posted
We evidently both agree, Mr. Toy, that additional rail capacity is needed. Towards that end, I have often made the comment at the various railforums at which I participate (and you as well at one other) any past management decisions to reduce capacity in the name of "efficiency' were simply "bonehead'.
I think we are further in agreement that it is unreasonable to expect any road to make investor staked capacity expansions solely for the purpose of expediting passenger trains, as the only "return on investment' from such would be additional collections under performance provisions of contracts with the several passenger agencies.
Now where I think we disagree would be with the efficacy of publicly funded track capacity improvements - especially if passenger service was part of any such enabling legislation. First, I think that the industry would be quite reluctanct to be party to any such improvements, and I can almost guarantee you that they would stongly resist any such participation if keywords such as "and passenger' were included in the enabling legislation. Case in point; Union Pacific's resistance of restored "Angels to Meadows' corridor service - publicly funded capacity improvements notwithstanding.
I believe contemporary railroad managers are of thought their predecessors signed a "Faustian pact with the Devil' when they signed up with Amtrak. While such once afforded needed short term relief, it clearly has confronted the industry with the long term problem of the passenger train's interference with with today's pattern of freight operations that more closely resemble that of a pipeline rather than the "boulevard of steel' still prevalent during the 1962 "benchmark' previously noted within this topic thread.
Posts: 9982 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Harris, I agree that there are significant problems in urban areas but in the rural areas where interchanges are miles apart and the ROW is 400-500 feet wide the RR can be place on one side or the other. And the design constraints you list were created with only rubber tired vehicles in mind. They can be modified both with train speed and highway speeds adjusted in those locations where it is necessary. Not simple, but doable.
However, the real problem is can the cost be justified for LD trains whether on present privately owned ROW or in the ROW already owned by the taxpayers. Once again I suggest that when corridores like Trinidad to Belen can be made available without curtailing the growing freight needs then let the governmental agencies see if it will work, both from a ridership and a cost perspective.
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If there are corridores like Trinidad to Belen that can be made availbale without affecting the freight business..
I think unfortunately that whatever solution will end up being made, it will be left to the freight RR's to either comply whole heartedly with helping a national system being implemented, or to block and stand in the way.
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Having a no where to no where segment is pointless. Even if you take the whole line all the way to Kansas City, it is still pointless. Even as a line, it has to be Chicago to Los Angeles to function as a worthwhile passenger corridor, but really it should be part of a system.
I am still of the opinion that there has got to be serious investment in railroad capacity, and the reality says that it will take government money to do it. It is probable that the whole ex ATSF line from LA to Chicago should have a third track, the ex Great Northern main doubled throughout, the Sunset Route doubled throghout, and possible a third track west of El Paso, just for starters. This needs to be there today, and there is no way that the private sector can finance it.
George
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
George Harris, given that BNSF has some alternate passenger and freight routes, do you mean triple track between Galesburg, IL and Newton, KS and between Dalies, NM and L.A.?
There are other shorter, less-costly examples where rail freight traffic congestion delays both freight and Amtrak service (such as CSX's mostly single-track Worcester, MA to Post Road, NY and CSX again between Petersburg, VA and Pembroke, NC). In any federal program, the money will be spread around, both by states and by freight carriers who offer matching money.
It will not be spent just on main lines. Congested terminal areas in and around Chicago and elsewhere also would get money.
Out in front for the competition for money will be those states and regional groups with ready plans such as NC, GA, CREATE, and the I-95 Corridor Coalition's Mid-Atlantic Rail Operations Study.
-------------------- John Pawson Posts: 137 | From: Willow Grove, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the railroad industry has only "begged" to government for two things in their history; one is ratemaking freedom, which they got pursuant to Staggers, and relief from passenger train losses (RPSA '70 and local legislation for commuter service). Beyond these points, they have largely run the industry affording returns to the stakeholders without their hand in the public trough. The various railroad bankruptcies have only afforded protections available to any other US person, be such human being or incorporated entity.
While public funding of track capacity enhancement may look "enticing', I would not expect the industry to welcome such with open arms. They signed one Faustian Pact with the Devil regarding Amtrak, and another pact that would give the government an interest in their infrastructure would be another such "doubled in Spades".
Posts: 9982 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Delvyrails, the lines I named were on the order of examples. We need something like an interstate highway funding process to increase rail capacity.
Mr. Norman, I have to disagree with you on this. The railroad obsession to avoid any government help is part of the reason things are in the fix they are today. We have lost a trememdous amount of railroad capacity and railroad service because of a fanatic insistance on go it alone. I also do not consider Amtrak a "pact with the devil" but instead something that should have been persued at least 15 years earlier than it was. There would have been much more worth preserving at that point and we would not have lost much of what is now virtually irreplacable.
In general I am a strong believer in the federal government staying out of much of what it already is in to, but for one part of the transportation system to forego government aid for over 80 years after all other forms of transportating have their noses planted firmly in the government trough is not independence, it is an unrealistic obsession based on an imaginary set of conditions that has long since ceased to exist, and therefore has long passed the time it should have ended.
George
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reviewing your posting, Mr. Harris, I find we only partly disagree with one another.
We both are on the same page that the railroads, save ratemaking freedom to which one could say "they brought regulation upon themselves" and passenger train deficit relief, prefer to go it alone. Regarding present scarce capacity, I'm of conviction that in the latter past century, the railroads "brought it on themselves' with the abandonment of crucial lines such as the Seaboard as a through routing, the ERIE,and MILW Lines West. Significant capacity reductions on the New York Central, the Illinois Central, and the Atlantic Coast Line also added fuel to the fire.
However, the abandonment of three of six Chicago to Missouri River roads to connect with the Union Pacific "made sense".
Regarding Western Lines, save the MILW, little has been abandoned and that is in itself a Godsend. True, when the MILW shut down, service was "one a day", but had that line surivied along with the ERIE, and had maritime interests "bought in" and "built a railroad", there could be a reliable land bridge in place, and the Port of Seattle, with two competitive East West routes (Yes; UP makes rates but their routing is rather circuituous) would not be relegated to a backwater.
Now regarding passenger trains, had Amtrak been formed during 1955, more service would likely exist today - with more interference to freight operations . Obviously, posting at an Amtrak forum, at which most discussion relates to travel (as distinct from policy such as over at RRNET) I cannot expect to have much of a "cheering squad' regarding such thoughts.
Posts: 9982 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: We evidently both agree, Mr. Toy, that additional rail capacity is needed....Now where I think we disagree would be with the efficacy of publicly funded track capacity improvements - especially if passenger service was part of any such enabling legislation. First, I think that the industry would be quite reluctanct to be party to any such improvements, and I can almost guarantee you that they would stongly resist any such participation if keywords such as "and passenger' were included in the enabling legislation.
Ah, but that is exactly what has been done in California with excellent results. And if UP can handle it, any railroad can. California would like to do a lot more with UP, including expansion over the Sierra to Reno, but since no matching feddybux are forthcoming, our Governator prefers to sell bonds to build more roads. Can't blame him for that, really. But if those matching feddybux were available, I'd wager that UP and all the rest would be happy to run passenger trains if it helped them get their freight in on time, too.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be worthwhile for Mr. Norman and others to remember that this "freight interference" is for the most part an excuse. As an example, if you look at what North Carolina has done and is doing, their upgrades on the "H Line" Greensboro to Raleigh have probably done more to save time for the freight, and reduce freight fuel consumption on that line than they did to improve the passenger train time. Their main thrust has been to reduce the number of and increase the speed through the slow areas and put higher speed turnouts on the sidings. All these things reduce the need for freights to slow down for slow zones and then speed back up. Their program for the main line Greensboro to Charlotte is similarly targeting the under 50 mph slow areas first.
Did Norfolk Southern embrace this stuff willingly? No, they did not. Basically they were drug kicking and screaming into accepting this and basically did because of one final trump card the state held. North Carolina actually owned the railroad and it was operated by NS under a 99 year lease which was expiring.
Generally NS, or at least predecessor Southern had very good management, but even they seemed to be obsessed with the issue of a few extra passenger trains they fought against what has turned out to be in their own best interest.
For a company like UP who's management presents to the public an extremely arrogant attitude, I really see no hope outside of some form of strong legal coercion or a major management shake up.
Mr. Toy, for the most part the things that the state of California has done for UP, actually for the most part when the tracks involved were SP, has been little more than some upgradings and capacity improvements that overcame the starvation maintenance and investment practices of SP in its last years. There is much more that ought to have already have been done.
George
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like, at one time, Amtrak had passenger rail service through beautiful Clarksburg, West Virginia, were I now live. Though no passenger train service exists here today, and the closest station being almost 2 hours away in Pittsburgh, PA or Cumberland, MD, I really do miss the sounds of the Amtrak locomotives coming through town and being able to go down to the train station and just watching them come and go, passengers waiting and then disappearing off to destinations unknown.
I took Amtrak for granted in the town of Salisbury, NC were I moved from, were Amtrak came through 6 times a day.
Now I have no Amtrak...
:-(
P.S. Heck, not even Greyhound runs through here!!!
Posts: 497 | From: Clarksburg, West Virginia | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dmwnc1959: It looks like, at one time, Amtrak had passenger rail service through beautiful Clarksburg, West Virginia, were I now live. Though no passenger train service exists here today, and the closest station being almost 2 hours away in Pittsburgh, PA or Cumberland, MD, I really do miss the sounds of the Amtrak locomotives coming through town and being able to go down to the train station and just watching them come and go, passengers waiting and then disappearing off to destinations unknown.
I took Amtrak for granted in the town of Salisbury, NC were I moved from, were Amtrak came through 6 times a day.
Now I have no Amtrak...
:-(
P.S. Heck, not even Greyhound runs through here!!!
Again I have to wonder what exactly it's going to take for this country to stand up and say enough is enough in terms of it's passenger rail service.
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly Stonewall and dmwnc1959, Greyhound services in the southeast haved been pared back so much that they are often less an option than is Amtrak. Many of the Thruway connections Greyhound operated have been removed as well.
These two carriers could complement each other with decent intermodal service but instead they fight amongst each other for the scraps.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont think its a matter of the service provider 'not caring'. If a service is being under-used, and the cost to operate that service is significantly greater than the revenue being generated, then the service provider has to make a 'business decision' as to what is in the best interest to maintain operations in a manner that generates revenue and profits.
I am sure there are thousands of cities across the USA that are not within 2 hours travel time of the closest Greyhound and/or Amtrak station, Clarksburg WV being one of those. I realize I chose to move here, and knew that Amtrak did not run anywhere close to here, but that, in a way, makes Amtrak more of a 'brass ring' to reach out for, something I can actually look forward too in planning my next great train trip, and not something that may be taken for granted by those who live in cities where Amtrak passes through on a routine basis.
Unfortunately there are those who use/used these services as an 'only means' of transportation in getting from rural areas to the big cities. Those are the folks who truly lose out when services are pulled from an area. It may just be one person or dozens that lose out, but the love affair many Americans have with their automobile and personal space, their freedom to choose, and the 'I want it now' and 'Got to get there in a hurry' mentality, that keeps many Americans away from the 'structured scheduled departure times' of Amtrak and Greyhound that dont fit their personal schedules, and that seem to have contributed to these cutbacks of services in areas not using them in a way beneficial to generating revenue and profits.
Its not that Greyhound and Amtrak doesnt care...
-------------------- The best part of life is the journey, not the destination. Posts: 497 | From: Clarksburg, West Virginia | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
notelvis, maybe we should expand the subject title to "Ground Passenger Service Map-Today vs. Yesterday".
dmwnc1959, I have seen on the internet a few North Central states'(skimpy) bus service maps, but there is no national map AFAIK. There is no "National Association of Bus Passengers". Though useful for much smaller groups of passengers than can justify a train, intercity buses stir no passions among the influential, it seems. Maybe that's a big part of the problem.
-------------------- John Pawson Posts: 137 | From: Willow Grove, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Greyhound used to have up in their stations a national map of all their lines with lines to places they did not serve but would get you to over other companies dashed in. Trailways did also, but they have been gone for how long now?
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder, since it is a long shot that rail service will ever return here, if passenger bus service companies, and for that matter Amtrak too, do periodic surveys (yearly...?) of areas that may have once been serviced by them to see if adding service back into that area would be justifiable or profitable. Even if it was only 3 times a week, that would be better than not at all.
Posts: 497 | From: Clarksburg, West Virginia | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it seems to be the same issue. Amtrak and buses are both essential elements of the national system. I agree with Mr. Harris that we need something like an interstate highway funding process for passenger rail.
As I've said before I think there is something seriously wrong in the logic of all this supposed concern about "profitability" of proposed mass transit and passenger rail improvements, coupled with little such apparent apprehension over other modes of transportation. It seems to be all over the place. What I read above about the shrinking bus services doesn't sound encouraging either.
I think the best thing would be cooperation between rail supporters for a nationwide network of both long distance and corridor trains (and buses), as NARP advocates.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The speech is full of the high-speed corridor stuff that attracts the construction industry's interest. Of course, such was the audience which heard this speech.
The likes of 90 mph freight trains and 150 mph passenger trains can't cost-effectively share track with bulk commodities which prevail on our railroads and which cannot economically be hauled at such high speeds.
Sensational speeds aside, establishing sufficient capacity at 79-50 passenger and freight train speeds is the issue for most major railroad lines.
-------------------- John Pawson Posts: 137 | From: Willow Grove, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dmwnc1959: I dont think its a matter of the service provider 'not caring'. If a service is being under-used..
I dont think it's a situation of people not caring per say. I think it's more of a lack of options that people are frustrated with. I know several people who have told me that if the trains ran where they wanted to go, they would take them instead of flying.
Just recently A friend of mine who lives in Memphis asked me if he could get to Raleigh, NC by train. I told him not directly, he would have to go out of the way to get here. He asked why he couldnt take a train between Memphis and Atlanta, and said, because there is no service.
Anyway, just my $.02.
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting discussion. We've touched on a lot of themes so far, but as always, the discussion seems to lag reality by just a bit.
Anybody notice that the $35 billion/year freight railroad industry just became (last year) a $40 billion/year industry? Rates have gone up big time. Just listen to the shippers howl. But that money is going into capacity additions.
Railroads in the 1970s and 1980s were like the man with the hammer, to whom every problem looked like a nail. They had figured out how to retire assets, and they just kept doing. Reducing the asset base was one quick way to increase return, so they just kept doing it...but now they've figured out that they can raise rates.
It's going to take a few years to build the necessary capacity, though, and during that time running passenger trains on the main lines is going to be tough. Fortunately there are still some secondary lines (and abandoned ROWs) left that may be of use.
As for what kind of service to run -- I concur with Mr. Norman that corridors are it. I love trains, and I ride LD trains when I can, but then I'm a railfan. If the nation truly feels that rural communities need non-auto, non-air options, then subsidize Greyhound! That will cost a lot less than running a train, the service will likely be faster, and more places can be served.
Posts: 614 | From: Merchantville, NJ. USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Stonewall, your posting above caused me to get out my Sep 1964 SLSF (Frisco) timetable. I found it was possible then to travel Memphis-Atlanta.
You would leave Memphis 1020A on SLSF #105 (KC-Fla Special) arrive Brimingham 425P depart 440P (you could count on it back then) SRY #8 arrive Atlanta 1025P.
Oh well, 11 hours for a trip that I think could be made by auto in about 7 today (393 highway miles).
Not much in the way of on-board amenities on either train. the Frisco offered "Chair-Lounge Buffet' and the SRY offered "Box Dinner available on notice to Conductor'.
Posts: 9982 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StonewallJones: I know several people who have told me that if the trains ran where they wanted to go, they would take them instead of flying.
I hear much the same thing, though there are also some naysayers who only look at time factors on paper. But overall I have good reason to believe there is a strong latent demand for passenger trains of all types. It just needs to be tapped with clean trains that run on time to places people want to go.
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Stonewall, your posting above caused me to get out my Sep 1964 SLSF (Frisco) timetable. I found it was possible then to travel Memphis-Atlanta.
You would leave Memphis 1020A on SLSF #105 (KC-Fla Special) arrive Brimingham 425P depart 440P (you could count on it back then) SRY #8 arrive Atlanta 1025P.
Actually Mr. Norman, this was my hometown train. When the leaves were off the trees, I could see it out the windows on the back side of my high school (grad 1962) Even when I could not see it, it was easily identifiable by the difference in whistle and other sounds. (An 8 to 12 car train with 2 E8's moving at 70 mph versus the 100 car plus freights with 4 to 6 F units on the front, generally moving at 50 to 55 mph.) A drive Memphis to Atlanta in those days was definitely a long all day affair of around 12 hours plus. US 78 was also a heavily traveled road. Of coursse now that we have I-20 betwenn B'ham and Atlanta and a freeway style US 78 complete in Mississippi and mostly to B'ham, with signs saying "future I 22" in a couple of places, the drive is NOW down to around 6 to 7 hours, without stops. This little snippet alone is an advertizement for our failure to invest in rail. There is a significant volume of freight still on both lines, the rails, track, signals, and so forth are modern, but over 90% of the alignment is still in its 19th century location, and until that is changed the speed is not going to be any better than it was in 1960.
Train 105 was the least reliable of the four trains on the line. Thanks to a fairly fast schedule, there was very little slack in it, so it quite normally was 45 minutes to 80 minutes late. (I noted the passing time every school day for two school years, and the note book with one of the years I still have.) The northbound, 106, was almost set your watch by accurate it in timekeeping.
This train was also a victim of Southern's anti passenger policy of the 60's. Frisco had a diner-lounge on it through at least 1963, and then the car you noted to the end of its existence, but Southern killed the diner they ran B'ham to Atlanta in about 1960 or 61, and in 1964 killed the last leg into Jacksonville, so it no longer got to the "Florida" part of its name. The Royal Palm was still running, and a combination could habe been made at Atlanta, but Southern made sure the Palm left earlier SB and arrived later NB so that there was not even a connection.
The Frisco operation was fairly nice to the end of its day. 105/106 usually had 2 streamlined coaches, a 14-4 streamlined sleeper, the rebuilt to look streamlined diner-lounge, and standard weight RPO and other head end cars. When extra coaches were needed, they were usually six axle standard weight. Occasionally there would be a Southern coach, but despite being about 40% of its distance on Southern, the equipment was almost always all Frisco.
George
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once late in the pre-Amtrak era, I rode the night train by coach. Recall being awakened several times in sidings as a freight slammed by.
The old MEM-BHM running time seems to fit as a transition in either direction between C/NO and Crescent. This routing, although not the shortest, would furnish an alternative one-night-and-day CHI-ATL trip compared to the current two-nights trip via WAS.
-------------------- John Pawson Posts: 137 | From: Willow Grove, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that one night and a day was the best you could do between Chicago and Atlanta except for on the C&EI-L&N route at any time pre Amtrak, that doesn't sound so bad. However, when you consider that 700 miles can be driven in about 11 hours without violating speed limtis that is not so good.
The Georgian made a good night train about 15 hours at its best, but more like 17+ but still carrying a decent passenger loading when C&EI was allowed to kill their portion. The nearest there ever was to a day train was the every third day Dixie Flagler, but it died in the 50's and was really aimed at the midwest to Florida market. Therefore, it had rather poor Atlanta times, about 1:00 am southbound and about 4:00 am northbound.
Back to the original: Yes, I have long thought that to run a connection, or better through cars to/from Memphis with the Crescent at Birmingham would be a very good thing. As said, it would make a good connection between the City of New Orleans and the Crescent. Since the CNO is Superliner, it makes a change at either Memphis or Birmingham unavoidable. It also gives a Memphis to northeast train in a day and a night, which again is about as good as it ever got by train. Carry it on to Little Rock, and you can connect with the Texas Eagle, but with a failroy long middle of the night layover.
My best guess of a reasonable time over the BNSF, former Frisco line would be about 6.5 to 7 hours, and about 3.5 on UP's ex Mopac line to Little Rock.
There seems to be fewer freights on the old Frisco line than there used to be. My main memory of my few rides on this line is also of many meets, usually with very little waiting time on each occasion, but almost always with the passenger train being the one in the siding.
George
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding Frisco 105-106, Mr. Harris, The Sep 1964 TT I have regretably shows Coach only. In that TT, the only Frisco Pullman service shown is StL Oklahoma City on the Meteor (the Stl Ft Smith car was gone).
Posts: 9982 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In 1962 it still had both the pullman and the diner lounge. Coming back from Birmingham in July of that year I walked through the Pullman to the back vestibule with the conductor and ate my supper in the diner. This was a through Kansas City to Jacksonville car. I think it was first cut back to Kansas City to Memphis after Southern killed Jesup to Jacksonville. Don't recall the date that happened, but it may well have been 1964.
In 1962, the Meteor still was leaving St. Louis with 3 Pullmans, Ft. Smith, Tulsa, and Oklahoma City. It was really no surprise to see both the Tulsa and Ft. Smith cars go not too long after that. The real surprise was that the Ft. Smith car was kept as long as it was.
George
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
