Schlimm... the cost of transit is the same $200/$206 for the ride. Rooms and meals whether aboard the train or at the endpoints are not transit costs. So you can spend less than four hours in transit or 4 days in transit for about the same price. Where you spend your money for food and lodging is up to you.
And Sam, are you sure the airline ticket is more of the total cost? Does it take into account the local airport expenses, air traffic control, etc. or are you just taking the Federal subsidy into account?
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.
A quick comparison. A new, Boeing 737 costs $60M and seats 150. A new LD train (2 sleepers, 3 coaches, baggage/dorm,diner,lounge, two locomotives costs about $30M and seats about 250. Airlines average 80% load factor. A good LD train, about 60%, so the typical 737 load would be 120 and 150 for the train.
For a 1000 mile route, the train can make one, one way trip per day. The plane, 3 round trips per day.
Assume the commercial life of the plane is 20 years (Delta's current avg age for their fleet is 15 yrs) and the train 20 years (Amtrak has stated this for the train)
in 20 years, the train will carry 150 x 365 x 20 = 1.1M trips
in 20 years the plane will carry 120 x 3 x 2 x 365 x 10 = 2.6M trips
Double the equipment cost gets you more than double the passengers.
And that's just equipment cost. Anyone dare to look at employee man-hours per trip?
Imagine what it would cost for a 1000 mile trip by Conestoga wagon!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
henry: I see your point, riding the train two nights sitting in a coach, although the fare is $267. But to compare sitting in a coach 45 hours with a plane ride of 4+ hours? As I said, the vast majority of the public, given that choice, would consider the train ride as insane.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmannd: It would be a real challenge to calculate the cost in dollars of the train man-hours per trip, b/c wage information is not readily available. But I bet it's much higher than the 737's wage costs per trip because the man-hours of the latter are so much less.
To further the "comparing apples and oranges" discussion, let us not forget that Portland/Seattle-to-Chicago is not the average trip on the Builder. Published Amtrak statistics report the average long-distance passenger trip at something over 700 miles. Which means that people going to/from those isolated stops in Montana and North Dakota (and Kansas and Nevada and Colorado and New Mexico and etc.), which have little or no other public transport available, is the primary market being served by Amtrak LD services.
And, this sort of service to the more-isolated parts of our country has long been considered worth supporting, even in the commercial aviation context (reference the DOT's Essential Air Service program, giving subsidies to comercial airlines and building out-of-the-way airports to serve them).
schlimm oltmannd: It would be a real challenge to calculate the cost in dollars of the train man-hours per trip, b/c wage information is not readily available. But I bet it's much higher than the 737's wage costs per trip because the man-hours of the latter are so much less.
That's exactly the point....and the problem.
oltmannd A quick comparison. A new, Boeing 737 costs $60M and seats 150. A new LD train (2 sleepers, 3 coaches, baggage/dorm,diner,lounge, two locomotives costs about $30M and seats about 250. Airlines average 80% load factor. A good LD train, about 60%, so the typical 737 load would be 120 and 150 for the train. For a 1000 mile route, the train can make one, one way trip per day. The plane, 3 round trips per day. Assume the commercial life of the plane is 20 years (Delta's current avg age for their fleet is 15 yrs) and the train 20 years (Amtrak has stated this for the train) in 20 years, the train will carry 150 x 365 x 20 = 1.1M trips in 20 years the plane will carry 120 x 3 x 2 x 365 x 10 = 2.6M trips Double the equipment cost gets you more than double the passengers. And that's just equipment cost. Anyone dare to look at employee man-hours per trip? Imagine what it would cost for a 1000 mile trip by Conestoga wagon!
Don, I think you made a small math error. You have the train down for a 20 year lifetime, but you only have the plane down for a 10 year lifetime owing to the x10 instead of x20 factor you have in the plane calculation.
The other thing is that the train cars can be made of stainless steel and have a 40-50 year lifetime whereas the locomotives might need to be replaced every 20 years because they simply wear out in mainline service. But maybe locomotives last longer in passenger service where they are at full power only to accelerate trains but cruise at part power, where mainline freight locos spend more time at high power settings?
So it might take 4-5 30 million dollar train sets to replace one 60 million dollar airplane? But the coaches and sleepers (not locos) might last twice as long? Maybe in rough, round numbers, the train comes out even to the jet?
But where I am thinking the cost problem may be is that it may take 3 times the mainenance crew hours per passenger mile on Amtrak as it does on Southwest. Think about doing the maintenance on one 737 jet vs the work on 4-5 trainsets: about 8-10 locomotives plus 32-40 railroad passenger cars? Even if that jet is maintenance intensive, you have to maintain an awful large number of separate vehicles for the train.
But with respect to the train, we keep thinking, how can the maintenance of a jet, a very fragile and complicated piece of equipment, be much less expensive than even maintaining a small fleet of railroad cars, that are essentially hunks of steel with wheels turning underneath?
But there seems to be something expensive about maintaining railroad passenger equipment. When I usually post the rhetorical argument, "A rail passenger car is just a hunk of steel with some wheels underneath, or at least when you compare it to a jetliner", someone chimes in to correct me, "Oh no, a rail passenger car has lighting, HVAC, power operated doors, braking systems, etc. that needs all manners of careful maintenance." This correction often comes from someone who perhaps has some actual experience on how much work needs to be done to keep a passenger railroad car out on the road.
But that's exactly my point -- a passenger railroad car is a much more complex piece of machinery than you think, and the maintenance costs of passenger service on a per passenger mile basis are much higher than you think, and the economics of passenger rail is less favorable than you would think.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Interesting post, Paul. And although an airliner is complex and sophisticated overall, a turbofan jet engine may actually be less complicated then a Diesel, although more so than an electric.
schlimm Interesting post, Paul. And although an airliner is complex and sophisticated overall, a turbofan jet engine may actually be less complicated then a Diesel, although more so than an electric.
Yes, the turbine is simpler than a diesel, but it is made of some very exotic metals in very limited quantities under very strict oversight of the government. As a result they must be serviced more often and even the simplest parts are very expensive. I have never been involved in the maint of trains, but I have been involved in the maint of aircraft.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
The constant comparison of rail to air travel is really a red herring. They are best suited to different market segments.
Aircraft travel very fast when they are enroute. However climbing, descending, maneuvering in the airspace around an airport, approaches, departures, and taxi to and from the gates add a great deal of time to the trip. It is therefor very inefficient to make multiple stops. The train, on the other hand, needs only to slow, stop and accelerate at each station. The aircraft can make better time between the end points, but the train can service all the little cities along the route.
Using the Charlotte area as an example. I can take a Train or a plane from Charlotte to DC. The aircraft is much faster. But I cannot take an aircraft from Kannapolis, NC to Burlington, NC. Service is not even available. But I can take the train. The train from Charlotte to DC stops in Kannapolis, Salisbury, High Point, Greensboro, Burlington, Durham, Cary, Raleigh, Selma, Wilson, Rocky Mount, Petersburg, Richmond, Fredericksburg, Quantico, and Alexandria. Sit down with your spread sheet and calculate the cost of providing air service to all of those cities. How many aircraft will be required?
Passenger rail and commercial aircraft are not competitors. They are different pieces of a transportation infrastructure.
Corridor rail vs same corridor air is a fair comparison while LD train vs air or commuter vs air are not fair comparison because of the huge differences in market and product., there is no comparison because you aren't compairing the same things. However, what does come down in all of this is that people are an expensive commodity to move short or long distances. Overlooked in arguement is that all forms of transportation are competitive against each other, supplimental to each other, and cannot be dismissed one over the other. In short, we need a comprehensive, cohesive, rational, planned, assembled, and marketed transportation system for both the live commodity as well as the dead weight of a ton of coal. The entire transportation system has to work together to work. Petty competitivness, contrived alliances, and prejediced applications will no longer work in the near future.
What you may be forgetting in the consideration of the passenger count on a LD passenger train is that any passenger count is kind of a "snapshot" because people are continually getting on and off along the length of the route. That 150 passengers at one isolated point may actually be 400-500 when you consider the ons and offs at 20 stops along the way.
You have to remember that only small minority of LD train passengers actually make the trip from end point to end point, so that is a rather flimsy argument.
mdw What you may be forgetting in the consideration of the passenger count on a LD passenger train is that any passenger count is kind of a "snapshot" because people are continually getting on and off along the length of the route. That 150 passengers at one isolated point may actually be 400-500 when you consider the ons and offs at 20 stops along the way.
Paul Milenkovic oltmannd: A quick comparison. A new, Boeing 737 costs $60M and seats 150. A new LD train (2 sleepers, 3 coaches, baggage/dorm,diner,lounge, two locomotives costs about $30M and seats about 250. Airlines average 80% load factor. A good LD train, about 60%, so the typical 737 load would be 120 and 150 for the train. For a 1000 mile route, the train can make one, one way trip per day. The plane, 3 round trips per day. Assume the commercial life of the plane is 20 years (Delta's current avg age for their fleet is 15 yrs) and the train 20 years (Amtrak has stated this for the train) in 20 years, the train will carry 150 x 365 x 20 = 1.1M trips in 20 years the plane will carry 120 x 3 x 2 x 365 x 10 = 2.6M trips Double the equipment cost gets you more than double the passengers. And that's just equipment cost. Anyone dare to look at employee man-hours per trip? Imagine what it would cost for a 1000 mile trip by Conestoga wagon! Don, I think you made a small math error. You have the train down for a 20 year lifetime, but you only have the plane down for a 10 year lifetime owing to the x10 instead of x20 factor you have in the plane calculation. The other thing is that the train cars can be made of stainless steel and have a 40-50 year lifetime whereas the locomotives might need to be replaced every 20 years because they simply wear out in mainline service. But maybe locomotives last longer in passenger service where they are at full power only to accelerate trains but cruise at part power, where mainline freight locos spend more time at high power settings? So it might take 4-5 30 million dollar train sets to replace one 60 million dollar airplane? But the coaches and sleepers (not locos) might last twice as long? Maybe in rough, round numbers, the train comes out even to the jet? But where I am thinking the cost problem may be is that it may take 3 times the mainenance crew hours per passenger mile on Amtrak as it does on Southwest. Think about doing the maintenance on one 737 jet vs the work on 4-5 trainsets: about 8-10 locomotives plus 32-40 railroad passenger cars? Even if that jet is maintenance intensive, you have to maintain an awful large number of separate vehicles for the train. But with respect to the train, we keep thinking, how can the maintenance of a jet, a very fragile and complicated piece of equipment, be much less expensive than even maintaining a small fleet of railroad cars, that are essentially hunks of steel with wheels turning underneath? But there seems to be something expensive about maintaining railroad passenger equipment. When I usually post the rhetorical argument, "A rail passenger car is just a hunk of steel with some wheels underneath, or at least when you compare it to a jetliner", someone chimes in to correct me, "Oh no, a rail passenger car has lighting, HVAC, power operated doors, braking systems, etc. that needs all manners of careful maintenance." This correction often comes from someone who perhaps has some actual experience on how much work needs to be done to keep a passenger railroad car out on the road. But that's exactly my point -- a passenger railroad car is a much more complex piece of machinery than you think, and the maintenance costs of passenger service on a per passenger mile basis are much higher than you think, and the economics of passenger rail is less favorable than you would think.
oltmannd: A quick comparison. A new, Boeing 737 costs $60M and seats 150. A new LD train (2 sleepers, 3 coaches, baggage/dorm,diner,lounge, two locomotives costs about $30M and seats about 250. Airlines average 80% load factor. A good LD train, about 60%, so the typical 737 load would be 120 and 150 for the train. For a 1000 mile route, the train can make one, one way trip per day. The plane, 3 round trips per day. Assume the commercial life of the plane is 20 years (Delta's current avg age for their fleet is 15 yrs) and the train 20 years (Amtrak has stated this for the train) in 20 years, the train will carry 150 x 365 x 20 = 1.1M trips in 20 years the plane will carry 120 x 3 x 2 x 365 x 10 = 2.6M trips Double the equipment cost gets you more than double the passengers. And that's just equipment cost. Anyone dare to look at employee man-hours per trip? Imagine what it would cost for a 1000 mile trip by Conestoga wagon!
Trying to get a quick ballpark number on the life of the equipment was difficult. I looked at a couple airlines to get a handle on average fleet age and saw quite a large variation. I took Amtrak at it's word that the average "commercial" life of a passenger car is 20 years. That's from their fleet replacement strategy document of 2010, I think.
Both airliners and passenger cars can have really long lives if you keep rebuilding them. Airliners often have problems with the fatigue life of the airframe that can put a hard limit on their life but innovation usually puts them to rest economically before that point. Then, you have to figure what the frequency and cost of mid-life "capital" rebuilding goes on. That was way beyond what I could figure...
So, rather squishily, I estimated an airliner's life to be half of that of a railcar.
And, the point was to show that the lower initial cost of the rail equipment was offset by it's lousy productivity (passenger-miles/seat hour) due to relatively low speed operation.
It would be really interesting to see what the passenger-miles/employee-hour labor productivity works out to.
A really good example of how speed help is Acela. The 20 train sets, which are <10% of Amtrak's fleet, generate 25% of the total revenue. Part of this is because their speed allows them to demand a higher rate per passenger mile, but also because you can get more equipment turns per year.
We keep arguing passenger transportation equipment without defining passenger. There are so many different reasons people ride trains. I know it is difficult for one who lives in a midwest farm state to envision commuter operations like NY, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago or non commuter corridors like Boston-NY-DC. Equally an Empire Builder of California Zepher is foreign to a commuter in such cities. But each circumstance is a different service with different needs, marketing, schedules, and equipment. A long distant train my provide the same service in Montana as a commuter or regional service does on the Northeast Corridor. We seem to lump passenger trains into one basket to rationalize the cost rather than rationalizeing the service.
henry6 We keep arguing passenger transportation equipment without defining passenger. There are so many different reasons people ride trains. I know it is difficult for one who lives in a midwest farm state to envision commuter operations like NY, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago or non commuter corridors like Boston-NY-DC. Equally an Empire Builder of California Zepher is foreign to a commuter in such cities. But each circumstance is a different service with different needs, marketing, schedules, and equipment. A long distant train my provide the same service in Montana as a commuter or regional service does on the Northeast Corridor. We seem to lump passenger trains into one basket to rationalize the cost rather than rationalizeing the service.
A good point, but really, it's both cost and service. The value of the service is reflected in the price you can charge for it. The trick is then to balance the cost and value. Things with low value and high cost should not be done. Things with high value and low cost should be done. Normally, the marketplace takes care of this.
If a commuter coach can only make on turn a day, why are transit agencies buying, new, gold-plated equipment? Because they can?
What do you mean "gold plated equipment"? I don't see such equipment being purchased or used by commuter agencies. And if you actually get into the operations of most commuter agencies you will see that equipment is rotated for the most part and utilized for a maximum amount of service over time. Equipment has to stand up to the service, weather, abuse, and use.
And the how is the value of service determined? If a community with no air and no four lane highway service gets a stop in each direction a day, what is the value of that service to that community?
We keep hearing the argument that people will not take mass transit because they are in love with their cars. The facts, however, do not agree with that. When you have a well developed mass transit system, people use it. The airlines transport very large numbers of people even thought they only serve large cities and treat everyone like a criminal. I know several people who live in Manhattan who don't even own a car. On the rare occasions when they need to go somewhere the transit system doesn't they rent. I know one man born and raised in NYC, age 40 something who has never had a driver license. He has never needed one.
People own cars because they NEED them to get around in our society where we have put all our transportation money into road building.
henry6 What do you mean "gold plated equipment"? I don't see such equipment being purchased or used by commuter agencies. And if you actually get into the operations of most commuter agencies you will see that equipment is rotated for the most part and utilized for a maximum amount of service over time. Equipment has to stand up to the service, weather, abuse, and use. And the how is the value of service determined? If a community with no air and no four lane highway service gets a stop in each direction a day, what is the value of that service to that community?
Historically, locomotive hauled commuter equipment was "hand me down" intercity equipment with linoleum floors and walk-over seats installed. Purpose-built locomotive hauled commuter coaches were the exception, not the rule, until the state gov'ts got involved with the purchasing. Those that were purpose built, were bare bones such as an LIRR "ping-pong" coach or a PRR MP-54 MU car.
Just off the top of my head, here are some things current commuter cars don't need:
-electronic message boards
-integrated HVAC systems - just use RV/transit bus/reefer stand-alone AC and baseboard strip heaters.
-power doors (brake system interlock goes away with them)
-PA system - signs in the stations and trainmen are good enough
All they really need to be is a weather-proof metal box on wheels with a minimal level of comfort. Their value is in where they go, not how they go.
...or perhaps we could just go back to pulling stage coaches with mules.
You have a strange conception of "gold plated". Now how do I defend progress against "because that's the way we used to do it" without getting political?
oltmannd Historically, locomotive hauled commuter equipment was "hand me down" intercity equipment with linoleum floors and walk-over seats installed. Purpose-built locomotive hauled commuter coaches were the exception, not the rule, until the state gov'ts got involved with the purchasing. Those that were purpose built, were bare bones such as an LIRR "ping-pong" coach or a PRR MP-54 MU car. Quite to the contrary. Commuter cars were more likely specifically manufactured just for that purpose. They did not need the plush and roominess, etc. Same with the locomotives...you did not need a behemoth to haul one or two cars. Every commuter fleets I am aware of had specific cars and specific locomotives, rarely hand me downs. Just off the top of my head, here are some things current commuter cars don't need: -electronic message boards -integrated HVAC systems - just use RV/transit bus/reefer stand-alone AC and baseboard strip heaters. -power doors (brake system interlock goes away with them) -PA system - signs in the stations and trainmen are good enough All they really need to be is a weather-proof metal box on wheels with a minimal level of comfort. Their value is in where they go, not how they go. Again, to the contrary. If you can keep people comfortable and happy and informed and able to move quickly, you are making things easier and quicker for everybody involved. Do you look so far down at commuters to say that they need a minimal level of comfort? The value is where they go and how quickly, safely, and comfortably they go. I don't know where you're from, Oltmannd, nor how old you are or what experiences you have had travelling on trains or otherwise, but you have a lot of misconceptions about passenger rail in general and commuter rail specifically. I hope, no, I urge you to go to any commuter city and ride a rush or peak hour train. As for passenger loadings and use of trains...six to ten times a year my Ride With Me Henry friends will travel with me to the NYC area just to ride trains. Peak hours, off peak hours, weekdays, weekends, NJT, LIRR, MNRR, SEPTA, Amtrak, light rail, subways, buses and ferry boats. And it is definitely a lot different than you portray it to be. The LIRR most often gets way behind on weekends to and from the far end of the island because of the huge passenger counts that cause long dwells at stations. It is fascinating to watch and fun to ride from a railfan prospective, but drudgery for the hapless daily round tripper! Give him air, a comfortable seat, and a quick and on time ride, gently tell him where to get off before he tells you where to go!
Quite to the contrary. Commuter cars were more likely specifically manufactured just for that purpose. They did not need the plush and roominess, etc. Same with the locomotives...you did not need a behemoth to haul one or two cars. Every commuter fleets I am aware of had specific cars and specific locomotives, rarely hand me downs.
Again, to the contrary. If you can keep people comfortable and happy and informed and able to move quickly, you are making things easier and quicker for everybody involved. Do you look so far down at commuters to say that they need a minimal level of comfort? The value is where they go and how quickly, safely, and comfortably they go.
I don't know where you're from, Oltmannd, nor how old you are or what experiences you have had travelling on trains or otherwise, but you have a lot of misconceptions about passenger rail in general and commuter rail specifically. I hope, no, I urge you to go to any commuter city and ride a rush or peak hour train.
As for passenger loadings and use of trains...six to ten times a year my Ride With Me Henry friends will travel with me to the NYC area just to ride trains. Peak hours, off peak hours, weekdays, weekends, NJT, LIRR, MNRR, SEPTA, Amtrak, light rail, subways, buses and ferry boats. And it is definitely a lot different than you portray it to be. The LIRR most often gets way behind on weekends to and from the far end of the island because of the huge passenger counts that cause long dwells at stations. It is fascinating to watch and fun to ride from a railfan prospective, but drudgery for the hapless daily round tripper! Give him air, a comfortable seat, and a quick and on time ride, gently tell him where to get off before he tells you where to go!
#1. In the Chicago area, purpose built commuter cars go back to the 1920's on the C&NW, and the double deck gallery cars to the 1950's.
#2. Where would commuter lines find old hand-me-down cars today?
Phoebe Vet ...or perhaps we could just go back to pulling stage coaches with mules. You have a strange conception of "gold plated". Now how do I defend progress against "because that's the way we used to do it" without getting political?
Progress:
Perhaps the best way to explain it is with a quote from Frank Zappa, "Without deviation, forward progress is not possible" (or some such).
The report cited in today's news wire about making AMTRAk private would be unconstitutional.
Of all the arguments I've heard that one completely took me by surprize. I would like for trains to cite the study so we could all puruse it. At first blush that argument seems iffy. But can't wait for Mica's reaction?.
henry6 oltmannd: Historically, locomotive hauled commuter equipment was "hand me down" intercity equipment with linoleum floors and walk-over seats installed. Purpose-built locomotive hauled commuter coaches were the exception, not the rule, until the state gov'ts got involved with the purchasing. Those that were purpose built, were bare bones such as an LIRR "ping-pong" coach or a PRR MP-54 MU car. Quite to the contrary. Commuter cars were more likely specifically manufactured just for that purpose. They did not need the plush and roominess, etc. Same with the locomotives...you did not need a behemoth to haul one or two cars. Every commuter fleets I am aware of had specific cars and specific locomotives, rarely hand me downs. Just off the top of my head, here are some things current commuter cars don't need: -electronic message boards -integrated HVAC systems - just use RV/transit bus/reefer stand-alone AC and baseboard strip heaters. -power doors (brake system interlock goes away with them) -PA system - signs in the stations and trainmen are good enough All they really need to be is a weather-proof metal box on wheels with a minimal level of comfort. Their value is in where they go, not how they go. Again, to the contrary. If you can keep people comfortable and happy and informed and able to move quickly, you are making things easier and quicker for everybody involved. Do you look so far down at commuters to say that they need a minimal level of comfort? The value is where they go and how quickly, safely, and comfortably they go. I don't know where you're from, Oltmannd, nor how old you are or what experiences you have had travelling on trains or otherwise, but you have a lot of misconceptions about passenger rail in general and commuter rail specifically. I hope, no, I urge you to go to any commuter city and ride a rush or peak hour train. As for passenger loadings and use of trains...six to ten times a year my Ride With Me Henry friends will travel with me to the NYC area just to ride trains. Peak hours, off peak hours, weekdays, weekends, NJT, LIRR, MNRR, SEPTA, Amtrak, light rail, subways, buses and ferry boats. And it is definitely a lot different than you portray it to be. The LIRR most often gets way behind on weekends to and from the far end of the island because of the huge passenger counts that cause long dwells at stations. It is fascinating to watch and fun to ride from a railfan prospective, but drudgery for the hapless daily round tripper! Give him air, a comfortable seat, and a quick and on time ride, gently tell him where to get off before he tells you where to go!
oltmannd: Historically, locomotive hauled commuter equipment was "hand me down" intercity equipment with linoleum floors and walk-over seats installed. Purpose-built locomotive hauled commuter coaches were the exception, not the rule, until the state gov'ts got involved with the purchasing. Those that were purpose built, were bare bones such as an LIRR "ping-pong" coach or a PRR MP-54 MU car. Quite to the contrary. Commuter cars were more likely specifically manufactured just for that purpose. They did not need the plush and roominess, etc. Same with the locomotives...you did not need a behemoth to haul one or two cars. Every commuter fleets I am aware of had specific cars and specific locomotives, rarely hand me downs. Just off the top of my head, here are some things current commuter cars don't need: -electronic message boards -integrated HVAC systems - just use RV/transit bus/reefer stand-alone AC and baseboard strip heaters. -power doors (brake system interlock goes away with them) -PA system - signs in the stations and trainmen are good enough All they really need to be is a weather-proof metal box on wheels with a minimal level of comfort. Their value is in where they go, not how they go. Again, to the contrary. If you can keep people comfortable and happy and informed and able to move quickly, you are making things easier and quicker for everybody involved. Do you look so far down at commuters to say that they need a minimal level of comfort? The value is where they go and how quickly, safely, and comfortably they go. I don't know where you're from, Oltmannd, nor how old you are or what experiences you have had travelling on trains or otherwise, but you have a lot of misconceptions about passenger rail in general and commuter rail specifically. I hope, no, I urge you to go to any commuter city and ride a rush or peak hour train. As for passenger loadings and use of trains...six to ten times a year my Ride With Me Henry friends will travel with me to the NYC area just to ride trains. Peak hours, off peak hours, weekdays, weekends, NJT, LIRR, MNRR, SEPTA, Amtrak, light rail, subways, buses and ferry boats. And it is definitely a lot different than you portray it to be. The LIRR most often gets way behind on weekends to and from the far end of the island because of the huge passenger counts that cause long dwells at stations. It is fascinating to watch and fun to ride from a railfan prospective, but drudgery for the hapless daily round tripper! Give him air, a comfortable seat, and a quick and on time ride, gently tell him where to get off before he tells you where to go!
A regular rail and transit (and bus) commuter for 33 years! I've also sampled commuter rail and transit in more than a few cities. In fact, every time I travel, I try to arrange my trip around rail and transit. I've managed to pass through 49 states, so I've seen and experienced quite a bit.
Wouldn't argue that a commuter needs a quick, timely, comfortable ride. He doesn't need all the gold-plated, over spec'd, more things to break, $2+M per copy commuter coach that so many agencies are purchasing.
Where did the PRR P70s run their last miles? How about the NYC's 200+ post war PS coaches? Harriman coaches?
schlimm #1. In the Chicago area, purpose built commuter cars go back to the 1920's on the C&NW, and the double deck gallery cars to the 1950's. #2. Where would commuter lines find old hand-me-down cars today?
Slim pickings, for sure, but not completely.
Amfleet. (soon - except Amtrak seems to be against selling them off when they're done with them)
Gallery cars from Chicago.
RDCs.
Amtrak Heritage coaches (last ran in Clocker/Keystone service)
I'm not saying "hand me down" is the answer, but a lot of the new equipment is really a lot more complex than it needs to be to fulfill it's mission.
Lets just take the message boards in the cars. When they work, great. When they don't, what do you do? Drill the car out? Not likely. Annul the train? Nope. You run the train with a defective message board. Oh my gosh! How ever will the passengers find their stop? Maybe, you announce it? Maybe you have lit signs at every station? Gee, what a concept!
I don't know about other transit systems but in terms of ticket checking, Metra will be moving into modern times in 2015. Perhaps less ticket punching and inspection by fewer collectors so that announcement through a PA system along with visual are important.
There are deaf people who use the trains who need visual announcements and there are people who don't see well who need vocal announcements. In addtion to routine next stop and next train announcements, Audio-Visual excellence is essential in emergencies. And that is its real prime purpose. And it can reduce the deficit by appropriate advertising!! Complaints about this being gold plating are comp[lete and utter hogwash.
There is absolutely no computer authority or transit system in North Ameerica that is gold plated.
Switaerland, yes. Go there and enjoy!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.