Passenger trains will actually perform well over longer distances their value is not limited to short distance or corridors. I do think there is value in corridor projects it is just that they often crowd out talk of improving long distance service and there is talk of getting rid of long distance service or curtailing it.
Railroad to Freedom
Honestly, from what I can tell Corridor services are being pushed as this fits the modeling methods used by most State Departments of Transportation. The inherited (highway) corridor models were developed to size the "pipe", that is the number of lanes required on each roadway segment, between known area populations (MSA). It is one of those classic engineering simplifications.
Obviously, the only correct answer is to figure out the two points a person wants to travel between, total number of people, two bell curves of arrival and departure times and price points, and the value of time for different service options. The beauty of the existing schedules, where they still exist without significant slowing, is that the trial and error method was used to figure the best schedule, when there were multiple experimental timings.
I have commented to a consultant or two on this and they kind of give you that look like oh yeah, that would be the right answer but I was told to do this other thing... and my exhaustative corridor report, due in three weeks, has scope limits. Amtrak has contended they are not a planning organization.
Roughly speaking the longer "corridor" routes seem to do better, centered around 500-700 mile routes if you are running a daytime train. They achieve more density of passengers per trainmile as more origin and destination pairs are covered without a transfer. Ideally two longer corridors would cross in the middle with transfers or shorter corridors under 300 miles be linked, end-to-end.
For example, imagine the Hoosier State running through Chicago to become a Hiawatha run, or even just a Metra run stopping at the O'Hara Airport transfer stop and hitting the far northern suburbs of Chicago before turning. The Utility to a passenger going from Milwaukee or N. Chicago to Indianapolis would be much greater than a trip involving transferring.
But this isn't picked up by the models used, because they are warmed over highway lane sizing models! They are not based on the real drivers of consumer behavior, with consideration of the speed of ground travel options. Something along the dis-utility of time methods are needed.
That long distance trains are a good alternative to flying or less stressful than driving is a point of view. I have travelled the distance from Chicago to the West Coast by plane, train, and automobile, and I will suggest to you that making the trip by train is no magic formula.
I rode the 40 hours Chicago-L.A. on the Amtrak Southwest Limited -- once. In coach. On an ex-Santa Fe Hi Level car in the SPD40F, pre Superliner era. The hard part of the trip besides trying to sleep in a coach seat, even a deep-recline leg-rest seat that would command a premium business-class or First-class price on a trans-Pacific jet was the night time snoring and hacking and wheezing of fellow passengers -- should have had ear plugs. Never had that problem on a trans-Pacific jet. Maybe the wooshing of the air past the airliner walls blocks out the racket of sleeping with scores of other barracks mates.
40 hours is actually a remarkable express schedule for that distance and this was no Trans-Siberian railroad, and I had other, shorter long-distance trips in coach and economy sleeper (Slumber Coach) that were at least less tedious, but that one trip pretty much cured me of long-distance train travel. You know, there are some advantages to airplanes if you think of it.
I had a 20-hour trans-Pacific journey once involving the Shin-Kansen, two more changes of train to get to Narita, the trans-Pacific trip in airline coach, the commuter flight Chicago-Madison, and finally a short automobile trip home. But the 40 hours on the Southwest LImited was a bit much.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
One of the arguments favoring intercity train travel over bus or airplane is that you get a whole lot more legroom in coach, you can get a private room in First class (sleeper), you can "get up and walk around", and if you are restless in your coach seat or sleeper compartment (they tell me the seats in Superliner sleepers have less cushioning and support than the Superliner coach seats), you can go to the lounge car to get a snack or a drink or have a meal in the dining car.
None of these (expensive) amenities are intrinsic to trains -- they are there because it is generally believed that they need to be there to make long-distance train travel tolerable. Sort of like the Queen Mary carried, what, 3000 passengers in passenger service but maybe two to three times as many as a troop carrier? I imagine those soldiers deployed overseas were really stuffed in there, but when you are in the Army, either by enlistment or draft, you don't complain or at least not to your officers, and you are grateful that you are on the Queen Mary where the crossing is half as long and where the Queen Mary can outrun any U-boat.
So on the shorter distances, the train can pack more seats in and offer fewer onboard services, just like a jet, because the travel time is so much shorter. You don't have the expense of onboard service personnel who require crew dorms for their rest and break times; your operating crew can make "turns" keeping them closer to home. You may not even require more crew than a locomotive driver and a conductor and assistant conductor to collect tickets and supervise boarding and deboarding.
For a short enough distance, the train becomes competitive with a jet because the jet has to take off and land that adds a fixed overhead of time and fuel to even a short hop that the train doesn't have.
Whether the "corridor" should be limited to "400 miles" or whether we should countenance day trains on 700 mile routes, the operative word is "day trains." And most of your travel will be "overlapping corridors" along the route where a person going the full 700 miles (14 hours at Amtrak speeds) is either a train enthusiast or is on an airplane.
The other thing is that on trans-oceanic travel, there are no more ships as an alternative to air travel. If you want to visit the cousins in Merry Olde England, it is either a jet or nothing. So older and disabled persons who can't sit in a coach seat that long or have medical restrictions or personal preferences against flying, it is either fly or take in England by watching Rick Steves talk about it on PBS.
V.PayneAmtrak has contended they are not a planning organization.
My laugh for the day!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul Milenkovic One of the arguments favoring intercity train travel over bus or airplane is that you get a whole lot more legroom in coach, you can get a private room in First class (sleeper), you can "get up and walk around", and if you are restless in your coach seat or sleeper compartment (they tell me the seats in Superliner sleepers have less cushioning and support than the Superliner coach seats), you can go to the lounge car to get a snack or a drink or have a meal in the dining car. None of these (expensive) amenities are intrinsic to trains -- they are there because it is generally believed that they need to be there to make long-distance train travel tolerable.
None of these (expensive) amenities are intrinsic to trains -- they are there because it is generally believed that they need to be there to make long-distance train travel tolerable.
There you go again! Goring oxen and generally pointing out "tail wagging the dog" ideology.
Paul MilenkovicThe other thing is that on trans-oceanic travel, there are no more ships as an alternative to air travel.
Well, that's almost true. You can sail across the pond on the Queen Mary 2 about once a month. It takes a week (twice as long as the typical crossing 50 years ago). The cost for the cheapest inside cabin is surprisingly in line with coach airfare. But, nobody is subsidizing the operation of the ship.
What's the authority for claiming that Amtrak is not a planning organization? I have never read anything in its official publications to suggest that it shuns planning.
The company develops and publishes five year financial, strategic, and business plans. In addition, amongst other things, it has generated a vision plan for HSR in the NEC. Lastly, as per statements in the 2012 Annual Report, Boardman has re-organized Amtrak's management teams so as to hold them accountable for the company's various service lines. Re-organization by implication connotes some planning.
Whether the company is an effective implementer of its plans is another question.
Sam1What's the authority for claiming that Amtrak is not a planning organization? I have never read anything in its official publications to suggest that it shuns planning.
They run trains. That's pretty much it. Sure, the do planning. Sometimes, they even do some strategic planning (recently for equipment fleet) or capital planning (for the NEC), but but they really don't do transportation planning, the part where you figure out where people want to go from and to - or even where you can induce them to travel from and to - and then figure out how to best accommodate it.
Amtrak just runs trains on their routes.
"Most people don't live in corridors or in end points in corridors and thus have little value in corridor trains."
Although I don't have a specific reference at this point, in part because the Census Bureau' website is shutdown, my reading of Census Bureau data, as well as related articles that have appeared in the press and journals, indicates that most Americans live in or near mega cities.
The NEC (Boston to Richmond) accounts for nearly 17 per cent of the nation's population. That's roughly 52.8 million people. Another example can be found in Texas. Nearly 70 per cent of the population is found in mega cities connected by corridors, i.e. DFW to San Antonio, Houston to Galveston, Brownsville to McAllen, etc.
The market for the long distance trains is not deep enough to support them financially. And adding capacity is not likely to change the outcome. They are a financial disaster. Had it not been for the long distance trains, Amtrak would have had an operating profit in FY12. And had some money left over to make a substantial contribution to the capital charges.
oltmannd Sam1What's the authority for claiming that Amtrak is not a planning organization? I have never read anything in its official publications to suggest that it shuns planning. They run trains. That's pretty much it. Sure, the do planning. Sometimes, they even do some strategic planning (recently for equipment fleet) or capital planning (for the NEC), but but they really don't do transportation planning, the part where you figure out where people want to go from and to - or even where you can induce them to travel from and to - and then figure out how to best accommodate it. Amtrak just runs trains on their routes.
Their role is to plan train and connecting bus service. The development of the Thruway bus system, with the latest flowering being in North Carolina, suggests Amtrak has some notion of planning beyond the rails.
To be fair Amtrak is constrained by politics. Amongst other things it cannot get in the face of its 535 independent contractors, each of whom believes that he or she has been anointed by a high power and is not be challenged in their individual as well as collective wisdom.
We don't know all that goes on behind the scenes with respect to planning and what Amtrak might do if it were not so dependent on government funding.
I may be reading between the lines, but I have the impression that Boardman recognizes the drag the long distance trains impose on Amtrak and would spin them off if he could.
Look at me. Defending Amtrak when given my druthers I would privatize it in a heartbeat.
As has been pointed out on another thread, the economic value of the long-distance passenger trains is negligible to negative. Their political value is quite high, which goes a long way in explaining why they are still in the timetable. Amtrak's upper management knows that the bottom line matters, but it also knows that it has to maintain a semblance of support in Congress to get any funding for the short-haul service that still has an economic justification.
Put another way - 50% of Amtrak's passengers ride in the area north of Richmond and east of Pittsburgh and Buffalo - in about 6.5% of the continental US land mass. Another 21% ride in the west coast corridors, and 8% in the Chicago corridors. If Amtrak is accused of being "corridor centric" I think I might see why.
Sam1Their role is to plan train and connecting bus service. The development of the Thruway bus system, with the latest flowering being in North Carolina, suggests Amtrak has some notion of planning beyond the rails.
California blazed this trail and NC followed in their footsteps. However, it was not Amtrak the pushed this. It was the states themselves.
The states are in the vanguard of development of improved passenger rail services, as well: VA, NC, IL, MI, NY, WA, CA. Also the PRIIA . Amtrak largely follows, same as their response to the problems the IG identified with food services. Amtrak is mostly reactive.Perhaps one of these days, a thorough report from the IG or the CBO will show that LD services have little economic value returned given the large investment in equipment and recommend it be largely ended.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
V.Payne For example, imagine the Hoosier State running through Chicago to become a Hiawatha run, or even just a Metra run stopping at the O'Hara Airport transfer stop and hitting the far northern suburbs of Chicago before turning. The Utility to a passenger going from Milwaukee or N. Chicago to Indianapolis would be much greater than a trip involving transferring. But this isn't picked up by the models used, because they are warmed over highway lane sizing models! They are not based on the real drivers of consumer behavior, with consideration of the speed of ground travel options. Something along the dis-utility of time methods are needed.
European passnger rail services rely heavily on tight-scheduled, across platform transfers and they work very well. I am quite certain they are not relying on "warmed over highway sizing models."
schlimmAmtrak is mostly reactive.
Which beats, "Amtrak is mostly inert!"
V.PayneBut this isn't picked up by the models used, because they are warmed over highway lane sizing models! They are not based on the real drivers of consumer behavior, with consideration of the speed of ground travel options. Something along the dis-utility of time methods are needed.
Network modelling is needed. Freight railroad all have network models to optimize traffic flow and inform service design (and capital budgeting). I think they would all be flat broke without these tools.
V.PayneThe Utility to a passenger going from Milwaukee or N. Chicago to Indianapolis would be much greater than a trip involving transferring.
This is how to do it:
Schlimm: Cross platform transfer certainly makes train changes easier and the transfer time is just right.
However, as I took a quick look at the timetable for trips from Frankfurt (M) Flughafen (Airport) to Munich Hbf, I noticed that most connections before and after the time you found are one seat (no change) trips. And there's a connection every hour or half hour. When I fly in there, I am never stressed, as I know that as soon as I get off the plane and through customs and baggage, there will be a train going my direction shortly, just the way it should be.
The airport in Frankfurt has had excellent train connections for many years. A short ride on regional transit to the central train station in Frankfurt, many long distance trains stopping at the airport for direct connections. They could have been content with that, but still added another train station at the airport, specifically to better connect with long distance HSR trains.
The new Frankfurt Flughafen Fernbahnhof was constucted because of the new dedicated HSR line to Cologne. It is open and airy, yet has weather protection. A big improvement over the old, underground airport stop.
I gave that ICE change just as an example of how it works. Certain stops, like Mannheim, Wurzburg and Hannover are frequent examples of cross platform changes.
schlimm The new Frankfurt Flughafen Fernbahnhof was constucted because of the new dedicated HSR line to Cologne. It is open and airy, yet has weather protection. A big improvement over the old, underground airport stop. I gave that ICE change just as an example of how it works. Certain stops, like Mannheim, Wurzburg and Hannover are frequent examples of cross platform changes.
It takes network modelling to figure out who gets the thru ride, who gets cross platform and who needs to change platforms so that the result is the most good for the most passengers.
The software is probably available from SAP, but Amtrak's IT whizkids will insist on developing their own.
oltmannd Well, that's almost true. You can sail across the pond on the Queen Mary 2 about once a month. It takes a week (twice as long as the typical crossing 50 years ago). The cost for the cheapest inside cabin is surprisingly in line with coach airfare. But, nobody is subsidizing the operation of the ship.
Next to the engine room and well below the waterline? Sign me up! Do they have a "deal" where you can go one way on the QM-2 and return on a proper jet? I recall there was a deal to ride Concorde one way and then return (First class) on a jumbo jet. I am willing to try anything once.
Paul Milenkovic oltmannd Well, that's almost true. You can sail across the pond on the Queen Mary 2 about once a month. It takes a week (twice as long as the typical crossing 50 years ago). The cost for the cheapest inside cabin is surprisingly in line with coach airfare. But, nobody is subsidizing the operation of the ship. Next to the engine room and well below the waterline? Sign me up! Do they have a "deal" where you can go one way on the QM-2 and return on a proper jet? I recall there was a deal to ride Concorde one way and then return (First class) on a jumbo jet. I am willing to try anything once.
http://www.cunard.com/cruise-ships/queen-mary-2/
What is a Fernbahnhof? A Bahnhof is like a train station? So a Fernbahnhof is like a fern-train station, kind of alike a fern-bar (a drinking establishment with pretentious decor appealing to a clientelle considering themselves above the working classes)?
Bahnhof is train station of pretty much any kind, passenger or freight. I seem to recall that the formal definition includes that it has at least one turnout. Otherwise it would be Haltepunkt (in passenger service a point where trains stop to take on or discharge passengers).
Fernbahnhof is a station that services primarily long distance trains. May have a Regionalbahnhof (regional station) or Lokalbahnhof (local station) next door in some German cities.
Hauptbahnhof is the main (central) train station in a city. (By virtue of being designated as such.)
Any type of train station in Germany will often have a watering hole associated with it, sometimes named zum Bahnhof. There you will be able to get your favorite beer and other drinks. Not sure about the pretentiousness of said place though.
Again, I disagree with the idea that LD trains have no economic benefit. But they should have much greater benefit than they do with proper planning and operation. And I have voted for the Sky Chefs approach to reduce the dining car deficit in many postings earlier. Remember that that the college students who gets a once in a lifetime gift to see the country vis Amtrak gets a far smaller subsidy than the Milwaukee resident who commutes to Chicago five days a week. When you start lookiing at subsidy per citizen customer instead of passenger miles, the political justification of LD trains makes sense.
Paul Milenkovic What is a Fernbahnhof? A Bahnhof is like a train station? So a Fernbahnhof is like a fern-train station, kind of alike a fern-bar (a drinking establishment with pretentious decor appealing to a clientelle considering themselves above the working classes)?
Many of the cruise lines, e.g. Royal Caribbean, Princess, etc., move a ship from American waters , e.g. the U.S. Gulf coast to European or Asian ports for the summer months. Since the ships are being moved irrespective of any bookings, they frequently offer some very low one-way fares to the seasonal home port relocation.
Slightly more detailed explication: "fern" is the German word that we translate "far."
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.