I was sitting next to a couple at a dinner engagement who had just returned from a trip to Argentina. They related having a 34 hour trip, allowing for all the trip segments and layovers, getting from Wisconsin to their destination at the foothills of the Andes not far from Chile.
The interesting part of their trip, from the standpoint of long-distance trains, was a 10-hour bus ride required to get from Buenos Aires to their destination. You would think that a 10-hour bus ride, a 10-hour overnight bus ride in what we imagine about a Latin American country would be an adventure to say the least. In reality, it was the most luxurious part of their trip.
It was explained that they had a modern Mercedes double-decker motor coach. Furthermore, the seats were three across (2 seats, an aisle, and 1 seat), and they had the near horizontal recline that was just talked about regarding airline business class on some ocean-crossing carriers. Owing to the double decks, this bus was explained to accomodate about 40 passengers. There were also two (!) attendants on the bus, who offered you everything from drinks, blankets, and served a meal. And the fare on this 600-mile journey was 50 USD. Also, to cover 600 miles in 10 hours, this bus had to "really haul." Of course the trip was at night, avoiding daytime road congestion.
I am not saying, "Oh, the shame, that a country such as Argentina, a country that we regard as a much less wealthier and mighty one than ours, has a luxury express bus service and any attempts to have such a thing here get shot down by greedy special interests." Here in the U.S, that 600 mile hop may be served by a regional jet whereas in Argentina, the labor costs may be such relative to importing a regional jet from Canada or even their neighbor Brasil that the express bus makes more sense. Or, there may be some smart transportation planners in Argentina who thought of the luxury bus and this idea never occurred to anyone in the U.S.. There is a disparity of wealth and influence between countries, but smart ideas could occur in any country.
I guess what I am saying is that we in the advocacy community seem to be really stuck on the 1950s model of baggage car-diner-lounge car-sleeper for long-distance trains. I say the 1950s model, because passenger train travel was in rapid decline, and the streamliner-era level of amenities on the "name trains" was an attempt to bribe passengers from leaving for the other modes. Sure they had dining cars and private-room sleepers before the war, but what we are defending as the package of amenities that an L-D train has to offer is rooted in the streamliner-era.
Would the Argentinian express bus even get a hearing in passenger train advocacy circles, or would the response be "Oh, luxury buses have been tried and failed, and you need a train to get people to ride." Have they been tried? What are we advocating? Are we train advocates? Ground transportation alternative advocates for a mix of trains and express buses with proper comfort level? Advocates of the diner-lounge-sleeper mode and any deviation is unacceptable?
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 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.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Running one Amtrak train a day is not doomed to be unprofitable.
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. The Wolverine's direct costs are 112% where Amtrak owns part of the line and NS has limited freight operations; and the Blue Water's are 80% with moderate CN freight operation for part of the route.
Also, it isn't the road that runs the truck. We have a network of Interstates and National (US) routes. A 2-lane national road was built and maintained across Wyoming to carry 2,000 vehicles a day and another across Ohio may carry 20,000. It's a question of access, not cost-benefit. Will the vehicles on the Ohio road ever drive across Wyoming in any significant number to justify sharing costs? Even if only one truck used the road it would still be there. The roads are cross-subsidized. Why should the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) be held to a discriminatory standard?
Only two trains do not achieve the magic 50% "farebox recovery" mark deemed a reasonable criteria for public transit: the Sunset (no surprise) and the Hoosier State. Assuming farebox recovery is based on direct operating costs, the respective direct costs to revenue are 331% and 340%. As for the Hoosier State, this needs more study. The Cardinal comes in at 194%, better than the 196% for the California Zephyr for the 4th and 3rd worst respectively.
A few ideas have been tossed around to improve the Sunset; so let's not act too hastily to discontinue the train. The present schedule does not work. See the companion thread.
Whatever the belt-tightening, I am not convinced that withdrawing sleepers, lounge, and food service is a blanket answer for corridor or long-distance trains.
daveklepper wrote:For a short time NJT and SEPTA ran THROUGH SERVICE, using each other's mu equipment.... it was about 40 years ago.
...
it was about 40 years ago.
Which would make it all Penn Central equipment-- right?
I'm guessing nobody can find a timetable showing a thru local NY-Phila after 1960. The employee timetable might show a PRR or PC local arriving Trenton and a different-number local leaving Trenton a few minutes later, which could be the same equipment for all we know-- but I doubt any public timetable showed a local train running thru.
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.
oltmannd wrote: HarveyK400 wrote: Samantha wrote: I don't think anybody is going to kill the beast, but I do think it's reasonable to put the beast on a diet.
HarveyK400 wrote: Samantha wrote:
Samantha wrote:
I don't think anybody is going to kill the beast, but I do think it's reasonable to put the beast on a diet.
If by the beast you mean the long distance trains, you're correct. They will probably be with us until the equipment needs to be replaced or the nation has a financial melt down as a result of its crushing debt load. But as you point out there are some steps Amtrak could take to reduce the bleeding.
The first would be to eliminate the Sunset Limited and Cardinal. Running a train three days a week does not make any sense. No one, outside of a few rail buffs and local mayors, believes that a thrice weekly train is a serious travel option. In fact, most people don't believe that a daily train is a serious travel option.
The second step would be to eliminate the sleeping cars, lounge cars, and full service dining cars on overnight trains that are out only one night, i.e. Capitol Limited, Texas Eagle, City of New Orleans, etc. The full service dinning cars could be replaced by a dinning/lounge car similar to the ones on the City of New Orleans.
As stated in a previous post, Amtrak could convert some of the surplus cars into business class cars, i.e. with seats that reclined nearly flat, like those on American Airlines International Business Class flights, to see if there is a market for this class of service on one night out trains. The service would be required to cover its full cost.
The sleeping cars, lounge cars, and dinning cars could be retained for the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, and the Southwest Chief. These trains have the potential to attract passengers who want a land cruise experience.
As an aside, do you think anyone from NARP or Amtrak reads the Trains' forums?
oltmannd wrote: HarveyK400 wrote: Samantha wrote: The funding problem could be resolved with two steps: Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations. The national system:Provides some rural service opportunities between medium-size cities and metropolitan centers that might not otherwise warrant regional service.Admittedly serves in part as a tourist line - I've met quite a few foreign visitors on long-distance trains.Constitutes a political beast, giving most states a train in exchange for the investment in the NEC. I don't think anybody is going to kill the beast, but I do think it's reasonable to put the beast on a diet.
HarveyK400 wrote: Samantha wrote: The funding problem could be resolved with two steps: Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations. The national system:Provides some rural service opportunities between medium-size cities and metropolitan centers that might not otherwise warrant regional service.Admittedly serves in part as a tourist line - I've met quite a few foreign visitors on long-distance trains.Constitutes a political beast, giving most states a train in exchange for the investment in the NEC.
Samantha wrote: The funding problem could be resolved with two steps: Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations.
The funding problem could be resolved with two steps:
Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.
Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations.
The national system:
Why is it that to "discontinue all long distance trains" for whatever reason seems to be the anti Amtrak panacea for what ails our whole transportatin budget? Does anyone say eliminate the purchase of asphalt or sometihng for highway patching because it costs too much?
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.
You are correct in remembering riding NJT Arrow mu's in SEPTA service in and out of Philadelphia. For a short time NJT and SEPTA ran THROUGH SERVICE, using each other's mu equipment. It was not Amtrak's objections that ended this service, but NJT's complaint that SEPA's mu's were not maintained adequately.
I don't remember the particular dates of this operation, but it was about 40 years ago.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
HarveyK400 wrote: Samantha wrote: The funding problem could be resolved with two steps: Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations. Given the relative scales of long-distance and other trains as well as the mathematical absurdity; it's a little difficult to believe Long-distance trains chew up 140% of operating expenses. As recently posted, most long-distance train direct costs may exceed revenue by 140% and more with the Sunset running at over 300%. The national system:Provides some rural service opportunities between medium-size cities and metropolitan centers that might not otherwise warrant regional service.Admittedly serves in part as a tourist line - I've met quite a few foreign visitors on long-distance trains.Constitutes a political beast, giving most states a train in exchange for the investment in the NEC. Inter-city corridors usually are inter-state as well; and would seem to fall into the category of interstate commerce and federal responsibility. The problem with state funding is that the economic influence of a city often extends well beyond state boundries, even in a state as large as Texas. Illinois and Wisconsin have cooperated with the Hiawathas; but anything Michigan might desire to do to improve service from Chicago is hindered by lack of cooperation from Indiana where a disportionate burden of cost would be bourne for the derived benefits.
Given the relative scales of long-distance and other trains as well as the mathematical absurdity; it's a little difficult to believe Long-distance trains chew up 140% of operating expenses. As recently posted, most long-distance train direct costs may exceed revenue by 140% and more with the Sunset running at over 300%.
Inter-city corridors usually are inter-state as well; and would seem to fall into the category of interstate commerce and federal responsibility. The problem with state funding is that the economic influence of a city often extends well beyond state boundries, even in a state as large as Texas. Illinois and Wisconsin have cooperated with the Hiawathas; but anything Michigan might desire to do to improve service from Chicago is hindered by lack of cooperation from Indiana where a disportionate burden of cost would be bourne for the derived benefits.
For FY 2007 the operating loss for the long distance trains was $440.4 million. The system operating loss was $309.7 million. Divide 440.4 by 309.7 to get 142.2 per cent. It is not mathematical magic. It is due to the fact that the NEC trains covered their operating expenses and contributed $258.3 million to cover interest and depreciation, offset in part by the loses incurred by the other corridor trains. The loses, by the way, were before interest and depreciation.
The national system provides once a day service to some medium size and small cities. In many instances the train arrives in the middle of the night, and if a passenger misses it, he or she has to wait 24 hours for the next one. Calling this a national system requires a bit of tongue in the cheek. Most of the cities served by the so-called national system have excellent air and bus service for people who cannot or choose not to drive.
If the justification for the national system is that it provides service to medium and small communities, Amtrak should provide service to every community in the U.S. with a population above XX. Choose a number. Of course, given the cost of doing so, it is out of the question.
NARP argues that Amtrak would not be supported if a meatless bone (the national system) was not thrown to the politicians outside of the NEC states, Illinois, and California. Never mind that there is no evidence for this assertion.
It may be appropriate for the federal government to provide some of the seed money for corridors that cross state boundaries. But most of the funding (80 per cent), to the extent the fares do not cover the costs, should come from the states hosting the service. After all, it is their citizens that benefit directly from it.
The national airways system is a national system. Most people in the U.S. can drive to an airport in a couple of hours, get on a plane, and fly anywhere in the country or the world. The same concept applies to the federal highway system. But many people, especially in the west and southwest, cannot readily use Amtrak. Not to mention the fact that most of them don't want to use it.
It is unfair to ask the people of Milwaukee to pay for corridor rail between Austin and San Antonio. It is equally unfair to ask people in Texas to shoulder the cost of providing rail service between New York and Washington. These are regional transport solutions. They are not national in any sense of the word. And neither is the anemic national train system.
Samantha wrote:The funding problem could be resolved with two steps: Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations.
henry6 wrote: Samantha wrote: Some have argued that the $1.3 billion spent annually on Amtrak is a drop in the bucket. True! But one of the reasons that the U.S. has a large debt, much of which is lodged overseas, is because of the argument that another billion won't make much difference. The federal deficit will never be fixed as long as this argument holds sway. So take a tablespoon of water out of Lake Michigan and that drops the water level how dangerously low? The monies for Amtrak should not be the sole part of the transportation budget to be penelized nor be spotlighted in an overall budget of waste and over inflated programs that gratify the few.
Samantha wrote: Some have argued that the $1.3 billion spent annually on Amtrak is a drop in the bucket. True! But one of the reasons that the U.S. has a large debt, much of which is lodged overseas, is because of the argument that another billion won't make much difference. The federal deficit will never be fixed as long as this argument holds sway.
Some have argued that the $1.3 billion spent annually on Amtrak is a drop in the bucket. True! But one of the reasons that the U.S. has a large debt, much of which is lodged overseas, is because of the argument that another billion won't make much difference. The federal deficit will never be fixed as long as this argument holds sway.
So take a tablespoon of water out of Lake Michigan and that drops the water level how dangerously low? The monies for Amtrak should not be the sole part of the transportation budget to be penelized nor be spotlighted in an overall budget of waste and over inflated programs that gratify the few.
The federal transportation budget, as well as the whole federal budget, is being reviewed. And it is likely to be reviewed even more so next year. Amtrak's funding is being reviewed because it is seaking a larger increase, per cent wise, than other transport segments, while carrying less than four tenths of one per cent of the traveling public.
A tablespoon analogy does not even begin to address the issue of the proper funding for Amtrak or any other segment of our transportation system.
NYC#25 wrote under another thread, "Its getting grimmer. Sen. Tom Coburn R-OK is holding up the Amtrak funding bill that we all thought was a "slam-dunk". He's blocking the appointment of the Senate conferees and that may make it impossible to pass it before Congress ends this session." This post is probably a better fit for the discussion about the future of Amtrak.
Holding up and reviewing the request for the incremental funding for Amtrak is a prudent step. The federal deficit this year will be more than $400 billion. The projected deficit for next year is more than $430 billion. This will bring the federal debt to more than $10 trillion excluding the impact of the federal government assuming the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
oltmannd wrote: Metroliner on the highline? Sounds like typical RR rumor, to me!
Metroliner on the highline? Sounds like typical RR rumor, to me!
The story behind the story:
I was on a Delaware Valley Association of Railway Passengers demonstration trip, diessel hauled Amfleet Philly to the Vanity Fair outlet mall just west of Reading, Shillington PA, autumn 1997 or thereabouts . The trip originated at 30th St lower level. Once upon a time trains could have gone straight north out of 30th St, but connecting tracks to the freight lines have since been severed, so we went south to Arsenal junction, changed ends.
Then we went north, entered the highline, the elevated freight bypass, approximately 31st and a half St. The guy on the trip who's a railroad engineer, an aquaintance of mine for about 20 years, mentioned the metroliner which he said had been in the schedule at one time. I didn't drill him any further about how true it was, I think he said the reason was rush hour congestion. Now that doesn't really say if it was desire to speed the metroliner, or desire not to slow down other 30th St trains. Although I assume speed limits on the highline are lower than those through 30th St, there are a lot less switches, so a lot less possible opposing trains once one gets on the highline.
henry6 wrote:To have a fast train just to see how fast you can go is akin to a 6 year old with his Lionel transormer opened all the way!
To have a fast train just to see how fast you can go is akin to a 6 year old with his Lionel transormer opened all the way!
I'm 49 years old, is it ok for me to open the transformer all the way, or does that lower my effective age?
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
While I question the viability, a proposal was made years ago for a deep "roller-coaster" tunnel for a high-speed rail or Maglev Between New York and Washington. Backing away from that extreme, perhaps underground sections could be built to bypass problematic curves.
Sections of underground tunnels and underwater tubes could be built along Long Island Sound and across the bays and inlets. This could shorten the New York - Boston line and reduce curvature. Connections might be made at New Haven and Providence. This might be less expensive than the dislocation resulting from extensive curve easement.
I doubt it would be practical unless justifiable for emergency access and escape; but it would be nice if the tracks surfaced occasionally for a quick scenic view of the shore. As it is, I'm writing as a hurricane with a substantial storm surge is hitting Texas. I'm guessing such tunnel portals would need to be 20-25 feet above the spring tide.
gardendance wrote:I also rode Philly-Harrisburg and Philly-Washington with NJ Transit MU's on Amtrak schedules.
Oops-- you're right, the Chesapeake did use MUs for at least part of its life (which was 1978-83 as I recall).
gardendance wrote: oltmannd wrote:I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs. They were always loco hauled coaches that I can remember. Amtrak did use Silverliner for Harrisburg service early on, with service just a hair slower than the new, upgraded Keystone service - 1:40 if I remember right. Amtrak also ran some Arrows on an early morning Phila to DC train and tried a Harrisburg/Downingtown to NYP Metroliner at one point, as well. Neither of these proved very sucessful. timz wrote: oltmannd wrote:I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs.Nor do I. Amtrak never scheduled hourly NY-Phila trains, with any equipment; they were known to borrow NJT equipment for holiday crowds, but I'm guessing they never needed Arrows the rest of the year.I'll certainly defer to anyone who has actual data, I just remember seeing and riding a bunch of NJTransit MU's, which we called Arrows as opposed to SEPTA Silverliners, on Philly to New York local runs, stopping for example at North Philly, listed in the schedules as clockers. I rode them at least once on a non holiday weekend.I also rode Philly-Harrisburg and Philly-Washington with NJ Transit MU's on Amtrak schedules. The Washington trip was in the late 1970's, I can see how it was not succesfull for passenger loads, but I succesfully stood in the cab doorway and held the door open for as close to a cab ride Philly-DC as I'm ever likely to get. My return was via the last National Limited westbound run on the Columbia and Port Deposit to Harrisburg, a Pennsylvania pinstripe repainted GG1 pulling in this case enhancing the forward view out of the front coach.I didn't see them, but I have heard about the somewhere on the Harrisburg line (Downingtown, Coatesville, Paoli, something like that) to New York run using the Amtrak Metroliner MU's, as well as one that went to DC, although I could be fuzzy, that might have been locomotive hauled listed in the schedule as a metroliner.I also remember an engineer telling me there was a metroliner schedule that used the freight bypass Highline around Philly 30th St. It's hard for me to believe that that would have been faster than going through 30th St, but maybe that's why they didn't do it anymore.By the way, Paul Milenkovic, ordinarilly I cringe when I see long posts, they often have a lot of manure and little entertainment or educational value, but your post Sep 11, 9:09 PM is one of the most fun I've read for a while.
oltmannd wrote:I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs. They were always loco hauled coaches that I can remember. Amtrak did use Silverliner for Harrisburg service early on, with service just a hair slower than the new, upgraded Keystone service - 1:40 if I remember right. Amtrak also ran some Arrows on an early morning Phila to DC train and tried a Harrisburg/Downingtown to NYP Metroliner at one point, as well. Neither of these proved very sucessful.
I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs. They were always loco hauled coaches that I can remember. Amtrak did use Silverliner for Harrisburg service early on, with service just a hair slower than the new, upgraded Keystone service - 1:40 if I remember right. Amtrak also ran some Arrows on an early morning Phila to DC train and tried a Harrisburg/Downingtown to NYP Metroliner at one point, as well. Neither of these proved very sucessful.
timz wrote: oltmannd wrote:I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs.Nor do I. Amtrak never scheduled hourly NY-Phila trains, with any equipment; they were known to borrow NJT equipment for holiday crowds, but I'm guessing they never needed Arrows the rest of the year.
oltmannd wrote:I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs.
Nor do I. Amtrak never scheduled hourly NY-Phila trains, with any equipment; they were known to borrow NJT equipment for holiday crowds, but I'm guessing they never needed Arrows the rest of the year.
I'll certainly defer to anyone who has actual data, I just remember seeing and riding a bunch of NJTransit MU's, which we called Arrows as opposed to SEPTA Silverliners, on Philly to New York local runs, stopping for example at North Philly, listed in the schedules as clockers. I rode them at least once on a non holiday weekend.
I also rode Philly-Harrisburg and Philly-Washington with NJ Transit MU's on Amtrak schedules. The Washington trip was in the late 1970's, I can see how it was not succesfull for passenger loads, but I succesfully stood in the cab doorway and held the door open for as close to a cab ride Philly-DC as I'm ever likely to get. My return was via the last National Limited westbound run on the Columbia and Port Deposit to Harrisburg, a Pennsylvania pinstripe repainted GG1 pulling in this case enhancing the forward view out of the front coach.
I didn't see them, but I have heard about the somewhere on the Harrisburg line (Downingtown, Coatesville, Paoli, something like that) to New York run using the Amtrak Metroliner MU's, as well as one that went to DC, although I could be fuzzy, that might have been locomotive hauled listed in the schedule as a metroliner.
I also remember an engineer telling me there was a metroliner schedule that used the freight bypass Highline around Philly 30th St. It's hard for me to believe that that would have been faster than going through 30th St, but maybe that's why they didn't do it anymore.
By the way, Paul Milenkovic, ordinarilly I cringe when I see long posts, they often have a lot of manure and little entertainment or educational value, but your post Sep 11, 9:09 PM is one of the most fun I've read for a while.
The Phila to DC train was called the "Chesapeake", I believe. The Main Line to NYP Metroliner was probably AEM7-Amfleet, but I'm not too sure. Amtrak did run a couple Harrisburg trains into 30th St and then on to NYP (like some of the Keystones today) with the rebuilt Metroliners for a while, giving them one last hurrah at high speed. They were still pretty rough riding, even on concrete ties....
HarveyK400 wrote: Additional tracks for 110-mph Hiawatha service, even 150 mph in places, is hard to justify for only during dense peak commuter operations. The $300-400 million this would take is what MHSRA is asking to expand and improve service in Illinois. Should Wisconsin do the grade-separation and other improvements between Sturtveant and Milwaukee Airport for 150 mph, or make route improvements for either a 79-mph or 110-mph Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse leg of a Twin Cities Corridor? These are choices of enhancement versus expansion.
Additional tracks for 110-mph Hiawatha service, even 150 mph in places, is hard to justify for only during dense peak commuter operations. The $300-400 million this would take is what MHSRA is asking to expand and improve service in Illinois. Should Wisconsin do the grade-separation and other improvements between Sturtveant and Milwaukee Airport for 150 mph, or make route improvements for either a 79-mph or 110-mph Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse leg of a Twin Cities Corridor? These are choices of enhancement versus expansion.
When you talk about service between Milwaukee and La Crosse this is where the idea of public/private partnerships would definitely come into play. The CPRS mainline would ideally have to be double-tracked (the way it should have been left in the first place) and brought up to Class V standards (90 mph) which I think is more than doable. After all, predecessor Milwaukee Road ran their Hiawatha passenger trains in excess of that many, many years ago.
Of course, the real problem is the question of actually going through Madison or keeping the service on the mainline through Portage. From strictly a cost standpoint, I would opt for the latter.
I didn't know or remember that the Silverliners were the basis for the Metoliners. My recollection is that consultants got a lot of money for development, especially if they had a head start. This would seem to be another case of profiteering being the impetus for public projects.
Second, you have it right about the responsibility as well as the vision rail advocates should present to the public.
Would enhancement or expansion be more relevant to the public and warrant a priority for funding with limited resources? Would a reduction in travel time attract more riders and be more relevant than expanding service?
Rick Harnish thinks this is a good time to press for 220-mph trains in the Midwest, particularly from Chicago to Saint Louis and to Michigan and Ohio. I question how viable and responsible this could be.
I am skeptical whether the ridership would support the investment for a Saint Louis HSR line. Providing 110-mph service seems doable and appropriate. Electrification may be the next step before crossing elimination and grade separation between stops for speeds up to 150 mph. 150 mph is reasonably achievable with diesel and gas turbine power as well.
Now we're back into that "Gray Area", at least in the Northeast Corridor.
Should Amtrak, as in Regional Service provider, have the mission of taking the load off a clogged Interstate 95 and its feeders?
OR, Should it be trying to attract Airline Passengers with the Acela, thus cutting "short haul" airline flights that are congesting the East Coast Airports?
We start with a "state of the art" double track, electrified, main line from Boston to the Rhode Island line. Owned by Massachusetts, operated by Amtrak for Amtrak and the MBTA.
Amtrak owns the electrified double track line in Rhode Island and eastern Connecticut. Rhode Island has added a third, freight only, track for about half the distance in there State. Double track electrified continues to New Haven.
South (west) of New Haven it's a three track main line to Bridgeport and then four tracks to New Rochelle owned by the Metro-North Commuter Railroad and operated at 90mph. At New Rochelle, the four track commuter line heads for Grand Central. Amtrak cuts off to there double track main line over the Hell Gate Bridge to Penn Station.
On the North End, the "Bottleneck" between Amtrak and Commuter Service is Boston to Providence (MBTA) and New Haven to New Rochelle (Metro-North).
Expansion of Interstate 95 is impossible, land cost. New or expanded Airports, not likely. Double Tracking, Tripple Tracking the Northeast Corridor, only possible in a few outlying areas.
We are in trouble!!!!
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Station tracks may add to line capacity in the sense that fast and slow trains can share a line and reduce the time window each needs to occupy a section of track by dividing the the line into sections. Such a strategy improves utilization; but is increasingly limited as traffic approaches the line's actual capacity.
The cost for such utilization is in delay to passengers on trains being overtaken and passed at a station adding at least a minute to the schedule with ideal timing. Chances are 1-2 more minutes will be lost ensuring the overtaking train is following closely or the overtaken train is waiting to avoid delaying the faster train.
I speak from personal experiences riding the Garfield Park L waiting for the 'Aurora & Elgin to pass at Laramie and watching as an Intercity passed a DB local south of Bonn.
As an aside, the City and CTA are considering a similar operation for an airport express service between the airports and downtown. Airport trains would pass local trains on the two-track line. The project is on hold now. After spending and appropriating over $200 million for a station and connection barely long enough for a 400-foot, 8-car train, there is no tunnel between the Blue (Dearborn St) and Red (State St) subways. Kinda reminds me of the long-delayed 2nd Av Line in New York.
A lot of us wondered that! Given the Metroliners lousy ride and poor reliability, some Arrow/Silverlliners with some carpeting and reclining seats at 100 mph might have a better solution.
Actually, 100 mph Silverliners were the prototype for the Metroliner.
Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island sponsored legislation for a Federal project on what became known as the Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project or simply the Pell Plan.
The last effort at some kind of new train equipment to try to turn around the decline in passenger ridership took place in the late to mid 1950's, largely after what is generally known as "lightweight", "streamliner", or "Heritage fleet" had been purchased. These were the 1950's Talgos, Train-X, RDC Hotrod (the locomotive-cab Roger Williams) and the GM Aerotrain. After the railroads gave up on their own experimental trains from the late 50s, the government had a go of its own on such experimental trains. The idea behind the "demonstration" is that the government had deeper pockets to invent a new kind of train and work the kinks out. The other idea was this would not be a government takeover of passenger trains, rather, government seed money for something that would help the railroads out. Kind of like government subsidies for the SST program -- the airlines would still have to purchase and make a profit operating SST's, but the government would subsidize their development.
The Demonstration Program had three components: a lighweight pendulum-banking turbine-powered train for north of New Haven, a high speed electric train based on EMU cars for NY-DC, and an auto ferry for DC to Florida. Only the first two components got implemented as the TurboTrain and the Metroliner. The auto ferry was supposed to be an enclosed, windowed and airconditioned auto carrier where passengers would ride in their own cars, leaving their cars to use rest rooms, cafe-lounge cars, and the like. The private Auto Train corporation took over where the government left off, but they changed the plan to placing passengers in dome cars and valet parking of their autos in those end-loading double-deck CN auto boxcars, a kind of fully-enclosed freight auto rack.
One can argue about the merits of the ride-in-your-own-car vs let-Auto-Train-park-it-for-you-in-an-auto-rack, but people were once serious about the ride-in-your-own-car mode. Part of my father's work paper's I have rescued from the squirrels breaking into the garage is a document listing the lengths of 1960's vintage autos on GATX stationary. This was part of the RRollway project to have an HSR auto ferry for a specially-contructed wide-gauge line, where people would drive their cars into side-loading bays on the auto ferry. GATX was serious about wanting to know how long cars were, because they needed to make the train wide enough.
The TurboTrain, with its exotic suspension and third-rail shoes for access to Grand Central, was pretty much a reprise of the New Haven Train-X and Talgo a mere 10 year earlier. In fact, the NY-Boston segment was Alan Cripe's motor train design from his days at the C&O (there are some drawings of it in the Trains "Who Shot the Passenger Train" article). The only major change was the turbine engines -- the guided axles, the elevated cabs, the clamshell doors for joining trainsets in multiple were all there in the C&O's version of one of the Talgo-style 1950s trains that never got built.
The NY-DC segment was to be EMU, and the US DOT tested a 4-car set of Silverliners with changed traction motor gear ratios for 100 MPH+ speed. They set a record of something north of 150 MPH with that test train. Trains, of course, had a short column about that test train back in the day, and more was written in the railroad trade magazines. The Trains account was that the Silverliners took their time accelerating to 150 MPH, but the idea was to test whether they rode and tracked OK at that speed, and they had all of the chart recorders and gear to test this.
Once they proved that off-the-shelf EMUs could be the basis for the Metroliner, they set out designing the Metroliner for real. They increased the amount of HP to boost the acceleration. What people forget is that while there have been numerous records set of high-speed running, trains tend to be heavy (think FRA buff-strength safety regs), and when you take acceleration (and braking) from those high speeds, the average speed can be considerably less. A lot of the HSR train sets in those other places in the world would be considered lightweight trains that don't meet FRA regs, and the Acela, which is considerably heavier than any of those trains, is the closest thing to an HSR trainset that could be operated here without special waivers.
Anyway, they set an acceleration requirement, and I remember reading somewhere that they spec'ed to maintain 1 MPH/s acceleration up to 150 MPH. The other spec was a top speed of 160 MPH. Now, once Metroliners went in service, their top speed was first increased and later decreased, but 160 MPH was a fantasy dream that Harvey K talks about. My poppa, who worked for GATX and had connections to the engineering community in "high-speed ground transportation" as they called it back in the day, told me that the Japanese Bullet Train topped out at 150 MPH, so the American train had to do it one better by maxing out at 160 MPH.
It was "national pride" of "beating the Japanese at their own game" pure and simple, in other words unadulterated jingoism, and it resulted in this stupid spec of 160 MPH top speed that had consequences throughout the Metroliner design, and maybe you know why I get all bothered about people who post on this forum about the "national disgrace" that they operate faster trains in some foreign land than they do here.
The consequence was that the Metroliners added power, which added weight, which required more power, which added more weight, and the Metroliners were these 90-ton bricks with 2500 HP continuous rating. Besides being heavy, they were also a lot of heavy-duty electrical equipment crammed into a small space, and they were carbarn queens.
The one thing the Paul Reistrup Amtrak did right was to purchase Amfleet, essentially the last-forever stainless-steel carbodies of the Metroliner but without the troublesome MU propulsions systems, and to purchase those off-the-shelf wheel-slip-controlled 8000 HP Swedish locomotives -- the AEM-7s, and stick 4 Amfleet cars behind an AEM-7 and call it a Metroliner. This was done without the hoopla and jingoism of the Metroliner, and it perhaps saved the NEC and saved Amtrak.
The Acela trains were what computer guru Edward Brooks of the Mythical Man Month fame called "The Second System Effect." The Metroliners were the first go-around at national pride to have at least one high-speed train in the US, and the Acela was the second. The problem with second systems according to Brooks, and he is mainly speaking of computer software but it applies elsewhere, is that you have learned certain things from the first system, or at least you think you have learned certain things, and you have a long wishlist of new things you want to do. Your thinking was "the first system was just a dry run, just a test article, and this time we are going to do it the right way", and the second system becomes this over-spec'ed. over-promised, over-hyped disaster.
Don Oltmann has commented on Congress passing a law "Thou shalt travel by train from NY-DC in 3 Hrs 0 Min and thou shalt not take 5 minutes longer", with this leading to 12,000 HP on a 6-car train, with a tilting system with clearance problems or perhaps Metro North problems or some kind of concerns, with double the weight of the TGV train sets it was patterned after, and thermal cracking in what are already oversized and complex brakes, and so on. Instead of calling it a Second System Effect, it can be called a Bridge Too Far effect, where the British sacrificed an entire paratrooper division holding a bridge beyond where their land army could realistically reach in an ambitious plan to win WW-II before Christmas.
Harvey K's comments about MWHSRA dreaming and the realities of Metra schedules on track capacity tie into the biggest problems with the NEC. "They" have been promising some kind of 150 MPH operation on the NEC for years and years when for a variety of technical reasons, 120 MPH is a practical top running speed. In so doing, they have burnt through budgets overdesigning trains for the higher speeds and burdening them with technical problems, and this was done with the original Metroliners and done with the Acela. Also, the speed capability has long been over-hyped compared with what is realistically achievable.
We can go on and on about how true HSR is achievable in the US were it not for the "lack of political will" or the squeamishness of taxpayers and the callowness of Members of Congress we don't like. On the other hand, the advocacy community has had some role in the hype and the expectations.
I have suspected from looking at the Amtrak schedule that 110 MPH on the Hiawatha means something closer to 1 Hr 15 Min than the promised 1 Hr, and yes 15 min isn't much, but if this Midwest Regional Rail Initiative thing ever happens, I see it going down the same road of the NEC of over-hype and over-promise and over-spec, and public disappointment in the reality, followed by the public accepting the trains the way they are and making use of them, in the process dampening enthusiasm for repeating that experiment elsewhere.
Congress, FRA, Amtrak, all have their reasons for doing what they do, but I hope there are enough railroad-savy people in the advocacy community to advocate for some realistic goals.
timz wrote: gardendance wrote:Amtrak for some time had run Philly-New York trains, traditionally on the hour, hence the name clockers, with leased NJ Transit electric cars. I did wonder when I was young why they didn't just give those cars upgraded interiors and have them on the metroliner runs oltmannd wrote:I don't remember Clockers running NJDOT MUs.Nor do I. Amtrak never scheduled hourly NY-Phila trains, with any equipment; they were known to borrow NJT equipment for holiday crowds, but I'm guessing they never needed Arrows the rest of the year.
gardendance wrote:Amtrak for some time had run Philly-New York trains, traditionally on the hour, hence the name clockers, with leased NJ Transit electric cars. I did wonder when I was young why they didn't just give those cars upgraded interiors and have them on the metroliner runs
The Clockers in the Amtrak era were just morning and evening Philly - NY commuter trains. They were long, usually 10 or more cars and pulled by a G or E60 and made all the Amtrak stops (Trenton, PJ, New Brunswick, Metropark, Newark and Penn) , typically filling up in Central Jersey (which is why Amtrak called it quits and handed the time slots over to NJT.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.