovic]

The FRA 3" uncompensated cant deficiency limit is based on what "they" think passengers can tolerate.  I understand that those sporty European train riders are allowed as much as 6" uncompensated cant deficiency.

Obviously the Pacific Cascades Talgo (when it was running) had higher total cant deficiency on account of the tilt.  Besides the passenger comfort and safety walking the aisles concerns, if you crank up the cant deficiency too much you put sideways forces on the rails.  I understand that rail spreading, especially from the high axle loadings used on freight service-derived passenger locomotives in the U.S, is an issue before you worry about the thing tipping over.  Rolling stock, locomotives especially compared to Talgo cars, may be tall, but the center of gravity may be lower relative to the rails than you think.

Don't know if it is Patentes Talgo promoting their own power cars over using standard locomotives with their rolling stock, but there was some discussion that operation at higher levels of cant deficiency would either require much lower axle loadings, especially on locomotives or power cars or more rail anchors (Pandrol clips?) or some combination.  There may be FRA rules on that as well, and whether Pacific Cascades has an FRA waiver I don't know.

[oltmannd]

Does the FRA allow more than 3" cant def. w/o a waiver? 

90 mph/class 5 w/passive tilt would seem to be a good design point.

[Paul Milenkovic]

A 2-degree curve has about a 2865 foot radius (about a half-mile).  The speed restrictions on a 2-degree curve are as follows.

With conventional trains and 6 inches of superelevation of the outside rail, allowing 3 inches of cant deficiency per FRA limits, you are allowed 6 ft/s^2 lateral acceleration or 83 MPH around that curve.

With Talgo, 6 inches of superelevation and 6 inches of cant deficiency split between 3 inches of passive bank and 3 inches felt by the passengers, you are allowed 6.9 ft/s^2 lateral acceleration or 96 MPH.

With LRC, 6 inches superelevation and 9 inches of cant deficiency, 6 inches in the banking system and 3 inches to be felt by the passengers that they don't throw up, you are up to 8.6 ft/s^2 lateral acceleration or 107 MPH.

This business about throwing up, back in the day before they had ground holds, planes would be "stacked up" in a holding pattern, often in fog or clouds because if it were clear out, you wouldn't be stacked up.  I once knew this, but a "2 minute turn" is a standard maneuver, and in the holding pattern the pilots are assigned an altitude, and they fly an oval "racetrack" pattern, right-hand turns with reference to an intersection between airways marked by radio beacons, 1 minute straight, 1 minute for a 180-degree turn, 1 minute straight, 1 minute for a 180-degree turn.

Holding patterns could have people going for the barf bags more than anything else because you have no visual reference, and the turns are fully tilt compensated because of the ways airplanes maneuver, and the constant banking and leveling of wings would do a number on your inner ear.  I remember getting a bit quesy in these things.

The story is that the British APT had passengers barfing on the inaugeral run, but the other story is that the only passenger who lost it was a reporter who was a little too heavy into the alcoholic hospitality.  I also heard that Canadian LRCs have this effect -- the scenery is bobbing up and down outside the windows but you don't feel the sideways pull.  I also heard it suggested that a tilt system needs to leave some sideways pull as I have indicated to avoid the need for barf bags.  The Acela's are well undercompensated in tilt because they had unforseen (?) loading gauge problems that caused them to restrict the tilt.

[DMUinCT]

  Amtrak and the Northeast Corridor -- How did Amtrak do it, why not other places?

  A problem for Amtak in the Northeast is not working around Freight Trains as in most of the U.S., it is Commuter Rail using the same lines.  For High Speed Rail to work, you must get around stopped trains, you need two to four tracks with Commuter Rail running at least 80 mph.

  Amtrak took over a Double Track New Haven, heavy rail main line from Boston to New Haven, four tracks to New Rochelle, double track again over the Pelham line to the Hellgate and Penn Station (New York).    

    South of New York, it was a four track speedway to DC over the Pennsylvania Railroad tracks. (yes, a few stretches and bridges are only double track) 

     Overhead wires in place from New Haven to DC and NO GRADE CROSSINGS between New Haven and DC.

     The takeover by Amtrak was followed a 20 year rebuilding program to raise the speed,  then the buying of 20 High Speed Train Sets aimed at a class of passenger that will pay for service.

[oltmannd]

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.)

This is your most humorous work, yet!

The CNJ Southern Secondary - Trains for Pineys?  Seriously?  A line right down the middle of the single largest area in the state where development is all but forbidden!

And, High Bridge to Phillipsburg?  What a severe truncation!  Missing a BIG BIG market there!  I didn't know deer and squirrels commuted to Manhattan.

A commuter rail line from Glassboro thru Woodbury might work OK now that a lot of the farmland in Wash Twp and Deptford Twp have been replanted in houses, although a single seat ride to Center City would be a bit slow (which is why the Cherry Hill stop on the AC line never panned out.  Or are you advocating a $B tunnel under the Delaware at Red Bank to accomodate 10 -20,000 commuters a day?).  But, you can't be serious about the Grenloch IT - even if you extended it from Bellmawr back to Grenloch.  Have you ever looked at a track chart?  It makes the Toonerville trolley look like HSR!

Amtrak's "second corridor"?  The AC line?  Did you ever ride the line when Amtrak was there.  I did.  Six, half empty trains a day replace by some semi-useful NJT commuter trains.  Hardly a "truncation", in any event.

Exactly which Amtrak "Corridor" was cut by Carter?  Service to Scranton?  Say what?  That would have been as useful as the Harley's Hornet!  Was it cut by Carter or was it more fallout from it's proponent, Rep. Flood, going to jail?  Maybe they should have called the train Flood's Flyer? 

Now that number of registered autos has surpassed the number of licensed drivers, the first mile of a commute belongs to the car.  No need to operated every ancilliary service that was put in place in at the dawn of time when people WALKED to the station.... 

Class 7 track on a 2 degree curve is as useful as wings on a VW bug.  Go buy some track charts and see just how few routes are suitable for any kind of upgrade and just how many 2 degree and better curves are out there.  There are a few routes that might benefit from track upgrades - but you haven't named any yet.

[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.     

 

 

[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.)

[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

[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]

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.  

 

[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.    

[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.    

[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!

[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.

[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.    

 

[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]

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?    

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.