oltmannd It's the "hassle factor". A guy who has a meeting three hours away (by car) isn't going to take the train if it takes 5 hours, no matter how long a nap or how much laptop time he can get on the train - particularly if he has first and last mile "hassles" with the train. However if there isn't much cruise control time in that 3 hour drive, he might think twice....
It's the "hassle factor". A guy who has a meeting three hours away (by car) isn't going to take the train if it takes 5 hours, no matter how long a nap or how much laptop time he can get on the train - particularly if he has first and last mile "hassles" with the train. However if there isn't much cruise control time in that 3 hour drive, he might think twice....
blue streak 1 oltmannd One thought. Parking as a driver for the decline. I kind of doubt it. I think the reason was a door to door one seat ride - that was probably quicker. Maybe I did not make it clear. Parking is only one part of the metric. IMHO The real driver in ridership may be the perception ( not necessarily what is reality ) of total time gained or lost. Many persons appear to need all the time possible to complete tasks. The total time wasted ( may be misconception ) while driving vs doing productive work while riding public transportation ( another misconception ? ) may influence some to ride public transportation?. the younger generation's use of laptops, texting, and cell phones has entered a whole new metric for whatever affecting ridership. All persons approach a task differently so how that affects their ridership will be different.. Of course travel safety is another consideration.
oltmannd One thought. Parking as a driver for the decline. I kind of doubt it. I think the reason was a door to door one seat ride - that was probably quicker.
One thought. Parking as a driver for the decline. I kind of doubt it. I think the reason was a door to door one seat ride - that was probably quicker.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The total time from the staring point (residence, hotel) city A to the ultimate goal (hotel, office) in city B, along with frequency of service and convenient departures will determine the preferred mode of travel: rail, auto, bus or plane. Cost is important but secondary if it's in the same ballpark.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
blue streak 1 Although this thread is mainly transit it applies to all AMTRAK as well. It Is a matter of total time to go from point A to point B ? 1. Before 1910 the only way for people to get around speedly ( relative term ) was by trolley or railroad. 2. As more automobiles were bought persons could get from their homes to another point quicker because there was either no parking or very limited parking around public transportation.. 3. As well the transportation was hot in the summer and cold in the winter especially on the commuter cars as they were hand me downs from longer distance trains and transit. 4. WW-2 stopped this run away from public transport. 5. This dicotomy for loss of long distance travel was immediately pushed forward at the end of WW-2 with more autos, the rise of airlines and their ability to fly at night relatively safely.. 6. The interstate system then crushed the shorter distance public travel since there was still limited parking at commuter public transportation nodes. 7. There were exceptions especially the high density cities that had a good local public transport such as NYC & BOS. 8. Starting in the late 1960s in the NEC and in California in the 1980s some rail was built with parking. Some Bus routes were co-ordinated with the train schedules out west. Then reduced time attracted some riders especially in southern CA however not to the extent of what transit promoters hoped. 9. The advent of the laptop computer has changed the time metric as travel on commuter rails enable ~~ 80% of that time to be used for laptop work or sleep if desired. Subway & bus probably not because of the worry about grab and run criminals. 10. Will the advent of Wi-Fi and cell phone 4G attract some additional riders? That question can only be guessed how many ? This is a definite chicken and egg situation as the spotty coverage that still occurrs on the NEC due to lack of adequate antenna coverage at many locations is an example. On the other end the loss of time driving an auto becomes a factor as well. 11. If a person only occasionally takes an auto slow down on his trip then will not change modes. 12. If parking is a problem at a transit node then public transit is still problematic unless riders can take it as kiss and ride. 13. Once the auto trip and other end transport takes more time to complete a commute then some method will be devised to take the public transport. Some examples of how the time metric will or does apply ------ 14. The greatest ridership increases of HSR in France are commuters that are 1 Hr or less from the major cities. such as into PARIS. 15. Lynchburg, Charlottesville -- Still cannot figure this one out as it is now 2 - 1/2 hrs CVS - WASH. If those 112 miles could be transited in 1 - 1/2 hrs ???? Still this auto route is only served by the congested US 29 - I-66 corridor which indicates many riders that are not commuters. 16. The same can be said for Newport News / Norfolk - WASH. especially where the Richmond - WASH segment is also 2-1/2 hours. I-95 is very congested many days causing unknown arrival times ALX - WASH. Again parking in VA is a problem especially on the VRE portion. 17. The reduction to 1;45 time from Harrisburg - PHL route has seen 4 fold increased ridership. 18 .What probably is most important is that there is no increase in travel time by public transport. Examples were the big hits that intercity and commuter passenger trains took as the RR infrastructure deteiorated so timetable or actual travel times increased. What IMO are the ways to reduce travel time by public transport.. 20. 1st if we have an 110 mile section of that can be run all at 80 MPH then it can be transited in 1;20. To increase this section to 110 MPH takes a bundle of money ( maybe $400 M based on the work CHI - STL ) That will save ~~ 20 minutes ?. 21. Increase the speed on terminal tracks. AMTRAK is rebuilding all their NYP puzzle tracks ( approximately 1 mile + length of trains [max 1360 ft] ) at the west end of NYP from 10 MPH TO 20 MPH. So instead of ~ 6.5 minutes transit time is down to 3.25 minutes. Fortunately the restriction only plugs the interlocking when train routes cross each other. Not counted is the acceleration time going out not needing to wait to clear 10 MPH section. Both will save what 3.25 minutes per train ? 22. Install higher speed interlockings. -- Most interlocking on the NEC are 60 MPH with some New Haven - Bos 100 MPH. Although 100 MPH interlockings ( usually only for diverging movements ) are not going to improve times much thru the interlocking the requirement not to slow to 60 and then accelerate may save 2 - 5 minutes time a diverging route is taken. On freight RRs transiting a 30 MPH vs an 80 MPH turnout will save time for entering a long ( 10,000 + ft ) and allow opposing traffic to clear faster. Exiting on an 80 MPH turnout once past its signal will definitely save some time if the restriction of not going faster than last signal is mitigated. ( PTC may help that problem ) . I have no idea what the extra maintenance costs of higher speed turn out are although the need for moveable frogs is a definite cost ? 23. Slow curves . As most of our posters know anything greater than a a 1/2 deg curve will slow down Hr SR as well as HSR. The usual way of easing curve track to build inside of an existing curve. That will work but sometimes making a restricting curve an "S" curve may work better. Again getting rid of restricting speeds. Other posters have noted that the present 110 MPH section on UP has a restricting curve. For example a 40 MPH 1/2 mile curve on 80 MPH track assuming 1 MPH / sec acceleration will cost about 4 minutes. Slower curves probably occurr in metropolitan locations and probably be mitigated last unless an interim speed up is possible at minimual costs. NC DOT is relocating an obsolete I-85 bridge to allow the elimination of a slow "S" curve CLT - Greensboro. 24. every grade crossing needs elimination or 80 MPH protection. 25. remaining problem grade crossings that for what ever reason require slower speeds are expensive projects. Many times there is the need to eliminate more than one to enable higher speeds. How should these speed ups be handled ?? 26 IMO.it is important that published trip times be reduced very slowly. a. If passengers know the trains are getting better on times then they are happy and will return with the present schedule. b. If for any reason a speed up of the time table is not met then there are a lot of dissatisfied customers. wonder if it is 10 - 20 to 1 ratio ? c. Slowly reducing travel times lets the passenger realize that improvements are being implemented with their tax dollars.
Although this thread is mainly transit it applies to all AMTRAK as well.
It Is a matter of total time to go from point A to point B ?
1. Before 1910 the only way for people to get around speedly ( relative term ) was by trolley or railroad.
2. As more automobiles were bought persons could get from their homes to another point quicker because there was either no parking or very limited parking around public transportation..
3. As well the transportation was hot in the summer and cold in the winter especially on the commuter cars as they were hand me downs from longer distance trains and transit.
4. WW-2 stopped this run away from public transport.
5. This dicotomy for loss of long distance travel was immediately pushed forward at the end of WW-2 with more autos, the rise of airlines and their ability to fly at night relatively safely..
6. The interstate system then crushed the shorter distance public travel since there was still limited parking at commuter public transportation nodes.
7. There were exceptions especially the high density cities that had a good local public transport such as NYC & BOS.
8. Starting in the late 1960s in the NEC and in California in the 1980s some rail was built with parking. Some Bus routes were co-ordinated with the train schedules out west. Then reduced time attracted some riders especially in southern CA however not to the extent of what transit promoters hoped.
9. The advent of the laptop computer has changed the time metric as travel on commuter rails enable ~~ 80% of that time to be used for laptop work or sleep if desired. Subway & bus probably not because of the worry about grab and run criminals.
10. Will the advent of Wi-Fi and cell phone 4G attract some additional riders? That question can only be guessed how many ? This is a definite chicken and egg situation as the spotty coverage that still occurrs on the NEC due to lack of adequate antenna coverage at many locations is an example.
On the other end the loss of time driving an auto becomes a factor as well.
11. If a person only occasionally takes an auto slow down on his trip then will not change modes.
12. If parking is a problem at a transit node then public transit is still problematic unless riders can take it as kiss and ride.
13. Once the auto trip and other end transport takes more time to complete a commute then some method will be devised to take the public transport.
Some examples of how the time metric will or does apply ------
14. The greatest ridership increases of HSR in France are commuters that are 1 Hr or less from the major cities. such as into PARIS.
15. Lynchburg, Charlottesville -- Still cannot figure this one out as it is now 2 - 1/2 hrs CVS - WASH. If those 112 miles could be transited in 1 - 1/2 hrs ???? Still this auto route is only served by the congested US 29 - I-66 corridor which indicates many riders that are not commuters.
16. The same can be said for Newport News / Norfolk - WASH. especially where the Richmond - WASH segment is also 2-1/2 hours. I-95 is very congested many days causing unknown arrival times ALX - WASH. Again parking in VA is a problem especially on the VRE portion.
17. The reduction to 1;45 time from Harrisburg - PHL route has seen 4 fold increased ridership.
18 .What probably is most important is that there is no increase in travel time by public transport. Examples were the big hits that intercity and commuter passenger trains took as the RR infrastructure deteiorated so timetable or actual travel times increased.
What IMO are the ways to reduce travel time by public transport..
20. 1st if we have an 110 mile section of that can be run all at 80 MPH then it can be transited in 1;20. To increase this section to 110 MPH takes a bundle of money ( maybe $400 M based on the work CHI - STL ) That will save ~~ 20 minutes ?.
21. Increase the speed on terminal tracks. AMTRAK is rebuilding all their NYP puzzle tracks ( approximately 1 mile + length of trains [max 1360 ft] ) at the west end of NYP from 10 MPH TO 20 MPH. So instead of ~ 6.5 minutes transit time is down to 3.25 minutes. Fortunately the restriction only plugs the interlocking when train routes cross each other. Not counted is the acceleration time going out not needing to wait to clear 10 MPH section. Both will save what 3.25 minutes per train ?
22. Install higher speed interlockings. -- Most interlocking on the NEC are 60 MPH with some New Haven - Bos 100 MPH. Although 100 MPH interlockings ( usually only for diverging movements ) are not going to improve times much thru the interlocking the requirement not to slow to 60 and then accelerate may save 2 - 5 minutes time a diverging route is taken.
On freight RRs transiting a 30 MPH vs an 80 MPH turnout will save time for entering a long ( 10,000 + ft ) and allow opposing traffic to clear faster. Exiting on an 80 MPH turnout once past its signal will definitely save some time if the restriction of not going faster than last signal is mitigated. ( PTC may help that problem ) . I have no idea what the extra maintenance costs of higher speed turn out are although the need for moveable frogs is a definite cost ?
23. Slow curves . As most of our posters know anything greater than a a 1/2 deg curve will slow down Hr SR as well as HSR. The usual way of easing curve track to build inside of an existing curve. That will work but sometimes making a restricting curve an "S" curve may work better. Again getting rid of restricting speeds. Other posters have noted that the present 110 MPH section on UP has a restricting curve.
For example a 40 MPH 1/2 mile curve on 80 MPH track assuming 1 MPH / sec acceleration will cost about 4 minutes. Slower curves probably occurr in metropolitan locations and probably be mitigated last unless an interim speed up is possible at minimual costs. NC DOT is relocating an obsolete I-85 bridge to allow the elimination of a slow "S" curve CLT - Greensboro.
24. every grade crossing needs elimination or 80 MPH protection.
25. remaining problem grade crossings that for what ever reason require slower speeds are expensive projects. Many times there is the need to eliminate more than one to enable higher speeds.
How should these speed ups be handled ??
26 IMO.it is important that published trip times be reduced very slowly.
a. If passengers know the trains are getting better on times then they are happy and will return with the present schedule.
b. If for any reason a speed up of the time table is not met then there are a lot of dissatisfied customers. wonder if it is 10 - 20 to 1 ratio ?
c. Slowly reducing travel times lets the passenger realize that improvements are being implemented with their tax dollars.
This is about setting expectations. Set them low and beat them, then people are happy The other side of this is you won't get people's attention unless something is different. "Faster" is different. I think you need to squeeze what ever time is there from improvements. There is some science in building train schedules. I'd let that rule the day.
blue streak 122. Install higher speed interlockings. -- Most interlocking on the NEC are 60 MPH with some New Haven - Bos 100 MPH. Although 100 MPH interlockings ( usually only for diverging movements ) are not going to improve times much thru the interlocking the requirement not to slow to 60 and then accelerate may save 2 - 5 minutes time a diverging route is taken.
They are mostly #20 switches, which have a passenger speed of 45mph. As you point out, the higher speed diverging moves increase line capacity as well as reduce trip time. UP has some 60 mph interlocking for just this reason.
Lots to ponder.
Many thoughtful points to consider. Thanks!!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.