So according to NARP, the most service miles AMTRAK has ever had on it's national route was 26,621 which was in January, 1978.
In January of 1962, the total number of passenger miles was 88,717
Makes me wonder if we will ever be able to approach those route miles again like we had in 1962. Is it possible we can find a way to get back what we had, or are we doomed with what's left of a formal national transportation system?
What do you think?
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
If states get involved, like California, Amtrak could possibly reach half of 88,717.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by StonewallJones: Makes me wonder if we will ever be able to approach those route miles again like we had in 1962. Is it possible we can find a way to get back what we had, or are we doomed with what's left of a formal national transportation system?
What do you think?
Non-happen, Mr. Stonewall, be thankful you got what you got.
The future of rail passenger service is in the Corridors. The Northeast is a sure, but so long as there is a local initiative to maintain those on the West Coast, count them in as well.
The LD's exist for one reason and, albeit quite important, that is to provide sufficient legislative support with the "crumb or two' of economic benefit they drop along the way so as to ensure continued Federal level funding of what can only be considered a regional operation - the NE Corridor.
The Bush administration, which has exercised a degree of control over Amtrak operations that no predecessor has, is not interested whether you and I have had a great ride on an LD, if the LD's could be gone without impairing Corridor funding, they would be. But they are the funding catalyst for what is needed and little else.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by StonewallJones: System Maps
So according to NARP, the most service miles AMTRAK has ever had on it's national route was 26,621 which was in January, 1978.
In January of 1962, the total number of passenger miles was 88,717
Makes me wonder if we will ever be able to approach those route miles again like we had in 1962. Is it possible we can find a way to get back what we had, or are we doomed with what's left of a formal national transportation system?
What do you think?
Major expansion of the LD network is unlikely. Some regional and corridor gains are possible with state support.....ie: maybe someday getting a state-supported passenger train back to Asheville, NC.
As for remnants of a former national transportation system, just today I received a copy of the latest Greyhound System Timetable. First time I've bought one in about 10 years and I did so out of curiousity mostly. Ground travel options on the highway are only a fraction of what was once there as well. I'll spare you the particulars but there are a number of places I've gone by bus in the past that you just can't get to anymore.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
I disagree. The future of Amtrak is regional trains. Phoenix to Tucson high speed, DFW-AUS-SAT, DFW-HOU, SL-KC, etc etc...The long distant trains will still exist to link the regional trains with new routes. Ofcourse this depends on getting states involved.
Posted by Beacon Hill (Member # 4431) on :
If George and Norm have a plan to reform Amtrak--where is it? I can find all sorts of state and regional plans: California, Midwest, North Carolina, Pacific Northwest, etc. But is there any sort of co-ordination or oversight or direction at DOT? Just eliminating fried eggs isn't a plan and won't to get me from point A to point B any sooner. Improving regional networks should lead to stronger longer networks. For example: if I need to go to Portland (from Seattle), my first choice is Amtrak; when I need to go the Bay Area, I fly. But if the Cascades Corridor and the Bay Area infrastructures are upgraded to support high speed regional service, then a CS could leave Seattle around 5pm and arrive in the Bay Area reliably by 9am the following morning. That's a schedule I could ride, with or without the fried eggs.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
And, the pathetic thing was, in 1962 we were unhappy about how far down rail service had gone in the 10 years preceeding it. But - a lot of this was reduction in frequency, not reduction in miles of line with service.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
Call me overly optimistic if you want, but I believe that eventually rail will again have a place of prominence for passenger transportation to all corners of the country. Probably nothing like it had before 1962, but much more than we have now.
And I don't buy for a minute that "corridors" are the only thing in Amtrak's future. I see a place for all sorts of rail develoment in a wide variety of markets. But it will take time to shift the mental focus of our policymakers. Several factors affect my opinion.
1. I believe there is a significant latent demand for rail transportation of all types, evidenced by rapid growth of corridors, and well patronized long distance trains. The latter is particularly significant, because if Amtrak can fill trains that don't run on time, I'm sure they could pack even more of 'em if they did.
2. According to industry experts, freight railroads lack the needed capitol to meet projected capacity demands for the next 20 years. Thus I believe public/private partnerships for infrastructure investment will become more and more common. It's already being done at the state level, so it is not at all far fetched. Since the rail congestion is a nationwide problem, eventually the feds will be involved as well. These partnerships will require some concession to "public benefit" which translates into passenger trains - nationwide. If the arrangements mean that freight and passenger trains can both operate comfortably, then the railroads will eventually embrace it, grudgingly, at first, no doubt.
3. Increasing energy costs will shift more transportation, both goods and passengers, towards the most energy efficient mode of travel -by train. Thus making point #2 above all the more likely - eventually.
4. State and local governments already see the writing on the wall, and are actively working in these directions. The federal government will catch up sooner or later. Congress will get the message at the next electoral housecleaning, once they realize that voters actually do care more about things like energy, and whether the dikes will hold through the next hurricane, or the bridges will stay up in the next earthquake. After Kartina, I think voters are less likely to be led astray by the emotional social issue of the month. "We won't be fooled again" kind of thing.
So I have hope. Not so much for the short term, but the long term looks rosy. I'm just not sure if it'll happen before I'm too old to enjoy it.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
What is missed by a lot of people is that outside the very densely populated areas railroad passenger service was no more aimed at the corridors than the major airlines are now. Most of the short to medium distance airline services are by "who are you" companies with their planes painted in the colors of the major company they are associated with.
In the "old days" the railroads very much targeted the long distance passengers. A one night ride was the minimum target. Look at an old timetable, and if a line had one train, it was a night train between the major cities on the line. If they had more than one the nicer ones were aimed at services between major end point type cities. If you wnated to ride the train between Podunk and East Cowpath you would likely have to do it at 3:00am to 5:00am.
Therefore, going after medium and short distance corridors is chasing a business that has never been served well.
Posted by delvyrails (Member # 4205) on :
Passenger trains on corridors or 500-mile segments only? No. Data exist in graphic form to indicate otherwise.
Growing congestion on Interstate highways BETWEEN cities and whole regions, not just in and around metro areas, is projected by the Federal Highway Administration.
The highway segments projected to be over capacity are shown in red; those approaching capacity, in blue. On the year 2020 map, red or blue lines cover the entire East Coast and for hundreds of miles inland to points some distance west of San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Lincoln, and Minneapolis on multiple routes. Much of the first 200 miles eastward from the West Coast will be in a similar congested situation.
Look to see the situation in your part of the country.
Those red and blue lines coincide with many Amtrak and former long-distance passenger train routes that are still in main-line freight service. Judging that the total length of those highways are about 30,000 miles or more, that's my estimate for the total length of passenger train services in 2020.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by delvyrails: Passenger trains on corridors or 500-mile segments only? No. Data exist in graphic form to indicate otherwise.
Growing congestion on Interstate highways BETWEEN cities and whole regions, not just in and around metro areas, is projected by the Federal Highway Administration.
The highway segments projected to be over capacity are shown in red; those approaching capacity, in blue. On the year 2020 map, red or blue lines cover the entire East Coast and for hundreds of miles inland to points some distance west of San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Lincoln, and Minneapolis on multiple routes. Much of the first 200 miles eastward from the West Coast will be in a similar congested situation.
Look to see the situation in your part of the country.
Those red and blue lines coincide with many Amtrak and former long-distance passenger train routes that are still in main-line freight service. Judging that the total length of those highways are about 30,000 miles or more, that's my estimate for the total length of passenger train services in 2020.
I'd be interested in taking a look at these projections but the link provided isn't working for me. Is the problem on my end?
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
take the period off the end of the link.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Contrary to observations above, the major RR's are spending significant capital funds to upgrade their lines at the locations where the business is growing and they are doing it with their profits.UP,CSX, NS and BNSF expenditures are reported in Railway Age and Trains and I suggest that reading those two monthly publications will benefit participants at this forum and minimize comments which mislead.
Posted by StonewallJones (Member # 887) on :
quote: comments which mislead
Whose comments are misleading?
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
quote:Originally posted by RRCHINA: Contrary to observations above, the major RR's are spending significant capital funds to upgrade their lines at the locations where the business is growing and they are doing it with their profits.UP,CSX, NS and BNSF expenditures are reported in Railway Age and Trains and I suggest that reading those two monthly publications will benefit participants at this forum and minimize comments which mislead.
What they have to spend is not insignificant. But everything I've read says its not going to be enough to keep up with projected demand.
Posted by rresor (Member # 128) on :
(by a friend of mine) shows pretty convincingly, the focus of railroads on long-distance "limiteds" revealed their fundamental misunderstanding of their own costs. The focus on coal and low-marginal intermodal traffic in recent years revealed the same sort of misunderstanding. Railroads apparently do not have a good grasp of the incremental cost of additional gross tonnage, but are very sensitive to the costs of additional crew starts and yard operations. They are biased against carload freight, for example, which has a much higher yield per ton-mile than bulk freight or even intermodal.
The same sort of misunderstanding is shown by URPA in insisting that the LD trains have low costs as compared to corridor trains. At the margin, that's exactly backward.
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
Mr.Toy, you are one of the most respected participants at this site and I was in no way wanting to appear disparaging.
That said, I would like to quote this years capital expenditure numbers but I donate my copies of Trains to the local VA Hospital within a few months after I get them and I do not keep Railway Age but a month or two. But since you inform us of what you have read and what "industry experts" say perhaps you are more diligent than myself and can furnish names and quotes. We all need a maximum exposure to the info that is extant.
Fortune Magazine recently published its ranking of the top 500 public companies with the following results: #164 - UP 2005 revenues $13.6 billion #171 - BNSF 2005 revenues $12.99 billion #266 - CSX 2005 revenues $8.6 billion #270 - NS 2005 revenues $8.5 billion
Another significant point, their decisions about where to spend their money to improve and upgade are made without the involvment of politics which we have all seen described too many time on this site.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by gp35: take the period off the end of the link.
Wow. Is it my imagination or is North Carolina the reddest of the southern states?
This projection confirms my observation on my daily commute that I-26 between Asheville and Hendersonville is already handling twice the traffic they imagined it ever would forty years ago.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
RRCHINA, I, too, respect your viewpoints. Let me cite a couple of sources:
Here is an excerpt: "Class I railroads currently invest about $2 billion annually for improvements above and beyond repair and maintenance. Continued investment at this level will result in freight rail losing market share among freight shippers over the next 20 years as the industry will not be able to keep up with growing demand. Most within the railroad industry agree that even with these continued substantial investments by the railroad industry, it will be unable to generate the revenues needed to sufficiently maintain tracks and equipment."
It states that freight tonnage is expected to increase 50% by 2020. It goes on to say that capital investment over the next 20 years will need to be in the $175-$195 billion range just to keep up with current freight levels, much less projected increases. That works out to about $8.75-9.75 billion per year, more than CSX's annual revenue, according to your Fortune citations.
Posted by delvyrails (Member # 4205) on :
Look carefully at those red lines. In many cases, the states already are supporting rail passenger service on parts of those routes:
1. North Carolina, as stated 2. Oklahoma, between Oklahoma City and Dallas-Fort Worth 3. Missouri's recent plan for St. Louis-Springfield and perhaps beyond 4. California, almost everywhere 5. the erstwhile NO-Mobile Gulf Coast Special 6. Wisconsin's Hiawathas, etc.
My point is that in the eastern half of the country, many of these congested highways routes will be well over a thousand miles long. What will passengers do at the end of each 300-500-mile "corridor"? Must they get off and ride another train or stay overnight for the first train of the next day?
Several necessary existing and new overnight/long distance train routes are staring us in the face from this map.
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
It is interesting to note passenger trains, still in existence, just prior to Amtrak in May, 1971:
Note the number of north-south routes which were deleted.
Richard
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
What has not been discussed here is that the four major RR's are in the process of adapting to the changing market and that their investments today are focused on that infrastructure and equipment that is required to accomodate it. For instance; new railroad yards which would have no use in passenger operations; new triple track to facilitate coal movements from Wyoming and new locomotives designed to efficiently handle the freight now being brought to the RR's instead of trucks on the road.
Any public investment in passenger infrastructure would have to accomodate this freight business unless constructed upon public rights of way. Yes, there have been accomodations made in major metropolitan areas and certainly the Alemeada Corridor in Los Angeles is an example of how the public need and railroad efficiency can collaborate to benefit both. And in the larger cities the RR's may be able to consolidate into fewer corridors and make those vacated available, ie, Los Angeles. But for long distance passenger service in the existing corridors the freight RR's business is growing and they will need the Right of Way for their business in most cases.
The State of New Mexico has agreed to purchase the BNSF line between Belen, NM and Trinidad, CO over which the SWC operates with the BNSF having the right to operate freight trains for an agreed price. This is a line that has very little freight business but is an overflow or emergency outlet from the TRANSCON, should it have interuptions in availability because of weather related events, derailments of an unexpected surge in freight shipments.
Posted by Beacon Hill (Member # 4431) on :
Maybe the agreement between New Mexico and BNSF is a good look into the future. BNSF is freed from ownership responsibility, saving $$$ on maintenance but still has the access when needed. The buzz word in freight railroading these days is *velocity*, meaning not just the speed of the trains, but the velocity of the entire transportation system. The NM-BNSF arrangement gives NM commuter rail and BNSF gets to put their money in other areas. WIN-WIN. Washington State and BNSF also have a plan that basically rebuilds the BNSF mainline north-south from the Columbia River to the Canadian Border. WA gets enhanced passenger rail and BNSF gets greater *velocity*. WIN-WIN. Look also at Minnesota, where an agreement with BNSF is being negotiated. Compare BNSF's attitude to UP's *NO! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!* attitude. If BNSF's greater velocity results in a competitive advantage, UP and other freights will start talking to state and local governments about more passenger rail in exchange for new infrastructure. Look at California--currently UP can't rebuild or maintain the Coast Route track adequately. What will it take for CA, Amtrak and UP to find a win-win to upgrade the Coast route? I think the answer to that question is the answer to the future of 21st century railroading.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Beacon Hill: What will it take for CA, Amtrak and UP to find a win-win to upgrade the Coast route?
The reports I get on the Coast Rail Coordinating Council indicate that there's sort of a bootstrapping problem there. UP won't do the capacity studies for the state without a funding committment. The California Transportation Commission, which allocates transportation funds, won't spend the money without a commitment from UP.
Posted by StonewallJones (Member # 887) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy:
quote:Originally posted by Beacon Hill: What will it take for CA, Amtrak and UP to find a win-win to upgrade the Coast route?
The reports I get on the Coast Rail Coordinating Council indicate that there's sort of a bootstrapping problem there. UP won't do the capacity studies for the state without a funding committment. The California Transportation Commission, which allocates transportation funds, won't spend the money without a commitment from UP.
So around and around we go.
All this bureaucratic BS is killing the future of rail travel. This country will never get back to even close what it once had.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Sorry Mr. Stonewall; but do you really think the USA should return to a level of intercity passenger rail service existing, say, during 1950?
If such were to be supported from the public trough, I guarantee that I would be opposed to such.
The future of rail passenger service is within Metropolitan area commuter service and Corridor intercity service. The LD's, I'm sorry to report, have had their day. The only reason they exist today is because they are the catalyst to secure funding from a national constituency for what is essentially a regional operation called the Northeast Corrdior.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: The LD's, I'm sorry to report, have had their day.
Then how do you explain their record high ridership?
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy:
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: The LD's, I'm sorry to report, have had their day.
Then how do you explain their record high ridership?
Without taking sides in this particular debate, I am AMAZED that Amtrak is still selling out the long-distance trains with service as spotty as it has become. (Checked earlier today, Crescent is booked solid next Thursday when I was considering taking it for a ride.)
If the LD routes were able to offer reliable service and two frequencies per day, Amtrak would have to beat prospective riders off with a stick I think.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
David,
I agree with you completely. Every other form of public transport feeds a lot more heavily from the public trough than rail. The problem most of the anti-rail people have is that they think everyone else uses the same thoght processes they do. In essence, "I would not consider riding a long distance passenger train, therefore no one else would either." Somehow they can not see how egocentric that thought process is.
If we were to develop a good rail service with most cities connected at least twice a day, I think that there would be a huge change in travel patterns. It would take a few years, but probably very few, for people to change their habits, but it would happen.
George
Posted by Beacon Hill (Member # 4431) on :
Something to remember--Amtrak was born as the US interstate system was nearing completion. In 1971 the passenger rail system was considered worn out and inefficient, especially compared to the newly poured interstates. In 2006 those interstates are starting to look worn out and inefficient, so what happens now? Given the political realities of 2006, there won't be much coming from Congress, except asphalt; so it's best to look local. Where local support exists for upgraded rail it will be built. As more and more local systems are built, networks will be formed. We'll be re-living the pre-WW I evolution of the US railroad network. Let's do it right! Hopefully the LDs will be preserved and upgraded to serve as the mainlines along which the local services will grow, strengthening both the LDs and the locals. But the experience of the last 35 years shows that it isn't a real good idea to have DC based Amtrak executives deciding how many trains to run between, for example, Chicago and St. Louis. Let the people between CHI and StL decide how many trains are needed.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
Good observation about how the Interstate system highway system was viewed then compared to now.
But how does one design a national rail system locally? That was widely considered the fatal flaw in the Bush plan, having states organize to develop interstate routes. For example, California would have to enter into agreements with 17 other states, each with their own budget priorities, just to keep our existing 4 LD trains running. There has to be some sort of federal coordination.
Posted by Pojon2 (Member # 4048) on :
Want some more real insight into what's now motivating the major 4 freight railroads to expand and increase service? Take a look at each month's issue of WORLD TRADE magazine. Every month the growing trade with China is talked about as the single largest motivator. Not one of the railroads can keep up with the demand for moving container traffic quickly from east and west coast ports that originated in China.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
The problem in both freight and passenger service is at we have gotten spoiled to having fares and freight rates that do not cover the true cost of producing the services. The railroads have kept their rates down for years by cannibalizing their assets, and now after roughtly 80 years of shrinkage, they are needing to expand but if they raise their rates to the point that they can truly maintain their fixed plant and add capacity, all the large volume shippers will be running to congress screaming, crying, and moaning for relief. And, of course since day one of gasoline taxes the automobile drivers and general taxpayers have been subsidizing road freight which probably does not pay 10 cents on the dollar of what the true cost of road maintenance and construction expense that shoudl be attributible to road freight. And air? Not really a player in high volume freight. If the true cost of air service to the general taxpayer were known there would be lynch mobs heading for capital hill. It is not just air traic control and airports, but the roads, the noise, the huge blocks of land no longer taxable, and on and on.
George
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy:
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: The LD's, I'm sorry to report, have had their day.
Then how do you explain their record high ridership?
The issue, Mr. Toy, is not that Amtrak can fill up a "one a day' LD and possibly even fill up an "Auto Train consist a day' (i.e. 6 Sleepers 4 Coaches 2 Diners 2 Lounges), it is simply that the contribution being made to a region's transportation needs is absolutely infintessimal - and, while I realize some here disagree, anybody aboard has transportation alternatives.
As several preceeding posts have noted, the railroads need all the capacity they can get to move what for which there is no other reasonable alternative - freight!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Since there are some around here who surmise I am some "nabob of negativism" with my remarks such as "LD's have had their day', allow me to set such in a better perspective with material adapted from a posting I made at another forum.
Although I do not ride trains simply for the sake of riding trains, I'm always pleased to use LD's for travel whenever their use is reasonable and practical. I have always found Sleeper travel to be price competitive with auto and my overall impression of the LD travel experience remains "more positives than negatives".
Here is this century's log:
Jan Dec 2000 None
Feb 2001 Lorton to Sanford* OW Jun 2001 Chi-Albany*-Chi Jun 2001 New Haven-BOS*-NH
Feb 2002 Chi-Wash-Orlando*-NO-Chi Nov 2002 Stmfd-Phl*-Stmfd
May 2003 Chi-Wash*-Stmfd*-Phila-Chi Aug 2003 Chi-Memphis* OW
Jan 2004 Lorton-Sanford* OW Feb 2004 Chi-Was-Orlando*-NO-Chi Oct 2004 Chi-Was-Phila*-Stmfd*-NY*-Chi
Feb 2005 Lorton-Sanford*-Lorton Mar 2005 Chi-Milw*-Chi
Jun 2006 Chi-Wash*-Stmfd*-NY*-Chi
* denotes an away from home destination or transfer to rental auto.
While such history is hardly "up there' with Mr. Guenzler (ChrisG), it does show that I ride when I can if reasonable to do so. I should note a regular and recurring trip I make is to visit friends in Amana, IA; however I would never consider taking the Zephyr to Mt Pleasant insomuch as there is no auto rental concern there. To take a taxicab to the hotel in Coralville (room with a view of the Rock Island) where I generally stay during the visit and renting an auto from there is simply "unreasonable'. Another trip I make is to the Atlanta area which is also by auto in that Chi-Atlanta is "not exactly" served (never mind that the website will construct one of its "connect the dots" itineraries). But I guess I'm not "dyed in the wool' in that I never have nor have I intention of being active with any advocacy group.
Regarding air transport, my last flight was during November 2002, my next in all likelihood will be when the next family emergency occurs. I'm not afraid, I simply have no reason. Now that my family of expats are all stateside, for the moment at least, I have no need to consider air travel for any journeys, which from the above trip summary one can note are all to the Northeast or Florida. I can do without crowds anytime, anywhere, and being retired, I have no need to drive during rush hour, or for that matter ride METRA trains during same.
Flights taken during this century, save the last, were all in conjunction with my Father; first his 90th birthday during 1999, thence his death during 2001. The 2002 flight was intended for travel to Sacramento to meet a possible 'little Sister" for my Newfoundland (I just LOVE that flick "Must Love Dogs"). As I was then still working, "out and back" on the Zephyr was quite unreasonable. Well any consideration of a "littler sister" "flew South" before I had a chance to "fly West', so I exchanged the ticket for one to New York.
While the flights were without incident, "I just don't need it". At my age, I find travel, even that of the "high on the hog" variety, to be very disruptive and is no longer any avocation. On my last overseas trip during 1990, I was simply zombied most of the time and I recall staring in a hotel room mirror in Paris asking that face "why, WHY, am I doing this?'.
Maybe someone knows what the "--phobia" is, but darned if I do. Auto and Sleeper travel make the best of it, as in either case, I've got my private cabin, or I guess in newspeak, "myspace".
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
I understand that its not that you dislike long distance trains. You enjoy taking advantage of them when they suit your needs. You just don't see that they have any value to the public at large. True, their capacity is limited at present. Thus their value is limited, but hardly nonexistent. Furthermore, I believe the potential is there for them to make a much more significant contribution to the nation's mobility, if some sort of public/private partnership could be arranged to expand capacity.
You also seem to feel the LDs interfere with freight operations, and you have noted in the past that you are a stockholder with one of these operations. Major infrastructure investment is needed to serve projected freight demand. Eliminating a handful of Amtrak trains isn't going to do it. I think private freight and public passenger operations will be stronger if they work together to solve their mutual problems, than if freight goes it alone.
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
I do not see eliminating the current LD trains having any significant effect on the increasing demand for freight service, but adding them within the major freight corridors would. And involving politics in the mkajor corridores, as would surely happen, will cause more problems than it solves. Yes there may be a few exceptions for short distances, ie Los Angles area, but across multiple states it would be a mess.
Those who feel the potential is there in any project, not just RR's, always seek more money and political participation when their visions do not materialize. How many Gov't programs are shut down when they fail, and fail again after more assistance. NONE!!
If there are corridores like Trinidad to Belen that can be made availbale without affecting the freight business then let those be the trial balloon. And why not user the rights of way assigned to the interstate highways. There is plenty of room in most situations. This works in cities so why not out in rural ares?
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Since there are some around here who surmise I am some "nabob of negativism" .
Get outta here. Who would think something like that.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by RRCHINA: And why not user the rights of way assigned to the interstate highways. There is plenty of room in most situations. This works in cities so why not out in rural ares?
"There is plenty of room in most situations" is simply not true in a practical sense. There are also significant differences in the alignment geometric requirements of highways and railways. In most urban areas the interstate right of ways are lanes and shoulders from right of way line to right of way line. In some cases there is not even sufficient room in the line of the median barrier to plant a single row of columns that would be strong enough to hold up a railroad. Most of the locations where the median is wide enough obtaining a seperate right of way would be relatively easy.
The standard median width is usually 64 feet. This looks wide, like there is room for most anything, but it is actually a minimum. This is defined by providing a 30 foot barrier free zone plus allowance for a center column on overpasses. Any area not having 30 feet from the edge of the lane is supposed to be protected by guard rails or barriers. Why 30 feet? Because it was determined years ago that something like 90% plus of all single car run off the road accidents never get more than 30 feet from the edge of the traveled lane.
George
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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.
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
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.
Posted by StonewallJones (Member # 887) on :
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.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
"Trinidad to Belen"
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
Posted by delvyrails (Member # 4205) on :
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.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
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.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
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!!!
Posted by StonewallJones (Member # 887) on :
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.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
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.
Posted by StonewallJones (Member # 887) on :
Well I guess if Greyhound doesn't care, why should I?
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
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...
Posted by delvyrails (Member # 4205) on :
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.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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?
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
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.
Posted by delvyrails (Member # 4205) on :
The buses were removed for the same reason as intercity passenger trains: not profitable (or not profitable enough) for a private operator.
How to fund buses: isn't really the same (or a similar) issue as how to support Amtrak service?
Posted by 4020North (Member # 4081) on :
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.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
It's been around for over 10 years.
Posted by delvyrails (Member # 4205) on :
Interstate II is not exactly a "plan".
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.
Posted by StonewallJones (Member # 887) on :
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.
Posted by rresor (Member # 128) on :
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.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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'.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
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.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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
Posted by delvyrails (Member # 4205) on :
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.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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).
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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.