passenger trains-- why you'll never see it done..

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

you’ve seen reality tv–
here’s reality r.r, for pass. trains…

there will never be a nation-wide agreed-upon plan for service because (some explanations have been posted earlier, under “train”):

americans have an individualistic mentality… everyone wants to go their way, on their schedule–cars and buses are flexible and cheaper…

pass. trains have acquired an atmosphere of unkempt, ill-equipped, cars; bumpy rides, ambient noise, amenities (private compartments, dining service, etc.) promised but either withdrawn from the run or simply not available today… uscheduled stops for broken equipment or mainline conflicts also figure…

the expense of adding additonal trackage for high-speed mainlines is prohibitive… other countries have consistent plans within their borders for commingling freight & pass. service on 1 track, or separating them… here, there are many railroads and an infinite number of political divisions and authorities who have (or want) a stake in the availability / scheduling of service, and they will lobby and whatever to place the tracks in their bailiwick…

the individuality of the car and the price of gas are compelling motivators in the behavior of americans… cheap gas draws ridership from rail trans. (transit and cross-country)… exp. gas loads trains to the max; then everyone wants to know why the r.r. doesn’t put on more cars… maybe it’s because the price of gas can deflate as well as inflate, and where will the riders be when regular drops 20-30cts. a gallon?

local transit, although non-profit, is a viable means of moving people where the population is great and the tradition well-established… the systems cross fewer political boundaries and are embraced by the locals whose ridership may date back generations…

there will never be pass. service in this country worth bragging about because the will of the citizens is not there to have it… other countries have homogenuous populations: the p

2

What nonsense! A high speed train averaging 150 mph using current technology, not some pipe dream of the future, can be successful from Chicago to New York City, from Chicago to Dallas and Houston, from Dallas and Houston to Atlanta, from Atlanta to Orlando and Miami, and from Washinton DC (New York City or Boston) to Atlanta and on down to Miami, not to mention from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

I might say so successful, that the airlines would not like the competition… But, so few fly anyway, most drive the long distances, because they cannot afford to fly. And there isn’t any doubt in my mind, nor anyone else’s, that ridiing a fast train is preferrable to driving the distance…

Why do you think fast trains are so popular in Europe?

3

…Your note sure implies you are convinced that rail travel is finished in this country. I’m convinced that is your true belief on the subject. But I’m also convinced that that is not everyones attitude of the outcome. I personally don’t have the answers and don’t claim to have but I’m sure many folks can put up an agrument for some kind of rail travel service in this country. We may be coming close to finding out just what direction it is going to move…With this round of financing for the current setup of Amtrak under discussion now it seems were coming to the point of go or no go…I am one who wants G M Gunn to shut down the total system if he doesn’t have the proper funding to manage and run the system in a proper way…not just end up running the N E C for those folks to move about and the rest of us paying for it…

QM

4

Hey Cab,
I agree, and disagree with some of your points.
As for Americans being individules, sure. But oddly, every morning around 6:30, all these individules seem to crowd themselves onto the same interstates and freeways at the same time going in the same direction for the same purpose.

Sure, the horse and buggy are “gone”, as is the pot bellied stove, 8-track players and lp records. Because they were inefficent, technology
replaced them with the CD, super efficent gas heating, and the automobile.

But technology has a habit of outpacing the need or demand for it, and, on occasion, being outpaced itself by that very need or demand.
Take your computer, the very one you typed this posting on. By the time you figured out how to plug it all in, and boot it up so you could use it, it was already obsolete. Every year or so, the wiz kids come up with a smaller, better processor, you get the picture. But remember the wristwatch that had a lcd display, and a little caculator built into it? Its gone. Know why? Because, even though it was a great piece of technology, it was too small for most people to use. I know, I still have one. Great, but useless.
At some point in in the timeline, the ability of technology to provide better services and goods hits a balanced point with the demand and wants of the user. If technology goes beyond that point, users reject it, because they have no need for the product. Its possible to take every component of your computer and downsize it to the shape and size of a cigar box, do away with your keyboard, replace the monitor with a flatscreen, and fit all of this into the top of a small desk/workstation. But why would you want too?
For most of us, the configuration of the current generation of computers is just right, its user friendly.

Now take the interstate, and most local freeways and highways. I am old enought to remember when they finished the section of I45 from Houston to Galveston. It was great, you could d

5

thanks, ed, for supporting 2 of my points: transit works where the people are; cross-country rail is out… anything beyond commuter rail is on life-support…

about the cowboys riding the rails, is that also transit? how do you spell failure? a-m-t-r-a-k…

about the europeans, they had learned compliance with govt. edicts long before columbus applied for an urban dev. grant… they use transit because their ancestors used it; it’s cheap, reliable and convenient… only since wwii did it become crowded as we know it today…

i have no problem with cities acquiring transit, as long as nobody attempts to sneak “profit” in the same sentence…

long-distance rail would be a good thing, if “commitment” follows right behind it, which it wont…

eventually, commuter rail will be a well-established concept and amtrak will end up on the rip track… and more’s the pity, as news reports say the airlines may face further bankruptcies if war with iraq comes and it lasts one day too long… we will need the rails desperately, but if wall st. believes airlines will return shortly after a war, rail enterprise cannot survive…

why is the super chief like a cigar-store indian? because both are standing still.

6

Did I mention that DART is owned and operated by trinity rail services, in conjunction with the Fort Worth transit authority and it made a profit last year, and is projected to do so again this year?
Stay Frosty,
Ed

7

I have ridden trains around Europe and America. I have to ask you a question, Do you live in a big metropolitan area or in a rural area?

In Europe they built turnpikes between and around their cities, they did not build free interstates (freeways) servicing their downtown and industrial areas. In major metropolitan areas of Europe, commuter light rail and subways were built to service their downtown and industrial areas. The small size of their streets in older areas were built for horses and buggies, not the automobile. Therefore, in Europe the choice of the automobile is an expensive choice, it is cheaper to ride city buses and trains.
And what a network of trains they have built, even their airports were located and serviced by their commuter light rail trains and now by the new fast modern cross country trains.

In my opinion America made a mistake building free controlled access interstates cross country and in the major cities. We would be better off with turnpikes. Instead of building the urban freeways, a long time ago we should have copied the Europeans in building commuter light rail networks instead. A long list of cities in America are beginning to appreciate commuter light rail systems, mainly because of the high costs of forever expanding freeways. Notice that the freeways do not make money either.

Yet, while ridership of trains are higher in Europe, they have to because the roads and highways and turnpikes won’t support more traffic. And when it comes to choose to build either another light rail line or a high speed cross country line, the people and legislators of Europe will probably choose the cheaper rail line instead of another turnpike. Yes, it is cheaper to build rail than it is to build a four lane freeway…

It has nothing to do with class, it has nothing to do with culture, it has everything to do with ecomonics!

8

I posted not to long ago the metropolitan population figures for rail lines I proposed between and including the northeast corridor to the midwest, the midwest to Texas, Texas to Florida, Florida to the northeast corridor, and a corridor in California (that is to cities with a metropolitan population of over 5 million). Less than 5,000 miles of new high speed track averagine some (using Florida figures for the whole ball of wax) $12 million a mile is less than $60 billion… which is about 2 years of federal highway spending. The population figures of the metropolitan areas and small cities and small towns came up to an unbelievable 180 million of our 280 million total… Add more rail lines to metropolitan areas of over 2 million not included before, another 2,000 miles of track, and the population figures to 230 million of our 280 million total… Add more rail lines to metropolitan areas of 500,000, another 2,000 miles of track, and the population figures add up to 250 million of our 280 million.

None of these rail lines crossed the Rockies and the Sierra Nevadas/Cascade mountain regions.

While I support Amtrak, I think Amtrak mission should change. I am for eliminating the transcontinentals, but I am for a national passenger railroad service! A new modern high speed one…with more frequency at stops, and being able to travel from say Texas to New York in less than a day, probably around 12-15 hours…

Yes, a train cannot compete with the airlines long distance. But a train can compete with the automobile long distance.
We already know a train can compete with the airlines and automobile short distances (of less than 500 miles). But I am of the opinion a train can beat the car for longer distances, even up to the trip from Dallas to New York City…

9

Yes, a train cannot compete with the airlines long distances. But a train can compete with the cars long distances. We already know a train can compete with the airlines and cars short distances.

I am of the opinion that high speed trains averaging 150 mph can compete with the cars. We are tired of driving in gridlock long and short distances. No one looks forward to driving from Dallas to Chicago. The road trip is not what it once was…everytime one closes in to a major metropolitan area, there is gridlock…

While I might agree that Amtrak needs to rethink its business, I will support a new high speed Amtrak… And as I have posted before, the freeways do not make money for the federal government either.

10

i’m sorry my post appeared so uncertain–let me say it plainly–intercity-passenger service is finished in this country… nobody cares about train travel–should i say not enough people care?
there are too man plans and not enough gold in fort knox to support a consistent approach to passenger trains from maine to cal…

11

you say the hiways are filling up in europe and rail is the solution, i agree… when did the hiways start to fill up? was it the fifties, sixties or when? maybe when industrialization and technology became significant in society, post-war? well, the european culture pre-dates everything except the discovery of fire… the culture of the subservient serf under the lord came right after… for a millenium, citizens operated under the premise that the lord, king, duke, whatever gave orders and the serfs obeyed them, no voting, no referendum…

mass transit became practicable in the 20th cent. of course, it had to be low-priced, reliable, etc. to encourage ridership… it was totally state-subsidized, and the govt. did not build wide roads for horseless-carriages, ergo the people rode trams everywhere… this was long before the price of gas became a headline in the daily press… i wouldn’t attempt to write a course on the subject, but what i have described was definitely culture-driven… economics entered the picture in the '50s when cars became widely available and a status symbol… cars were promoted across international borders and colors and chrome were sale-makers… economies do not flourish well under non-democratic govts. many govts. in europe pre-wwii were not democratic… post-war was different, and business was free to expand, liberating people to have families, which enlarged cities and mandated planning the usefulness of a rail line, instead of merely laying track where the king wanted it… that’s economics!!

12

it certainly is impressive that a commuter line is profitable, it’s a first for me… some caveats;

have the books been audited for analysis of the source of the profits, and darts overall management?

is dart a subsidiary of the trinity corp? what assistance did dart receive from ‘daddy’ to maintain its black ink status? did trinity service portions of dart’s debt for ‘x’ no.of years, or until dart showed a profit?

what acquisitions and spin-offs has dart executed that impact its profit picture? sometimes utilities acquire land for $1 from a seller, then sell it years later at a profit to a developer… stock that sold at $1/***hur, sells @ $2/***oday… the value of the stock has increased 100%… it sounds good on paper, but, like paul harvey says, what’s the rest of the story?

13

Economics is exactly why the DOT of Texas is adopting the Trans Texas Corridors. I suggest you read about it at their web site. The state of Texas cannot afford to spend $6 billion to build I-69 from the Valley area thru Houston to the Shreveport area without the support of the feds putting in 90 percent.

Yet, that same $6 billion could build a Texas triangle of high speed rail from the DFW area to Houston to the Austin/San Antonio area. IF ONLY THE FEDS WOULD PUT IN 90% TO BUILD HIGH SPEED RAIL.

Here is a graph of how people prefer to ride the train instead of flying distances up to 400 miles.

http:// homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/400mileairrailratios.gif

I am of the opinion the distances can be increased further. People prefer riding fast trains than to drive or fly, even up to 800 miles…

14

Economics is exactly why the DOT of Texas is adopting the Trans Texas Corridors. I suggest you read about it at their web site. The state of Texas cannot afford to spend $6 billion to build I-69 from the Valley area thru Houston to the Shreveport area without the support of the feds putting in 90 percent.

Yet, that same $6 billion could build a Texas triangle of high speed rail from the DFW area to Houston to the Austin/San Antonio area. IF ONLY THE FEDS WOULD PUT IN 90% TO BUILD HIGH SPEED RAIL.

Here is a graph of how people prefer to ride the train instead of flying distances up to 400 miles.

http:// homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/400mileairrailratios.gif

I am of the opinion the distances can be increased further. People prefer riding fast trains than to drive or fly, even up to 800 miles…

15

…Many folks will not agree with your foregone conclusion that “intercity passenger service is finished in this country”. That point we can state here back and forth until the cows come home but the conclusion is not complete yet. I agree that coast to coast travel via passenger train is not the most efficient way for us to use our money but to consider routes between metro. populations in moderate distances along with updating technology can be part of our transportation system. Grid lock on interstates is not going to be relieved in the near future the way it is being handled now.

QM

16

One item left out in the analysis of europe are the very restrictive land use policies of most countries. It is simply not possible to go out ten miles from a city and build a 1,000 lot subdivision with out road access more then an old two lane- more coherent transportation policy will come from more coherent land use policies- on the flip side, that is what our ancestors were trying to get away from when they came here, wasn’t it.

17

from-- cabforward–

i’ve read a lot of ‘could’ve, would’ve should’ve’ in this discussion, but not one word of ‘we did’… one guy says americans would ride a train under x-hundred mi; another guy says tx is going to do this; another guy says we’d do this, but for the feds.; another guy says europeans came for blah-blah-blah… well, so what?

if americans would rather ride a train instead of a car, WHY DONT THEY?
if texans are so great at highways and rail lines, WHERE ARE THEY [rail lines]?

i dont care why europe moved here; the point is they have great rail service, they always did, and always will, because the govt. is COMMITTED TO THE CONCEPT; because the govt. OWNS THE TRAINS AND TRACKS; because there are NO COMPANIES SHY ABOUT COOPERATING; because the citizens provide a GUARANTEED RIDERSHIP and their descendants will CONTINUE THE TRADITION… nothing in this paragraph applies to the u.s. situation and never will…

i so enjoy repeating myself, so i will say again, i believe commuter rail is a workable concept where the traffic and resources are located (except for a profit motive); anything beyond commuter rail will not survive on amtrak or any system after that… why? read the previous paragraph; the american attitude and govt. lack everything stated there…

people say’ i believe we can do this’, ‘rail service can succeed if…’ beliefs, hope, and optimism dont hand up the money, lay track, plan routes, supply rolling stock or schedule runs… look at the way it is now; do you honestly believe it’s going to improve because amtrak gets funded for x more years or because a new bureaucrat
takes charge? really?

it’s been said,amtrak didn’t work, we need a new agency, new mission… yeah, right!!
and how long will it take to establi***his little operation-- will you see it before your retirement? o.k., we have this new train set and new ‘operator’, how long before this guy gets the ‘mission’ into the bloodstream of his 'elve

18

…Boy was that funny, stick around the game’s not over. I have to get ready to head out to church to do more prayers.

QM

19

Nevery said gonna, I said Texas did. Dart is real, it is ridden every day. Houston is building light rail from Loop 610 to the downtown Medical Center. I agree, transcontinental rail has to be done under federal control and financeing. Any serious city to city rail service has to have state dollars.
I dont agree with your premise that Americans dont want passenger rail, If they didnt, Amtrak would have gone away 20 years ago. Did you go to the TDOT website and read the info, or did you just condem it out of hand? If you did read it you would realize it isnt a pipe dream, it is receiving serious consideration in the state legislature, it isnt some computer nerds version of train simulator. Pessimism is a flavor I dont like with my morning coffee, and as a german jew, I dont think Saint Jude is gonna do much for me. The Astrodome was “impossible”, so was the Alamo. But both exsist, both did just what they were meant to do. If you just dislike the concept, or just want to be one of thoses folks who follow the herd, and am placing yourself 1st in line to say I told you so, well, its duly note. You were the first person here to say “it cant be done” Feel better about yourself? Hope so, cause I am betting that at some point in the near future, you will be having a little slice of crow pie…
Stay Frosty,
Ed

20

hey, mr. ed–

here’s a headline: the alamo had local support, so did the astrodome… train travel? where are the passengers, why aren’t the trains adding more coaches every month? why is amtrak fighting tooth and nail for every dime? if the people support train travel, where is the tide of letters & phone calls to congress demanding passage of money bills to support amtrak?

as for reading the fine print of the agreements supporting this or that rail project, no, i haven’t and couldn’t care less… will rogers said all i know is what i read in the papers… well, if it worked for him, its fine with me… the papers say amtrak is in trouble–does trains mag. dispute that? as for the tdot, couldnt care less what they say or what people say in support of it… my point is argued in general terms, not specific examples… i wouldn’t have the time or inclination to survey what is being done where… i can read about it, in your posts…

i never said a single bad word about dart… i have complimented commuter rail in every post…

as for eating crow, you’ll never know because you’ll be begging for amtrak to have just one more chance, just 1 more billion $$, if you live to be 100… even if pass. trains get their death notice, you’ll be saying, we’ll be back, just wait 'til next year…

none are so blind as those who will not see…

you dont care for pessimism with your coffee? i dont care for tall stories about what people hope will happen or what people believe should happen… that pie-in-the-sky flavor really bothers me… i would also say that comments about how other opinions distress you are out-of-line… this forum is for people of all stripes and persuasions… if this topic bothers you so much, why have you returned so often? maybe you’re trying to give up coffee?

parading your heritage and religious affiliation is grossly bad taste… it is insulting to read those views which have no bearing on my original post… my post has no referen