It seems to me this rule about state support kicking in on routes under 750 miles is unfailr and unrealistic. I have seen it mentioned before that train trips under four hours are compeditive with air service. Eighty mile an hour service would seem to be a reasonable alternative to travel by auto. Therefore at 300 miles you could shuttle back and forth in under 4 hours using 2 sets of equipment. States that are willing to pay the 80/20 cost sharing should be encouraged. States like my Kentucky which have no desire to support rail passenger service (it may be unconstitutional also) can just do without.
You are adding routes which have the best chance of generating the most passengers (voters) close to breakeven (no sleepers and minimun food service) with only 1-3 states involved who want the service.
Probably if a Federal matching subsidy (relative to automobiles) is to be provided it should be done for all trip lengths to 750- 1000 miles, regardless of the route length. Past this point one stage flight and ground connections gets cheaper, considering consumer cost and subsidy. That being said through trips beyond that distance would pay only the incremental cost to be attached to the back and run.
V.Payne Probably if a Federal matching subsidy (relative to automobiles) is to be provided it should be done for all trip lengths to 750- 1000 miles, regardless of the route length. Past this point one stage flight and ground connections gets cheaper, considering consumer cost and subsidy. That being said through trips beyond that distance would pay only the incremental cost to be attached to the back and run.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Quite an easy explanation: Route length from Boston to Washington. Trip length from Boston to NY or NY to Washington or New Haven to Philadelphia or Providence to Baltimore. One route, different trips.
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.
Correct, trips are what people make. Route length is what the equipment can cover in a schedule.
Thanks for the clarification. However, with a 1000 mile route, one set of equipment is not going to be able to manage a round trip in one daylight period (16 hours) unless the sustained speed is 133 mph, which would require a top speed over 200mph. The key to modern passenger rail is frequent, fast convenient service throughout the day. To achieve that without an enormous number of trainsets, you need higher speeds and shorter corridors. 500 miles is about the limit, and even then you would need higher speeds than are likely in the US.
Why is a round trip of the equipment required every day? I don't see us funding a modern rail system anytime soon, do you? But we can serve the large market represented by automobile travel with what we have efficiently if it is wisely planned and expanded.
I suppose I disagree that all travel must occur during the daylight hours only. The travel volumes on the rural interstates represent peaks from people departing typically in the evening and staying in a hotel before continuing or leaving in the morning. The almost 1000 mile trip could easily be done by conventional rail from 4 pm to 10 AM for example.
But regardless, this was meant to be the upper limit on a person's trip length that would have a subsidy when taken by rail. If you make a 300 mile trip then that is just fine, just don't think that terminating the equipment's schedule at the point where the person gets off in a major metro makes any sense.
If you choose to take a longer trip than the 750-1000 mile limit, then everything that is incremental to supporting that trip would have to be paid for by the user, as airfare gets cheaper for society and the user unless you live far from an airport.
However, I don't really see that being a major shift in rail sleeper pricing from the current levels.
A round trip is not required but best or most practical use is. A train schedule is designed for a particular service, times, and clientele. It there are enough schedules for that service, then there are trainsets put together and round trips and rotation schedules are implemented. And today that is most frequent. Certain trains...the more long distance trains....have trainsets too, enough so that all schedules are covered and there may be an extra. Loose car freight railroading is virtually a thing of the past as is loose car passenger railroading: there are a few spares at major locations but trains have assigned trainsets. Commuter services do the same with train sets rotating over a 24 to 48 or longer hour periods with the luxury of being able to allow the need of one 5 car trainset on one schedule be used through the rotation cycle even on two or three car requirement schedules. It is cheaper to keep the trainsets together than to make special deadhead moves or to break up and sort at every terminal...especially rough on push pull equipment.
Your Chicago to St. Louis and Chicago to Detroit corridors are examples of where Federal, State and Local governments have together moved forward on plans .
The Southwest Limited is an example where Kansas, Colorodo and New Mexico are not interested in forkiing up money for a once a day long distance train.
The CSX mainline between Cincinnati and New Orleans is 927 miles. It can be divided into three corridors:
Cincinnati-Louisville-Nashville
Nashville=Birmingham-Montgomery
Montgomery-Mobile-New Orleans
On 80/20 funding and special grants I say your are more likely to get a corridor going than trying to add a long distance train. If all three coridors got going a Cincinnati-New Orleans passenger would to an accross the platform transfer twice. Because each train is a 4-5 hour trip you only need minimal dining/lounge space. Your on time performace is better because a delay on one portion is independent of the other two.
It seems like what you are seeing in North Carolina is worth encouraging other places.
Dixie,
Your first and last posts taken together leave me confused.
First you talk about an 80/20 cost split. Who are you figuring for the 80 and who for the 20? Are you talking capital costs for equipment and to upgrade freight lines, or operating losses, or both? Then you say that some states, and you picked Kentucky, could opt out. In the second post your first segment is Cincinatti to Nashville which goes thru KY. So if KY wont pay, as you stated originally, does train not stop in KY? Who picks up KY's unpaid share of costs?
Your 80 MPH average speed is very ambitious given historical speeds on most routes. I would be surprised if the north end of your three link chain could average 50 MPH today on track far better than say 1950. Where will the many, many millions to increase speed come from?
In your first post I thought you envisioned short corridors where you could get at least one full turn per day on the equipment. In your second post you string together three links and talk about cross platform transfers for through passengers. Do you think you can convince anyone that this is superior service to a one seat ride? You expect better time keeping due to shorter links. I presume you are assuming less exposure to delay in each link due to lesser mileage, which seems reasonable, but what happens when link one falls down and a thru passenger misses his connection at Nashville?
From your first post I took it that you were looking for "daylight" service. In your second post your middle link has to run at night to enable continuous travel OR your thru passenger has to take to hotel rooms to complete his trip.
Please advise.
Mac
The 80% is federal spending and the 20% is state. This would be for direct operating expense. It appears North Carolina provides the equipment, stations etc.
In my Cincinnati-New Orleans example if Kentucky can't or will not contribute there would be no Cincinnati-Nashville coridor. Amtrak should provide corridor service where the states are willing to put up some money and have an interest in promoting the service.
Given current operating conditions I don't think you would find enough people to justify a long distance train between Cincinnati and New Orleans (150-200 minimun) and it would be another big money loser if operating in line with current practices (diner, lounge, sleepers etc). If 30 or 40 want make the platform transfers they are welcome but they are not the target market. The target is people going between 2 points in under 4 hours.
The money from track improvements needs to come from seperate Federal Rail Improvement funds that the states etc compete for. Again North Carolina, Illinois, Washington got some of these funds by showing they had a plan and were willing to put up some of their own money. Just as an incentive giving urban renewal grants with a priority toward cities having passenger rail service might wake up some states like my Kentucky.
I now understand your vision to be a multi billion dollar offer of captital to the states which the feds will allocate based on what the states are willing to put up. Operating losses split 80% to the feds and 20% to the states.
As of December 1968 L&N trains #8 and #9 ran this route with the following performance per segment
SEGMENT MILES TIME AVG SPEED
CIN-NASH 301 6:45 43 MPH
NASH-MONT 303 6:40 43 MPH
MONT-NOL 323 8:55 36 MPH
I do not know this line, but it is obvious you are talking several hundred millions of dollars, at best, to get to the 60 MPH average you need to get a 5 hour trip time per segment. With three trainsets per segment you can get a mornning, early afternoon, and after close of business departures both directions from all segments. Two sets make a full round trip, the third goes one way only. That is nine train sets plus most of another for spare, plus at least two maintenance bases, say $150 million in equipment based on 4-5 coaches and one unit per train.
You could see some passengers across one transfer point. There will be NO through passengers because no one will take the better part of two days and pay for a hotel plus the train fare. People still have choices.
Unless your objective is to give CSX a high speed, high capacity line on this route, I think you will have a hard time selling your concept to anyone in any reasonably foreseable time frame.
Sounds like you are proposing a way to moving forward on increasing intercity passenger rail service that would be both useful and politically pragmatic.
Getting states to be the driver of new service fits with the current state of affairs - whether or not it is the "best" way forward. Routes that cross state lines make funding exponentially more difficult, so less effective intrastate routes might be funded first. Better something than nothing!
Funding for start-up and capital at 80 Fed, 20 state is both pragmatic and defensible. It's what highway construction gets. The Federal gov't has generally been okay with funding passenger rail projects, sometimes at 100% - the NECIPs for example. Should the Feds every get around to fixing the shortfall in the highway trust fund, they might be amenable to allowing some of it be spent on transport other than highway.
Federal funding for operating shortfall is likely the show-stopper. Right now, the law requires states to fully fund the gap. There is great political hay being made over Amtrak's operational shortfall, so it's doubtful there is political will to change the status quo. You can make a case that sometimes a rail project has a better return than alternatives even when there is an ongoing operational subsidy, but I think trying to go that route is a political dead-end.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Right now, the law requires states to fully fund the gap. I stand corrected. Keeping federal involvment out of local operating loses makes sense.
I believe the federal government can help states start new services by helping with capital improvements through enonomic stimulus grants and a pool of equipment available to help start these services. Sign a five year plan with a state, make capital improvements, start timing and run trains for two years, let the state decide in year 3 whether to continue the service and require the state to provide its own equipment by the end of year 5.
To the writer in the prior post a person would have the option to leave Cincinnati at 7:30AM Eastern Time in the morning and with a transfer in Nashville and Montgomery arrive in New Orleans at 9:30PM Central Time.
What I find interesting is if you take a route in the East like Cincinnati, Louisville, Nashville, Birmingham, Mongomery, Mobile and New Orleans and offer commuter service 40-80 miles out in each direction practically the entire route is elgible more commuter funding. Devide the route into 3 corridors elgible for corridor funding and you have a second source of funding. If you ever wanted to offer a through long distance train the station and track improvements are already in place. The Northeast to Norfolk and Northeast to Lynchburg / Ronake , Va routes are successful because everything is already in place on the Northeast corridor and improvements have already been made for Virginia Railway Express to Richmond and Charlottesville, Virginia.
You see the same thing on the San Diego serf line where there is commuter service, corridor service and BNSF still moves freight.
Quoting Dixie Flyer: "You see the same thing on the San Diego serf line where there is commuter service, corridor service and BNSF still moves freight."
Are the serfs transported in what some people think are automobile carriers? Or do they simply work on the line?
Johnny
Johnny, serfing is Internet jargon and has no place in railroading.
Dixie Flyer To the writer in the prior post a person would have the option to leave Cincinnati at 7:30AM Eastern Time in the morning and with a transfer in Nashville and Montgomery arrive in New Orleans at 9:30PM Central Time.
That would be me.
You seem unaware or unconcerned about the cost of your vision.
The last time that service was offered average speed was a bit over 40 MPH. You can assume that is what the line is capable of today, at best.
I pointed out the implications of a 60 MPH average speed. You might be able to get that for $1-3 billion in fixed plant capital cost.
To get to 80 MPH average speed, on the route you chose, you will have to build a new railroad. With luck that would be $30-40 billion. You might want to pick a reasonable target.
If you like 300-mile increments, you have never tried to get across Texas. This is the dumbest idea ever.
South TexasIf you like 300-mile increments, you have never tried to get across Texas. This is the dumbest idea ever.
Trinity Railway Express is a commuter train that operates between Dallas and Houston. I can't find the exact length of the rail journey but the internet lists the distance between the two cities as 32 miles. That suggests there is a place in Texas for intercity rail lines.
32 miles between Dallas and Houston????????????????
Dallas and Ft Worth, perhaps, but not Dallas and Houston.
- Erik
There is no passenger rail service of any kind between Dallas and Houston - just Interstate 45 and the airlines.
Trinity Railway Express operates solely within the Metroplex of Dallas / Fort Worth, etc. - and, yes, it's more than 32 miles across town. In fact, there is light rail within several Texas cities.
I thought we were talking INTERCITY transportation, not INTRACITY.
If you insisted on going by train between Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, one would have to go via San Antonio! (Like Dallas to Denver via Chicago - which some people do!)
A 300 mile corridor does not have to be 300 miles. It can be any distance with a significant amount of population at both ends which will travel between those points plus a significant amount of population who live between those points and who will also use and support the service. Then the service has to be designed, marketed, priced, and operated with integrity.
This is the first time I have heard an explanation for Amtrak's refusal to provide passenger service between Texas' largest cities. I guess between Dallas and Houston there is just no design, market, price, or integrity. Been that way for years.
In the 1950's the SP gave twice-daily daytime streamliner service between Houston and Dallas. Between Houston and Fort Worth one had the Texas Chief from Chicago and the Texas Zephyr from Denver.
Having only two sets of equipment, the Texas Zephyr was a Denver-Dallas train. It did connect to the Twin Star Rocket sb, (Minneapolis-Houston train) and from the Sam Houston Zephyr nb, (Houston-Fort Worth train). the latter two trains provided day service between Fort Worth and Houston on the B-RI.
So, there were three Ft. Worth - Houston trains each day each way and two (only SP) Dallas -Houston
In 1953, the SP had three trains Dallas-Houston; the Sunbeam (out in the afternoon), the Hustler (out in the morning), and the overnight Owl, and the B-RI had the Sam Houston Zephyr (north in the morning and south in the afternoon), and the Twin Star Rocket (south in the morning, from Minneapolis and north in the afternoon, to Minneapolis).
In 1958, the SP had only the Owl, but the B-RI still had both trains.
North Carolina has taken a corridor which has never existed before as a corridor service and will soon have 4-5 trains a day on the route. ( back pre amtrak there were 5-6 long distance trains per day in the 1950's). They apparently know how to work the system for Federal and State funds and get the backing of local communities and the host railroad.
The rest of us can talk all we want but it seems only a few places are getting results.
All I have ever heard about in Texas was the Dallas-San Antonio-Huston triangle being suitable for corridor services.
You are right about the Texas triangle being the most discussed subject. And while there is a lot more to be said, the further you progress down the story to other issues, the more disagreement there could be as to strategy.
Here is my take: With over 25 million people, overcrowded freeways, and only three existing trains in the State (does 3 times a week even count?), we have an urgent need for better passenger rail service. The greatest existing vehicular traffic volumes are around the Texas triangle (Interstates 10, 35, and 45). To provide convenient schedules, two trains each way each day are required, although extensions to other locations also are certainly needed to accommodate outlying locations.
Having studied the map and the demographics at length I believe the minimum adequete strategy would be:
Houston / San Antonio: extending the Crescent west from New Orleans to terminate instead in San Antonio, plus making the Sunset Limited daily.
Dallas Metroplex / San Antonio: extending the Heartland Flyer to San Antonio and Laredo, plus extending the Texas Eagle to Corpus Christi and Harlingen.
Dallas Metroplex / Houston: creating two daily trains originating in Houston and traveling north, one eventually turning westward to Abilene, Lubbock, Amarillo, Denver, Salt Lake City, and Seattle; the other turning eastward to St. Louis, Cincinnati, D.C., and N.Y.C.
There is hope that the political time is coming. Wish us luck. Ironically, it will probably take a Republican president to listen to our Republican legislature.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.