John WR It is precisely Acela's success that Amtrak critics criticize. They argue that government has no business operating a successful business; that is reserved for the private sector and Acela should be turned over to the private sector for exactly that reason. Amtrak should only operate those services which must operate at a loss.
It is precisely Acela's success that Amtrak critics criticize. They argue that government has no business operating a successful business; that is reserved for the private sector and Acela should be turned over to the private sector for exactly that reason. Amtrak should only operate those services which must operate at a loss.
It seems to me that those same critics then happily turn around and criticize government for being inept when the things run by government aren't profitable.
As a society we long ago passed the point where we can function without good communications, for transporting goods, as well as people.
To believe that private interests, with private money, focused on the numbers to report at next quarterly shareholder meeting, will regularly invest in infrastructure that will serve for the next 50 years, seems rather naive. They will of course look at the short-term picture.
We would not have a nationwide interstate road system if that had been left to private capital. We would have corridors of toll roads where those could be built and attract enough traffic to pay off the investment and generate profit in the near term. Other modes of transportation would have had similar development. How many airports would there be if it was all up to private capital?
BTW, I am not at all in favor of a system where the government runs everything on 5 year plans or similar. I do think there is a way to balance public interest and investment for the common good with private capital and interests.
Sam1The key point was whether upgrading the NEC regional trains, as opposed to adding a premium service, i.e. the Acela, would have been more cost effective and achieved an equally satisfactory outcome. At less cost to the taxpayers!
All of the reports I have ever seen, Sam, say that Acela is the most financially successful train that Amtrak operates. It is more successful than Northeast Regional Service. If the speed were increased it would be even more successful. As long as Amtrak exists getting rid of Acela would increase subsidies needed for Amtrak.
John
Sam1Why was the NEC infrastructure upgraded? Was it to support the Acela's 150+ mph speeds, or was it to support higher speeds for the NEC regional trains, and the Acela was just an after thought.
Immediately or almost immediately after Amtrak began they also began to replace the ties and tracks in the northeast corridor. The old ones were wooden ties and stick rail. The new ones were concrete ties and continuous welded rail. That was done many years before Acela.
Between New Haven and Washington the tracks were electrified by the original railroad companies. However, at New Haven trains would have to change engines from electric to diesel and vice versa. The change took about 20 minutes, long enough to run into the New Haven station and make a phone call in the days before cell phones. In the 1990's the tracks were electrified north of New Haven so they must have had Acela in mind. Of course, the Northeast Regional trains also benefited as they no longer had to stop to change engines.
But why do we use the term "cost to the taxpayer" here instead of the business term, "investment"? What is the difference? If the taxpayer is charged with having to play the game, he uses the same terms because he is doing the same thing. So Amtrak is a taxpayer investment in transportation not a cost. The same with the highway or airway or waterway systems: investments in transportation. Afterall, it is assumed that by building and maintaining these infrastructures will bring a return of the ability to conduct commerce and travel..
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 key point was whether upgrading the NEC regional trains, as opposed to adding a premium service, i.e. the Acela, would have been more cost effective and achieved an equally satisfactory outcome. At less cost to the taxpayers!
The cost of expanding the highways and airways, in my opinion, is irrelevant to whether Amtrak, which is one of two commercial transport modes that gets a direct cash subsidy from the taxpayers, should be offering a premium service that many if not most taxpayers cannot afford.
schlimmExactly. Where is there any evidence that building additional interstate roads in that area would be paid for by the users?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sam1Amtrak touts its share of the air/train markets between BOS-NYC and NYC-DC. As if there are no other players in the markets! How does it compare to the total market, i.e. air, train, bus, and auto? Nation wide approximately 88 per cent of all intercity trips, i.e. those greater than 50 miles, are by personal vehicle. Presumably, the number is a bit less in the Northeast, but I wonder by how much?
Depends how wide a circle you draw for each metro area. If you are just doing the central business district for each, than I doubt you will find many drivers among business travelers.
oltmanndThe real question you need to ask is what did taxpayers have to pay for the NH-Boston upgrade vs. what they would have had to pay vs alternatives including "do nothing".
Exactly. Where is there any evidence that building additional interstate roads in that area would be paid for by the users? What evidence is there that expanding airports in BOS, NYC, PHIL, BAL, and DC and other infrastructure expansions for increased air capacity would be user-paid? The assumption seems to be thrown around here as though both road and air are totally user paid, when there appears to be much evidence to the contrary for highways from V. Payne, who has vast experience in that area. Air is less clear, but certainly not a settled fact. So now we are shifting the basis for HSR from more than covering above the rail expenses to covering ROW infrastructure? I would also like to see a citation for the claim that DB is reducing speeds on their ICE services. When i last rode this May, trains were still hitting high speeds. In the summer, there are construction delays. There have also been delays in receiving more equipment from Siemens.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmannd Sam1Why was the NEC infrastructure upgraded? Was it to support the Acela's 150+ mph speeds, or was it to support higher speeds for the NEC regional trains, and the Acela was just an after thought. If the NEC upgrades were for the Acela, it does not appear that its users are paying the full cost of their ride and, therefore, the taxpayers is worse off. If, on the other hand, the upgrades were for the regional trains, then it is possible that the Acela is covering its proportional share of the upgrades and, therefore, the taxpayers are better off. The electrification was for both. Much of the track and signal work was for both. There probably is some increment of track capital and maintenance necessary for 150 mph vs. 125 mph, but I can't imagine it's a very large percentage of the total. The real question you need to ask is what did taxpayers have to pay for the NH-Boston upgrade vs. what they would have had to pay vs alternatives including "do nothing". NY-Boston and NY-DC are the two big markets where Amtrak compares their market share to airlines, so presumably, the capacity Acela, et. al. provides would have to be provided by air service.
Sam1Why was the NEC infrastructure upgraded? Was it to support the Acela's 150+ mph speeds, or was it to support higher speeds for the NEC regional trains, and the Acela was just an after thought. If the NEC upgrades were for the Acela, it does not appear that its users are paying the full cost of their ride and, therefore, the taxpayers is worse off. If, on the other hand, the upgrades were for the regional trains, then it is possible that the Acela is covering its proportional share of the upgrades and, therefore, the taxpayers are better off.
The electrification was for both. Much of the track and signal work was for both. There probably is some increment of track capital and maintenance necessary for 150 mph vs. 125 mph, but I can't imagine it's a very large percentage of the total.
The real question you need to ask is what did taxpayers have to pay for the NH-Boston upgrade vs. what they would have had to pay vs alternatives including "do nothing". NY-Boston and NY-DC are the two big markets where Amtrak compares their market share to airlines, so presumably, the capacity Acela, et. al. provides would have to be provided by air service.
You raise a valid point(s). However, without access to Amtrak's accounting records and the engineering studies that led to the upgrades, as well as the current maintenance records, one cannot know whether the incremental fares charged for the Acela cover the incremental infrastructure costs to support it. Nor would one know whether the incremental upgrades for better NEC regional train service could have been implement at a significantly lower cost and be covered by a corresponding incremental increase in NEC regional fares.
Maybe you or someone else can answer a question regarding the incremental maintenance requirements for high speed rail. Several recent articles in the popular press have stated that some of the world's high speed train operators, i.e. China, France, Germany, etc. have slowed down their trains because of excessive power consumption and wear/tear on the equipment. If tis is true it would suggest that the wear/tear of high speed rail is greater than anticipated.
The capacity provided by the Acela, which is used by approximately 30 per cent of the NEC passengers, could have been accommodated on improved regional trains, with improved running times and upgraded business class service, which would have added the panache, as well as enhanced air service.
Amtrak touts its share of the air/train markets between BOS-NYC and NYC-DC. As if there are no other players in the markets! How does it compare to the total market, i.e. air, train, bus, and auto? Nation wide approximately 88 per cent of all intercity trips, i.e. those greater than 50 miles, are by personal vehicle. Presumably, the number is a bit less in the Northeast, but I wonder by how much?
If the incremental fares for the Acela cover or exceed the incremental costs associated with hosting the Acela, the investors (taxpayers) are made whole. In a competitive business, if they did not the product line would be dropped, or it would never have been implemented.
The Acela has been covering its operating costs and contributing to the fixed costs, i.e. equipment, infrastructure, etc. However, without access to Amtrak's accounting records, it is not possible to know whether the Acela covers the incremental fixed costs incurred to support it.
Why was the NEC infrastructure upgraded? Was it to support the Acela's 150+ mph speeds, or was it to support higher speeds for the NEC regional trains, and the Acela was just an after thought. If the NEC upgrades were for the Acela, it does not appear that its users are paying the full cost of their ride and, therefore, the taxpayers is worse off. If, on the other hand, the upgrades were for the regional trains, then it is possible that the Acela is covering its proportional share of the upgrades and, therefore, the taxpayers are better off.
If the Acela does not cover its fully allocated costs, i.e. variable and fixed, the investors (taxpayers) should ask why the service was implemented. Would the country have been better off to upgrade the NEC to 125 mph for NEC trains (coach and business class) that would cover all the costs and break even on a fully allocated cost basis or make a real profit?
The regional business class car is one of eight or more cars on a NEC regional train. Most of the train's variable cost is covered by the coach passengers. Given the seemingly relatively low incremental cost of adding one business class car to a typical NEC regional train, it is possible that the incremental business class fare is covering the incremental business class cost. Again, one would need access to Amtrak's accounting records to make this determination.
Dakguy201 I'm not so sure the practice of offering attractive volume discounts for travel on the Acela, as outlined by Sandyhookken, is a great marketing idea. Absent the purchase of additional cars/trainsets, maximum capacity of the Acelas during high demand hours is a fixed number. From the comments on this forum, I believe they may be close to that capacity on some segments of their runs now. Might it be smarter to offer the discounts on the regionals, where additional capacity can be obtained by adding cars to existing runs?
I'm not so sure the practice of offering attractive volume discounts for travel on the Acela, as outlined by Sandyhookken, is a great marketing idea. Absent the purchase of additional cars/trainsets, maximum capacity of the Acelas during high demand hours is a fixed number. From the comments on this forum, I believe they may be close to that capacity on some segments of their runs now.
Might it be smarter to offer the discounts on the regionals, where additional capacity can be obtained by adding cars to existing runs?
It is not only a brilliant idea but one used in all business for favored, frequent, and bulk customers. The railroad gains because they get a guaranteed rate, a minimum volume, and cut down on account service time. Now, the can plan on train and equipment usage, crew needs, and count on a certain amount of revenue in advance so they know what the need to fill the train up... Acela, Regional, whatever, it is smart business and does not take away from the bottom line but adds to it.
Sam1 On Tuesday I took the train from New York to Baltimore and return. I considered booking on the Acela, but I have ridden it before, and I doubt it is really worth the premium fare. So I booked a business class seat on the 8:10 a.m. NEC regional service. The cost of my ticket on the regional train was $102 ($75 for the rail fare and $37 for the business class seat). The cost of a seat on the Acela, which departed NYC at 8:00 a.m. would have been $222. The 8:00 a.m. Acela requires 2 hours and 18 minutes to get to Baltimore. My 8:10 a.m. regional train took a bit longer at 2 hours and 33 minutes.
On Tuesday I took the train from New York to Baltimore and return. I considered booking on the Acela, but I have ridden it before, and I doubt it is really worth the premium fare. So I booked a business class seat on the 8:10 a.m. NEC regional service.
The cost of my ticket on the regional train was $102 ($75 for the rail fare and $37 for the business class seat). The cost of a seat on the Acela, which departed NYC at 8:00 a.m. would have been $222.
The 8:00 a.m. Acela requires 2 hours and 18 minutes to get to Baltimore. My 8:10 a.m. regional train took a bit longer at 2 hours and 33 minutes.
The answer to your question is easy: Amtrak is "segmenting" their market. In other words, try to get customers to pay for a service based on what it is worth to them rather than charging all customers the same flat rate. Car companies do this -- the fat margins on "luxury cars" pay the bills whereas the thin margins on "economy cars" wouldn't keep a car company solvent.
Even electric power companies are doing that -- charging a premium for "green power." It is the same kWHr's delivered with the same reliability, it is just that you can have a clear conscience about using windmill electricity to power your air conditioner.
Except that you are getting "green power" and your neighbor is getting "dirty, coal generated" power is a marketing gimmick in that that coal plant supplies electric network reliability that both you and your neighbor both depend on. If your utility could interrupt your power when the wind isn't blowing, I would start believing in the green aspect, and who knows, with electric cars and energy storage in their battery, such a market may develop.
So, I don't know why people will pay the extra ($120 dollars from your numbers and my calculation) for the Acela. Some business travellers may be subject to travel rules that OK this? There are enough wealthy people who prefer the Acela for the cachet?
I mean, why did you spring for the $37 for Business Class? Is it really that much more comfortable, or could you afford the upgrade and you decided, "What the hey? I earned this treat." I saved my money and I am going to buy a Lincoln, even though it is the same Mazda automobile coming off the same assembly line in Hermasillo, Mexico as the Ford Fusion.
The good thing is that Amtrak appears to be squeezing its customers on the NEC to contribute a maximum amount of revenue -- through market segmentation -- rather than relying on the taxpayer. The bad news is that they have to charge those fares and they kinda, sorta break even on the above-the-rails costs suggests that trains are an inherently expensive way of moving people. If everyone were sensible as you and decided to forgo the 15 minute time saving, Amtrak would cost the government more money. So here is to people who have money . . . and are willing to part with it.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
daveklepper I did not overlook the matter of schedules when considering NY - Chi via the Lake Shore LMTd route. Note that I proposed the overnighter as the last addition to the schedule, where as now it (with far slower travel) is the only train. I was thinking of initially departures from NY and Chicago at 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, with the 15 (3PM) departure the last running through to the end point. Th 17 dparture from NY would go as far a Toledo and then be there for the early morning Toledo - Chicago train, and the 19 wouldgo only as far as Cleveland, the 21 only far as Rochester. The daytime corredor business is the business to go after, and only after it is successful would on overnighter be scheduled, possibly basiclly the new Pullman company's train with a few coaches for those who wish to travel overnight economically.
I did not overlook the matter of schedules when considering NY - Chi via the Lake Shore LMTd route. Note that I proposed the overnighter as the last addition to the schedule, where as now it (with far slower travel) is the only train. I was thinking of initially departures from NY and Chicago at 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, with the 15 (3PM) departure the last running through to the end point. Th 17 dparture from NY would go as far a Toledo and then be there for the early morning Toledo - Chicago train, and the 19 wouldgo only as far as Cleveland, the 21 only far as Rochester. The daytime corredor business is the business to go after, and only after it is successful would on overnighter be scheduled, possibly basiclly the new Pullman company's train with a few coaches for those who wish to travel overnight economically.
The schedule you are suggesting is quite similar to what is in place on many European high speed lines, and working well. I'd just add a 5 or 5:30am departure from CHI and NYP. Really not too early to get started on the travel and certainly not earlier than many flights. Similarly, these trains would arrive at their scheduled terminus by no later than midnight.
The key feature is that late departures from an endpoint don't run all the way, but terminate at some suitable city to become next morning's early train out of there. That way intermediate cities experience a wide variety of travel opportunities throughout the day.
It appears that many posters have good ideas. The main item that IMHO is important is a gradual reduction in running times and more on time arrivals at every station of a route ( Probably within 15 Minutes ) How do you achieve these goals. ? I would propose the following items. Since capital funds at present are not very available there has to be very careful upgrades. :
1. Pick those current ROW segments that can be built with a HrSR ( 110 MPH ) track. An example is CHI - STL with 25 ft centers to allow trains to pass work areas without speed restrictions. Another example is what is happening in Michigan. Mi just has to upgrade a single track with passing sidings althoughif it is very sucessful then more double track will be necessary.
2. Concentrate on those segments that are cronically late. ONLY An example is the Empire builder around Fargo. CHI area delays.
3. Start connecting these 110 HeSR segments.. Ex - connecting segments at Battle Creek with a separate track.
4. Once enough segments are complete with better travel times then slowly reduce schedule times on those segments that show some percentage on time ( maybe 90% ) but delays caused by outside forces are not counted ( tresspassers, floods, etc ).
What to do to speed the funds available ?
5. Start now to let the publec know how much time each project on route will save in schedule times with a route flyer First distribute theseflyers to current passengers what each project on a route would save in travel times and also the total time that will be saved on that route. Total time saved on those high useage station pairs So if project X saves 10 minutes, project Y saves 12 minutes. project Z saves 15 miunutes then total savings on route X - Z would be 37 minutes & X - Y 22 min.. This would give an immediate imput from present riders to the powers that be.
Then these flyers will eventually get to potential riders to widen the imput to POLs
The upgrades to the NEC CAT will be one example that can be an example to riders. Once some reduction in schedule times are implemented flyers can tout thse improvements. Maybe a project for NARP ?.
Some routes that are either already done or in progress is:
6. NC DOT from CLT - Raleigh - Selma
7. Additional triple track Richmond - WASH ( some double at Ashland )
8. CAT upgrade Trenton - New Brunswick
9. PHL - Harrisburg 110 MPH eventually 125 MPH
10. Amtrak operated POU - Schenectady double tack, signal, crossing & other upgrades
11. Springfield - Vermont upgrade of old B&M track.
12. Downeaster upgrades
13. Michigan upgrades
14. CHI - STL
15. Orlando Sun Rail
16. CPRR CHI - MKE
17. Wa DOT SEA - PDX
18. Capitol corridor on UP. This route takes most delays due to the Suisan Bay draw bridge interferrence ( 1 - 2 times a day on average. ) Bridge over 1 mile in length and probably will not have its own high bridge until HSR goes OAK - Sacremento. ( route now already 90% + on time ) )
19. Various routes in the LAX area.
What are the route impediments not now under construction ? Certainly others can come up with other problem areas.
21. .Various NEC segments.
22. CSX Wash - Richmond
23. CSX "A" line Richmond jax especially Richmond Florence
24. NS various portions NOL -- ATL
25. NS Greensboro -- ALX
26. Buckham Branch RR
27. Empire route
28. NS Porter -- CHI
29. The biggie -- Empire builder Fargo -- Minot
30. Raton Pass problem.
How to classify the Sunset route in progress double tracking ?
Before I retired, I worked for a large corporation in northern New Jersey, and travelled frequently between Newark and D.C. My company actively discouraged employees from flying between Newark and D.C., requiring them to take Amtrak whenever possible.
We were allowed to travel on the Acela trains for several reasons, many noted here already. However, the most significant reason was that the company had a contract with Amtrak that included a volume discount on ticket prices. The first x tickets purchased by the company each month cost $$$, the next y tickets cost $$, the remaining tickets cost $. The Travel Manager told me that during high volume months, he could buy me a ticket on Acela business class for less than I could buy a coach ticket by myself on a regional train.
To discourage department managers from waiting until the end of the month to send their employees to D.C., in order to get the z discount, an average discount was calculated for all of the tickets purchased in each month and applied to each ticket.
dakotafred ... In Michigan, either Amtrak or the state has actually purchased much of the affected line from CSX. In Chicago-St.Louis, the line getting the upgrade is one UP can spare; a second line is its main route for freight. ...
...
In Michigan, either Amtrak or the state has actually purchased much of the affected line from CSX. In Chicago-St.Louis, the line getting the upgrade is one UP can spare; a second line is its main route for freight.
Yes, Amtrak some time ago bought the line west of Kalamazoo, and Michigan is buying (with significant fed money) the line east of K'zoo from NS (rather than CSX). Conrail previously moved the thru freight off the line.
CJtrainguy #1. Agreed. A freight railroad has no particular incentive to have track, signaling, etc to support speeds over 79mph. Many lines aren't even cleared for that speed. There is a reason PRR and NYC had their mainlines 4 tracked on busy segments. That has of course by and large been done away with. At the same time, UP owns the line from Chicago to St Louis that is being upgraded to 110mph. Obviously an agreement was reached there. In Illinois/Iowa, the Iowa Interstate Railroad has indicated that they are interested in the plans and studies for extending passenger service from Chicago first to Quad Cities, then to Iowa City and eventually to Omaha over the old Rock Island main line. That in spite of the fact that the track and signaling will need very significant upgrades to handle 79mph service, let alone anything faster. #2 When talking about an overnight train Chicago to New York (an improved Lake Shore Limited), I am well aware that it will be of interest really only to passengers who can get on before midnight or who are riding to a station reached after about 5am.
#1. Agreed. A freight railroad has no particular incentive to have track, signaling, etc to support speeds over 79mph. Many lines aren't even cleared for that speed. There is a reason PRR and NYC had their mainlines 4 tracked on busy segments. That has of course by and large been done away with. At the same time, UP owns the line from Chicago to St Louis that is being upgraded to 110mph. Obviously an agreement was reached there. In Illinois/Iowa, the Iowa Interstate Railroad has indicated that they are interested in the plans and studies for extending passenger service from Chicago first to Quad Cities, then to Iowa City and eventually to Omaha over the old Rock Island main line. That in spite of the fact that the track and signaling will need very significant upgrades to handle 79mph service, let alone anything faster.
#2 When talking about an overnight train Chicago to New York (an improved Lake Shore Limited), I am well aware that it will be of interest really only to passengers who can get on before midnight or who are riding to a station reached after about 5am.
It is one thing to get cooperation from the UP and other rails for fairly lightly used lines. It is quite another to get accommodations for much faster and higher speed trains on the busy old NYC main. Even now, Empire State service suffers.
dakotafred Just a note to CJ's of immediately above: In Michigan, either Amtrak or the state has actually purchased much of the affected line from CSX. In Chicago-St.Louis, the line getting the upgrade is one UP can spare; a second line is its main route for freight. The Iowa Interstate has scads of spare capacity and could use the taxpayer-funded upgrade to add freight service it will never see otherwise. Naturally, it is welcoming.
Just a note to CJ's of immediately above:
The Iowa Interstate has scads of spare capacity and could use the taxpayer-funded upgrade to add freight service it will never see otherwise. Naturally, it is welcoming.
Correct in both cases. The issue of fitting passenger trains in together with freight is not limited to the US either. European railroads face the same issue. The solution in many cases is to run fast passenger trains over dedicated lines.
schlimm Much is true, but with several provisos. 1. Getting the freight lines to accommodate a real passenger service (not just a few trains) at a much higher average speed is going to be very hard. 2. The concept of an LD train running as segmented and overlapping corridors ignores the factor of schedules. Even if you could have that 21st Century Ltd. departing CHI at 9 and arrive in NYP at 7 or 8, it is not likely you will have many passengers getting on east of Toledo or getting off before Albany. Better to have some additional short corridors between city pairs en route if a market study justifies.
Much is true, but with several provisos.
1. Getting the freight lines to accommodate a real passenger service (not just a few trains) at a much higher average speed is going to be very hard.
2. The concept of an LD train running as segmented and overlapping corridors ignores the factor of schedules. Even if you could have that 21st Century Ltd. departing CHI at 9 and arrive in NYP at 7 or 8, it is not likely you will have many passengers getting on east of Toledo or getting off before Albany. Better to have some additional short corridors between city pairs en route if a market study justifies.
#2 When talking about an overnight train Chicago to New York (an improved Lake Shore Limited), I am well aware that it will be of interest really only to passengers who can get on before midnight or who are riding to a station reached after about 5am. For that reason, night trains have a more limited audience than day trains. In Europe when high speed lines and trains came around, many night trains were casualties, as people can get from here to there in a day or part of the day trip. The high speed trains combined speed and frequency to attract riders.
But with increased speed on the CHI-NYC line, a train can leave Chicago in the morning and be in New York in the evening. With several trains during the day, all kinds of city pairs along the line become attractive, in addition to the end-point to end-point ones.
daveklepper And CJ, it is not the NY-Chi passengers that will make that corridor reallyworthwhile, but NY-Buffalo, Rocohester - Cleveland, Buffalo - Toledo., Cleveland - South Bend, Albany - Elkhart, etc. It is whole bunch of useful short corridors strung together. It could start with service every two hours and then go to hourlly as business developes, and then add an overnight train with suitably priced sleepers, possibly to be run by the new Pullman operation.
And CJ, it is not the NY-Chi passengers that will make that corridor reallyworthwhile, but NY-Buffalo, Rocohester - Cleveland, Buffalo - Toledo., Cleveland - South Bend, Albany - Elkhart, etc. It is whole bunch of useful short corridors strung together. It could start with service every two hours and then go to hourlly as business developes, and then add an overnight train with suitably priced sleepers, possibly to be run by the new Pullman operation.
Absolutely.
The distance is perfect for an overnight train. Yes, I have ridden the Lake Shore Limited. The current about 20 hour schedule is significantly longer than the 20th Century schedule of 16 hours. And even that was too long for an overnight jump. Ideal would be a 9-10pm departure and a 7-8am arrival. That would require a total running time of about 10 hours.
As in other countries, HSR can be achieved by strategically building new alignments or upgrading segments. It doesn't have to be the entire line at once. There just needs to be a plan behind it. We are seeing upgrades happen on the NEC. Amtrak is also upgrading its Michigan line from Chicago and the line to St Louis. Better alignment/track cuts a few minutes off the travel time and/or improves on-time performance, both vital for attracting and keeping riders.
On many lines in the US, I'd be quite happy to see passenger trains move at 79mph consistently and not have to go in the hole for freights.
Bravo!! A well-stated argument for HSR in selected corridors.
Sam1 As I noted in my original posting, the scheduled time difference for the Acela and NEC regional train between NYC and Balitmore was 15 minutes. The fare difference between the Acela and NEC regional business class was $120. The difference between the Acela and NEC coach would have been $173. That translates into some pretty expensive minutes. But that's just the fare differences. Add in the fully allocated cost of the Acela and the differences are even greater.
As I noted in my original posting, the scheduled time difference for the Acela and NEC regional train between NYC and Balitmore was 15 minutes. The fare difference between the Acela and NEC regional business class was $120. The difference between the Acela and NEC coach would have been $173. That translates into some pretty expensive minutes. But that's just the fare differences. Add in the fully allocated cost of the Acela and the differences are even greater.
I know a number of people who would consider that cost difference a part of doing business and pay for it because they perceive a greater value. Just because you or I don't see it that way, doesn't mean the value isn't there.
There are plenty of rail lines in the world that have been upgraded with new or partially new alignments at significant cost to save on the order of 15 minutes of travel time point to point. Just as there are plenty of examples of freight lines being realigned to cut out a steep hill or a very curvy stretch. Viewed over 10-20-30 years that time saved can make the cost almost no-brainer (except the cost is up front and the benefit comes in increments over years).
Where high speed rail has been introduced, ridership goes up. In a number of corridors, rail readily beats flying and captures the higher market share.
I am thankful that we have the NEC as it is today. I also know that there is lots more potential. Improved tracks, catenary and so on. I ride NJT from New York Penn to New Brunswick and wonder at the leisurely pace of the train. A comparable train in Europe would be moving at a top speed of 100mph, making all the same stops. Fast acceleration and slowing down. Shaves a few minutes off the travel time and makes it all more of a choice compared to driving.
I agree with other posters that the capabilities of NEC aren't exhausted. It is an infrastructure that was largely built for another time. Amtrak's master plan for investment calls for cutting travel time NYP - WAS about in half. Not a 15 minute difference.
I think a good part of the argument comes down to whether one believes that high speed rail is needed and worthwhile. If one does, one will find arguments to support the idea and look for creative (and possibly incremental) ways to bring it about. If one doesn't, then one will decry the 'horrendous" cost of building HSR.
Stepping outside NEC, an HSR alignment from New York to Chicago would be a boon for both end points and the cities along the route. If the HSR followed the current Lake Shore limited route, travel time end-point to end-point could be down to 7-8 hours, depending on the number of stops. An alignment along the I-80 corridor could get all the way down to 5 hours. Those are very attractive travel times and will draw travelers from planes, especially as time on a train is all productive time, whereas time on a plane is only partly productive (gotta put everything away for landing/takeoff, no phone, etc). But we're back to funding and the standby argument that if it was such a good idea, private investment would have built it already. I guess I just don't have that much faith in private investment where the timeframe is usually the next quarterly report, rather how what we build today will perform in 10 years.
oltmanndPeople traveling on the company dime will ride Acela. Most companies will ante up for Acela.
Only the executive team in the Fortune 250 corporation that I worked for were permitted to upgrade to business class. No one was permitted to fly first class. Everyone else was required to fly economy class, on the lowest cost airline, except when traveling to and from Australia.
Travel by train was not common in our company. On a rare occasion an employee might be traveling to a location where use of one of the corridor trains was desirable, i.e. NEC, California, etc. They were expected to travel coach.
Our travel policies, procedures, and practices were aligned with those of a cross section of other Fortune 500 companies. Periodically the travel group surveyed a statistical sample of other companies to be sure that we were following similar practices. Thus, I am not sure that most corporations would ante up for the Acela. Some law firms, investment bankers, government employees, etc. might, especially given that they can fob the cost off on their clients, customers, and taxpayers.
Hopefully the railroad companies that I hold stock do a good job of managing their travel expenses. Allowing employees to book the Acela to save 15 minutes at an incremental cost of $120 to $173 is not effective cost management.
Companies pay for Acela for the same reason they pay for employees to go by plane instead of bus. Time is money. Upgrade to first class? A rested individual is more productive.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.