Dramatic changes are taking place in the transportation of coal. CSX and NS which took wealth from coal to gain control of major railroads in the East, are making largr cuts, adjusting to lower coal shipments. This could have large impact on passenger routes. I understand CSX is considering reduction of track quality/speed on the former C&O between Cincinnati and Huntington. Also on the Cardinal route, the B&B line might downgrade and be less desirable for the Cardinal. This could happen to coal hauling lines throught the country.
In some cases, less coal might open up lines for additional passenger trains. In most cases, lines will get a downgrade or abandonmnet, making passenger trains less possible. I hope whatever happens will not repeat the cutbacks of mainlines that took place in the 1970's and 1980's. Then lines that might have been ideal for passengers then or now got pulled up. Prime examples are the route St. Louis to Pittsburgh and the S-Line Richmond to Raleigh and Savannah to Jacksonville. Back when this took place, the interstates were new and not in gridlock, airports were easy and served most areas, and many downtown rail stations were dangerous to reach. It was hard to imagine that we might need some of these lines and stations in the future. Now the future is here and some of these lines could help with inter and intra-city transportation. One other item, US population is up over 100 million since 1970. This and the decline of the interstates and air transportation makes the abandoning some rail lines close to a national disaster. I hope we do not get a repeat of the 1970's and 1980's.
Unfortunatly people and their politicians still don't appreciate passenger rail, so I don't see much change. Another route threatened by the loss of coal is the ex-Rio Grande route of Amtrak's Zephyr thru Colorado and Utah. See Jim Wrinn's blog.
Couldn't agree with you fellows more. But saving the lines, or preserving their good repair, is only part of it. That's a decision that will be made by the owners, as is proper. But is the public sector ready to jump in, in a timely fashion, with a contribution to that decision, support for passenger rail?
Somehow, I doubt it. There might be expressions of interest, followed by no end of dithering. In the meantime, the lines will slide, and it will not be the rails' fault. It will be hard to blame the statehouses, either, given the ferocious appetites of the Big Three of public spending in all states: public schools, human services and higher ed.
Excess capacity that could be used for passenger services should be bought up by the fed. It would help the freight rails, and probably would not be all that expensive.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Its not worth to Save Amtrak 50&51 trains. Its very slow and long ride from New York to Chicago, IL. Plus just 3 days week train not very good for Travel days, just 3 a week.
schlimm Excess capacity that could be used for passenger services should be bought up by the fed. It would help the freight rails, and probably would not be all that expensive.
I agree. For the feds, pocket change in the big scheme of things, and investment in infrastructure for once. They could make a low-ball offer, and see what the rails say. I'll bet the rails would jump.
The rails -- who else? -- would still get the traffic, if it ever came back, and meanwhile upkeep is on the government.
Just thinking out loud, could the cardinal be rerouted Thur Cleveland via cinncy. This would hurt the folks in west Virginia but return service from the north coast ( ie Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland) and restoring service to Columbus Ohio, one of the fastest growing areas of Ohio. This would reconnect many city to city connections that disappeared may 1, 1971.
Just a thought.
conrailman Its not worth to Save Amtrak 50&51 trains. Its very slow and long ride from New York to Chicago, IL. Plus just 3 days week train not very good for Travel days, just 3 a week.
It's not the New York to Chicago traffic that makes the Cardinal important. It's all the stops in between, many of which have no other service.
dakotafred schlimm Excess capacity that could be used for passenger services should be bought up by the fed. It would help the freight rails, and probably would not be all that expensive. I agree. For the feds, pocket change in the big scheme of things, and investment in infrastructure for once. They could make a low-ball offer, and see what the rails say. I'll bet the rails would jump. The rails -- who else? -- would still get the traffic, if it ever came back, and meanwhile upkeep is on the government.
Great idea, but I doubt the railroads would bite. Problem is, today's "excess capacity" might quickly be needed by them if there were a sudden uptick in freight rtaffic. Then they would have to buy it back from Amtrak?
Dragoman dakotafred schlimm Excess capacity that could be used for passenger services should be bought up by the fed. It would help the freight rails, and probably would not be all that expensive. I agree. For the feds, pocket change in the big scheme of things, and investment in infrastructure for once. They could make a low-ball offer, and see what the rails say. I'll bet the rails would jump. The rails -- who else? -- would still get the traffic, if it ever came back, and meanwhile upkeep is on the government. Great idea, but I doubt the railroads would bite. Problem is, today's "excess capacity" might quickly be needed by them if there were a sudden uptick in freight rtaffic. Then they would have to buy it back from Amtrak?
#1 Probably better to have a separate, quasi-governmental unit own and maintain tracks, as elsewhere.
#2 Freight lines might be able to run on the non-dedicated, HrSR tracks, but it would depend on their methods and crgo types. Slow, heavy bulk cargo no, but much of that, coal at least, is not returning anyway. Fast merchandise trains on schedules at night would be compatible, even some in daytime, again as seen overseas.
Its a great idea for the federal government to buy excess rail lines for future use or expansion of HSR. The problem is they don't even want to invest in or improve existing Amtrak service. Thier is no incentives to improve faster speed rail service, like Illinois, Michigan and other states. Banking of moth ball rail lines is beyond the vision of those currently in Washington.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2020, which is just four short years away, manditory federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other manditory federal programs, will consume 88 per cent of federal receipts.
Most of the money for defense and other non-manditory programs - $683 billion and $648 billion - will have to be borrowed. Which leaves this question.
Where would the federal government get the money to buy excess capacity rail lines for future use?
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
JPS1 According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2020, which is just four short years away, manditory federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other manditory federal programs, will consume 88 per cent of federal receipts. Most of the money for defense and other non-manditory programs - $683 billion and $648 billion - will have to be borrowed. Which leaves this question. Where would the federal government get the money to buy excess capacity rail lines for future use?
I think you've answered your own question.
JPS1According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2020, which is just four short years away, manditory federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other manditory federal programs, will consume 88 per cent of federal receipts. Most of the money for defense and other non-manditory programs - $683 billion and $648 billion - will have to be borrowed. Which leaves this question.
Question: Since we do not yet have a budget for 2020, how does anyone know what percentage of the budget the mandatory [with an 'a'] programs will be? Link?
As you can see from this link, for 2015, the total budget was $3.8 trillion. Mandatory spending was $2.45 trillion, which is 64.6%. Perhaps you need to check your figures, definition of mandatory or math?
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
schlimm JPS1 According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2020, which is just four short years away, manditory federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other manditory federal programs, will consume 88 per cent of federal receipts. Most of the money for defense and other non-manditory programs - $683 billion and $648 billion - will have to be borrowed. Which leaves this question. As you can see from this link, for 2015, the total budget was $3.8 trillion. Mandatory spending was $2.45 trillion, which is 64.6%. Perhaps you need to check your figures, definition of mandatory or math? https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
JPS1 According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2020, which is just four short years away, manditory federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other manditory federal programs, will consume 88 per cent of federal receipts. Most of the money for defense and other non-manditory programs - $683 billion and $648 billion - will have to be borrowed. Which leaves this question.
I made a mistake. I should have said OMB 15 instead of CBO. I have not downloaded the FY16 data; there probably is not that much out years change in the data.
Table S-4 has the adjusted numbers by category through 2026. Table S-5 has the proposed budgets through 2026. The manditory spends for the estimated 2020 budget amount to 83.6 per cent of receipts.
The federal government has not adopted a national budget for several years if I remember correctly.
The key message, however, is that the federal government has a deficit and debt problem. One can quibble over the numbers, but the ability of the federal government, without a signiificant change in its tax and spend practices, will not be able to fund much of anything outside of the mandatory programs without significant additional borrowing.
The mandatory programs are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Other mandatory federal programs, which would include retirement programs, the VA, etc., I think.
Although it is not classified as a mandatory program, interest on the national debt is an imperative, and I included it in my calculation. The feds could legislate a change to Medicare, for example, which would reduce the out year obligations, but it cannot refuse to pay the interest on the public debt unless it wants to default, which is unlikely.
JPS1 The feds could legislate a change to Medicare, for example, which would reduce the out year obligations, but it cannot refuse to pay the interest on the public debt unless it wants to default, which is unlikely.
One candidate "suggested" renegotiating the debt with creditors, in fact. At least that was his position for one news cycle.
Yes they could probably have most of the former AT&SF across Kansas, CO, and NM and now the D&RGW which will take them to Salt Lake City. Soon the Fed's could have a Chicago to West Coast passenger rail line.
schlimmOne candidate "suggested" renegotiating the debt with creditors, in fact. At least that was his position for one news cycle.
What I find interesting about the proposal is it is similar to what Ross Perot suggested back when he was running. Big difference was Ross Perot said exchange short term variable and high interest rates for lower and fixed long-term interest rates. Nobody called Ross Perot a nutcase.
The new proposal it was suggested bond holders take a haircut or discount on repayment and the candidate was called a nutcase EVEN THOUGH, exactly that has been done in the past via engineered inflation and paying back the debt with inflated dollars. The only difference between the two approaches is a public declaration by the government.
Perspicacious post by Milw.
CMStPnPThe new proposal it was suggested bond holders take a haircut or discount on repayment and the candidate was called a nutcase EVEN THOUGH, exactly that has been done in the past via engineered inflation and paying back the debt with inflated dollars. The only difference between the two approaches is a public declaration by the government.
Even assuming you actually can cite evidence of long-term engineered inflation, having the government welshing on repayment by renegotiating it at a discount is illegal (with disastrous results), while inflation is not. Given the "suggestor's" use of bankruptcy to reduce his debts, such an approach is not surprising. And most critics do not use the term nutcase. Rather, the terms con artist, flim flam man, or shady operator are the ones going around, mostly coming from conservatives.
The difference between inflation that is "engineered" and is simply depended upon, with a wink and nod, as part of one's budgeting strategy is a meaningless distinction.
However, defaulting on treasury instruments would damage/destroy the economy.
Granted. "Haircuts" already given treasuries holders is why places like Greece can now scarcely borrow money at any price.
ROBERT WILLISON Just thinking out loud, could the cardinal be rerouted Thur Cleveland via cinncy. This would hurt the folks in west Virginia but return service from the north coast ( ie Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland) and restoring service to Columbus Ohio, one of the fastest growing areas of Ohio. This would reconnect many city to city connections that disappeared may 1, 1971. Just a thought.
I'd prefer going to Pittsburgh/Philadelphia/New York rather than a slower Lake Shore Limited. Most of Pennsylvania between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have no direct route to/from Chicago and Philadelphia has a 26 hour train. I don't know if going through Columbus/Cleveland would be any faster than the current Cardinal route but it would be daily.
IMHO the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers should be running today instead of the Cardinal. It was faster between CHI and NYP and served large markets in Pennsylvania including Harrisburg and Lancaster. The only large market served by the Cardinal that isn't served by any other train is Cincinnati and the train passes through Cincy during the graveyard shift in both directions. The only reason the train still exists is because Sen. Byrd demanded it stay to serve West Virginia. It should have been canceled a long time ago and actually was canceled before Byrd demanded it be reinstated. Most of PA lost their train to Chicago so West Virginia could keep theirs?
Mysuggestion for cutting the deficit and at the same time put trucking compeition with rail on a more equal footing is to sell the Interstate Highway System to investors who would make it into a series of toll roads, with the purchase price paid off, plus maintenance and imiprovements, paid out of the tolls.
Not saying that the rerouted cardinal would be faster just plugging a hole in the Amtrak system
ROBERT WILLISON Not saying that the rerouted cardinal would be faster just plugging a hole in the Amtrak system
It should be. If you're going to have two Chicago to New York trains at least make the second one competitive in terms of time to the first. Same with Chicago to Washington DC. The Silver Star is slower than the Silver Meteor NYP-MIA but only by 3.5 hours. The Cardinal is over 9 hours slower NYP-CHI and over 6 hours slower WAS-CHI. Plus, the Star detours to serve Raleigh and Tampa. The largest intermediate markets the Cardinal serves are Indianapolis and Cincinnati and both are close to if not in the graveyard shift.
daveklepper Mysuggestion for cutting the deficit and at the same time put trucking compeition with rail on a more equal footing is to sell the Interstate Highway System to investors who would make it into a series of toll roads, with the purchase price paid off, plus maintenance and imiprovements, paid out of the tolls.
Be careful what you wish for. Private companies run the business for the benefit of their largest customers. In this case it would be for large trucking and bus companies. Maybe AAA and large fleets could get deals also. There is no guarantee that the turnpike companies wouldn't get subsidies like transit operations do. There would be no more freedom of the road.
I second this for another set of reasons.
I remember in the '80s and early '90s a wretched excuse for a New Jersey governor capped a string of dubious decisions with a scam of epic proportions. A large bond issue was floated with the nebulously-stated purpose of widening the New Jersey Turnpike, which needed extra capacity, without having to raise tolls. At about this time, 'someone' found out that the Government would take the historical cost of construction as the 'price' of part of the Interstate highway system -- specifically, the part of the Interstate system running from the north ends of the New Jersey Turnpike past the end of I-80 up to the George Washington Bridge, the price being as I recall somewhere in the $400 million range. The governor's party's plans were to use the revenue from the bonds to buy this stretch and incorporate it into the Turnpike ... of course extending toll revenue generation, including every piece of traffic going from 80 up to the Bridge. Then to add insult to injury, since there wouldn't be enough left for the Turnpike widening, they were going to finance it by raising tolls on the Turnpike anyway.
I kept legal residency in New Jersey for a year and a half after going to Louisiana, and then drove all night in the rain north, JUST so I could cast my vote to help run that bastid out. It is still one of the most satisfying things I have done. I'd do the same for anyone who suggested privatizing access to the Interstate system for anything other than OTR truckers (and even there, anyone who proposed using tolls in addition to a perpetuation of the current system of 'road use taxes' on Interstate truck use...)
Philly Amtrak Fan ROBERT WILLISON Not saying that the rerouted cardinal would be faster just plugging a hole in the Amtrak system It should be. If you're going to have two Chicago to New York trains at least make the second one competitive in terms of time to the first. Same with Chicago to Washington DC. The Silver Star is slower than the Silver Meteor NYP-MIA but only by 3.5 hours. The Cardinal is over 9 hours slower NYP-CHI and over 6 hours slower WAS-CHI. Plus, the Star detours to serve Raleigh and Tampa. The largest intermediate markets the Cardinal serves are Indianapolis and Cincinnati and both are close to if not in the graveyard shift.
Serving alternate intermediate locations, that are not on the 'normal' route will always have a trip duration time penalty.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.