Requirements aside, how many domestic component manufacturers are still in business today after a 30-year drought in orders?
It's more likely a waiver would be granted to get the needed equipment from foreign sources at a reasonable cost.
Someone posted a recent comment that the Acela turbine was derelict at Pueblo and the manufacturer was out of business. Otherwise I agree that this would be a good place to start.
Problem #2 is the Acela is not a good choice outside the NEC.
Bombardier makes a turbine electric version of the Acela. Wouldn't require electrification.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe: Well the only builders here ( I hope I am wrong) do not have a standard car that can be built. The closest of any car is the viewliner and I do not know if the plans are still available. Patents should have expired on that design. Builders are Rader, super steel, and Bombardier in this country. Others guys??
Dave:
Have you ever been buying a car and had the sales person tell you "Oh, you don't want that one, buy this big sucker over here"? American people love their 400 HP cars and their SUVs. Even the foreign brands have been forced to produce SUVs in order to compete. When gasoline went to $4 a gallon, the bottom fell out of the SUV market, and there was a sudden demand for the more fuel efficient cars that all the manufacturers were already producing but today, SUVs are again outselling small cars. It is not unique to American brands.
The crisis in the auto industry is not caused by bad business practices, it is caused by the fact than people cannot afford to buy cars. No amount of money poured in at the top, and no amount of government manipulation of the lineup of cars available will change that.
Do we still have any American companies that manufacture passenger rail cars on shore? If we do, that's where any new rolling stock orders should go.
Regarding the idea that new rolling stock would necessarily be constructed by foreign builders, don't forget that 60% of the value of the car must be USA, anyway. So the USA economy WOULD be simulated.
But why didn't the auto bailout package insist that automakers address all USA transportation issues and not just continue to be in business "to sell more cars?"
GM's pushing high fuel consumption cars after 01.11.09 was about as unpatriotic as selling scrap steel to Japan just before Pearl Harbor when Japan had already invaded China.
I'm afraid, as an advocate for intercity rail passenger service, that Samantha's cold assessment may be the order of the day. Most economic stimulus improvements will have roles in congestion mitigation and auto independence. Nothing the scale of HSR or as dubious can be expected, even in California. Ray LaHood may have a reputation as a friend of intercity rail passenger service; but he may have the unpleasant task of letting the rail advocacy community down easy.
I understand the dire straits of state budgets in Illinois and elsewhere would seem to threaten regional intercity trains and transit where tax revenues are falling short of projections in this recession. Hopefully, a federal economic stimulus package will provide relief for shortfalls in state and local revenues to maintain public services.
Installing cab signals is needed for 110 mph service on the Chicago-Saint Louis Corridor; but this will provide little economic stimulus outside a very small niche in the electronics sector. A bigger impact would come with funding installation of PTC in accordance with STB regulations with a US-based manufacturer.
Building the grade separation structures through the Southwest Side of Chicago on the Saint Louis and Metra Heritage Corridors, and adding a third track on the UP West and a second track on the MD North would put road builders to work for structures, grading, and drainage. Long-avoided overpasses also may be built to eliminate rail-highway crossings generally and as needed for the CN's acquisition of the EJ&E.
Expanding Amtrak services to Dubuque and Iowa City would provide work for contractors building or rehabilitating stations and for repairing cars at Beech Grove; but new equipment would come from foreign sources and be less of a priority on the basis of the economy. Very little engineering works would be required along the existing lines.
It's impossible to address the question of Amtrak's future without discussing politics because Amtrak's future is essentially a political issue. Looked at strictly from the standpoint of economics, Amtrak would have no future - without public subsidies it would quickly go bankrupt, cease operations and liquidate. So, the question of what Amtrak will look like in the future is necessaily a question of what the political branches of federal and state governments will be willing to subsidize.
I'm not going to take a position on the question of how much Amtrak "should" be funded, since that's not the purpose of this thread. I suspect that, with the change of administrations, the Federal government, at least, will be much more willing to subsidize Amtrak services than the current administration has been. But whether that will prove to be possible in the current economic climate, with the zillions of dollars in bailouts we've given to other industries, remains to be seen. The state supported services may be particularly vulnerable, since many states (like California) are facing huge budget shortfalls and, unlike the Feds, don't have the ability to print money to cover them. They will necessarily have to cut government funding and services, so state supported passenger services may well end up on the chopping block in favor of other programs (or the other way around).
It seems to me, however, that political decisions on Amtrak's future will need to be made in the next few years, as Amtrak is going to need substantial capital investment if it is to keep going even in its present form. Its passenger fleet, for example, is now mostly 30 years or more old, and will need to be replaced in the coming years (remember that, when Amtrak took over passenger operations in 1971, most of the "old" passenger equipment it inherited from the freight railroads was only about 20 years old). It will be interesting to see what happens.
By the way, a little factoid about the recent funding Congress "approved" for Amtrak. The decision as to whether Amtrak will actually see any of this money has yet to be made. The funding decision is actually a two step process - "approval" and "appropriation". Only the "approval" has occurred. The money still has to be "appropriated" as part of the Federal budget. That may or may not occur (or only part of the money may be appropriated).
I generally agree with you; but a more reasonable approach would be to assure reasonable improvements are made where needed most.
The planning sector developed a variety of priority measures; but most didn't significantly improve on the "New Haven Index" based simply on rail and road average daily travel and a factor for the existing type of protection.
The problem is the desire high speed rail passenger service requiring grade separation for speeds above 110 mph. In urban areas, it's not difficult to justify grade separation based on traffic levels. Except for the NEC, most HSR would entail public and private crossing closings and grade separation through extensive rural areas, think Chicago-St Louis, far below the need warranted by traffic levels.
Cordon: Actually I am hoping that the proposed infrastruture improvements will encompass a lot of grade crossing eliminations. As RWM has stated the improvements in intercity locations are expensive but causethe most delays. Also just eliminating the last few crossing from New Haven to Boston will be very expensive. Amtrak did not finish closing all the PRR NYC - Wash crossings until the early 1980s. These are the inftastructure improvements that will last a 100+ years.
I have proposed elsewhere in these forums the gradual elimination of RR grade crossings. Instead of arguing perpetually about who should pay for it, we need to establish a national policy to get it done. I also proposed a method for paying for it that should be acceptable to many people - whenever the federal, state, or local govt provides funding for a highway overpass, they should also provide funding to eliminate a nearby RR crossing. In this way RR crossing elimination would be become a routine practice instead of a point of contention, and in time we would get most of them done.
Paul: Believe it or not airport runways once crossed roads at grade protected by manual gates. Two examples are Sepultiva (sp) Blvd once crossed the present runway 25R in LAX, and there is a picture of it in an old National Geographic. There was a road crossing at Chicago's Midway (MDW) airport and also a RR crossing their runways 31 and 4 in a east west direction. Thank goodness that's long gone. RR was relocated just to the north of the airport and is now BRC and IHB. BRC was the actual RR crossing the airport.
Good illustration about runways without grade crossings. Even 79 mph grade crossing collisions can be pretty catastrophic as in the case of the City of New Orleans at Bourbonnaise, IL a few years back. And this involved a "professional" driver. I'm all for some of that infrastructure economic stimulus money going to grade separation and crossing elimination.
Undoubtedly, driver education and Operation Lifesaver are an important part of the picture.
On the other hand, there is a sense around here that "people are idiots" and "if you could just educate people" they would not be "idiots" and they would behave the way we want them to. This extends not only to people treating railroad grade crossings with respect but also that people would support Amtrak funding, higher gas taxes to discourage driving, and so forth.
A social principle is that a person should not be an idiot, but a practical engineering perspective is that at least some person at some time will be an idiot, so what are you going to do about it?
One example of this is the Ralph Nader revolution in auto safety, of course what Ralph Nader was advocating had been the lonely crusade of an anonymous engineer. Prior to all of that, the emphasis in auto safety was primarily on the driver, you know, the most dangerous component of the car is the nut behind the wheel. That engineer, who was profiled in New Yorker, and I should work on learning that person's name, took the view that even the most cautious person can have a lapse in concentration, and that the automobile should be designed to afford some degree of protection in a crash.
Another example: we don't place airport runways at grade, but blinking lights, warning bells, or gates signalling to stay off the runway crossing until the airplane has gone by. That we accept rail-highway crossings at grade is a legacy of historical practice. If we are running a sufficiently high-speed train, you essentially have something moving as fast if not faster than an airplane on takeoff or landing.
There is some sense, also, that the train is heavier and better protected than the road vehicle, although there have been frightful accidents from the standpoint of the train. These collisions are life-and-death to the motorist, but most are at the fender-bender level for the train. This may not be the correct attitude, but there is this sense about the way people talk about this of "protect the train, but if a motorist ignores gates and warning lights, their passing improves the gene pool."
There are a lot of foolish people out there doing foolish things, but should they be punished for their foolishness with their lives, and the lives of others? One answer is we need to educate people out of their foolishness, and that is a good start. But if there to be a passenger rail rennaissance, a lot of the passenger lines are going to have to be grade separated.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I just wanted to add that if increased passenger train capacity is to be the "wave of the future", something HAS to be done about educating drivers re: riding across tracks in front of an approaching train. Four automobile collisions in the same Tampa-Orlando stretch of Florida in the last 6 months resulted in automobile deaths and serious damage to trains. Amtrak's schedule and passengers were shaken up. In three of the cases drivers drove around or through train gates into the path of oncoming trains. I mention these examples because they happened in a relatively concentrated area over a relatively short period of time. If passenger trains are going to be a greater part of everyday life, people who are driving need to learn to stay out of their way, not only to protect their own lives, but also to protect the lives of innocent train workers and passengers.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NY_RAIL_SERVICE_NYOL-?SITE=NYBIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
There is commuting on Amtrak in the case of the Hiawatha service and elsewhere; and discounted monthly and 10-ride frequent rider tickets are offered. The monthly ticket between Chicago and Milwaukee costs $358 which works out to $17.05 a day for an average of 21 days a month. The 10-Ride costs $165 which comes to $33 a day.
What is incredible to me is the high 1-way fare of $22 that effectively constrains ridership chiefly to the downtown Chicago travel market. Even ridership to downtown Milwaukee suffers from a fare that exceeds the out-of-pocket cost for gas, tolls, and I assume much cheaper parking than the $32 in Chicago. The high 1-way fare explains the low average ridership for the Hiawathas despite carrying around 350 commuters on #330 and #339. The result may be high revenue per passenger; but fewer passengers also result in a high cost per passenger. The 1-way fare can be more on a per mile basis than a roomette to Seattle!
If the public is supporting rail passenger service, isn't the goal to maximize the number of riders to achieve greater effectiveness in benefits and relevance and a lower cost per passenger? How does a focus on revenue per passenger contribute where the number of passengers and total revenue may suffer? Conversely, why incur the cost of the other six round trips if hardly anyone shows up?
Another issue is the relevance of the Hiawatha service for the Chicago metropolitan area's 9.8 million and Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha area's 1.9 million populations for non-CBD trip ends. This does not include the populations of 162,000 in Kenosha County and 713,000 in Lake County that are without direct service despite being on the line. While the monthly pass allows some wiggle room for the cost of transit connections, the 1-way fare is a serious deterrent for most occassional travelers throughout the respective regions and a burden for those who are unable to drive.
One-way fares need to be below half the average out-of-pocket cost of $19 for driving, at least in the off-peak for trains except #329, #330, #339, and #340, to divert travel in appreciable numbers. Allowing at least $5 for transit connections due to circuitry, a round-trip excursion fare between Chicago and Milwaukee would need to be around $14 to be competitive on cost. This works out to a little over $0.08/mile.
If the non-peak fare was reduced to 1/3 the present level, would ridership increase by 3 times or more? Even if revenue from fares stays the same, the cost per passenger would be lower with more passengers. Since about half of all the riders are regular commuters, overall ridership could double and the cost per passenger would be cut in half.
The current monthly pass comes to $0.10/mile; and an allowance for transit connections still is competitive with driving to non-CBD destinations in the peak, assuming 22 mpg in traffic.
Doubling the excursion fare to $0.16/mile for the peak would result in a daily cost of $27.50 which is less than the cost of driving and downtown parking, even if higher than just gas and tolls to non-CBD destinations. The resulting 10-ride would be $123.75, bringing down the effective daily cost to $24.75.
The proposed peak fare comprises a significant reduction and may attract some potential riders. Occassional peak rider increases may offset the lower fare and reduce the cost per passenger.
Does this all begin to sound like peak pricing?
The cost of driving compared to taking Amtrak depends on the actual cost of operating your vehicle. AAA and IRS estimates for the cost of driving are based on a typical vehicle. They rarely reflect the true cost of operating your vehicle.
The cost of driving my 2004 Toyota Corolla is a function of depreciation (cost of the vehicle, including financing, amortized over the expected life of the asset), fuel, insurance, and maintenance. Depending on where I am going, it could also include tolls and parking.
The cost of taking Amtrak is the ticket price plus the cost of driving to the train station, as well as possible parking fees, or taking an alternative form of transport. At my destination I would have to rent a car, use public transport, or have someone pick me up, in which case they would incur the cost of driving to the train station and in many instances paying to park.
Earlier this week I drove from Georgetown to Dallas and back. The distance was 339.4 miles. The cost per mile in my car is 23.82 cents, and the cost of driving was $80.85. The roundtrip time was approximately six hours.
Had I taken the train from Austin, which is the closest station to my house, a roundtrip coach class ticket would have been $48.00. The trip time would have been 11 hours and 38 minutes. The cost per mile would have been 10.3 cents per mile. I would have had to drive to the Austin train station and park. This would have added $20.34 to the cost of the train ticket. In Dallas I could have taken DART to my destination. This would have added another $3.50 to the cost, thereby bringing the total cost to take the train in coach class to $71.84 or $9.01 less than driving.
Some would argue that had I taken the train I should have reduced the cost of the train trip by the fix costs on the car. However, accountants agree that all costs are variable in the long run and, therefore, in most instances, accounting for small fixed costs is dysfunctional.
There is only one train a day between Austin and Dallas; therefore, it would have been impossible for me to complete the trip in a day. But for comparison purposes lets suppose that there were four trains a day between Big D and Austin, thereby making a one day turn around possible.
Had I taken a passenger with me, the cost of driving would have been essentially the same. In fact, I could have taken three passengers for nearly the same cost. Two people on the train, however, would have bumped the cost to $96. Another $3.50 would have been needed to cover the DART fare, bringing the total cost for two people to $99.50 or $18.65 more than the train.
As other scenarios that I have run showed, in many instances one person can take the train for less than driving. But with two or more people the cost advantage swings to driving, although it changes over long distances when motel and meal costs are factored into the accounting, and the passengers are traveling coach class v.s. first class. Of course, the cost of meals on the train has to be included for on long distance trips.
If the known subsidies are factored into the equation, the cost of driving from Georgetown to Dallas would have been bumped by approximately three cents per mile, i.e. the cost of the city streets that I drove on are paid for with property taxes.
Most of the trip was on federally funded highways. The average federal subsidy in FY 2007 was .0138 cents per mile. It is difficult to know the so-called subsidy embedded in the county roads and city streets, but it is probably around three cents per mile. This would add 3.0138 cents per mile. And it would have brought the total cost of driving to approximately $91.08.
The average per mile subsidy for Amtrak's long distance trains in FY 2007 was 20.57 cents per mile. If Amtrak had to recover its costs, the cost of taking the train from Austin to Dallas and return would have been $143.4. If Amtrak had corridor trains between Austin and Dallas, as per above, assuming the per mile subsidy for the state and other corridor trains in FY 2007 of 12.98 cents per mile, the cost would have been $108.23. Both amounts are higher than the cost of driving my Corolla. Of course, the cost of driving other vehicles could be be considerably higher, thereby chaning the dynamics of the comparison.
If Amtrak reduced its fares, it might increased the number of riders and, therefore, reduce the subsidy per passenger mile. On most of its trains it appears to have the potential to do so, i.e. the load factors are no where near capacity. However, if it had to add capacity, it would incur the additional cost of doing so, which would drive up the per mile cost of the service.
No matter how the numbers are sliced and diced, passenger rail in the U.S., as well as throughout most of the world, is not supported by the fare box. It requires significant subsidy. Most forms of transport in the U.S.are subsidized, but the amount of subsidy per mile and per passenger required by rail is much greater than the subsidies required by the other forms of transport.
I often tell people that when driving into NY City they might be better off parking at a MNRR or NJT station and riding the train into the city for both the cost of parking and the freedom of movement. Even a hotel room in the 'burbs and "commuting" in and out of the city could be less expensive and easier on the nerves especially if not used to city like driving. Those who have followed the suggestion were very impressed and satisfied. Those who don't, those who "diss" the idea, come back grumbling about how bad the traffic was, how costly the parking was in lots (and non existant on streets), and how much the tolls were!
But lets face it, we are not defining long distance train travel beyond running a train in most discussions. Long Distance travel for tourism, for business, for day trips or other personal matters are each a seperate need and market. Therefore there are different approaches that need be taken to supply a train for each purpose. What we do now is run a Long Distance train and hope it catches all markets. But a rationalized route of Long Distance supported by several shorter distance trains might be more viable in some instances either as feeder services or services unto themselves. As long as our passenger rail system is politically driven rather than market dirven, there is no real panecea for costs and services.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
If we are talking commuting, then you have to factor in the incremental cost of insurance as a short term variable cost in the transit vs. driving analysis. But, for the occasional intercity trip, the variable cost of insurance is almost nil.
But, since we're talking about Amtrak, we're not talking about commuting.
There is some mileage-based depreciation, but that's very small compared to the time-based depreciation on a newer car. You can get a sense of what this is by playing around with the on-line "blue book" calculators. It's going to vary by the age and condition of the car.
There is also some real, incremental cost of wear and tear on the vehicle that occurs for each mile driven - mostly the cost of oil-changes, tires and brakes. That might come to a few cents per mile. i.e. oil change might be $30 every 3000 miles, tires, $500 every 50,000 miles.
For a point of referrence, parking in Altanta runs $5-$10 a day (avg is closer to the bottom of the range), but you can park in a MARTA lot for free and ride for $1.75 to all those places were parking is that costly. Interestingly, MARTA rail is in the airport terminal, but does not stop near the Amtrak station even though the line passes within 1/4 mile of it. If you want to use transit to the train, it's a fairly unreliable bus route that operates every 30 minutes off peak.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Harvey: I don't know about your insurance but mine is pegged to how many miles a week I drive one way to work and also every year the total miles I put on my car. Driving to work almost doubles my insurance rate.
I think what phoebe is saying is that gas plus tolls is a very short way of figuring car cost. But insurance has to be included because, theoretically, you would be paying a higher rate for insurance if you use the car to commute greater distances than if you just used it around town...and we are all honest about car insurance right? Plus the cost of parking which in some places in some instances can go as high as 100 bucks a day but more normally is probably around $20 daily or $100 a week. And if you drive 3 miles a day to and from work vs 50 or more miles, car wear, tire wear, etc., goes up, thus the real cost of driving goes up. And aside frome commuting, the same costs have to be included in the use of a car when you drive a hundred or a thousand miles: it all adds to the cost, it all adds up. And the intangable is how rested are you when you arrive at your destination when using a public form of transportation rather than doing the driving? Businessmen used to overnight by train because they took into account the cost of a hotel room and the driving and the car costs vs. train. (I do wonder how that kind of accounting would stand up today when you can jet to and from most places in the country between breakfast and dinner?)
Maybe I am being a simpleton. Gas and tolls are the direct out-of-pocket costs considered by most drivers when considering travel alternatives - the car and insurance is paid for whether or not they use the car. It's not like there is a meter on the car that bills by the mile. I also understand this doesn't include energy, environmental and other costs.
Even if I had AAA figures on per-mile cost or US driving allowance, it's irrelevant for this point. Now when I get around to whether it's cheaper to commute by Amtrak to a non-CBD destination such as around O'Hare or the 'burbs without a car, it'll be a different matter adding the full cost of car to the owner.
Are you seriously trying to say gas + tolls = cost of driving?
I'd like to follow up on the previous post.
Short distance trains
Long distance trains
Tough economic times will bring cold looks at the average subsidy per passenger and per passenger-mile for Amtrak by the new administration, Sam1 and others. President-elect Obama just said current federal programs will be reviewed for effectiveness and opportunities to reduce costs.
Using the (fully allocated?) subsidy per passenger-mile and subsidy per passenger metrics out of the context of national policies and goals troubles me where the numbers of users are strongly influenced by fares. Revenue optimization may bring in more dollars for each passenger; but the reduced number of passengers exacerbates the subsidy per passenger. Higher fares deter ridership and may reduce overall revenue relative to the cost of the service. Lower fares attract riders and also may reduce overall revenue beyond a point; but greater ridership can improve cost metrics.
Representative 1-way coach fares from the Amtrak Summer-2008 timetable
To be continued. I gotta go now.
One possible long-distance expansion might be a Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati - Louisville - Nashville - Memphis connection for the Cardinal. Cincinnati might become San Antonio-North; but it gives more cities eastern connections.
There is potential for regional service as well coordination with possible Chicago - Florida service.
Re: Charlotte - Atlanta - Orlando
HarveyK400 wrote:New Dp Charlotte 0700, ar Atlanta 1228....
An Atlanta - Orlando train might connect with or serve as an extension of Charlotte - Atlanta train. It would dp Atlanta 1300, ar Jacksonville 1915 and Orlando 2230. The return would have to dp Orlando at 0700 & Jacksonville 1030, to ar Atlanta at 1645. This pushes the limit for daytime train travel as an adjunct to Carolina - Georgia services.
Upgrade of route through Georgia may attract rail freight business and more efficient service.
Re: Atlanta - Jacksonville
oltmannd wrote:The rest of the route on NS has capacity and most is suitable for higher speeds: http://www.garail.com/Pages/pdf/2004jaxreport.pdf)
The rest of the route on NS has capacity and most is suitable for higher speeds: http://www.garail.com/Pages/pdf/2004jaxreport.pdf)
Having looked over the Georgia Rail study, my guess is tilt equipment was assumed for all conventional, moderate, and high speed alternatives between Atlanta and Jacksonville. Travel times between Atlanta and Griffin are identical for all alternatives with travel time reductions occuring south of Griffin with more tangents and broader curves to exploit the 110-mph limit. The 52-min schedule to Griffin comes close to a 65-mph limit for mostly 3-degree curves with tilt equipment; whereas conventional equipment limited to 50 mph may take around 65 min.
South of Macon, even the three 110-mph round trips average only about 50 passengers a train.
Another interesting facet of the study is the scheduling of a pair of trains to connect with the Crescent with a mid-morning departure and mid-afternoon arrival at Atlanta. I suspect few travelers from western Virginia and the Carolinas would endure the late-night service to reach Macon or Jacksonville.
A more typical single round-trip 79-mph/6-hr commuter schedule to Atlanta and back with tilt equipment offers benefits:
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.