Harvey:
They are planning an aditional train between Raleigh and Charlotte.
Other than that NC is looking at more routs, not more trains on the one existing route.
http://www.bytrain.org/future/
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Samantha: Thanks it has been too long since business or pleasure placed myself on that route. The analysis of any route needs these things to be considered. Since NCDOT IS THE controlling agency for the Charlotte - Greesboro - Raleigh - Selma route they have speeded up the gradual upgrade of that route by being able to take care of highway relocations and grade crossing separations (several more proposed). Haven't ridden that route but suspect the public using it only has an expectation that they will be on schedule and expect the future upgrades may decrease the running times. Cab signaling or PTC may improve those seqments that can take higher speeds. Careful planning is what it is all about.
Had a wedding to attend in San Jose, Ca and yesterday being an off day took ACE to Stockton, bus to AMTRAK Stockton station, Amtrak to Emeryville, bus to SFO CALTRAIN, CALTRAIN baby bullet to San Jose. Even with a broken Signal we arrive at every stop ahead of schedule and the connections were very easy. That is what good planning will do.
Harvey: your schedule has merits however if NCDOT keeps the upgrading going maybe those times can be reduced.
I think there may be demand for a number of trains through North Carolina. I have no idea at this time how these would relate to state-supported trains
blue streak 1 wrote:Samantha: I was referring to ROW width, restricting curvature, freight sidings in the way, highway over and underpasses, close roads without grade seperation, etc.
It has been about a year since I have ridden the Eagle north of Austin, so I am a little fuzzy regarding the items that you have listed. Having said that, however, all of the problems that you show exist in varying degrees along the current route. There are some particularly tight spots near Austin and Temple that come to mind.
About 15 years ago a proposal was made to the Texas Legislature to build a high speed rail line from DFW to San Antonio. As I remember it the proposal was for a largely new route. The proposal was hinged on the legislature putting up some of the funding. It was rejected.
If Texas is to develop a viable rapid rail route between DFW and San Antonio, it would need to build new links between some of the cities, as well as upgrade most of the existing right-of-way that could be used.
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.
Here in California we have three very successful corridors, San Jose - Sacramento, Oakland/Sacramento - Bakersfield, and San Diego - Santa Barbara. None of these routes prior to Amtrak operated the numbers of trains they do today. In fact all have been extended over there original pre-Amtrak routes. In the case of the San Joaquins they provide Amtrak Bus connections not only from Bakersfield to numerous destinations in Southern California but also operate Amtrak buses to Las Vegas. At Stockton there is connecting Amtrak bus service to San Jose.
In addition we have numerous commuter services throughout the State that are showing almost daily increased ridership.
Now we are in a situation where the HSR bond will be voted on in November and all early indications point to Californians sinking further in debt. It is estimated it will pass by at least 60% of the vote. The HSR is a 200 - 220 mph system that will connect Los Angeles and San Francisco initially via the central valley, with a connecting HSR link to Sacramento from the Central Valley. In addition funding will be used to increase capacity on the Sacramento - San Jose corridor, the Altamont Commuter Express corridor and the San Francisco - Gilroy commuter service will be electrified and additional trackage added. In addition there is even talk of daily passenger train service between Redding and Sacramento now operated by Amtrak buses and Coast Starlight in the middle of the night.
I even believe for the first time Nuclear Power Plants have a chance at rebirth in this state.
There may be a lull in gasoline prices now but I believe Californians for the first time realize it will not last and gasoline is only going to continue to climb in price. The Highway lobby for the first time has been very silent. Drive by any used car lot and the numbers of SUVs is staggering. In fact some newer used SUVs are being loaded on railcars for shipment to states where there is a market. Dealers are telling customers that own SUVs to try selling them privately as they cannot use them as trade ins and expect to get anything like there actual worth for them. I have occasion to drive almost weekly to Sacramento and back and am seeing a drop in the numbers of cars on I-5 and even 99. I do not travel during the rush hours so cannot speak for those time periods but the hours I travel I see a dramatic drop in automobile traffic. If the train service operated in the times I need I would certainly ride it between Stockton and Sacramento. Maybe that will change.
Al - in - Stockton
Phoebe Vet wrote: oltmannd wrote: When Amtrak operates over a frt road, they pay by the train-mile, so more trains proportionally increases costs.Amtrak's game is won and lost on equipment and crew costs. Generally, the faster you can cycle the equipment an crews, the lower the cost.Faster service has higher value and faster equipment and crew cycles have lower cost....just look at Acela.There are two kinds of costs when you operate a train. Fixed costs, which you pay whether you ever move a train or not. Fixed costs are the same whether you run one train a day, or 1 train an hour. And direct costs which are incurred by actually running the train. Fixed costs include stations, ticket agents, baggage handlers, janitors, maintainence facilities, calendar based maint. etc. Direct costs include fuel, track mileage fees. train crews, mileage based maint. etc.Running an additional train per day increases the direct costs by each trip, but has only a one time increase in fixed cost, which is the purchase of the additional train.The total cost of running each train actually goes down because the fixed cost is now divided by two trains instead of one. The fixed cost per train goes down with each additional train. The only limiting factor is how many passengers will actually use the service.Obviously, an empty train reduces net income. That is why I suggested a small train for the local. perhaps even a DMU.
oltmannd wrote: When Amtrak operates over a frt road, they pay by the train-mile, so more trains proportionally increases costs.Amtrak's game is won and lost on equipment and crew costs. Generally, the faster you can cycle the equipment an crews, the lower the cost.Faster service has higher value and faster equipment and crew cycles have lower cost....just look at Acela.
When Amtrak operates over a frt road, they pay by the train-mile, so more trains proportionally increases costs.
Amtrak's game is won and lost on equipment and crew costs. Generally, the faster you can cycle the equipment an crews, the lower the cost.
Faster service has higher value and faster equipment and crew cycles have lower cost.
...just look at Acela.
There are two kinds of costs when you operate a train. Fixed costs, which you pay whether you ever move a train or not. Fixed costs are the same whether you run one train a day, or 1 train an hour. And direct costs which are incurred by actually running the train. Fixed costs include stations, ticket agents, baggage handlers, janitors, maintainence facilities, calendar based maint. etc. Direct costs include fuel, track mileage fees. train crews, mileage based maint. etc.
Running an additional train per day increases the direct costs by each trip, but has only a one time increase in fixed cost, which is the purchase of the additional train.
The total cost of running each train actually goes down because the fixed cost is now divided by two trains instead of one. The fixed cost per train goes down with each additional train. The only limiting factor is how many passengers will actually use the service.
Obviously, an empty train reduces net income. That is why I suggested a small train for the local. perhaps even a DMU.
Whether a cost is variable or fixed depends on the underlying drivers. In the long run, however, all costs are variable.
The major categories of variable costs associated with the operation of a passenger railroad would be labor, fuel, and maintenance. In addition, other costs tied to train miles would be variable, i.e. insurance premiums, reservation center units, etc. The labor costs would include those for train personnel, maintenance personnel, station personnel, reservation center personnel, etc.
The major fixed costs would include equipment (lease and depreciation), facilities, long term contracts, executive and management salaries, overheads not tied directly to train operations, interest, etc.
These are the general principles. But there are plenty of exceptions. Each item must be looked at to determine if it is variable or fixed or mixed. For example, if any of the employees are covered by a union contract that pays them their wages for the life of the contract, even if they are laid off, the costs are fixed for the term of the contract. By the same token, if the carrier incurs certain maintenance costs irrespective of whether the equipment operates, it would be considered a fixed cost.
Determining whether overhead costs are variable or fixed is even more challenging. If increasing or decreasing train seat miles changes the cost of the support services, i.e. HR, Procurement, Computer Services, etc., the costs are variable. However, if the changes do not result in a change in the cost of the support services, the costs are fixed.
The addition or deletion of one or two trains would spread the fixed costs over more seat miles, thereby lowering the attributed cost per seat mile. But the change would not be dramatic in most instances. However, if the long distance trains were discontinued, as an example, the fixed costs would change dramatically. The fixed costs associated with the long distance trains would be gone, as would many of the overheads, i.e. reservation center labor, computer center labor, etc., as well as a portion of the facilities required to house them. This is why accountants argue that all costs are variable in the long run.
blue streak 1 wrote:Samantha: I didn't realize DFW to SAT was the highest density corridor. Its been a while but isn't the ROW rather tight in certain locations? We all know extra tracks will be needed.
Approximately half of Texas' population lives along the I-35 corridor. That is to say, they live within approximately 50 miles of the corridor, although most of them live closer than that. The most recent Census Bureau estimate puts Texas's population at 23,507,000.
I am not sure what you mean by tight. The current line is chockers with freight traffic. Also, the line from Dallas to San Antonio is not direct. It runs west from Dallas to Fort Worth, then south to Temple, then a dog leg over to Austin, and then south to San Antonio.
To implement rapid rail service between Dallas/Fort Worth and San Antonio would require, in my opinion, a serious upgrade of those portions of the existing lines that could be used, as well as a build or rebuild of lines that are not used for passenger service.
oltmannd wrote: Samantha wrote: oltmannd wrote: HarveyK400 wrote: oltmannd wrote: I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day. Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)Example: Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required. If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first. If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.Connecting dots that are greater than 1 million in population does not address the relative success and opportunities for intercity passenger services to places like Grand Rapids, MI and Carbondale, IL. Samantha was suggesting there weren't corridors worth 3-5 RT per day. That Carbondale and GR work so well suggests that connecting the 1M+ cities with more frequent and faster service would be even more sucessful.Samantha said, "Outside of the present corridors, with a few exceptions, I don't think there are many high density corridors that could support three to five passenger trains a day. That, of course, is likely to change as the population of the United States increases."The population at the corridor end points, as well as population along the corridor, is only one indicator of the potential market for passenger train service. A significant determinant is corridor congestion and its impact on alternative modes of transport. The potential corridors in Texas are not congested to the point where people are looking seriously at rail as an alternative. At least not now! People in Texas, for the most part, are happy flying or driving between the Lone Star state's major cities.Population patterns are another important factor. Although some people are moving to town, most of them live in the suburbs. The location of the suburbs is a significant determinate in gauging the utility of passenger rail in the potential Texas corridors. The affluent suburbs in the Dallas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), as well as the better off neighborhoods, are north of downtown. In Houston the pattern is the same. A passenger rail corridor connecting the two cities would pass through the affluent Houston and suburban areas that are most likely to be a market for passenger rail. But it would not serve the more affluent Dallas areas. The potential market, therefore, is not the Dallas SMSA or the Houston SMSA, but only the downtown communities, which are relatively sparse, as well as the southern portion of the Dallas SMSA and the northern portion of the Houston SMSA. The residents of the Dallas SMSA most likely to be traveling on a commercial carrier to Houston would find it more convenient to go to Love Field and hop on Southwest, whereas the pattern would be reversed for Houston. The residents south of downtown Houston would find it more convenient to go to Hobby Field to catch a flight to Dallas. Having lived in New York (I'll be there at the end of this month), I agree that expanding the highways and airways is a challenge. But in Texas, as well as many other areas of the country, there is plenty of room to expand both. In fact, a new toll road just opened east of Austin that carries motorists around the city. And several new toll roads have opened or will open soon in the Dallas area. This is why I think it will be a long time before there will be a market for three to five passenger trains movements a day between any of Texas' large cities, except for commuter operations.Texas is very rural in between the large cities, well, if the others are like Dallas, anyway. That's not exactly the case further east. It's not exactly empty between Buffalo, Cleveland Columbus and Chicago. Charlotte to Raleigh/Cary/Durham is pretty much a congested mess the whole way on I-85 these days.There have even been studies showing Atlanta to Jacksonville could support 3 trains a day. (the problematic part of the route is Jesup, GA to Jacksonville. The rest of the route on NS has capacity and most is suitable for higher speeds: http://www.garail.com/Pages/pdf/2004jaxreport.pdf)
Samantha wrote: oltmannd wrote: HarveyK400 wrote: oltmannd wrote: I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day. Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)Example: Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required. If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first. If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.Connecting dots that are greater than 1 million in population does not address the relative success and opportunities for intercity passenger services to places like Grand Rapids, MI and Carbondale, IL. Samantha was suggesting there weren't corridors worth 3-5 RT per day. That Carbondale and GR work so well suggests that connecting the 1M+ cities with more frequent and faster service would be even more sucessful.Samantha said, "Outside of the present corridors, with a few exceptions, I don't think there are many high density corridors that could support three to five passenger trains a day. That, of course, is likely to change as the population of the United States increases."The population at the corridor end points, as well as population along the corridor, is only one indicator of the potential market for passenger train service. A significant determinant is corridor congestion and its impact on alternative modes of transport. The potential corridors in Texas are not congested to the point where people are looking seriously at rail as an alternative. At least not now! People in Texas, for the most part, are happy flying or driving between the Lone Star state's major cities.Population patterns are another important factor. Although some people are moving to town, most of them live in the suburbs. The location of the suburbs is a significant determinate in gauging the utility of passenger rail in the potential Texas corridors. The affluent suburbs in the Dallas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), as well as the better off neighborhoods, are north of downtown. In Houston the pattern is the same. A passenger rail corridor connecting the two cities would pass through the affluent Houston and suburban areas that are most likely to be a market for passenger rail. But it would not serve the more affluent Dallas areas. The potential market, therefore, is not the Dallas SMSA or the Houston SMSA, but only the downtown communities, which are relatively sparse, as well as the southern portion of the Dallas SMSA and the northern portion of the Houston SMSA. The residents of the Dallas SMSA most likely to be traveling on a commercial carrier to Houston would find it more convenient to go to Love Field and hop on Southwest, whereas the pattern would be reversed for Houston. The residents south of downtown Houston would find it more convenient to go to Hobby Field to catch a flight to Dallas. Having lived in New York (I'll be there at the end of this month), I agree that expanding the highways and airways is a challenge. But in Texas, as well as many other areas of the country, there is plenty of room to expand both. In fact, a new toll road just opened east of Austin that carries motorists around the city. And several new toll roads have opened or will open soon in the Dallas area. This is why I think it will be a long time before there will be a market for three to five passenger trains movements a day between any of Texas' large cities, except for commuter operations.
oltmannd wrote: HarveyK400 wrote: oltmannd wrote: I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day. Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)Example: Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required. If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first. If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.Connecting dots that are greater than 1 million in population does not address the relative success and opportunities for intercity passenger services to places like Grand Rapids, MI and Carbondale, IL. Samantha was suggesting there weren't corridors worth 3-5 RT per day. That Carbondale and GR work so well suggests that connecting the 1M+ cities with more frequent and faster service would be even more sucessful.
HarveyK400 wrote: oltmannd wrote: I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day. Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)Example: Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required. If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first. If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.Connecting dots that are greater than 1 million in population does not address the relative success and opportunities for intercity passenger services to places like Grand Rapids, MI and Carbondale, IL.
oltmannd wrote: I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day. Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)Example: Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required. If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first. If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.
I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day. Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)
Example: Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.
How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required. If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first. If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.
Connecting dots that are greater than 1 million in population does not address the relative success and opportunities for intercity passenger services to places like Grand Rapids, MI and Carbondale, IL.
Samantha was suggesting there weren't corridors worth 3-5 RT per day. That Carbondale and GR work so well suggests that connecting the 1M+ cities with more frequent and faster service would be even more sucessful.
Samantha said, "Outside of the present corridors, with a few exceptions, I don't think there are many high density corridors that could support three to five passenger trains a day. That, of course, is likely to change as the population of the United States increases."
The population at the corridor end points, as well as population along the corridor, is only one indicator of the potential market for passenger train service.
A significant determinant is corridor congestion and its impact on alternative modes of transport. The potential corridors in Texas are not congested to the point where people are looking seriously at rail as an alternative. At least not now! People in Texas, for the most part, are happy flying or driving between the Lone Star state's major cities.
Population patterns are another important factor. Although some people are moving to town, most of them live in the suburbs. The location of the suburbs is a significant determinate in gauging the utility of passenger rail in the potential Texas corridors.
The affluent suburbs in the Dallas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), as well as the better off neighborhoods, are north of downtown. In Houston the pattern is the same. A passenger rail corridor connecting the two cities would pass through the affluent Houston and suburban areas that are most likely to be a market for passenger rail. But it would not serve the more affluent Dallas areas.
The potential market, therefore, is not the Dallas SMSA or the Houston SMSA, but only the downtown communities, which are relatively sparse, as well as the southern portion of the Dallas SMSA and the northern portion of the Houston SMSA. The residents of the Dallas SMSA most likely to be traveling on a commercial carrier to Houston would find it more convenient to go to Love Field and hop on Southwest, whereas the pattern would be reversed for Houston. The residents south of downtown Houston would find it more convenient to go to Hobby Field to catch a flight to Dallas.
Having lived in New York (I'll be there at the end of this month), I agree that expanding the highways and airways is a challenge. But in Texas, as well as many other areas of the country, there is plenty of room to expand both. In fact, a new toll road just opened east of Austin that carries motorists around the city. And several new toll roads have opened or will open soon in the Dallas area. This is why I think it will be a long time before there will be a market for three to five passenger trains movements a day between any of Texas' large cities, except for commuter operations.
Texas is very rural in between the large cities, well, if the others are like Dallas, anyway. That's not exactly the case further east. It's not exactly empty between Buffalo, Cleveland Columbus and Chicago. Charlotte to Raleigh/Cary/Durham is pretty much a congested mess the whole way on I-85 these days.
There have even been studies showing Atlanta to Jacksonville could support 3 trains a day. (the problematic part of the route is Jesup, GA to Jacksonville. The rest of the route on NS has capacity and most is suitable for higher speeds: http://www.garail.com/Pages/pdf/2004jaxreport.pdf)
Your assessment of the "space" between Texas' major cities is largely correct. However, there is one exception. Between Dallas/Fort Worth and San Antonio there are several sizeable communities, i.e. Cleburne, Waco, Temple, Round Rock, Austin, and San Marcos. This is known as the I-35 corridor, and it probably will be the first intercity corridor in Texas to see enhanced passenger rail service.
oltmannd wrote:There have even been studies showing Atlanta to Jacksonville could support 3 trains a day. (the problematic part of the route is Jesup, GA to Jacksonville. I would concur from our experience around Chicago that Atlanta - Jacksoville has potential has potential for at least two round trips. A Charlotte, Chattanooga, or Birmingham - Jacksonvile round trip could fill in the schedule. A Chicago - Florida long-distance train most likely would pass in the night or run through Savannah. Having driven to Florida a number of times, the problematic part of an Atlanta - Jacksonville route is going through Jessup. The more populous and viable route would be by way of Warner-Robbins, Cordele, Tifton, and Valdosta along the I-75 corridor from Macon. In fact, Valdosta - Atlanta may support a pair of trains with a reasonable revenue/direct cost ratio.I do not know why Georgia chose the Jessup route for study other than it being shorter in length to Jacksonville. Why would the State target an out-of-state market 5-6 hours away that would have more attractive air service? This is a failing of the "inter-city" mind-set.Even so, the Conventional and Moderate Jessup Alternatives come in with a projected operating ratio of 30% and the High-Speed Alternative only achieves 49%. It's understandable that this has not moved forward. The State could minimize it's cost by half by choosing the Conventional Service instead of High Speed; but reach only a third of the potential riders. The rest of the route on NS has capacity and most is suitable for higher speeds: From what I can glean from aerials, the Atlanta - Macon route is not engineering for extensive 79-mph speeds without tilt equipment, let alone 110-mph except for relatively short sprints. Through Jessup may offer longer stretches of sustained 110-mph running; but the train can't fly.
There have even been studies showing Atlanta to Jacksonville could support 3 trains a day. (the problematic part of the route is Jesup, GA to Jacksonville.
I would concur from our experience around Chicago that Atlanta - Jacksoville has potential has potential for at least two round trips. A Charlotte, Chattanooga, or Birmingham - Jacksonvile round trip could fill in the schedule. A Chicago - Florida long-distance train most likely would pass in the night or run through Savannah.
Having driven to Florida a number of times, the problematic part of an Atlanta - Jacksonville route is going through Jessup. The more populous and viable route would be by way of Warner-Robbins, Cordele, Tifton, and Valdosta along the I-75 corridor from Macon. In fact, Valdosta - Atlanta may support a pair of trains with a reasonable revenue/direct cost ratio.
I do not know why Georgia chose the Jessup route for study other than it being shorter in length to Jacksonville. Why would the State target an out-of-state market 5-6 hours away that would have more attractive air service? This is a failing of the "inter-city" mind-set.
Even so, the Conventional and Moderate Jessup Alternatives come in with a projected operating ratio of 30% and the High-Speed Alternative only achieves 49%. It's understandable that this has not moved forward. The State could minimize it's cost by half by choosing the Conventional Service instead of High Speed; but reach only a third of the potential riders.
The rest of the route on NS has capacity and most is suitable for higher speeds:
From what I can glean from aerials, the Atlanta - Macon route is not engineering for extensive 79-mph speeds without tilt equipment, let alone 110-mph except for relatively short sprints. Through Jessup may offer longer stretches of sustained 110-mph running; but the train can't fly.
Charlotte to Raleigh has 3 trains a day now and will have a 4th by spring. The money has been apropriated and the equipment is currently being prepared. Two of them go all the way to NYC, and the extention of the northeast corridor to Raleigh and possibly to Charlotte is in progress.
http://www.sehsr.org/
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd wrote:I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day. Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)Example: Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required. If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first. If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.
Phoebe Vet wrote:...Fixed costs include stations, ticket agents, baggage handlers, janitors, maintainence facilities, calendar based maint. etc.... The total cost of running each train actually goes down because the fixed cost is now divided by two trains instead of one. The fixed cost per train goes down with each additional train.
...Fixed costs include stations, ticket agents, baggage handlers, janitors, maintainence facilities, calendar based maint. etc....
The total cost of running each train actually goes down because the fixed cost is now divided by two trains instead of one. The fixed cost per train goes down with each additional train.
Most smaller intermediate stations are publically owned and maintained these days by either paid or volunteer janitorial service and snow removal. Some stations still may have an agent; but vey few have a baggage handler in addition to the agent(s).
Most fixed costs are in terminal and in-route train service facilities such as for a service track, water and sanitation.
Fixed costs apportioned to the number of trains, wheelage, or tonnage is generally true until you get into capacity and speed improvements. The improvement costs are still there even if they are absorbed as expenses or federal and state grants; and this may explain some variances between services.
henry6 wrote: oltmannd wrote: I think it's more than just service that needs to be defined. It the whole cost/benefit analysis. That includes analysis of alternatives, including "do nothing". There is value to people's time and to air quality, for example, that needs to go into the benefit side.I disagree that there is less track space in the east, particularly the northeast and near midwest. There is a whole lot of ROW that was mainline that is now shortline and a whole lot more where there was two or more tracks that are now single track. In the west, with the exeption of some granger lines, there are mucho capacity problems. The "cost/ benefit analysis is but one factor which has to be used to define service not as a seperate item but as a major part of the defining item. But in the East there is fewer quality rights of way and very congested (in need of more track) freight railroads. Utilizing the lesser rights of way would not necessarily provide passenger rail service in areas' most needed or usable. There is no land space in many parts of the East that can be used for highways, a situation which also limits new rail construction. In fact, the need for more transportation avenues in and out of the New York Metropolitan Area over the next 25 to 50 years is an overwhelming challange for planners at the moment. While they need to move imports out of the harbor area, they also must move exports into the harbor area and still maintain avenues for local freight needs and a way of moving people. Neither the land nor the air can support more highways and there may have to be some "sacrifices" made. And here is where the congestion and air pollution cost/benefit analysis will weigh heavy.
oltmannd wrote: I think it's more than just service that needs to be defined. It the whole cost/benefit analysis. That includes analysis of alternatives, including "do nothing". There is value to people's time and to air quality, for example, that needs to go into the benefit side.I disagree that there is less track space in the east, particularly the northeast and near midwest. There is a whole lot of ROW that was mainline that is now shortline and a whole lot more where there was two or more tracks that are now single track. In the west, with the exeption of some granger lines, there are mucho capacity problems.
I think it's more than just service that needs to be defined. It the whole cost/benefit analysis. That includes analysis of alternatives, including "do nothing". There is value to people's time and to air quality, for example, that needs to go into the benefit side.
I disagree that there is less track space in the east, particularly the northeast and near midwest. There is a whole lot of ROW that was mainline that is now shortline and a whole lot more where there was two or more tracks that are now single track. In the west, with the exeption of some granger lines, there are mucho capacity problems.
The "cost/ benefit analysis is but one factor which has to be used to define service not as a seperate item but as a major part of the defining item.
But in the East there is fewer quality rights of way and very congested (in need of more track) freight railroads. Utilizing the lesser rights of way would not necessarily provide passenger rail service in areas' most needed or usable. There is no land space in many parts of the East that can be used for highways, a situation which also limits new rail construction. In fact, the need for more transportation avenues in and out of the New York Metropolitan Area over the next 25 to 50 years is an overwhelming challange for planners at the moment. While they need to move imports out of the harbor area, they also must move exports into the harbor area and still maintain avenues for local freight needs and a way of moving people. Neither the land nor the air can support more highways and there may have to be some "sacrifices" made. And here is where the congestion and air pollution cost/benefit analysis will weigh heavy.
New York is problem and Phila, DC and Boston are pretty well, congested, too. But, all you have to do in order to get Buffalo to Chicago done is plop one or two more tracks back on the existing ROW. Tie it into CSX, NS to allow meets. Add some sort of train control to allow 110 mph. and you're done. Adding in Columbus and Indy are almost as simple. Adding in Detroit and Cincinnati, a bit more expensive. Adding in quasi-high speed to Pittsburgh will be tough.
henry6 wrote: Although I often say this in commuter discussions, it is probably pertinent here to. It must be decided if Amtrak is designed to run trains or provide service. Too often when talking passenger rail we talk in terms, and I believe this is part of Amtrak's political problems, of running a train or even trains without regard to whether the train or trains provide a "service". Defining "service" as running a trian or trains is very short sighted because if the train or trains don't serve passenger needs as to time and direction, or even level of accomodations, then it isn't a service at all. Would a town or route be better served by more than one train a day? Or by daylight service instead of a 3AM stop? What is the reason for the endpoints of a train's route? Is there enough end to end and overlapping patronage to support that train? Would there be an economy to two trains on a one train route or the one train be divided into two trains serving different parts of a route? Lots of thought, research and planning (and not political input) has to be done here. And again I have to point out that what I am getting from these discussions is the regional differences of perception, need, geography, demographic, et. al., about Amtrak and passenger service. And this leads me, again, into the thoughts of defined regions based on intradependency and need for interdependency under an Amtrak like umbrella. It is more difficult to find track space for Amtrak in the East than in the west; there might even be better opportunities to build, or rebuld, or designate, passenger routes in the west and southtwest where population density and other congestion hasn't depleted the available land. And while I dismiss politics in all this, I do realize the role politics does, and has to, play for the betterment and detriment of the whole thing.
Although I often say this in commuter discussions, it is probably pertinent here to. It must be decided if Amtrak is designed to run trains or provide service. Too often when talking passenger rail we talk in terms, and I believe this is part of Amtrak's political problems, of running a train or even trains without regard to whether the train or trains provide a "service". Defining "service" as running a trian or trains is very short sighted because if the train or trains don't serve passenger needs as to time and direction, or even level of accomodations, then it isn't a service at all. Would a town or route be better served by more than one train a day? Or by daylight service instead of a 3AM stop? What is the reason for the endpoints of a train's route? Is there enough end to end and overlapping patronage to support that train? Would there be an economy to two trains on a one train route or the one train be divided into two trains serving different parts of a route? Lots of thought, research and planning (and not political input) has to be done here.
And again I have to point out that what I am getting from these discussions is the regional differences of perception, need, geography, demographic, et. al., about Amtrak and passenger service. And this leads me, again, into the thoughts of defined regions based on intradependency and need for interdependency under an Amtrak like umbrella. It is more difficult to find track space for Amtrak in the East than in the west; there might even be better opportunities to build, or rebuld, or designate, passenger routes in the west and southtwest where population density and other congestion hasn't depleted the available land. And while I dismiss politics in all this, I do realize the role politics does, and has to, play for the betterment and detriment of the whole thing.
Samantha wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: You will never make a route profitable running one train a day, any more than a road would be efficient running one truck a day. It is an inefficient use of the required support infrastruture and personnel.Perhaps a better system would be 5 trains a day. Three two or three car trains that stop at every other telephone pole, giving train service to all the little communities along the way, and two longer trains between them that run flat out and stop only at the large cities. While technically a long distance train, the local would actually be a series of short routes that happen to use the same equipment. You could probably get the states to participate in the funding of the local for the portion that serves their particular communities. Or even encourage the states to run local trains themselves withing their own states that would serve the purpose above instead of Amtrak running the local.Airlines do that. The aircraft and crew change flight numbers and travel to a different airport.Three to five trains a day could provide a decent service. The key question is whether the service area population is large enough to support them, i.e pay the fares to cover at least the operating costs, with the states picking up the capital costs. Outside of the present corridors, with a few exceptions, I don't think there are many high density corridors that could support three to five passenger trains a day. That, of course, is likely to change as the population of the United States increases.
Phoebe Vet wrote: You will never make a route profitable running one train a day, any more than a road would be efficient running one truck a day. It is an inefficient use of the required support infrastruture and personnel.Perhaps a better system would be 5 trains a day. Three two or three car trains that stop at every other telephone pole, giving train service to all the little communities along the way, and two longer trains between them that run flat out and stop only at the large cities. While technically a long distance train, the local would actually be a series of short routes that happen to use the same equipment. You could probably get the states to participate in the funding of the local for the portion that serves their particular communities. Or even encourage the states to run local trains themselves withing their own states that would serve the purpose above instead of Amtrak running the local.Airlines do that. The aircraft and crew change flight numbers and travel to a different airport.
You will never make a route profitable running one train a day, any more than a road would be efficient running one truck a day. It is an inefficient use of the required support infrastruture and personnel.
Perhaps a better system would be 5 trains a day. Three two or three car trains that stop at every other telephone pole, giving train service to all the little communities along the way, and two longer trains between them that run flat out and stop only at the large cities. While technically a long distance train, the local would actually be a series of short routes that happen to use the same equipment. You could probably get the states to participate in the funding of the local for the portion that serves their particular communities. Or even encourage the states to run local trains themselves withing their own states that would serve the purpose above instead of Amtrak running the local.
Airlines do that. The aircraft and crew change flight numbers and travel to a different airport.
Three to five trains a day could provide a decent service. The key question is whether the service area population is large enough to support them, i.e pay the fares to cover at least the operating costs, with the states picking up the capital costs.
Outside of the present corridors, with a few exceptions, I don't think there are many high density corridors that could support three to five passenger trains a day. That, of course, is likely to change as the population of the United States increases.
If the passenger train operator increases the number of trains from one to three or five per day, the fixed costs per unit of revenue, assuming the increased in the number of trains generates a corresponding increase in revenues, decreases. This is one of the reasons an airline like Southwest is so successful whereas Amtrak, outside of the NEC, Illinois, and California corridors, is a financial disaster made even more so by running a train three days a week. Spreading the fixed costs over more revenue seat miles lowers the attributed fixed cost per mile.
I don't think I am finding an answer to my question about the "steel-wheeled bus."
There are two answers offered to why L-D trains are costly, or at least more costly than L-D bus. One is the question of road-rail "level playing field", that Amtrak has to pay the freight railroads for the tracks and the bus gets to use the road for free. Only not really, the bus pays substantial gas tax to use the road, but the argument is still made. The second is that there are a lot of train stations, high volume ones in Chcago and NY that there may be some question of equitable distribution of expenses between commuter and Amtrak operations. There are low volume ones along the L-D routes that require staffing, maintenance, etc. What does Greyhound do these days for its on-route stops? Do they stop at gas station mini-marts and have the gas station sell tickets?
What I am saying is at least for a thought experiment, lets level the playing field. Lets wave a wand and say that the taxpayer is to pay the trackage rights and even the station costs as a reasonable application of the "teaspoon-in-an-ocean" Amtrak subsidy.
If you do that, you have what I call the steel-wheeled bus. You have some locomotives, a bunch of Superliner or Amfleet and Viewliner cars, and these trains operate on a steel highway on an equal footing with buses on concrete. You would think there is some economy of scale for the train, one engine driver can account for 12 train cars -- it would required the equivalent of 24 bus drivers to cover the equivalent number of buses (a train car has the space of about 2 buses). This economy of scale holds whether you are running daily, 5-times daily, 3-weekly, or even a train charter operation.
I get the impression that the steel-wheeled bus does not compete on cost with the rubber-wheeled bus. What is the difference? Is it that railroad cars are expensive to own, expensive to maintain and buses are much cheaper? Is it that railroad trains require many more on-board attendants, but the bus company makes the driver perform all of the tasks: driving, baggage handling, fare collection, etc.? Is it that trains are expected (by the advocacy community, passengers) to provide on-board amenities whereas the buses do not?
There seems to be something intrinsically expensive about trains, even on an above the rails basis, and it seems those expenses don't improve with increased train frequency. If you ran an L-D train 5-times daily, you still have the same per-train costs of ownership, maintenance, insurance, fuel, crew wages, unless there would be some vast improvement in the "crew cycles" Don Oltmann talked about.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Phoebe Vet wrote: I don't believe you understood my point. I was not including the track because it's usually leased access. I was refering to the cost of stations and employees or contractors who are being paid to serve the passengers of one train per day. That is very inefficient.I guess I should have equated it to a road with a trucking company owned gas station that serves one truck a day, and a company owned restaurant that feeds only one vehicle's occupants a day, etc.I would include the track in that equation only if Amtrak owned it. I intentionally did not include the direct costs associated with actually moving the train, but only the costs that are incurred whether the train runs or not and therefore are totally assigned to the one train when they should be divided among several trains a day.
I don't believe you understood my point. I was not including the track because it's usually leased access. I was refering to the cost of stations and employees or contractors who are being paid to serve the passengers of one train per day. That is very inefficient.
I guess I should have equated it to a road with a trucking company owned gas station that serves one truck a day, and a company owned restaurant that feeds only one vehicle's occupants a day, etc.
I would include the track in that equation only if Amtrak owned it. I intentionally did not include the direct costs associated with actually moving the train, but only the costs that are incurred whether the train runs or not and therefore are totally assigned to the one train when they should be divided among several trains a day.
If a passenger train operator (Amtrak) contracts with a freight railroad to run its trains over the freight operator's tracks, it usually pays the freight carrier a rental, which is an operating expense. It flows through to net income or net loss.
If the passenger train operator buys new equipment or upgrades existing equipment, i.e. locomotives and cars, it is a capital expenditure, unless the upgrade of the existing equipment does not extend its useful life. This would be highly unusual. The cost is capitalized and depreciated over the life of the asset.
If the freight train operator upgrades its right of way, i.e. adds passing tracks, new signals, etc., and pays for the improvements, the cost would be capitalized on the books of the freight carrier and reflected in the rental charges to the passenger carrier. If the passenger train operator pays for and owns the upgrades, they would be capitalized on the passenger carrier's books and depreciated over the life of the asset. The same accounting would apply to new support facilities, i.e. stations, parking lots, etc., although another complexity can enter the picture. Frequently, as is the case in Wilmington, Delaware, the station is owned by a city, and the upgrades are made by the city. In this case the passenger carrier usually rents part or all of the facility. The rent is an operating cost and flows through to the bottom line.
In answer to Paul who asked about luxury bus travel in this country. In the late 1950's early 1960's Continental Trailways operated Golden Eagle Service between Los Angeles and Seattle. These buses had reclining seats a stewardess, and meals were served onboard except for breakfast which the bus stopped for. There was an area in the rear of the bus with two tables and seating for eight at a time. The fare was higher than Greyhound but it provided about seven hour faster service. As I recall this was before I-5 was complete so the buses used 99 for the most part. Trains in those days did not even compete for Seattle - LA service as it required a minimum two changes of trains.
When Amtrak first began service in 1970 they operated a Chicago - Denver Denver Zephyr train as well as the San Francisco Zephyr as it was called then. The train to Denver always seemed to operate full whereas the San Francisco Zephyr relied on its Ogden - LA and Ogden - Portland/Seattle connections to fill up. Now the Chicago - Denver and the two connecting trains are gone and it seems like the only part of the California Zephyr trip that is always full is Chicago - Denver and Reno - Oakland.
Maybe its time to look at what has been discontinued by Amtrak and resurrect some of the original routes, or at least take a close look at some of the early Amtrak routes once again.
The incremental variable and fixed costs allocated to the passenger train should be only a small part of moderate to heavy rail operations. This should afford the one-train-a-day advantages that are less likely with multiple-train passenger services requiring more fixed-asset capacity improvements.
That is the one thing I have been wondering about the L-D account balances. The roadway model of the L-D train is one where the once-daily train is regarded (by some, but maybe not by a railroad operating department) as incidental to what is essentially a freight line. Yes, Amtrak pays for trackage rights, but my understanding is those payments are a minor slice of the budgets for those trains. The track costs are no longer such a minor slice where Amtrak owns the tracks, agreed. But for the L-D trains, I would argue that the trackage rights are a minor cost of the operation, just as the gas tax you pay to drive on an Interstate is a minor part of what it costs you go that way.
The tradeoff of the L-D byproduct-of-the-freight-operation model is that he who lives by the freight, dies (on hours) by the freight of being stuffed into sidings and so on. But if people are willing to deal with the uncertainty of L-D schedules, Amtrak is getting a pretty good deal on the use of the tracks for only a minor share of the total cost of those tracks. And it has been proposed that if you ride L-D trains, you need to put yourself in the mindset, say of a passenger on a tramp steamship, that you will get there when you get there and to enjoy the amenities of the train and so on.
As this is the case, there are two Amtraks. One Amtrak is a passenger railroad (i.e. the NEC), the other Amtrak is a steel-wheeled bus company, where someone else is providing and maintaining the roadway in exchange for some payment, be it gas tax or trackage rights payments.
The question is why the bus-company Amtrak has weak financials. Some complain that some kind of cross-subsidy is going on (cough, URPA, cough, that article in Trains a couple years back). I don't want to get into a protracted discussion with our local experts on finance and accounting, and I will readily admit that URPA and other making this argument don't offer much factual data, but that argument is out in the wild.
Don Oltmann makes the argument that Amtrak needs to run a tighter ship on train car maintenance. Whether Don is right or Amtrak is doing the best they can, it seems that a passenger railroad car is an expensive article to make mortgage payments on and make the ongoing repairs to keep the FRA inspectors happy. Maybe the problem is one of crew-cycles, in terms of the costs of staffing trains over the long distances that they take crew members away from home base and families and for long periods of time?
Whatever it is, let's say, the Federal government should just pay outright for the trackage-rights payments to operate the trains, let's throw in the major stations, Penn Station NY, Uniion Station in Chicago, to level the highway cross-subsidy playing field. So Amtrak gets its steel highway outright as do those people in Montana get a lightly-travelled highway.
The accounting suggests that the L-D trains are losers on an "above the rails" basis. Why is this not a level playing field that trains should cover their above-the-rails costs, just as Greyhound is expected to cover their above the road costs, plus even a gas-tax contribution towards the road? Are we asking for more than a level playing field? Why? And why are the trains so much more expensive than a bus on an above-the-contact-patch basis? Is it because of the greater levels of amenities (legroom, on-board meals, lounge car for stretching out)? If so, why are we subsidizing a luxury service on rails but not on rubber (see my preceding post)?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.