Passenger trains, how would you do it?

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

Ok Guys and Gals,
We have a whole bunch of postings here in regards to passenger trains & passenger service, with lots of ideas cropping up, so lets put them in one spot so we all can see what each other thinks and how they would go about creating it.
So answer these questions.
A: How would you fund it, and would it have to be a for profit company, or part of the goverment, or both?
B: Who would you chose to run the service as General Manager, and who would you pick as CEO?
C: Local or transcontinintal, do you serve every city you can, or have a group of smaller services dedicated to certain centers of population?
D: Justify the exsistence of the passenger train, is it just high on railfans wish lists, or is ther a real need for passenger trains?
E: If you can justify it, where is it needed most?

Have fun, but keep it within reason, I really am looking for something that can be made to work now, not sci-fi for the future. Use real time techonology, real people and exsisting equipment.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

2

Me first,me first…
Ok, my two cents are in the pot, so here goes.
A: I think the federal goverment should invest in a passenger service, as a public service, similar to the interstate program. Due in part to the fact that the interstate has just about reached its capacity to handle traffic, and that most people who use the interstate outside of their city are on a short business trip, or a pleasure trip. Leave the interstate to the truckers, and those who just like driving 8 to 12 hours to get where they are going. Fund it with a gasoline or fuel tax, maby a penney per six pack or package of smokes, sort a sin tax.
Take the initial start up capital out of the general fund. Run it soley as a public service, with no attempt at self sufficency. Offer the agency the same real estate breaks we give airlines, with public lands set aside for right of way, depots, parking lots, train yards and such.
B: Mike Haverty, from KSC, is my pick as GM. You dont read or hear a lot about the guy, but he knows the one basic simple rule of sucessful railroading. If you dont get the train where its suppost to be going, when its suppost to be there, then your not serving your customers, and your railroad will fail. As CEO, Kay Bailey Hutchingson, she has been in pubic service for a while, knows how to make public projects work, and is serious about balancing a budget.
C: Both, but run as seperate services. Trans continintal to connect both coasts, east and west,with a northern, mid states, and southern route, and north and south routes, Canada to Mexico, say from the NY area to Miami, Chicago to Brownsville, and a Coaster up the west side, San Deigo to say, Spokane, or into Canada.
Local services, like the northeast corridor, maby a triangle between Houston, New Orleans, Austin, those service would have to be worked ot depending on what the local population would want.
D: Of course its high on the wish list, just read the postings all over this forum. But the service isn’t to compete with ai

3

OK. I’ll take a crack.

Fact #1. Frt RRs need add’l capcy in the future and can’t afford it.

Fact #2 Highways and Airports are nearing capcy in spots and additional investment is HUGE bucks.

Fact #3 The country has grown over the past 50 years such that it has many, closely spaced, large population centers, much like Europe, east of the Mississippi.

Fact #4 Fed bucks for transportation improvements are limited.

Solution:

Most cost effective way to add intercity transportation capacity is by adding trackage and improving to existing rail routes.

Play “connect the dots” with large cities east of the Mississipi (plus Texas & Missouri). This relieves pressure on airports and highways in these cities, reducing need to expand roads and airports (which ALWAYS gather a big crowd of NIMBYS)

Passenger svc on these routes could be int he 90-110 range without huge investment (SEHSR project is good example). Most existing rail allignments won’t support more speed than this, even with tilting trains. Realligned/new ROW is HUGE $$. Generally, maintain one track for passenger and one for freight and operate as single double track route for meets/passes.

Lay the groundwork for a network now while commuter rail and other transit projects plow the ground for successful intercity rail. Intercity rail is generally successful when there is a good local feeder system. Lots of new transit projects underway or in planning stage.

Frt RRs would benefit from reliability and capacity that comes with double track plus chance to market and operate higher speed freight service (something that could compete with team drivers, for example.) States and Feds save on highway and airport construction.

Long distance overnight trains would generally operate only where they connect many cities in the network. Trains to and from the west will likely remain status quo. Might do better if they pandered to t

4

The market will decide.If sufficient profit levels are attainable, then some entity,private or public,will make it happen.Not unlike everything else,offer a product/service that people want.

5

…Forget the profit. That is just not going to happen. Anywhere. Must treat it as a service and there are lots of people in this country especially in these metropolitan areas that will take advantage of it.

QM

6

It’s rather simple:Provide a competitive product/service at a competitive price, and they will come.

7

I’ll take a shot Ed.

A: First, we would need a part of the federal gas tax, maybe a penny or so,on all fuels for transportation. Also, any city that was served, would have to have some kind of sin tax. This would be from liquor, beer, or cigarettes. Possibly a part of the tax on hotel/motel rooms. This would help support station expenses.
Second, tax breaks. How this would be done I’m not clear on. Some relief on property, equipment, etc.
Third: I know you didn’t ask, but by using existing ROW, not rails, just the property, you will tend to cut your nimby’s down. Its already in their backyard. When existing property is used for your new system, give a break to the existing RR. Possibly in the form of property tax relief. Of course there will be places where property will have to be bought. Trying to buy next to existing freight, route would be best.
There would have to be a tax break for frieght railroads. You would want there backing for this plan. If they get breaks, they might be able to add capacity to existing rails.

B: Mr.Haverty, would be my choice.

C: There should be a transcontienal route, where speeds could be in the 190 - 220 mph. range. We have already achieved that. Keep it outside the major metro areas. Provide feeder service to the main route(s). This could be in the range of 140-160 mph.
Example: Transcon. east-west main thru, say Illinois, would make a stop in Springfield. Feeders would come from St.Louis, and Chicago, and all stops in between. This same main, stopping north of Columbus, Oh. Feeders from Louisville, Cincinnati, & Columbus, from the south. Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, etc. from the north. Let your feeder trains deal with the conjestion. Keep your transcon. route free from this. Your feeder service would also provide local service, between cities. This line would be a dedicated route for our trains.

D: Highways are crowded, airports are jammed. Provide a service that would take

8

All passenger transport in the Western world loses money and gets some direct or indirect subsidy. Apparently, that’s the way we like it or public policy would be different. Transport is often viewed as a catalyst for economic growth, so is worth some subsidy.

The question is how much and where the subsidy goes. What achieves the social and economic goals regarding transport and how do we get the most bang for the buck? The cost vs. value decision the users make only comes into play after the subsidies are applied because they directly impact the cost.

9

just a few ideas that I have not heard of before.

  1. Any line or track that carried passengers in a convenient and necessary manner would be tax exempt.
  2. attachment of commuter style coaches to “hot shot” transconental trains might help too.
  3. requirement of all postal transportation to be by passenger train where availible.
    three for a start.

Doug in Utah

10

Nine trillion dollars? The latest statistics I can find on the internet, FY2002, is the $9 million per mile of double track high speed rail (186 mph), if electrified add $3 million per mile. Tops $12 million per mile… Nine trillion will build 750,000 miles of high speed track…Way too much track…

The most miles I have heard we need to build high speed rail tracks is around 20,000 miles (and I think this figure is too high), which comes to $240 billion… No where near $9 trillion…

I am of the opinion we can build high speed rail tracks from New York City, Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, and to Chicago, using my Rand McNally Road Atlas, is 1127 miles. Chicago, Milwaukee, to Minneapolis is 470 miles. Chicago, St.Louis, Kansas City, Tulsa, Okla.City, Dallas to Houston is 1362 miles. Dallas, San Antonio to Houston is 475 miles. Houston, New Orleans, Birmingham to Atlanta is 782 mile., Atlanta, Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, and Orlando to Tampa is 830 miles. Atlanta, Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, Richmond to DC is 669 miles. Kansas City to Denver is 612 miles. New Orleans, Mobile, Tallahassee to Orlando is 649 miles. Buffalo to Toronto is 105 miles. Albany to Montreal is 226 mile. Oakland, Sacramento, Fresno, Los Angeles to San Diego is 598 miles. Los Angeles to Phoenix is 367 miles. Portland, Seattle to Vancouver is 426 miles. San Antonio, Laredo to Monterrey is 291 miles. DC to Cleveland is 407 miles. Chicago, Indy, Louisville, Nashville to Atlanta is 718 miles.

This wonderful track network of high speed rail in the West, Midwest, and East coast areas connecting every city with a metropolitan population of over 2 million is 21,005 miles… or $252 billion…that is for electrified double high speed track, For something less, such as a 150 mph using Jet Train technology of double high speed rail without electrification, the 21,005 miles would cost $189 billion. We can build more lines or we could build fewer lines, I am sure everyone has an opinion where

11

I think you have it about right! (You probably need to add something parallel to I-75, I-65 and I-95 and maybe I-40 as far west as the Missisippi, too. New Orleans to Jax is probably a waste of time. KC to Dallas, too) To do all that in 7 years within the framework of Fed. regulations and hoops to jump through would be quite a feat. It takes years just to do the environmental and alternatives studies before you can get to any of the real engineering…

I’d start by adding track to existing routes, use JetTrain or even conventional diesel to 110 mph then let incremental improvements (electification, curve reallignment, etc.) pay their own way. We’d have a better idea of the yield in ridership for these increments if it was done this way. Also, would get buy-in from and ancillary benefits for frt RRs this way.

-Don

12

The only problem is that none of the commuter railroads, much less local bus systems, fund 50% of their operations. Why do you expect inter city trains to do the same? EVERY FORM OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS SUBSIDIZED!

13

Only essential short hauk to medium distance services, or those which show a high ridership, should be funded. That lets out the long distance overnight trains such as the Capitol Limited or the Empire Builder. The federal government would fund up to 25% of the shortfall between revenues and the cost of providing the service. Up to another 25% of the funding would be split between the states through which the trains pass. The train operator would be required to collect a minimum of 50% of a train’s operting cost through ticket sales. Passengers would be charged a tax on one-way and round trip tickets (but not commuter tickets) to provide a trust fund for updating and maintenance of the equipment.

14

I like it…
More ideas coming?
Ed

15

I am against using the private railroad companies track. I want brand new fast passenger only track with trains going at least 150 mph (Jet train) or better such as 186 mph, TGV/ICE trains). What is the sense of placing a fast passenger train on tracks of the freight companies whose trains only go 80 mph? We’ll end up slowing the fast passenger trains to 80 mph! Not to mention the dispatching nightmares (safety).

You must admit my plan is pretty fluid, connecting to metropolitan areas of 5 million, then 2 million, but alas, like you say my 21,000 mile plan could be improved to 24,000 miles (using your suggestions).

The funds are already there in the budget. All we have to do is put a moratorium on federal highway and airport speding for 6-7 years, and viola, we would have a modern passenger railroad the envy of the world. The moratorium would be painful, but when the public sees what has been built, the moratorium would be forgiven. When this modern railway is built, we wouldn’t need to spend so much on highways and airports…after the moratorium…

As far as conventional diesel, I am sick of traveling at less than 30 mph on slow tracks nationwide, here and there, when the same cars I am riding on travel at the speed of over 100 mph in some of the areas of New York’s Empire corridor…

Yes, the cost of new right of way could be reduced by just building the new tracks alongside interstates. In urban areas, when the right of way gets tight, we can always build above using bridges. Of course, any high speed system would require a large reduction in stops, we should only serve the larger cities depending upon the routes. At the very least, we should be able to build new track up to a mile within the stations and depots we will stop at, only having to use the private tracks for very short distances.

Well, that is my opinion.

16

I think you vastly overestimate the problems of dispatching a double track RR with mixed traffic and underestimate the capacity of double track. Most of the routes you mentioned as candidates (outside of the northeast) are single track. Going to double track more than doubles capacity (much more!). Train delays go way down, too, making the movement of traffic more predictable. Much existing RR ROW is single that once was double, so cost for adding 2nd track back is cheap. Much ROW has 2 deg curvature (max) so, getting 100+ mph is doable (with tilt and 6" superelevation). Remember, the difference over a 100 miles for 150 mph vs 120 mph is only 10 minutes (and in reality, a lot less, given acceleration and deceleration, station stops, etc.)

Your costs for building were in line with NEC project from NH to Boston. New ROW would be much more expensive. (like x10? Just doing a 60 mile commuter line in Atlanta - adding 2nd track along existing CSX route for 30 miles, 79 mph plus a half dozen train sets - will cost $6M/mile) Securing ROW and grading are not chicken feed. Also, don’t forget the cost of adding highway access to suburban stations for the new high speed routes. Outside of the NE where there is good commuter feeder systems and mass transit, this is where most of the ridership will be getting on and off. Nobody in Atlanta or Nashville would even consider driving downtown to catch an intercity train. The idea of taking a train anywhere is absurd to most people who live outsid the NE or Calif. It will take culture change to change the thinking.

Also, most highway money these days is maintenance, particularly of all those 50 year old bridges - safely issues. Most new construction is for HOV lanes in urban areas needed to comply with EPA clean air plans. I don’t think there is much new construction money that can be saved. Not that much to be saved in airport construction either. Don’t think there are any new big ones on the drawing board.

The Empire Corrid

17

I am using current Florida numbers! In fact, Florida put in a 25% fudge factor into their plans. Four companies have bid, and all of them have put in a smaller bid than Florida had planned. I shall stick with $9 million per mile for Jet Train 150 mph unelectrified track. Of course, Florida is planning to build track alongside existing track (CSX wants a 25 feet buffer but this is not really necessary), and alongside already existing highways (whether in the median or outside, the property has already been bought).

Connecting the largest cities with metropolitan populations of 5 million, and then finishing the the network to cities with metropolitan areas of over 1 million would only be around 25,000 miles of new track, NATIONWIDE! The fifty states add that many miles of new highways every ten years NATIONWIDE! The money is there, it is only a matter of priority. I like the sound of the word moratorium, we would not miss highway and airport construction much until this high speed rail network is built. Then we wouldn’t need to build so many new highways. Priorities indeed.

However, I will agree with you that most of America is not familiar riding trains anymore. But I have a feeling they will get used to riding fast trains, when their cars doors are blown off by a high speed train alongside the interstate.

If you recheck the federal highway spending, it is spent building new highways, or rebuilding old highways. Federal dollars do not go to repaving projects…

As for airports, most of the fedeal money goes to rebuild runways, reconfigure runways, and build new terminals and parking garages. Yes, no new airports are on the drawing boards, but every major airport has plans for new terminals and parking garages, the key word is major. O’Hare airport alone wants to spend up to $7 billion…

Yes, we could achieve speeds of 100 mph for much less, but in reality most of America thought the trains went that fast already. They used too…

18

From what I have noticed riding Amtrak’s transcontinentals, is the lack of a bar. While Amtrak does sell alcohol in its Sightseeing Lounge car cafe, the vast majority take the drinks against the rules into the Smoking room of the first coach car. Amtrak would be better off having a bar car, where smoking and drinking is allowed…

19
  1. Tax exempt: Real estate? Income? Sales? All of the above? Would the private carriers get the benefit?
  2. Two words: Slack Action
    Let any railroader tell how much fun a coboose ride could be. Ouch.
  3. Not bad. I wonder how much travels via trian now.

Tom
Lemont, IL

20

A. Since no passenger rail system in the world makes money, it would at least have to be a public-private partnership. However, the private companies are understandably skeptical when they hear “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” The government-only solution has been tried for the last 30 years. Has that been a success? I guess the fact that the passenger trains still run could be viewed as a modicum of success. Is that enough?
B. I think the current railroad CEO’s should be in charge of this public-private partnership, with some oversight (Jeez - it sounds like pre-1971!). The trains should return to their image-making status, giving the public a connection to the railroad companies. If the trains run poorly, then it would reflect on their corporate image. The losses would be subsidized to a certain extent, but the trains would be both an advertising tool and a provider of service.
C. These are not to be commuter trains. Local transit issues should best be handled on a local level. The trains in this partnership would be long distance trains by nature, with the levels of additional service left to the railroads to decide. The long distance trains would still stop in smaller towns across the country.
D. The passenger train is needed in small towns where there is limited access to airports and in high population areas. The balancing act will be to provide both types of service. More service would naturally be available in the high population areas. For example, it’s a bit silly to have only one trip per day on the Chicago-Minneapolis route.
E. Service is needed most in populated areas that can provide the ridership to justify the operation of the trains.

So split the fleet, return what the rr’s paid to join Amtrak in the first place (with interest), help address capacity issues with redirection of highway funds, and give the trains back to the companies who ran them before the Amtrak experiment. Levels of service would be mandated to a degree and partially subsidize