JT22CW wrote: 90-120 miles is commuter rail distance. Unless you are calling services like the Long Island Railroad from NYC to Greenport and Montauk, and NJ Transit/Metro-North joint service from Hoboken NJ to Port Jervis NY "corridor services" (whatever that means)?
90-120 miles is commuter rail distance. Unless you are calling services like the Long Island Railroad from NYC to Greenport and Montauk, and NJ Transit/Metro-North joint service from Hoboken NJ to Port Jervis NY "corridor services" (whatever that means)?
My understanding is 'corridor' originated when John Kneiling and a few other folks were looking at a Washington-Boston map and commenting that the Amtrak main with a bunch of branches to Paoli, Princeton, Bound Brook, White Plains, etc... looked just like a corridor with a bunch of office doors along it. So the corridor would feed to and get fed from the individual offices. Using that long ago original definition, Greenport and Montauk to Jamaica-NYP, and Port Jervis to Seacaucus are pat of the overall corridor service.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
In getting from Point A to Point B, the thing that trains need that airplanes don't is a set of tracks. We can feel good about ourselves in our advocacy meetings talking "Oh yeah, well airports are built with public money too!" Indeed they are, but airports are built in specific places while the tracks need to span the entire distance. The cost advantage goes to aviation if the distances are long enough and the route is sparse enough that one simply flies over the intervening space instead of building tracks across the landscape. The Amtrak approach to the problem of the expense of building tracks across long distances is to share the tracks with freight. Outside the NEC, Amtrak pays a nominal fee to the host railroads to allow the trains to use the tracks. Amtrak gets access at a "reasonable" cost, but in most places they are not getting a reasonable level of service. Being condescending won't help you. I suspect that it is universally known on a forum like this that railroads are land-bound transportation modes that require tracks over land.
In getting from Point A to Point B, the thing that trains need that airplanes don't is a set of tracks. We can feel good about ourselves in our advocacy meetings talking "Oh yeah, well airports are built with public money too!" Indeed they are, but airports are built in specific places while the tracks need to span the entire distance. The cost advantage goes to aviation if the distances are long enough and the route is sparse enough that one simply flies over the intervening space instead of building tracks across the landscape. The Amtrak approach to the problem of the expense of building tracks across long distances is to share the tracks with freight. Outside the NEC, Amtrak pays a nominal fee to the host railroads to allow the trains to use the tracks. Amtrak gets access at a "reasonable" cost, but in most places they are not getting a reasonable level of service.
Being condescending won't help you. I suspect that it is universally known on a forum like this that railroads are land-bound transportation modes that require tracks over land.
If my remark was condescending, what was the remark in this advocacy newsletter with regard to the Illinois trains that "the ridership would be that much higher were the trains to run on time?"
The advocacy community in Illinois as in many other places had been frustrated that the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative never got funded, but at least in Illinois they achieved a kind of breakthrough to get state funding for those new trains. What they were able to do was corridor service on the cheap, scrounging up cars from Amtrak instead of buying their own as California has done, essentially imposing the higher frequency of trains on the host railroad rather than coming up with money for track upgrades at choke points, also as California has done.
You get what you pay for -- Illinois has its new trains, but the host railroad isn't happy about the arrangment and doesn't make them run on time. Now the remark quoting a person in the Illinois advocacy community about on-time trains making the service even better is innocent enough on the face of it. Illinois has done its trains on the cheap, they don't always run on time, but for the money spent, people ride those trains, and if we could spend more money to improve the service, perhaps more people would ride.
But that is not how this is expressed in advocacy meetings, and I can tell you I have been there. If the attitude was, "The Illinois service is OK for a phase one, but it has time keeping problems owing to freight train interference, lets figure out a phase two and see what it would take to eliminate choke points and develop a better relationship with the host railroad." The attitude is more along the line that it is the fault of the Big Bad Railroad for not having their heart in moving the new trains.
I do indeed have a proposal as to how to move forward on achieving the congestion-relief and energy-saving attributes of trains: concentrate on the 90-120 mile distance. I am told that constitutes "commuter service." Well, it has been remarked somewhere else that the Amtrak network is essentially a NY-Philly commuter service along with "everthing else." By this benchmark, the Pacific Surfliner is a mere "commuter service" as is the Hiawatha.
Commuter service has been successful from a political standpoint of getting public funding in a way that Amtrak has struggled. Commuter agencies are able to run their trains on time in a way that Amtrak has not been able to -- these agencies may have a better working relationship with their host railroads, and the shorter distances of track make upgrades to the track to support the traffic more affordable.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote:Should. Ought. Must. I wasn't disputing that the railroads had "common carrier" responsibilities to the "common good" and to "public purposes" -- see my remarks about electric power regulation. But that the freight railroads ought to make Amtrak run on time, that and 35 cents (probably a lot more now) used to get you a train ride underneath the Hudson River from Hoboken to Lower Manhatten (sic) on the Port Authority Trans Hudson.
I wasn't disputing that the railroads had "common carrier" responsibilities to the "common good" and to "public purposes" -- see my remarks about electric power regulation. But that the freight railroads ought to make Amtrak run on time, that and 35 cents (probably a lot more now) used to get you a train ride underneath the Hudson River from Hoboken to Lower Manhatten (sic) on the Port Authority Trans Hudson.
There are many dimensions to Amtrak, and one of them is that many of their trains outside the NEC don't run on time. How do we correct that concern? By having rail advocacy meetings where we sit around and gripe about how late trains are the fault of railroad management?
The Amtrak approach to the problem of the expense of building tracks across long distances is to share the tracks with freight. Outside the NEC, Amtrak pays a nominal fee to the host railroads to allow the trains to use the tracks. Amtrak gets access at a "reasonable" cost, but in most places they are not getting a reasonable level of service.
As for "cost advantages", note that the fuel costs for aircraft have been continually rising and that the airlines have been slowing their planes down to conserve fuel. That eats into their speed advantage, so-called. There's also the risk of being blown out of the sky by being struck by positive lightning (which has far higher wattage and amperage than the more frequent negative lightning). And there's those nice benzopyrenes, benzofluoranthenes, NOx gases, sulfur gases and carbon monoxide coming out of the thrust nozzle.
There is this NARP factoid that a track has the capacity of 20 freeway lanes. It may have that capacity if you have a two-track subway line, you have the proper signals, have same-speed trains with EP brakes, long enough trains with enough seats in them, and so on. If you are trying to thread a 50 MPH average Amtrak train over a 30 MPH freight train single-track-with-sidings line, it may be another story
Amtrak should get priority! Should, ought, must. People must get to their destinations on time while inanimate freight can chill for a couple hours in a siding to let the passengers go by, leaving aside such considerations of the time value of money tied up in the freight cars, locomotives, and the value of their lading not to say anything of the crew expiring on the hours limitations.
If you think things are bad out on the road, then yards would drive you utterly mad. You'd be begging to see Amtrak fly past the trains on the main, then, because you might as well, since you can't get your trains out of the yard thanks to yardmasters who work at a pace they alone set.
The rail lines should be double-tracked! Should, ought, must. Amtrak is "underfunded" and if there was more money to be had, Amtrak could pay for the double tracking. Certainly double tracking is cheaper than building all new passenger-only lines. Again, this depends on the amount of traffic and the distance travelled. If the distances are short and the passenger counts are high, building tracks may pay
It's a lot more involved than just adding tracks and upgrading signals; it's also maintaining to FRA standards without definition (what's the difference between Class 4 and Class 7?) and also retrofitting the locomotives of private railroads to operate with these progressive signaling systems.
But really; where the room for the tracks exists, what is the greater cost, to maintain an active track that a frequent passenger service can avail of, or to leave a blank expanse next to the track(s) on the right of way that trespassers on ATVs run up and down instead, kicking up ballast stones all over the place, and that the railroad still has to pay tax on?
All this depends on distance. For the daily Empire Builder, double tracking the whole 2000 miles let alone an HSR line would be cost prohibitive. For a commuter run, short distances, high volume of trains, that commuter agencies would contribute to double tracking or even triple tracking has successfully gotten public money and people are happy with that
How is "cost-prohibitive" defined, anyway? If the service pays for itself instead of requiring subsidy, then would it not be paid off in a number of years instead of decades? Is it more cost-effective to turn mountain railroads into high-altitude rail trails instead of converting them for high-speed service where applicable? Now stuff like rail-trailing is wasteful.
Perhaps the next frontier in passenger trains is the 90-120 mile distance. Think NY-Philly, Chicago-Milwaukee, LA-San Diego. The stats backing up the Vision Report indicate that trains dominate over air as a common carrier mode on those segments. 90-mile hops are really too short for airline service, but the cost of upgrading tracks over that distance is not prohibitive.I suggest from time to time in our local advocacy group to consider 90-120 mile corridors as the Golden Mean for advancing train service. Those runs could serve as "super commuter trains" to many people who have to frequently travel between such pairs of cities. The stats show that trains clean the clocks of planes in those markets. Every time I say this, someone on cue blurts out "Corridors are up to 400 miles." NARP talking points. Yes, the NEC is over 400 miles end-to-end, but the big market is the NY-Philly city pair.NARP talking points are so drilled into us that we can't see where the opportunities are
I suggest from time to time in our local advocacy group to consider 90-120 mile corridors as the Golden Mean for advancing train service. Those runs could serve as "super commuter trains" to many people who have to frequently travel between such pairs of cities. The stats show that trains clean the clocks of planes in those markets. Every time I say this, someone on cue blurts out "Corridors are up to 400 miles." NARP talking points. Yes, the NEC is over 400 miles end-to-end, but the big market is the NY-Philly city pair.
NARP talking points are so drilled into us that we can't see where the opportunities are
As for "cleaning clocks", Amtrak is beating the airlines between New York and Washington DC even with a comparatively-low average speed of 82 mph, held down due to continued deferred maintenance. If the NEC were brought to the fabled "state of good repair" (phrase coined by David Gunn), even a train like the Acela Express could stretch its legs to at least a 105-mph average speed, which would be a NYP-WAS journey of 2 hours 8 minutes. Tilt trains have hit average speeds of 120 mph in revenue service, which is highly competitive even with the "dedicated HSR alignment" in certain cases.
I agree with Paul. Starting out on the corridors will improve the long distance trains using them. All NY - Wash long distance trains operating at viewliner and amfleet capable speeds would cut that transit time by 1 hour. That is at least 70 Crew hours a day for 7 LD round trips and maybe as much as 200 HRS a day. Big savings over a year.
The North Carolina DOT work from Selma to Charlotte is getting good on time and reduced time the last time I checked.
I will agree, up to a point. And it is possible to improve NY-Philly. Up-to-date catenary on the existing PRR line so Acela can run at 150 where track is straight. Increase capacity by electrifying West Trenton to Newark and run additional service via West Trenton, with the time lost by the slower service made up by not having to change at 30th Street to reach the center of the City at Market East and Broad Street. But then modern catenary on the whole NY - Washington line is long overdue. Acela should be able to run 150 Monmouth Junction to Trenton and Wilmington - Baltimore except for the tunnels and bridges. Also much of the run between Baltimore and Washington.
Of course, improving corridors in spots also improves long-distanc timekeeping, such as the benefit to the Crescent and Florida trains by corridor improvements.
If money can be spent on long distance, in some cases there are "choke points" where a modest length of double-tracking could benefit both freight and passenger service. Certainly, once the UP finishes double tracking the Sunset route we can expect a dramatic improvement in on-time performance.
Common Carrier.....The public owns the railroad because the land it sits on was gotten via shotgun and eminate domain not only that but the right to exist comes from the States via Charter. take those two away and we can Nationalize the rail system. We did it before.. It was called Conrail
Should. Ought. Must.
I wasn't disputing that the railroads had "common carrier" responsibilities to the "common good" and to "public purposes" -- see my remarks about electric power regulation. But that the freight railroads ought to make Amtrak run on time, that and 35 cents (probably a lot more now) used to get you a train ride underneath the Hudson River from Hoboken to Lower Manhatten on the Port Authority Trans Hudson.
In getting from Point A to Point B, the thing that trains need that airplanes don't is a set of tracks. We can feel good about ourselves in our advocacy meetings talking "Oh yeah, well airports are built with public money too!" Indeed they are, but airports are built in specific places while the tracks need to span the entire distance. The cost advantage goes to aviation if the distances are long enough and the route is sparse enough that one simply flies over the intervening space instead of building tracks across the landscape.
There is this NARP factoid that a track has the capacity of 20 freeway lanes. It may have that capacity if you have a two-track subway line, you have the proper signals, have same-speed trains with EP brakes, long enough trains with enough seats in them, and so on. If you are trying to thread a 50 MPH average Amtrak train over a 30 MPH freight train single-track-with-sidings line, it may be another story.
The rail lines should be double-tracked! Should, ought, must. Amtrak is "underfunded" and if there was more money to be had, Amtrak could pay for the double tracking. Certainly double tracking is cheaper than building all new passenger-only lines. Again, this depends on the amount of traffic and the distance travelled. If the distances are short and the passenger counts are high, building tracks may pay.
All this depends on distance. For the daily Empire Builder, double tracking the whole 2000 miles let alone an HSR line would be cost prohibitive. For a commuter run, short distances, high volume of trains, that commuter agencies would contribute to double tracking or even triple tracking has successfully gotten public money and people are happy with that.
Perhaps the next frontier in passenger trains is the 90-120 mile distance. Think NY-Philly, Chicago-Milwaukee, LA-San Diego. The stats backing up the Vision Report indicate that trains dominate over air as a common carrier mode on those segments. 90-mile hops are really too short for airline service, but the cost of upgrading tracks over that distance is not prohibitive.
NARP talking points are so drilled into us that we can't see where the opportunities are.
transitrapid wrote: Common Carrier.....The public owns the railroad because the land it sits on was gotten via shotgun and eminate domain not only that but the right to exist comes from the States via Charter. take those two away and we can Nationalize the rail system. We did it before..It was called Conrail
Common Carrier.....The public owns the railroad because the land it sits on was gotten via shotgun and eminate domain not only that but the right to exist comes from the States via Charter. take those two away and we can Nationalize the rail system. We did it before..
It was called Conrail
Conrail spent a lot of time in court settling with the estates of the various bankrupt railroads on a fair value of the assets that were transferred to Conrail.
"No person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." This is from the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The courts have long interpreted that a corporation is a person for various legal purposes.
And, Mr. Peabody said, "Set the WayBack Machine for 1976, Sherman."
(Those born after 1965 need not apply....)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
They will do anything as long as it cover all costs, including capacity, plus returns a reasonable proift. Anything less, forget it.
That is the correct conclusion. And some, like NS, BNSF, and CP, wouldn't sign on unless the remuneration was such that they could be proud of the job they were doing.
I don't know why we keep posting about having the "Class 1s" running passenger service. Outside the NEC, a short stretch in Indiana, and some other places I have missed, they already do, or at least everything from the rail-wheel contact down to the subgrade. Back in the 1970's, they may have even been doing more -- locomotive crews, locomotive and train car maintenance -- functions which since have been taken over by Amtrak.
As to having a kind of TTX Corporation as a kind of pooled corporate front for the railroads to run passenger trains, what do people think Amtrak is? Amtrak is a corporate, not a governmental entity, and is in essence the passenger train face of the railroad companies.
The reason Amtrak has this governmental coloration to it has to do with the Amtrak subsidy and the resulting micromanagement from Congress on down to the Trains Magazine passenger train Web site. Everyone thinks it is the government, but Amtrak is that TTX-like corporation that everyone talks about, only it is "non-profit" and heavily government supported and interfered with.
But back to the remarks about railroads accepting payments for use of the tracks and what subsidy level would get you a train, while the railroads were largely deregulated by Staggers Act, Amtrak remains a vestige of regulation and the notion that railroads are required to provide certain service, even at a loss in some cases, on account of requirements placed on them to service the public interest.
While we think that such public interest regulation is from a bygone era, you have a similar thing with the power company. The power company doesn't get to say, "Gee, Paul Milenkovic used only 170 kWHr's last month, lets disconnect his service because it doesn't even pay to maintain the wires to his house." The power company is under requirements of serving all comers as it were under published and regulated rate schedules, although there is this movement to power deregulation, rearing its ugly head in those overcomplicated electric bill rate breakdowns no one understands.
Whether there is a similar public interest to compel railroads to provide passenger service is a question that gets debated, with many around here taking the affirmative, but Amtrak is also the face of that regulatory compulsion. The "Amtrak deal" is the railroads "got out of their public accomodation to provide passenger trains" in exchange with having to deal with Amtrak on their network. Don't know the formulas for determining the payments the railroads get in Amtrak trackage rights, but obviously the payments are below that of a voluntary transaction as evidenced by road "charging" Amtrak in delays to make up for the below-market payments for track access.
There is this should-ought-must culture in railroading and into the advocacy community. The railroads were compelled to run passenger trains, but some railroads, since they were doing it, regarded it as a form of corporate marketing and advertising to have showcase streamliners. On one side, people are saying railroads should-ought-must run Amtrak trains on time (moral persuasion is remarkably weak compared to the flash of a stack of cash), on another side we are saying that Amtrak should pay enough in trackage payments to make it worthwhile to run the trains, and yet another opinion is that the government subsidy should be generous enough that railroads who are interested in that sort of thing should get their marketing by running showcase passenger trains for free? Sort of like saying that the government should pay for all of those Sunday talk shows because political speech is in the public interest, and ADM, GE, and all of the rest should get the ads for free too because ADM lobbying is political speech too.
As Don Oltmann points out, Amtrak is enough beholden to government that it functions like the Federal government -- aiming to please and serve constituents in some contexts, unable to keep toilets clean and not overflowing in other contexts. But the below the wheel-rail contact patch part of passenger trains, the Class 1 railroads, are also running Amtrak in response to a regulatory dictat rather than a monetary incentive. Both factors should at least be discussed, but many in the advocacy community regard "Amtrak reform" as fighting words, and as for the part from the railhead down to the subgrade, the advocacy community (expecially when the new Illinois service started) is in should-ought-must mode rather than asking what kind of payments or bargain or deal would get the railroads to want the trains.
transitrapid wrote: Will railroads volutary give up capasity for contract passenger trains? In 1975 when traffic was down yes and plenty of extra track...in 2008...probaly not
Will railroads volutary give up capasity for contract passenger trains? In 1975 when traffic was down yes and plenty of extra track...in 2008...probaly not
I think it matters less who gets paid than how you pay them.
If you don't set it up so that extra effort/better service/higher productivity = more income, then nobody's going to try very hard to give good service.
If you contract out the service for a flat fee, then the only way the contactor can win is if he cuts costs which ususally means doing as little as he can get away with.
If you give him a slice of the revenues, then you motivate him to more and better service.
You can do all this with the current Amtrak, you just have to restructure the game. For example, you could give them a flat amount of money each year (say, $1B adjusted for inflation) and a short, fixed list of services expected (say, the existing LD network plus some connecting corridors - coach service only) then let them manage the rest as they saw fit - investing and operating in areas that produce incrementally profitable service. Let the company pay a bonus to all for good results. Let the company reward those who improve productivity - not just those who build feifdoms.
You might say "What? No sleepers or diners on LD trains?". But, if the addtion of a sleeper or a diner returns more overall, incremental revenue than it costs to add it to the train, then that's a net "win" for Amtrak and they would do it on their own.
PC did have a decent chunk of non-NEC trains on "day one" - probably more than any other single road.
-Broadway Ltd
-Nat'l Ltd (to St. Louis)
-Pitcairn
-western portion of James Whitcomb Riley
-five Empire Sevice trains (2 NYG to Buffalo RT, plus 3 NYG to Alb-Renss)
-Chicago to Detroit (3 RT?)
daveklepper wrote: From a public relations standpoint, railroads would probably not do that. They would insist on getting enough subsidy to do the job right or they would be unwilling to do the job at all. Isn't it somewhat amazing that so many passenger trains operators still maintainted high standards right up to 1 May 1970:Sante Fe, UP, SCL, N&W, C&O, N&W, IC, BN, Southern As compared with those that didn't. SP, PC
From a public relations standpoint, railroads would probably not do that. They would insist on getting enough subsidy to do the job right or they would be unwilling to do the job at all. Isn't it somewhat amazing that so many passenger trains operators still maintainted high standards right up to 1 May 1970:
Sante Fe, UP, SCL, N&W, C&O, N&W, IC, BN, Southern
As compared with those that didn't.
SP, PC
...and PC was host to more than 1/2 all Amtrak trains!
As I recall the former (now deceased) President of the NY,S,& W was an advocate of the "TTX" concept for passenger rail.
If this came to pass I think there might be a temptation by some in the industry to take the subsidy and then run the passenger trains as "second class citizens". After all the freight shippers would still be their main customers. I'm unclear as to how this proposal would save the taxpayer money?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
transitrapid wrote: No Class ones will make money on passenger service... When Conrail and Erie-Laccawanna ran subsidiezed commuter trains they did a pee poor job of running the service... However the Value of the Contract might be worth somethimng for the right price.. Pay CSX to run The Lake Shore and the Capital Limited with there own crews and Equipment?
No Class ones will make money on passenger service... When Conrail and Erie-Laccawanna ran subsidiezed commuter trains they did a pee poor job of running the service...
However the Value of the Contract might be worth somethimng for the right price..
Pay CSX to run The Lake Shore and the Capital Limited with there own crews and Equipment?
Assuming the Class 1s could put a passenger dept back together after 30+ years of not having one... how would you provide an incentive for them to do a good job?
transitrapid wrote: Seems to be what you guys are saying?First thing- All Forms of Transportation require some form of subsidy be it road(Fed and state highway funds) water (Army Corp of Enigineers Locks and Dams and Coast Guard) Air( FAA and local airports) Pipelines (right of way aquisition)So be it do we write a check each year to CSX,NS,CN,CP,BNSF,UP and FEC to run passenger trains under a direct contract with the USDOT?This as opposed to Writing a check to amtrak who then turns around a write a check to all the above mentioned for track rental?
Seems to be what you guys are saying?
First thing- All Forms of Transportation require some form of subsidy be it road(Fed and state highway funds) water (Army Corp of Enigineers Locks and Dams and Coast Guard) Air( FAA and local airports) Pipelines (right of way aquisition)
So be it do we write a check each year to CSX,NS,CN,CP,BNSF,UP and FEC to run passenger trains under a direct contract with the USDOT?
This as opposed to Writing a check to amtrak who then turns around a write a check to all the above mentioned for track rental?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
blue streak 1 wrote:i believe there is a problem with hours of service law. Isn't freight RR's operating crews limited in their monthly on duty times when in passenger service and the AMTRAK act did not have that problem. due to schedule consistency. Any CSX crews in DC know about this??
No problem with hours of service law. Same law applies to both Amtrak and frt roads. Unlike airlines, there are no monthly maximums. RR law is just 12 on and then 8 or 10 off.
JT22CW wrote: Government already does things to the railroad without the whole hangup over operating passenger rail. That means state governments too. Are truckers, airlines and bus companies suffering because of having to "allow the government to do things to" them, as it were? Or have they been thriving due to that?Passenger rail has not "always lost money in the past". Nor did railroads have to give up freight in order to run passenger service, certainly not with the government building highways for the truckers and bus companies to take the freight and passenger business away from them, never mind giving free money away to airports (no, not from so-called "user fees") until the 1970s.
Government already does things to the railroad without the whole hangup over operating passenger rail. That means state governments too. Are truckers, airlines and bus companies suffering because of having to "allow the government to do things to" them, as it were? Or have they been thriving due to that?
Passenger rail has not "always lost money in the past". Nor did railroads have to give up freight in order to run passenger service, certainly not with the government building highways for the truckers and bus companies to take the freight and passenger business away from them, never mind giving free money away to airports (no, not from so-called "user fees") until the 1970s.
The govt. oversight currently pales in comparison to the amount that would occur with the suggestions of this thread, and the only thing that kept passenger traffic going in the past was mail contracts. It certainly wasn't passenger service.
So, again the question; if passenger service is such a good idea, why hasn't a Class 1, or whoever, shown any interest in doing it ?
I'd say because they're smarter than we are
transitrapid wrote: No we the tax-payers will pay the railroads to move trains....No matter if the train has 5 people or 500
And again, do you really think a RR wouldn't love the chance to get their hands on a fat govt handout ?
Of course they'd love it. But they haven't shown any interest in doing so.
Why should they ?
I.e., making money hand over fist in freight, coal, etc.
Keep doing that, and its not going away anytime soon at all, and at the same time, take on very iffy passenger service, that has always lost money in the past, with all the huge headaches and logistic nightmares, and massive Federal oversight, what with all the tax money suggested.
No brainer if I was CEO of Railroad X.
Problem with allowing any govt. to do something *for* you, is that you then allow that same govt. to do things *to* you.
And I think this is the point! No, the railroads could not make money as it is now. That's where the subsidies come in. Let's face it. Government subsidies of one form or another make ALL transportation possible.
Railroads could make money in passenger service if 1- Railroads had room to carry freight and passenger (government help in building double lines, signal systems,) 2- If consistent service was available, and 3-If passenger service was necessary to the point that people in much of the country would have to use it for economic reasons.
I just filled my daughter's car with gas. A little compact that gets really good mileage. It cost me $44 dollars. Folks, we are quickly approaching the point that mass transit isn't a nice idea. It is becoming a necessity.
And everytime I see more lanes being built on interstates, I think about how new rail lines could be built, easing traffic and allowing me to sleep on the way to work!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.