#1. Agreed. A freight railroad has no particular incentive to have track, signaling, etc to support speeds over 79mph. Many lines aren’t even cleared for that speed. There is a reason PRR and NYC had their mainlines 4 tracked on busy segments. That has of course by and large been done away with. At the same time, UP owns the line from Chicago to St Louis that is being upgraded to 110mph. Obviously an agreement was reached there. In Illinois/Iowa, the Iowa Interstate Railroad has indicated that they are interested in the plans and studies for extending passenger service from Chicago first to Quad Cities, then to Iowa City and eventually to Omaha over the old Rock Island main line. That in spite of the fact that the track and signaling will need very significant upgrades to handle 79mph service, let alone anything faster.
#2 When talking about an overnight train Chicago to New York (an improved Lake Shore Limited), I am well aware that it will be of interest really only to passengers who can get on before midnight or who are riding to a station reached after about 5am. For that reason, night trains have a more limited audience than day trains. In Europe when high speed lines and trains came around, many night trains were casualties, as people can get from here to there in a day or part of the day trip. The high speed trains
In Michigan, either Amtrak or the state has actually purchased much of the affected line from CSX. In Chicago-St.Louis, the line getting the upgrade is one UP can spare; a second line is its main route for freight.
The Iowa Interstate has scads of spare capacity and could use the taxpayer-funded upgrade to add freight service it will never see otherwise. Naturally, it is welcoming.
Correct in both cases. The issue of fitting passenger trains in together with freight is not limited to the US either. European railroads face the same issue. The solution in many cases is to run fast passenger trains over dedicated lines.
It is one thing to get cooperation from the UP and other rails for fairly lightly used lines. It is quite another to get accommodations for much faster and higher speed trains on the busy old NYC main. Even now, Empire State service suffers.
Yes, Amtrak some time ago bought the line west of Kalamazoo, and Michigan is buying (with significant fed money) the line east of K’zoo from NS (rather than CSX). Conrail previously moved the thru freight off the line.
Before I retired, I worked for a large corporation in northern New Jersey, and travelled frequently between Newark and D.C. My company actively discouraged employees from flying between Newark and D.C., requiring them to take Amtrak whenever possible.
We were allowed to travel on the Acela trains for several reasons, many noted here already. However, the most significant reason was that the company had a contract with Amtrak that included a volume discount on ticket prices. The first x tickets purchased by the company each month cost $$$, the next y tickets cost $$, the remaining tickets cost $. The Travel Manager told me that during high volume months, he could buy me a ticket on Acela business class for less than I could buy a coach ticket by myself on a regional train.
To discourage department managers from waiting until the end of the month to send their employees to D.C., in order to get the z discount, an average discount was calculated for all of the tickets purchased in each month and applied to each ticket.
It appears that many posters have good ideas. The main item that IMHO is important is a gradual reduction in running times and more on time arrivals at every station of a route ( Probably within 15 Minutes ) How do you achieve these goals. ? I would propose the following items. Since capital funds at present are not very available there has to be very careful upgrades. :
Pick those current ROW segments that can be built with a HrSR ( 110 MPH ) track. An example is CHI - STL with 25 ft centers to allow trains to pass work areas without speed restrictions. Another example is what is happening in Michigan. Mi just has to upgrade a single track with passing sidings althoughif it is very sucessful then more double track will be necessary.
Concentrate on those segments that are cronically late. ONLY An example is the Empire builder around Fargo. CHI area delays.
Start connecting these 110 HeSR segments… Ex - connecting segments at Battle Creek with a separate track.
Once enough segments are complete with better travel times then slowly reduce schedule times on those segments that show some percentage on time ( maybe 90% ) but delays caused by outside forces are not counted ( tresspassers, floods, etc ).
What to do to speed the funds available ?
Start now to let the publec know how much time each project on route will save in schedule times with a route flyer First distribute theseflyers to current passengers what each project on a route would save in travel times and also the total time that will be saved on that route. Total time saved on those high useage station pairs So if project X saves 10 minutes, project Y saves 12 minutes. project Z saves 15 miunutes then total savings on route X - Z would be 37 minutes & X - Y 2
I did not overlook the matter of schedules when considering NY - Chi via the Lake Shore LMTd route. Note that I proposed the overnighter as the last addition to the schedule, where as now it (with far slower travel) is the only train. I was thinking of initially departures from NY and Chicago at 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, with the 15 (3PM) departure the last running through to the end point. Th 17 dparture from NY would go as far a Toledo and then be there for the early morning Toledo - Chicago train, and the 19 wouldgo only as far as Cleveland, the 21 only far as Rochester. The daytime corredor business is the business to go after, and only after it is successful would on overnighter be scheduled, possibly basiclly the new Pullman company’s train with a few coaches for those who wish to travel overnight economically.
The schedule you are suggesting is quite similar to what is in place on many European high speed lines, and working well. I’d just add a 5 or 5:30am departure from CHI and NYP. Really not too early to get started on the travel and certainly not earlier than many flights. Similarly, these trains would arrive at their scheduled terminus by no later than midnight.
The key feature is that late departures from an endpoint don’t run all the way, but terminate at some suitable city to become next morning’s early train out of there. That way intermediate cities experience a wide variety of travel opportunities throughout the day.
The answer to your question is easy: Amtrak is “segmenting” their market. In other words, try to get customers to pay for a service based on what it is worth to them rather than charging all customers the same flat rate. Car companies do this – the fat margins on “luxury cars” pay the bills whereas the thin margins on “economy cars” wouldn’t keep a car company solvent.
Even electric power companies are doing that – charging a premium for “green power.” It is the same kWHr’s delivered with the same reliability, it is just that you can have a clear conscience about using windmill electricity to power your air conditioner.
Except that you are getting “green power” and your neighbor is getting “dirty, coal generated” power is a marketing gimmick in that that coal plant supplies electric network reliability that both you and your neighbor both depend on. If your utility could interrupt your power when the wind isn’t blowing, I would start believing in the green aspect, and who knows, with electric cars and energy storage in their battery, such a market may develop.
So, I don’t know why people will pay the extra ($120 dollars from your numbers and my calculation) for the Acela.
I’m not so sure the practice of offering attractive volume discounts for travel on the Acela, as outlined by Sandyhookken, is a great marketing idea. Absent the purchase of additional cars/trainsets, maximum capacity of the Acelas during high demand hours is a fixed number. From the comments on this forum, I believe they may be close to that capacity on some segments of their runs now.
Might it be smarter to offer the discounts on the regionals, where additional capacity can be obtained by adding cars to existing runs?
It is not only a brilliant idea but one used in all business for favored, frequent, and bulk customers. The railroad gains because they get a guaranteed rate, a minimum volume, and cut down on account service time. Now, the can plan on train and equipment usage, crew needs, and count on a certain amount of revenue in advance so they know what the need to fill the train up… Acela, Regional, whatever, it is smart business and does not take away from the bottom line but adds to it.
If the incremental fares for the Acela cover or exceed the incremental costs associated with hosting the Acela, the investors (taxpayers) are made whole. In a competitive business, if they did not the product line would be dropped, or it would never have been implemented.
The Acela has been covering its operating costs and contributing to the fixed costs, i.e. equipment, infrastructure, etc. However, without access to Amtrak’s accounting records, it is not possible to know whether the Acela covers the incremental fixed costs incurred to support it.
Why was the NEC infrastructure upgraded? Was it to support the Acela’s 150+ mph speeds, or was it to support higher speeds for the NEC regional trains, and the Acela was just an after thought. If the NEC upgrades were for the Acela, it does not appear that its users are paying the full cost of their ride and, therefore, the taxpayers is worse off. If, on the other hand, the upgrades were for the regional trains, then it is possible that the Acela is covering its proportional share of the upgrades and, therefore, the taxpayers are better off.
If the Acela does not cover its fully allocated costs, i.e. variable and fixed, the investors (taxpayers) should ask why the service was implemented. Would the country have been better off to upgrade the NEC to 125 mph for NEC trains (coach and business class) that would cover all the costs and break even on a fully allocated cost basis or make a real profit?
The regional business class car is one of eight or more cars on a NEC regional train. Most of the train’s variable cost is covered by the coach passengers. Given the seemingly relatively low incremental cost of adding one business class car to a typical NEC regional train, it is possible that the incremental business class fare is covering the incremental business class cost. Again, one would need access to Amtrak’s accounting records to make this determination.
The electrification was for both. Much of the track and signal work was for both. There probably is some increment of track capital and maintenance necessary for 150 mph vs. 125 mph, but I can’t imagine it’s a very large percentage of the total.
The real question you need to ask is what did taxpayers have to pay for the NH-Boston upgrade vs. what they would have had to pay vs alternatives including “do nothing”. NY-Boston and NY-DC are the two big markets where Amtrak compares their market share to airlines, so presumably, the capacity Acela, et. al. provides would have to be provided by air service.
You raise a valid point(s). However, without access to Amtrak’s accounting records and the engineering studies that led to the upgrades, as well as the current maintenance records, one cannot know whether the incremental fares charged for the Acela cover the incremental infrastructure costs to support it. Nor would one know whether the incremental upgrades for better NEC regional train service could have been implement at a significantly lower cost and be covered by a corresponding incremental increase in NEC regional fares.
Maybe you or someone else can answer a question regarding the incremental maintenance requirements for high speed rail. Several recent articles in the popul
Exactly. Where is there any evidence that building additional interstate roads in that area would be paid for by the users? What evidence is there that expanding airports in BOS, NYC, PHIL, BAL, and DC and other infrastructure expansions for increased air capacity would be user-paid? The assumption seems to be thrown around here as though both road and air are totally user paid, when there appears to be much evidence to the contrary for highways from V. Payne, who has vast experience in that area. Air is less clear, but certainly not a settled fact.
So now we are shifting the basis for HSR from more than covering above the rail expenses to covering ROW infrastructure?
I would also like to see a citation for the claim that DB is reducing speeds on their ICE services. When i last rode this May, trains were still hitting high speeds. In the summer, there are construction delays. There have also been delays in receiving more equipment from Siemens.
Depends how wide a circle you draw for each metro area. If you are just doing the central business district for each, than I doubt you will find many drivers among business travelers.
The key point was whether upgrading the NEC regional trains, as opposed to adding a premium service, i.e. the Acela, would have been more cost effective and achieved an equally satisfactory outcome. At less cost to the taxpayers!
The cost of expanding the highways and airways, in my opinion, is irrelevant to whether Amtrak, which is one of two commercial transport modes that gets a direct cash subsidy from the taxpayers, should be offering a premium service that many if not most taxpayers cannot afford.
But why do we use the term “cost to the taxpayer” here instead of the business term, “investment”? What is the difference? If the taxpayer is charged with having to play the game, he uses the same terms because he is doing the same thing. So Amtrak is a taxpayer investment in transportation not a cost. The same with the highway or airway or waterway systems: investments in transportation. Afterall, it is assumed that by building and maintaining these infrastructures will bring a return of the ability to conduct commerce and travel…