Rethinking Low Speed Rail

[oltmannd]

So, we're talking about a huge investment to get us roughly what we already have?  What's the point of doing it?  

About the only way to justify it would be if NY - Chicago was capacity constrained and the rail option was cheaper to build out than airport expansion.  But, if that was true, it might be cheaper to relieve airport congestion at Chicago and NY by building out other shorter haul routes.

[Dragoman]

Sam1

...

Serious business people are not going to spend nine or ten hours on a train to get from A to B when they can fly there in a couple of hours.  

...

Even if those "nine or ten hours on a train" gives them 9 or 10 productive hours that day, while the "couple of hours" on, and getting on and off of, a plane, only gives them 4 or 5 or 6 productive hours during the same period?  At least for some?

[Anonymous]

According to the August 1938 schedule for the 20th Century Limited, as shown at Streamliner Schedules, the Century stopped at Harmon, Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo to receive passengers; it stopped at Englewood to discharge passengers.  Eastbound it stopped at Englewood and Toledo to receive passengers, and discharged them at Albany and Harmon.  

The 1956 Century stopped at Harmon and Albany to receive passengers.  It discharged them at Englewood.  Eastbound it stopped at Englewood to pick-up passengers, and it stopped at Harmon to discharge them.  

According to the April 1967 schedule, the 20th Century Limited stopped at Croton-Harmon, Albany, and Syracuse to receive passengers. It also had coordinated flag stops at Toledo, Elkhart, South Bend, Gary, and Englewood to receive and discharge passengers. By 1967 the train carried coaches and a sleeper coach.

In 1938 and 1956 the train would have made four or five stops between Albany and Englewood to change crews. It would have made the same number of crew changes in 1967, I believe. Whether any of them were co-functional with the passenger stops is unknown, although I presume some of them were.

Serious business people are not going to spend nine or ten hours on a train to get from A to B when they can fly there in a couple of hours.  Like it or not, the long distance train is dead, although Amtrak, which is driven by politics, cannot admit it.  The best outcome for the U.S. is moderate speed, affordable trains over relatively short distances in high density corridors.

[Dragoman]

Schlimm --

Not disagreeing with anything you (and Henry) have stated, I would like to point out 2 things:

1)  While 9.5 hours is more than a bit aggressive for conventional/low speed/slow speed rail, it certainly should be possible to do much better than today's speeds. Nearly 75 years ago, the 20th Century and Broadway Limited were doing NY - Chicago in 16 hours (and down to 15:30 - 15:45 by the '50's).  With all of the improvements in the past 75 years (welded rail, better locomotives, etc.), if there was the will to do so (as Henry points out) ... ?

2)  Of the 5 hours for the trip be plane, how many of those hours are truly productive?  You can't do much productive work on the way to or from the airport, waiting in the various lines, or on most of the flight.  You don't get a meal, so you shouls add that time to the total air trip.  So, you lose maybe 3-4 hours of productive time on that trip.

A well-equipped train, with services and facilities catering to the business traveler, nearly all of the time could be productive.

So which option is really wasting more time?

[schlimm]

To cover the 959 miles in 9.5 hrs. the train would have to average 101 mph.  Over that distance, with 4 intermediate stops, slower areas and the approaches to CHI and NYC, the train would probably need to go at 150+ much of the time to cover in 9.5 hours, which would require HSR.  Anyone of the many non-stop flights take 2 hours, 5 minutes.  Allowing an hour transit time at each end from the Loop to ORD, an hour for security  and one hour LAG to Midtown, you have a total of about five hours, along with the convenience of numerous flights and save four hours.  By flying early and returning late, a businessman can avoid an overnight and be able to return to his/her office the next day, while the train would require at least two days, probably three.  Also, to have the necessary HSR, you would need separate, dedicated track over much of the route.  Call me a wet blanket, but that does not sound like a service that would attract enough riders to be worth the enormous investment.  960 miles is about twice the longest feasible distance for intercity rail travel that is competitive.

[John WR]

You're absolutely right, Henry.  The 20th Century Limited stopped only at Harmon and Albany and then went straight through to Chicago at 60 mph.  Conventional Amtrak equipment could run faster than that if the track were clear.  

[henry6]

When you see what both the PRR's Broadway and NYC's Century did between those two points, then you can undersand what he is saying.  While not half the 19 hour time, definitely it was done somewhere around 16 hours which is certainly stepping right along.  But managment, track owners, and passenger train operators have to want to do it with the same interest and spirit as was done back then.  Of course, each stop added will slow the train's overall schedule.  But if you did a local NY to Albany, another Albany to Syracuse, Syracuse to Buffalo, Buffalo to Cleveland and Cleveland to Chicago with a single train restricted or "limited" to those points as only stops, then it might be marketable.  It would also have to be consitistanty reliable so that it will be acceptable.  I've always had problem with so called high speed rail because I have also believed the so called slow speed rail was never operated to its full potential.  I also, knowing what has been achieved in the past, what is achievable with contemporary equipment and roadway, would also define slow speed as 75 to 125 mph with real high speed not considered until 150 or more mph.  Since freight railroad companies control the track and the rights of ways in, what, more than 90% of the country outside of commuter districts,  the likely hood of the relaying of track or improvement of track or dedicating track to passenger standards as this are probably very improbable especially in the near future.  But, yes, the full potential of trains, tracks, and schedules, from the last half of the 20th Century was never realized because we got speed happy with jet planes and comfortable behind the wheel of our personal vehicle.

 

[John WR]

Robert Orr, an architect and planner, writes about current rail transportation.  He points out that with conventional equipment the running time from New York to Chicago could be half of its present 19 hours and that would make it competitive with flying when all of the extra time consuming aspects are considered.  He also suggests ripping up a lot of track was a big mistake and it should be replaced; however, replacement would cost a lot less than high speed rail plans.  

You may read his article in the Hartford Courant here:

http://articles.courant.com/2012-08-22/news/hc-op-orr-rail-travel-0823-20120822_1_standard-trains-rail-passenger