Don't forget, everybody: They're bringing back coal, which means they are bringing back steam, which means they are bringing back passenger service!
PROGRESS!
BaltACD blue streak 1 So many of our posters keep concentrating on end to end points for passenger service. That is not the metrics of most routes , Evem the Capitol Limited carries less than 1/2 of its passengers WASH <> CHI I t is listed as the highest end to end %, Every passenger run needs to have a origin and a destination. While the intermediate traffic may be heaviest beween Elkhart and Harpers Ferry, those points are no adequate origin's or destination's. So the Capitol runs from Chicago to Washington DC. Intermediate traffic sustains all Amtrak runs except Auto Train.
blue streak 1 So many of our posters keep concentrating on end to end points for passenger service. That is not the metrics of most routes , Evem the Capitol Limited carries less than 1/2 of its passengers WASH <> CHI I t is listed as the highest end to end %,
Every passenger run needs to have a origin and a destination. While the intermediate traffic may be heaviest beween Elkhart and Harpers Ferry, those points are no adequate origin's or destination's. So the Capitol runs from Chicago to Washington DC. Intermediate traffic sustains all Amtrak runs except Auto Train.
I see that my post is causing some confusion. Am not proposing that trains make small cities a destination. The point is that most persons traveling on Amtrak do not go end to end on any train's full route. Now of course there are certain city pairs that carry more than others. A prime example is the NEC ( NYP - ALX stations ) to Atlanta .
But we cannot say for example that only the NYP - CHI passengers are important. The Erie - Utica passenger is just as important. And there may be a CHI - Erie passenger and a Utica - NYP passenger as well.
blue streak 1So many of our posters keep concentrating on end to end points for passenger service. That is not the metrics of most routes , Evem the Capitol Limited carries less than 1/2 of its passengers WASH <> CHI I t is listed as the highest end to end %, Solutions for the tax situation would be having all improvements exempt from property tax and a quick 100% investment tax credit ! Stations and other ancillary items for passenger would also take a big property tax decrease. Track maintenance also a quick 50% OR exemption. all these exemptions would pass thru at 80% to lower Amtrak operating expenses ! Imagine passenger required PTC costs passing thru !
One problem I see with that is your going to have problems finding decent maintenence and operating people in say Smashed Buffalo, WY (or willing to live there) for the trainsets that layover. Also, population density does play a role in ridership.
Also, I understand the Amtrak model is all we have right now but as MNDot pointed out very vividly in their second frequency to the Twin Cities rail study (ie: West Milwaukee Station located in Pewaukee, WI). Amtrak has not really moved a train station since it was founded and has not done any real demographic analysis if it's current train stations are located in areas that would attract the most traffic.
Every single quarter in the United States the Army Recruiting Command does a demographic analysis of where it's Recruiting Stations are located in order to access the most High School Kids and makes adjustments accordingly (moves the physical Recruiting Station if it is not in an optimal area).
General Motors does the same thing with car dealerships but less frequently but also encourages them with financial incentives to move into new areas that offer them more of the Market as an opportunity. If they refuse to move then GM has the option to drop them as a franchisee and find someone else.
Hence, the Amtrak Model on stations and ridership might not be the optimal one to follow. It's a dated model from the 1920's and 1930's.
blue streak 1So many of our posters keep concentrating on end to end points for passenger service. That is not the metrics of most routes , Evem the Capitol Limited carries less than 1/2 of its passengers WASH <> CHI I t is listed as the highest end to end %,
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
So many of our posters keep concentrating on end to end points for passenger service. That is not the metrics of most routes , Evem the Capitol Limited carries less than 1/2 of its passengers WASH <> CHI I t is listed as the highest end to end %,
Solutions for the tax situation would be having all improvements exempt from property tax and a quick 100% investment tax credit ! Stations and other ancillary items for passenger would also take a big property tax decrease. Track maintenance also a quick 50% OR exemption.
all these exemptions would pass thru at 80% to lower Amtrak operating expenses ! Imagine passenger required PTC costs passing thru !
Morgan LeFay1. She. 2. How is providing passenger service to small towns backward. 3. I want to connect Kansas City, Missouri to Fayetteville or Fort Smith, Arkansas. I also want to connect Tulsa, Oklahoma to Springfield, Missouri.
There is already interest in resurrecting passenger service to Tulsa but from OKC vs another direction. I think the other towns might be too small for the distance. Your proposal on paying for the track maintenence would be very, very expensive compared to whatever you would bring in at the farebox. So you would lose money every year. Remember that rail maintence includes payment of property taxes in addition to property taxes on any remaining ancillary buildings like old depots, sheds, etc.
If you were oriented more towards a corridor of say OKC to Tulsa you would have much better results. Even KC to Omaha might generate a lot of interest.
Morgan LeFay Backshop A couple of problems with the OP. 1. It seems like he wants to bring passenger service back to a smaller town, not one of the cities around it. That seems backwards. 2. Until he tells us where he's actually from, we can't give any concrete suggestions. 1. She. 2. How is providing passenger service to small towns backward. 3. I want to connect Kansas City, Missouri to Fayetteville or Fort Smith, Arkansas. I also want to connect Tulsa, Oklahoma to Springfield, Missouri.
Backshop A couple of problems with the OP. 1. It seems like he wants to bring passenger service back to a smaller town, not one of the cities around it. That seems backwards. 2. Until he tells us where he's actually from, we can't give any concrete suggestions.
A couple of problems with the OP.
1. It seems like he wants to bring passenger service back to a smaller town, not one of the cities around it. That seems backwards.
2. Until he tells us where he's actually from, we can't give any concrete suggestions.
1. She.
2. How is providing passenger service to small towns backward.
3. I want to connect Kansas City, Missouri to Fayetteville or Fort Smith, Arkansas.
I also want to connect Tulsa, Oklahoma to Springfield, Missouri.
Connecting Tulsa with Springfield would use the former Frisco Rwy. Now owned by BNSF. I think the Texas Special ran on this route a long time ago.
Connecting KC with Fort Smith would probably use Union Pacific. Fayettville would be tougher. It does have the university there. The Frisco had a line south from Monett, Mo. through there to Fort Smith. Also Walmart HQ is in Bentonville near the route. Kansas City Southern has a more direct line from KC, but the route passes some miles west of each of the towns. KCS ran its Southern Belle on that route. It's probably best to start with where people are traveling and would want to travel, and to see if passenger trains can be used effectively to serve their need and want.
Why did you bring up highways when it is rail service I am looking into? Kansas City and Fort Smith are both on Kansas City Southern's Heavener Subdivision. Springfield and Tulsa are both on B.N.S.F.'s Cherokee Subdivision. Kansas City and Forth Smith are both on Interstate 49. Springfield and Tulsa are both on Interstate 44.
The 'idea' being passenger service is for profit. To realistaclly chase a profit, service must be betwee large population Origin-Destination pairs. Large population centers have more potential passengers than do small population centers.
Kansas City and Tulsa would be the 'large' population centers and Fayetteville, Fort Smith and Springfield are not even on a direct highway linkage between KC & Tulsa. Any service that would link KC and your other cities with Tulsa would be very circuitious and not attract sufficient business between KC & Tulsa and I doubt traffic to your other cities would be sufficient to make up the difference. That presumes that there is sufficient business to link KC & Tulsa in the first place.
While we all know Amtrak does not operate at a profit, operating at a higher level of loss is not in the cards.
Morgan LeFayI think it would be better if I could show you instead of telling you, but I don't have a specific book. If I did, I don't know how to get the images from the book to the website.
Relatively simple: post, over on the Classic Trains forum, what the railroads, train names, destination pairs and years involved are. (Ask it as one of the 'quiz' questions if you like.)
If there are Internet resources, they'll be found in short order. Then you can use the images in those posts as a 'source' to get them in a post here.
The alternative for books is to scan the image to something like a .jpg file, then post this to one of the online photo services that allows 'hotlinking'. This assigns the picture the necessary Internet "URL" that allows it to be displayed here. I believe precedent has established that posting limited amounts of book content for demonstrably non-profit purposes counts as 'fair use' under current copyright practice, so I wouldn't hesitate in asking that anyone who does have a book determined to be a reference here either scan and post here or provide you via e-mail with scanned .jpgs as attachments that you can upload and then link.
BaltACD What beautiful passenger trains served your town? Between your not extremely active freight lines at a train per hour per line - that is 48 freight trains per day (by the way, with today's 10-15K feet long freight trains, that is a whole lot of freight).
What beautiful passenger trains served your town? Between your not extremely active freight lines at a train per hour per line - that is 48 freight trains per day (by the way, with today's 10-15K feet long freight trains, that is a whole lot of freight).
I think it would be better if I could show you instead of telling you, but I don't have a specific book. If I did, I don't know how to get the images from the book to the website.
Morgan LeFayDecades ago, my town was served by beautiful passenger trains. It has two active freight lines, but they are not extremely active as they see about 1 train each per hour. There are four cities in each cardinal direction (north, east, south, and west) that I think would be awesome to reestablish passenger rail service between. So, how would someone go about doing that?
All valid points, however I did qualify by stating that it's to build on. The tricky part would be finding the right people and then a hands off, let 'em get it done approach. At least of lot of dedicated track could be saved. It may be relocated and changed in the future. Even elevated to above, why not? American can do and know how applied right may have been able to pull it off. Cripes you went to the moon, you would think this is on perhaps the same scale. I think it would require a societal change in thinking such as higher gas taxes, less subsidies to airports and such and so on. Easy does it, small and medium steps.
CNR did yeoman service post war but blossomed in the early 60's and was the only one carrying a bright torch up to the Tempo days. Once VIA arrived it all went to heck slowly. Government had politically correct control and it became the plaything of individual Members of Parliment, Quebec appeasement, favours here, cuts there, forget it.
The CNR, CN, and VIA are vastly different fishbarrels. I would have held CP's feet to the fire and made them live up to their charter commitments. It would not bankrupt them and its a cost to keeping a country and a company.
Wishful thinking all around but certainly doable.
MiningmanWell it was largely in place at one time with dedicated passenger tracks with 4 track mains and 2 track mains and should have been built on from there.
Except that none of it was even to 125mph standard end-to-end 'in the day' and most of the reason for four-track mains with separate passenger lines evaporated half a century or more ago. (Look at all the NYC passenger wrecks involving parallel freight mishaps, and the need on all those double-track railroads for fancy red Mars lights to tell facing traffic to stop if a train went into emergency).
Perhaps if we had more Progressives in 1919-1920, we'd still have Federal control, perhaps a la CN a few years later... oh wait, there are sure a lot of dedicated passenger mains north of the border? I thought it had developed decidedly otherwise... and I hate to think what would have become of a Federally administered system in the '50s and '60s.
blue streak 1There is a problem of HrSR on freight lines/ 286,000# freight cars with a certain number with flat wheeels . Compare that to passenger train cars except locos only weighing 160,000 #. The wear on freight tracks are much greater ! That may be one reason most European HSR tracks are passenger only.
And even where passenger and freight share a line - the loading of the freight is near the same weight as the passenger so all trains have near the same loading stress upon the track.
Well it was largely in place at one time with dedicated passenger tracks with 4 track mains and 2 track mains and should have been built on from there. At some point between then and now Government could / should have mandated in a big way for this to remain and provide the trains if need be. A partial nationalization of those dedicated rails and the business of dedicated passenger tracks and service. If done right it could be sold off and privatized as a successful and profitable means of travel today. World leader!
Only way now is a benevolent, railfan, dictator. Iron fists and iron rails.
Overmod3) The amount of legal exposure would be enormous, and the underwriting costs presumably equally large. That is especially true when Amtrak's statutory limitation on damages doesn't apply, as I presume would be the case for any 'other' passenger-rail operator. Witness the recent CP 'last minute' insurance-coverage demand that shut down the idea of 765 touring to Steamtown. Any sensible railroad would insist on the enforceable equivalent of 'hold harmless' (since deep-pockets provisions would surely be applied to the host railroad when the passenger rail company, surprise surprise, turned out to have insufficient assets or coverage at judgment time) whether or not contributory liability on the part of the host railroad could be demonstrated. (And if that were not possible, then 'no ships go'.)
Relevant to this: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/us/amtrak-pays-millions-for-others-fatal-errors.html
There is a problem of HrSR on freight lines/ 286,000# freight cars with a certain number with flat wheeels . Compare that to passenger train cars except locos only weighing 160,000 #. The wear on freight tracks are much greater ! That may be one reason most European HSR tracks are passenger only.
charlie hebdo CMStPnP Colorado_Mac Many of our trains paralleled nice highways, but they were not crowded like American ones, though the trains were. European Driving compared to United States: 1. Gas priced per Litre and a gallon in Germany was approx twice the cost per gallon as the United States, if not more. 2. Insurance Costs much more in Europe. Cummulatively you pay more in tolls as well. 3. Parking meters not everywhere but you had to carry a paper parking meter in your car and set it visible on your dash when you parked so the meter maid could see when you parked your car and how long it had been sitting there, steep fine if you kept running out to adjust the paper meter and got caught. Timed parking everywhere, you don't pay for it if you use a paper meter obviously but still a pain. 4. Parking in intermediate to large cities for cars is scarce. 5. I seem to remember that membership in auto clubs resembling AAA was either mandatory or heavily encouraged. 6. Drivers License exam in Germany is much tougher than the show up and pass United States system. I passed the first time but had to study to pass. The failure rate runs almost 40% for Americans taking the test that have American Licenses already (you need to pass a German test to drive any kind of military vehicle on German streets....Germans won't accept the lower American standard if your in the military or NATO, they will if your a tourist though). 7. Very narrow streets and tiny parking spots encourage the use of smaller cars not to mention other costs like fuel and insurance. 8. One nice item when I lived there was Octane levels of German gas were higher than U.S. levels and you could tell the difference between performance of a German Mercedes in Germany vs American Mercedes in the United States in acceleration and engine performance. So there are a few reasons why you saw less cars on the freeways and more people on the train in Europe. Although much of what you observed is still true, all of those observations are 30 years old and much has changed, obviously. One example, auto/truck traffic is often very bad on many Autobahn stretches.
CMStPnP Colorado_Mac Many of our trains paralleled nice highways, but they were not crowded like American ones, though the trains were. European Driving compared to United States: 1. Gas priced per Litre and a gallon in Germany was approx twice the cost per gallon as the United States, if not more. 2. Insurance Costs much more in Europe. Cummulatively you pay more in tolls as well. 3. Parking meters not everywhere but you had to carry a paper parking meter in your car and set it visible on your dash when you parked so the meter maid could see when you parked your car and how long it had been sitting there, steep fine if you kept running out to adjust the paper meter and got caught. Timed parking everywhere, you don't pay for it if you use a paper meter obviously but still a pain. 4. Parking in intermediate to large cities for cars is scarce. 5. I seem to remember that membership in auto clubs resembling AAA was either mandatory or heavily encouraged. 6. Drivers License exam in Germany is much tougher than the show up and pass United States system. I passed the first time but had to study to pass. The failure rate runs almost 40% for Americans taking the test that have American Licenses already (you need to pass a German test to drive any kind of military vehicle on German streets....Germans won't accept the lower American standard if your in the military or NATO, they will if your a tourist though). 7. Very narrow streets and tiny parking spots encourage the use of smaller cars not to mention other costs like fuel and insurance. 8. One nice item when I lived there was Octane levels of German gas were higher than U.S. levels and you could tell the difference between performance of a German Mercedes in Germany vs American Mercedes in the United States in acceleration and engine performance. So there are a few reasons why you saw less cars on the freeways and more people on the train in Europe.
Colorado_Mac Many of our trains paralleled nice highways, but they were not crowded like American ones, though the trains were.
European Driving compared to United States:
1. Gas priced per Litre and a gallon in Germany was approx twice the cost per gallon as the United States, if not more.
2. Insurance Costs much more in Europe. Cummulatively you pay more in tolls as well.
3. Parking meters not everywhere but you had to carry a paper parking meter in your car and set it visible on your dash when you parked so the meter maid could see when you parked your car and how long it had been sitting there, steep fine if you kept running out to adjust the paper meter and got caught. Timed parking everywhere, you don't pay for it if you use a paper meter obviously but still a pain.
4. Parking in intermediate to large cities for cars is scarce.
5. I seem to remember that membership in auto clubs resembling AAA was either mandatory or heavily encouraged.
6. Drivers License exam in Germany is much tougher than the show up and pass United States system. I passed the first time but had to study to pass. The failure rate runs almost 40% for Americans taking the test that have American Licenses already (you need to pass a German test to drive any kind of military vehicle on German streets....Germans won't accept the lower American standard if your in the military or NATO, they will if your a tourist though).
7. Very narrow streets and tiny parking spots encourage the use of smaller cars not to mention other costs like fuel and insurance.
8. One nice item when I lived there was Octane levels of German gas were higher than U.S. levels and you could tell the difference between performance of a German Mercedes in Germany vs American Mercedes in the United States in acceleration and engine performance.
So there are a few reasons why you saw less cars on the freeways and more people on the train in Europe.
Although much of what you observed is still true, all of those observations are 30 years old and much has changed, obviously. One example, auto/truck traffic is often very bad on many Autobahn stretches.
A few comments about driving in Germany.
1) Gasoline (95 Octane) costs $5.25 per gallon today
2) Yes insurance costs might be higher, e.g. $365 per year for a Toyota RAV4 with $115 flat coverage for personal injury and property damage.
3) The parking disk allows to park free for a limited time to avoid long-term parking. It is cheaper to overrun the time than to adjust the disk.
5) there is no requirement for auto club membership. Many people are members because of the benefits like free breakdown and towing service.
7) Street width depends on use and traffic density. Next year about one third of new cars will be SUVs. So there doesn't seem to be a problemwith small street. You need to get used to it. In small streets there almost always a sidewalk on can use to pass. Parking spots are getting a problem on parking decks. Here rules need to get adjusted to wider cars.
Charlie Hebdo is right about traffic. Here some photos of congestion on German highways: https://www.rundschau-online.de/image/22777868/2x1/940/470/b21c73f80eb6b4023ec734f35c36c4f2/SN/148604001021c796-jpg2.jpghttps://p5.focus.de/img/fotos/origs7369864/7668512644-w630-h472-o-q75-p5/urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-170718-99-291423-large-4-3.jpghttps://aisrtl-a.akamaihd.net/masters/1071102/800x450/lebensader-unfallschwerpunkt-die-a2-soll-sicherer-werden.jpg
I drive regularly from Essen to Stuttgart, 433 km (270 miles) by car. I get seldom below 5 hours while the fastest ICE-train needs 3:06 hours. So I changed to the train.
I said in another thread: Compared to the NEC (457 miles) the relation Hamburg to Munich (about 450 miles by train) is a corridor train, not a LD train. So we have more or less corridor service in Germany.
I don't know how far this applies to other European countries.Regards, Volker
daveklepperI think I have an offer the freight railroads could not refuse: The railroad infrastructure (except for their dispatch center(s) would be upgraded and maintained by the passenger rail company if the passenger rail company were allowed to use it for free.
Problems I see coming:
1) You would presumably still have the existing problem with passenger-train priority; the passenger rail company would also have to pay something for inconvenience/delay of freight operations ... and I suspect some freight railroads would carefully find reasons why any particular train's operation caused 'actionable' inconvenience or delay.
2) The maintenance requirement is open-ended and potentially very, very expen$ive. Even the case where HAL-capable Class 8 or 9 slab track is built by one of the modern track-building machines, and then presumably stays in line and surface cf. the Pueblo tests, is probably going to involve additional effort over what a passenger rail company would incur in a separate build suited to its particular equipment. (And we have just seen a meaningful cautionary tale about slab track in the week-long recovery after the train fire in Germany...)
3) The amount of legal exposure would be enormous, and the underwriting costs presumably equally large. That is especially true when Amtrak's statutory limitation on damages doesn't apply, as I presume would be the case for any 'other' passenger-rail operator. Witness the recent CP 'last minute' insurance-coverage demand that shut down the idea of 765 touring to Steamtown. Any sensible railroad would insist on the enforceable equivalent of 'hold harmless' (since deep-pockets provisions would surely be applied to the host railroad when the passenger rail company, surprise surprise, turned out to have insufficient assets or coverage at judgment time) whether or not contributory liability on the part of the host railroad could be demonstrated. (And if that were not possible, then 'no ships go'.)
4) If the passenger rail operator is anticipating on making its money through real estate, and the RE development is contingent upon full operation of both the passenger service and the regional and local improvements associated with it, where is the interim money to first upgrade and then maintain the infrastructure in the meantime? Presumably with the present misconcentration on earnings calls and quarterly 'what have you done for me lately' analysis...
It would be fun to put this together, get funding commitments or guarantees from the logical partners (like banks or funds specializing in RE transactions and Japanese train makers), and see if any railroad would bite. But I suspect simple considerations of investment opportunity cost would make it very, very difficult to close.
Morgan LeFay No Class-One freight railroad in North America would turn over maintenance of an important corridor to another organization if it could possibly be avoided. And considering all that has been posted, the only way you could possibly be seccessful is to do the nedessary research and detailed analysis to prove to the railroad that the railroad itself could make money re-entering the passenger business on a specific route. And to do that, you would need access to costs of particular jobs on the railroad, and this will require an existing close relationship. onvicted Otne Talkinong a class 1 into accepting a new relationship such as that, which otherwise does not benefit them in any way,......well I doubt it could be done. I think I have an offer the freight railroads could not refuse: The railroad infrastructure (except for their dispatch center(s) would be upgraded and maintained by the passenger rail company if the passenger rail company were allowed to use it for free.
Talkinong a class 1 into accepting a new relationship such as that, which otherwise does not benefit them in any way,......well I doubt it could be done.
I think I have an offer the freight railroads could not refuse: The railroad infrastructure (except for their dispatch center(s) would be upgraded and maintained by the passenger rail company if the passenger rail company were allowed to use it for free.
MidlandMike cudjoebob The huge advantage that the Brightline service in Florida has is that it owns the tracks (the same corporate umbrella) As I recall the FEC (track owner) was bought by Grupo Mexico.
cudjoebob The huge advantage that the Brightline service in Florida has is that it owns the tracks (the same corporate umbrella)
As I recall the FEC (track owner) was bought by Grupo Mexico.
Brightline was started as a FEC project. What the real corporate relationships are today, for outsiders, is a murky mess with the various financial deals of ownership that have taken place since the inception of the Brightline project.
Today's corporations take great delight in hiding the real linkages of the money flow.
cudjoebobThe huge advantage that the Brightline service in Florida has is that it owns the tracks (the same corporate umbrella)
The huge advantage that the Brightline service in Florida has is that it owns the tracks (the same corporate umbrella) and huge parcels of developable land at the station sites. It is more of a real estate project, with a sexy train service thrown in, than just a 'train service'. In your case, Mr. LeFay, you are proposing an outsider service to come in on another company's rail infrastructure and with no developable assets to assure a steady cash flow, as well as potential new customer base. Your only hope is to come up with a viable project plan (profitable) to present to the railroads that own the line, and convince them to build/operate the service. (but good luck with that!)
Colorado_MacMany of our trains paralleled nice highways, but they were not crowded like American ones, though the trains were.
When you think about it logically the market for train travel is basically unlimited. In many cases the airlines are not faster and the negatives of flying have become overwhelming. The idea of driving from point A to point B is also hopeless. Have you tried the traffic on I 95 in Connecticut or in Virginia! It is only a question of supply. The demand is at an all time high. Its about supply and Amtrak is not up to that challenge.
Miningman Anderson'a idea for the Super Chief.
Anderson'a idea for the Super Chief.
Anderson acutally HAS an "Idea"???
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.