Successful people are the ones who find a way to do things while everyone else is telling them all the reasons that it can't, or shouldn't, be done.
One example: Fred Smith who founded FedEx. Everyone told him there were not enough people willing to pay that much money for overnight delivery.
Lowell Paxson had difficulty convincing investors and cable companies that people would actually sit around and watch his Home Shopping Network waiting for them to show something they actually wanted to buy.
I tend to not give too much credence to the people who say things can't be done and those who say "we have gotten along just fine without that until now".
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
There are always a lot of professional naysayers who will find 100's of reasons to not do anything bold. Sometimes they are right, but sometimes not, and their naysaying is to advance other agendas. I guess figuring that out is wisdom.
Clearly there are some good reasons to develop a better passenger rail service. The devil is in the details. And we should not let the failures of Amtrak be our only guide to what should be done. But clearly Amtrak is what we have and if we are to advance the goal of better service, reform should start with Amtrak. If LD routes make little sense as part of a viable service, discontinuation must be considered.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Some of those long distance routes could be incorporated into some shorter routes. If I can again cite something done here in NC...
NC runs three round trips a day between Charlotte and Raleigh, serving several communities along the way. The Piedmont Leaves Raleigh in the AM, and that equipment returns at noon. At noon, another train leaves Raleigh. That equipment returns in the early evening. The opposing direction train in the morning and evening is actually provided by the Carolinian, which continues on to NYP via the NEC. The Carolinian only runs once a day in each direction.
A similar arrangement could be used on the other long distance corridors. If a single long distance train was continued, but the corridor was filled out with more frequent shorter service among the cities along the way. Most people using the long distance corridor are not traveling end to end. Number and frequency of trains could be tailored to the needs of intermediate city pairs. The LD train on it's way through could be one of those trains.
WJM2223 Just ride high speed trains in Spain, France, Germany and Japan, oh and now China. Watch for the opening this spring or summer of the 800+/-mile Beiging - Shainghai line that will be covered downtown to downtown in just over 4 hours with not a drop of imported fuel oil or the insults of security searches. And this doesn't evern begin to consider the frustrations of airport access or the environmental concerns of effluent belching aircraft engines. High speed rail is simply civilized, convenient, comfortable, fast, safe and environmentlly clean in that it burns no fuel oil. What more do we need to justify it?
Just ride high speed trains in Spain, France, Germany and Japan, oh and now China. Watch for the opening this spring or summer of the 800+/-mile Beiging - Shainghai line that will be covered downtown to downtown in just over 4 hours with not a drop of imported fuel oil or the insults of security searches. And this doesn't evern begin to consider the frustrations of airport access or the environmental concerns of effluent belching aircraft engines. High speed rail is simply civilized, convenient, comfortable, fast, safe and environmentlly clean in that it burns no fuel oil. What more do we need to justify it?
Would love to have all that. Let's look at your justifications:
1. frustrations of airport access: Compared to what? Frustrations of getting to the new, isolated HSR stations that would have to be built? Many US cities have lousy transit meaning the throngs flocking to HSR would have the same parking and traffic troubles as at airports. New HSR trains, at present, cannot share trackage with exiting commuter/Amtrak trains, so new, expensive terminals would have to be constructed. HSR trains that can share trackage, like Acela, aren't so fast and aren't so fuel efficient.
2. environmental concerns of effluent belching aircraft engines: High bypass aircraft engines do a good job on combustion and are nearly as fuel efficient per seat mile as Amtrak and driving. What, exactly do they belch other than CO2 and water vapor?
3. High speed rail is simply civilized, convenient, comfortable, fast, safe: What makes it comfortable is seat pitch, which is not intrinsic. There is nothing stopping a HSR operator from going to 2+3 seating as in Japan HSR, with airline style seat pitch. Safe? Safer than flying? Convenient? Only if it takes you to a city where you don't need to rent a car to get to your final dest. Otherwise, it's no better than flying or driving.
4. burns no fuel oil. Correct. As in China, it will use electricity created by burning coal. Lot's of belching of nasty stuff. Want a side of mercury with that HSR? Yum.
5. insults of security searches: If HSR gets to be popular, what's to stop it from being a terrorist target and the TSA from imposing the exact same security measures? Given that gang thought it was a good idea to fully screen pilots, who are allow to carry guns, not to mention actually control the flight of the plane, I wouldn't put anything past them!
I'm not saying HSR doesn't have a place here, I'm just saying that people who don't think so aren't necessarily as stupid as you'd like to make them out to be.
Do you want better passenger rail service or do you just want to go around proclaiming how right you are? One is hard work, the other is more fun. You pick.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm oltmannd: Did you read the High Speed rail article in Trains last year and catch the part about the TGV trains being unable to make the usage payments to the federal authority that owns and maintains the ROW? This in a country that is more urbanized than the US. On the other hand, the German DB system seems to make money on their ICE services.
oltmannd: Did you read the High Speed rail article in Trains last year and catch the part about the TGV trains being unable to make the usage payments to the federal authority that owns and maintains the ROW? This in a country that is more urbanized than the US.
Did you read the High Speed rail article in Trains last year and catch the part about the TGV trains being unable to make the usage payments to the federal authority that owns and maintains the ROW? This in a country that is more urbanized than the US.
On the other hand, the German DB system seems to make money on their ICE services.
The more limited German approach seems more sane than the Chinese and California approach. Of course, we'd need to twist the FRA's arm to get that here.
Very little of the ICE network is new 155/186 mph HSR line. Most is upgraded existing line for 100 or 125 mph operation.
Does "make money" mean cover operating costs or does it cover the capital, too?
I don't understand this fascination with the argument that Amtrak should make money or break even. Almost no government entity makes money or breaks even. Virtually every service the government provides is taxpayer supported.
The public as a whole is served by a good public transportation system, whether or not a particular individual uses it. City buses don't make money, but cities need them. In fact, most cities should have more of them. Effective mass transit is a much better option than constantly widening roads and trying to find places to park all those cars in city centers. I, for one, prefer to travel to cities where I don't have to drive to get where I need to go.
Some fairly accurate assumptions:
1. The federal tax dollar take stays fairly consistent regardless of the rates so the pie can not be increased in size.
2. As a politician you need votes to stay in office.
3. As a business manager I need to maximize the productivity of my workers
4. Business travellers who need to travel last minute pay the bulk of the pricing.
So in an extremely down economy which is goingto take at least ten years to correct the hou sing mess alone and as a politician where do you think HSR ranks with the general public? As a poltician what is going to get you votes? As a business person can you afford to use HSR from a productivity and cost standpoint?
My answers are:
1. Lip service by the politicians to pick up a few votes
2. No way the general public wants it or would vote for it
3. No way my people are using it when planes will always beat the train to nearly any destination and anything under about 300 miles is company car territory
Sorry but it is DOA.
I think there are two main reasons it is assumed that Amtrak should make money. One is that railroads in our country are supposed to be private enterprise (i.e., earn a profit or die); Amtrak is a railroad; therefore Amtrak should make money. The other is the fear of the term Socialism. In socialism the government subsidizes an endeavor for the benefit of the masses rather than actually putting (investing) enough money to make it a viable (break even at best, make a profit even better. We fear it is the dreaded socialism eating away and therefore only throw a few pence in its direction in hopes it might just go a way, dieing a natural death.
Believing in a product and taking a risk is important...FedEx, etc. samples above. What has been proven but "dissed" in passenger rail is the success of properly designed and marketed services (services not running trains) as in the Downeast trains, ACELA, and corridors. It is more than a Field of Dreams, it is a meadows where ideas are sown and nurtured to fulfillment and rewards are harvested. It don't happen just thinking about it or talking about it or believing only the negative about it.
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.
The best known example of a socialist enterprise in this country is the Tennessee Valley Authority, and nobody is banging the drum to privatize that enterprise.
ndbprr Some fairly accurate assumptions: 1. The federal tax dollar take stays fairly consistent regardless of the rates so the pie can not be increased in size. 2. As a politician you need votes to stay in office. 3. As a business manager I need to maximize the productivity of my workers 4. Business travellers who need to travel last minute pay the bulk of the pricing. So in an extremely down economy which is goingto take at least ten years to correct the hou sing mess alone and as a politician where do you think HSR ranks with the general public? As a poltician what is going to get you votes? As a business person can you afford to use HSR from a productivity and cost standpoint? My answers are: 1. Lip service by the politicians to pick up a few votes 2. No way the general public wants it or would vote for it 3. No way my people are using it when planes will always beat the train to nearly any destination and anything under about 300 miles is company car territory Sorry but it is DOA.
I won't quibble about most, of what you say, but you're missing the boat if you believe time riding a train is unproductive from a business standpoint. An aircard, a laptop and a cell phone and it is no different from being in the office at your desk. The success of the Acela, in large part is due to the nature of uninterrupted, productive time. It's why businesses are willing to pay the premium for their employees to ride.
Driving is 95% unproductive time. Flying - you may have bits and pieces of time, but most of it is without your cell phone and the WiFi isn't free (or even available...)
(The public DOES want more passenger rail -every time they are asked, they say yes. But, wanting and paying for it are two different things. Generally, extra taxes for urban transit pass voter muster more than half the time. I suspect bonds to build HSR funded from an increase in sales tax or gas tax would face a similar fate. Paying for a significant ongoing operating subisidy is a 'nother animal...)
Phoebe Vet I don't understand this fascination with the argument that Amtrak should make money or break even. Almost no government entity makes money or breaks even. Virtually every service the government provides is taxpayer supported.
I'd settle for "not bleeding like a stuck pig".
Because some companies do it for profit then the government should make a profit?
Private security guards make a profit. Police Departments do not. Which one would you rather call in an emergency? Would you like the police department to be organized to run in the black? Should the cost of the police department be born only by the people who actually call them?
Socialism is just a word that people use to argue against a service of which they don't approve. The core of our society is, and should be, capitalism but you do not want to live in a pure unregulated capitalist society. Money is power, and power corrupts. Unions and labor laws came about because the people with the money were making victims of the people who lived from paycheck to paycheck. Capitalism is good, but it is not the answer to every question. The economic crash we are trying to dig out from under was caused by capitalist greed. The desire to make as much money as possible regardless of the consequences.
Another argument about socialism is that it is only for the benefit of the masses....business prosper, too for what a socialistic enterprise can do: highways, waterways, airways, utilities, police departments, fire departments, etc. As is noted above,it is a term used in the negative when it is something someone fears will not benefit them at least, help someone else at someone else's supposed expense. If a train owned by a New York company is carrying coal for a West Virginia mining company from Denver to the Mississippi for use in a power plant owned by a Dallas power company in which electricity is generated for a town in the middle of Illinois and the government in Washington gives a million dollars for the rail section, who are the benificiaries?
This is not about socialism vs capitalism, or about government operations vs private enterprise. Whether something is run by the government (Amtrak) or privately (airlines, I guess sort-of), the question always remains whether the public out there thinks the thing they are getting is worth the money they are asked to pay for it.
The NARP model of passenger train advocacy operates on the basis that passenger trains are full of inherent goodness, solving problems from Peak Oil to the Environmental Crisis to the Anxiety Crisis in America (attributed by a recent article to social distance, the cure for which, often suggested around here, is chatting up strangers in Amtrak lounge cars).
That we don't have more trains must mean that something isn't right -- it must be the Congressional Republicans, the Concrete Lobby, the Cato Institute, or the Capitalist Roaders who think we should privatize police protection. It couldn't have anything to do with trains, because trains are by far the most perfect mode of transportation known to mankind whereas driving or flying is pure misery.
Before I pick on Anthony Haswell and the old version of NARP, one thing about NARP is that Mr. Haswell never picked on Congressional Republicans, Concrete Lobbyists, the Cato Institute, or any supposed villian. His newsletter always had the Monthly Friend of the Railroad Passenger, some politician who supported trains in some way. Most of these Friends happened to be Democrats, but he once honored Vincent Prouty, about the must stodgy of Vermont (was it?) conservatives without comment with respect to Senatory Prouty's stand on The War or Health Care or the Culture War -- Tony Haswell's NARP was really about trains, and he kept all manners of other politics completely out of it.
Yeah, yeah, Republicans who support Amtrak are "good Republicans" and the Scott Walkers or John McCain's were "evil Republicans." No, no, and no, Tony Haswell never played that game. If you did something to support trains, you got an Honorable Mention, if you did not, you got No Mention at All. It was as simple as that.
OK, now to pick on NARP, and yes, even Tony Haswell at some point got tired of the whole thing and people tell me his views changed into the "Amtrak Reform" camp. We have been at this inherent goodness of trains thing for 40 years (When is the Amtrak anniversary?) We have a national system of trains, we have the billion and a half a year, and yeah, yeah, I know it is not nearly enough money to do what people demand of it. But we don't have the Southern Pacific deliberately trying to make passenger trains miserable (Automat food service cars!) so their passenger train off petition can get approved.
Amtrak is not high cost compared to private carriage (automobiles), but autos offer the trip flexibility that people are willing to pay a lot of money for. Amtrak appears to be high cost on a cents per passenger mile basis compared to planes, and the counterintuitive matter that a Boeing 727 should have the Denver Zephyr beat on direct operating cost (no fully allocated, simply direct operating cost) was something Trains Magazine famously brought up in the 1960's.
Amtrak also appears to be a not particularly fuel efficient mode of transportation -- it is better than cars and planes, but not gobs and gobs better to justify a crash program to build up Amtrak.
If you guys want to advocate for trains by gathering in social groups complaining about how Amtrak is underfunded and it is all a grand conspiracy of the Usual Villians, fine, keep doing that -- people have been at that approach to getting more trains for forty years. I for one think that we need to look at trains critically, to read the arguments of the anti's and the critics and figure out where we really are at with trains, what are the advantages and also what are the shortcomings, and what can we do about the shortcomings.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Meanwhile in Russia....
Have fun with your trains
Don: Ride ICE trains and you will find a lot of them are going 240 kmh/150 mph or better in many stretches, not just on new stretches of track, such as Frankfurt to Cologne. They more than cover OE and contribute to the cost of construction. Regional trains are subsidized as a social necessity, partially for longer distance commuters, partially to reduce Autobahn congestion. The complaint the DB gets is that the trains make too many stops and take too long b/c they go into the bigger cities, unlike the TGV's in France, which have fewer stops en route and have outlying stations that don't require slow running.
"It takes a dollar and turns it into two dollars."
Have minored in economics at the undergraduate and graduate level, I am familiar with Keynes' arguments regarding the benefits of deficit spending during economic downturns.
Economists differ widely on the impact of stimulus spending. Those on the left, some of whom are Noble Prize winners, argue that a federal dollar of deficit spending has a multiplier impact of $1.13 to more than $1.50, although I have never seen a prediction of turning a dollar into two dollars. Equally well credentialed (Noble Price) economists on the right argue that Keynesian economics is seriously flawed.
Recently, the dean of one of the nation's premier business schools observed that the predictions of economists enhance the creditability of those of astrologers. Take your pick.
Meanwhile in Spain:
schlimm Don: Ride ICE trains and you will find a lot of them are going 240 kmh/150 mph or better in many stretches, not just on new stretches of track, such as Frankfurt to Cologne. They more than cover OE and contribute to the cost of construction. Regional trains are subsidized as a social necessity, partially for longer distance commuters, partially to reduce Autobahn congestion. The complaint the DB gets is that the trains make too many stops and take too long b/c they go into the bigger cities, unlike the TGV's in France, which have fewer stops en route and have outlying stations that don't require slow running.
The map I was looking at showed a few new high speed segments, many upgraded existing segs at 125/143 mph and a bunch of "branches" at 100 mph.
I think that model of an inter-operative network with new links added old links upgraded as time and money allow, is a good approach. Of course, here, we would be starting from 79 mph and have our FRA mixed-use issues to work through.
I'm not a big fan of these terminal to terminal new lines (CA and FL) because they turn out any usefulness until the whole thing is built and then, you are really limited in the number of single seat trips you can offer. (Changing trains is only fun for railfans!)
oltmannd I'm not a big fan of these terminal to terminal new lines (CA and FL) because they turn out any usefulness until the whole thing is built and then, you are really limited in the number of single seat trips you can offer. (Changing trains is only fun for railfans!)
So are you saying that the CA HSR uses lightweight equipment and hence is something like the BART, a one-of confined to that one line?
"Heavy rail" (i.e. New York subway, Chicago El and subway, DC) is "one-of" largely on account of tunnel and platform clearances. BART, on the other hand, is some strange kind of (slightly) wide gauge -- kinda like the Russian rail network being different than Europe on one frontier and China on another.
CA HSR is then "one-of" on account of wanting to use lightweight equipment that cannot interoperate on rails that share freight trains? You don't want to operate conventional freight on HSR lines for a variety of reasons, but I think you are telling us that in France they used the "conventional" rail network to access downtown trains stations and the like, but we cannot do that here?
I know that the FRA requirements can boost weight (think Acela vs TGV trains they are kinda, sorta patterned after). But doesn't Talgo claim they can meet the FRA regs without substantially boosting weight, and doesn't Talgo have a high-speed version, complete with electric locomotives matched to the train set? Is the Talgo HSR qualified for 150 MPH but California wants to do 220 MPH or some such thing?
Also, what is that keeps the NEC out of the realm of "true" HSR? Do they have any grade crossings, or have those all been eliminated? Do they have substantial segments with curves, and what about tilt trains? Would a catenary upgrade mean anything (assuming there is the money to do it), or are their a whole bunch of speed restrictions up and down the line to not make it worth it? What is the nature of the speed restrictions they are dealing with?
Ya know, there was one grade crossing several years ago, but I don't know if it still exists. Curves! They've got a few...remember the line is a 19th and 20th Century creation so lots of curves exist although some have had some kind of straightening and banking. However, it would really be difficult to do much more without appropriation of lots of land, a too costly propsition at this time Tilt was tested but not so accpeted that it was adopted. You really don't have too many straightways which allow for those attractive 200+ mph speeds that make people drool and envious of the Japanese and French. Buy some land, straighten out the curves and keep people off the property and you might have a crack at HSR there but, no, not a real reality.
Paul Milenkovic some strange kind of (slightly) wide gauge -- kinda like the Russian rail network being different than Europe on one frontier and China on another.
some strange kind of (slightly) wide gauge -- kinda like the Russian rail network being different than Europe on one frontier and China on another.
Russian rail is wide, 1,520 mm (4 ft 11 5⁄6 in) while Europe, China and the US are all the same, 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in).
schlimm Paul Milenkovic: some strange kind of (slightly) wide gauge -- kinda like the Russian rail network being different than Europe on one frontier and China on another. Russian rail is wide, 1,520 mm (4 ft 11 5⁄6 in) while Europe, China and the US are all the same, 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in).
Paul Milenkovic: some strange kind of (slightly) wide gauge -- kinda like the Russian rail network being different than Europe on one frontier and China on another.
And BART is broad gauge http://295bus.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-bart-broad-gauge.html
Just one country probably would qualify: Switzerland. Any air travel is primarily between Switzerland and other countries, not local, save helos. Autos have limitations due to the slower, narrower roads available there, and having to go around, not through mountains. Rail travel seems to be a prime mover, perhaps due to the smaller distances, and capability to carry more for less fuel. I do not know if major government funding supports rail, or private companies, but roads certainly do.
The basic problems with the NE are (1) old catenary south of NYC, limiting speeds to 135 mph even where track conditions would permit 150mph, and (2) the almost unimprovable stretch of Metro North between New Rochelle and New Haven, with lots of curves, clearances restricting use of tile trains, and lots and lots of commuter traffic. The first problem will be solved because it is on a high priority of Amtrak's wish list. The second seems doomed for continuation until many billions are available for new route through a very built-up area possibly requiring underground construction.
Paul Milenkovic oltmannd: I'm not a big fan of these terminal to terminal new lines (CA and FL) because they turn out any usefulness until the whole thing is built and then, you are really limited in the number of single seat trips you can offer. (Changing trains is only fun for railfans!) So are you saying that the CA HSR uses lightweight equipment and hence is something like the BART, a one-of confined to that one line? "Heavy rail" (i.e. New York subway, Chicago El and subway, DC) is "one-of" largely on account of tunnel and platform clearances. BART, on the other hand, is some strange kind of (slightly) wide gauge -- kinda like the Russian rail network being different than Europe on one frontier and China on another. CA HSR is then "one-of" on account of wanting to use lightweight equipment that cannot interoperate on rails that share freight trains? You don't want to operate conventional freight on HSR lines for a variety of reasons, but I think you are telling us that in France they used the "conventional" rail network to access downtown trains stations and the like, but we cannot do that here? I know that the FRA requirements can boost weight (think Acela vs TGV trains they are kinda, sorta patterned after). But doesn't Talgo claim they can meet the FRA regs without substantially boosting weight, and doesn't Talgo have a high-speed version, complete with electric locomotives matched to the train set? Is the Talgo HSR qualified for 150 MPH but California wants to do 220 MPH or some such thing?
oltmannd: I'm not a big fan of these terminal to terminal new lines (CA and FL) because they turn out any usefulness until the whole thing is built and then, you are really limited in the number of single seat trips you can offer. (Changing trains is only fun for railfans!)
The most intriguing equipment is Talgo, but the existing equipment is operating under a waiver and the newer stuff hasn't undergone the squeeze test. Given how "reasonable" the FRA seems to be in negotiating the performance standard for train operation when granting the HSR money, I'm not optimistic that a reasonable accommodation for HSR equipment on existing track can be made.
I'm really wondering what CA will do once the first leg of their HSR line is built down the Central Valley? If this were Germany, the ICE equipment would just use the old route, then hop on the new route as it was built. But, looking at some maps, it appears that one would have to take a San Joquin part of the way and then take a taxi over to the HSR station to continue the trip. Somebody prove me wrong. Please!
You are 100% correct about Germany. Your routing in CA looks correct as well. I thought a Trains article last year suggested that once PTC was implemented, the "overweight for safety" rule could be scrapped?
schlimm You are 100% correct about Germany. Your routing in CA looks correct as well. I thought a Trains article last year suggested that once PTC was implemented, the "overweight for safety" rule could be scrapped?
Nothing would surprise me in the mazes of bureaucracy. I wonder about the possibility of acquiring/renting some of the lightly-used ROW's between appropriate population centers, and then upgrading them in stages first to 110 mph and later to higher speeds on passenger-only tracks.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.