Robert Orr, an architect and planner, writes about current rail transportation. He points out that with conventional equipment the running time from New York to Chicago could be half of its present 19 hours and that would make it competitive with flying when all of the extra time consuming aspects are considered. He also suggests ripping up a lot of track was a big mistake and it should be replaced; however, replacement would cost a lot less than high speed rail plans.
You may read his article in the Hartford Courant here:
When you see what both the PRR’s Broadway and NYC’s Century did between those two points, then you can undersand what he is saying. While not half the 19 hour time, definitely it was done somewhere around 16 hours which is certainly stepping right along. But managment, track owners, and passenger train operators have to want to do it with the same interest and spirit as was done back then. Of course, each stop added will slow the train’s overall schedule. But if you did a local NY to Albany, another Albany to Syracuse, Syracuse to Buffalo, Buffalo to Cleveland and Cleveland to Chicago with a single train restricted or “limited” to those points as only stops, then it might be marketable. It would also have to be consitistanty reliable so that it will be acceptable. I’ve always had problem with so called high speed rail because I have also believed the so called slow speed rail was never operated to its full potential. I also, knowing what has been achieved in the past, what is achievable with contemporary equipment and roadway, would also define slow speed as 75 to 125 mph with real high speed not considered until 150 or more mph. Since freight railroad companies control the track and the rights of ways in, what, more than 90% of the country outside of commuter districts, the likely hood of the relaying of track or improvement of track or dedicating track to passenger standards as this are probably very improbable especially in the near future. But, yes, the full potential of trains, tracks, and schedules, from the last half of the 20th Century was never realized because we got speed happy with jet planes and comfortable behind the wheel of our personal vehicle.
You’re absolutely right, Henry. The 20th Century Limited stopped only at Harmon and Albany and then went straight through to Chicago at 60 mph. Conventional Amtrak equipment could run faster than that if the track were clear.
To cover the 959 miles in 9.5 hrs. the train would have to average 101 mph. Over that distance, with 4 intermediate stops, slower areas and the approaches to CHI and NYC, the train would probably need to go at 150+ much of the time to cover in 9.5 hours, which would require HSR. Anyone of the many non-stop flights take 2 hours, 5 minutes. Allowing an hour transit time at each end from the Loop to ORD, an hour for security and one hour LAG to Midtown, you have a total of about five hours, along with the convenience of numerous flights and save four hours. By flying early and returning late, a businessman can avoid an overnight and be able to return to his/her office the next day, while the train would require at least two days, probably three. Also, to have the necessary HSR, you would need separate, dedicated track over much of the route. Call me a wet blanket, but that does not sound like a service that would attract enough riders to be worth the enormous investment. 960 miles is about twice the longest feasible distance for intercity rail travel that is competitive.
Not disagreeing with anything you (and Henry) have stated, I would like to point out 2 things:
While 9.5 hours is more than a bit aggressive for conventional/low speed/slow speed rail, it certainly should be possible to do much better than today’s speeds. Nearly 75 years ago, the 20th Century and Broadway Limited were doing NY - Chicago in 16 hours (and down to 15:30 - 15:45 by the '50’s). With all of the improvements in the past 75 years (welded rail, better locomotives, etc.), if there was the will to do so (as Henry points out) … ?
Of the 5 hours for the trip be plane, how many of those hours are truly productive? You can’t do much productive work on the way to or from the airport, waiting in the various lines, or on most of the flight. You don’t get a meal, so you shouls add that time to the total air trip. So, you lose maybe 3-4 hours of productive time on that trip.
A well-equipped train, with services and facilities catering to the business traveler, nearly all of the time could be productive.
According to the August 1938 schedule for the 20th Century Limited, as shown at Streamliner Schedules, the Century stopped at Harmon, Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo to receive passengers; it stopped at Englewood to discharge passengers. Eastbound it stopped at Englewood and Toledo to receive passengers, and discharged them at Albany and Harmon.
The 1956 Century stopped at Harmon and Albany to receive passengers. It discharged them at Englewood. Eastbound it stopped at Englewood to pick-up passengers, and it stopped at Harmon to discharge them.
According to the April 1967 schedule, the 20th Century Limited stopped at Croton-Harmon, Albany, and Syracuse to receive passengers. It also had coordinated flag stops at Toledo, Elkhart, South Bend, Gary, and Englewood to receive and discharge passengers. By 1967 the train carried coaches and a sleeper coach.
In 1938 and 1956 the train would have made four or five stops between Albany and Englewood to change crews. It would have made the same number of crew changes in 1967, I believe. Whether any of them were co-functional with the passenger stops is unknown, although I presume some of them were.
Serious business people are not going to spend nine or ten hours on a train to get from A to B when they can fly there in a couple of hours. Like it or not, the long distance train is dead, although Amtrak, which is driven by politics, cannot admit it. The best outcome for the U.S. is moderate speed, affordable trains over relatively short distances in high density corridors.
Even if those “nine or ten hours on a train” gives them 9 or 10 productive hours that day, while the “couple of hours” on, and getting on and off of, a plane, only gives them 4 or 5 or 6 productive hours during the same period? At least for some?
So, we’re talking about a huge investment to get us roughly what we already have? What’s the point of doing it?
About the only way to justify it would be if NY - Chicago was capacity constrained and the rail option was cheaper to build out than airport expansion. But, if that was true, it might be cheaper to relieve airport congestion at Chicago and NY by building out other shorter haul routes.
Agreed, a frequent NY - Chhicago 10-hour service could not make it on NY-Chicago passsengers alone. But with 125 mph top speed, good maintenance and good timekeeping, and service leaving NY and Chicago every two hours from 6AM to 2 pm running through, with 4, 6, and 6 pm departures from both ends running to Buffalo only, and 6, 8, and 10 AM departures in both directions from Buffalo, the corridor could be viable, not because of NY - Chicago business alone, but because of reliable short corridor service between the stations in between, such as Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, and the points on the current Empire service. Whether or not an overnight train with sleeper service would continue to be operated or not would depend on the overall economics. With the day train schedule in place, an experiment might be tried with a sleeper leaving on the 6pm to Buffalo, then attached to the 6AM departure from Buffalo to Chicago, giving an 17 hour trip with 6.5 hours spent sitting in Buffalo, and the reverse. It would represent an upgraded, extended, and near state of the art expansion of the present Empire Service between NY and Buffalo, where a majority of riders are not end-to-end.
I would bet a majority of the existing Lake Shore’s riders are not end-to-end today!
Dave has an excellent point. It is easy to talk NY-Chicago as a non stop service…in the air. But it need not be on the ground. People in intermediate towns have to get somewhere, too, and need to be served. My concept of local districtes and a “main line” train servicing ony the end points of each district is much like what railroad used think, commuter services in this country often do, and European rail services strive for. It does take transets and people. Trainsets are equipment investments, real tangable assets, banks and bottom liners understand and embrace. People are a waste of money, labor, no tangable value, detracts from the bottom line, and therefore the cost that elminiates American business acumen from dealing with rail passenger service…service, not running trains.
Another interesting point from Don…the intermediate stops. The situtation in the east right now is such that many smaller city airports are having to cut back in size and service if not existance. Scranton-Wilkes Barre for instance is talking actually talking of closing and scores of others play host to only smaller commuter aircraft. With that people who fly in these cigar like tubes don’t feel comfortable nor look upon it as a service. A well planned and operated rail service/schedule with amenties could actually provide a usable and desired service in place of major airline full bodied plane services. It is why we need a coordinated, integrated, rationalized, inermodal transportatin policy in this country. Not a federally operated system, but a system of service and services overseen by some authority or enterprise or cooperative entity.
The number of business people who would spend up to 10 hours on a train would be very small. Business today is far more competitive than when I started my business career with a Wall Street bank in 1964. Most business people have to fly, as well as use every communication tool available to them, if they want to beat the competition.
I fly commercially five or six times a year. It is not the hassle that some people portray. It seldom takes me more than 10 minutes to clear security. Moreover, being on an airplane does not mean that people cannot be productive. On most flights as soon as the bird is in the air, people wipp out their iPads, laptops, etc., Many of them are business people working.
When I worked in New York I frequently took overnight trains to my destination. I was unusual. But to say that I got a good night’s sleep would be a stretch. I realized eventually that I was better off flying to my destination and getting a good night’s sleep in a comfortable hotel bed.
Bottom liners (presumably you mean accountants and financial analysts) point out whether the users of a product or service pay for them. If they don’t someone else has to tote the note, i.e. taxpayers, other product line users, etc.
Bankers embrace investing in equipment only if they believe the buyer will be able to pay back the loan. Otherwise, no dice. Proponents of passenger rail, irrespective of location, are not able to get commercial loans because the bankers know that the users will not pay for it. This is why most projects are funded by governments or given a government guarantee.
I am not sure about the Lake Shore Limited, but approximately 10 per cent of the long distance train riders west of Chicago ride end point to end point. For the CZ, last time I looked, it was approximately five per cent.
If the market you describe between Chicago and New York existed, the CSX or a group of venture capitalists would step forward and take advantage of the opportunity. The hard fact is the market is not there, and it is not likely to be there in the near future.
I read this article. Amtrak made the ill conceived decision to remove two of the “typically” four tracks before selling selling “their” lines to the freight companies? Oh? The millions of “taxpayer” dollars it cost to remove the tacks. Oh?
Good points! Wanna relieve airport congestion? Use bigger airplanes.
The argument about airport congestion is a bit overblown. Those who make it are overlooking the development of NextGen, which will be a significant improvement over the current air traffic control system, as well as using larger airplanes.
A quick train makes sense in highly congestion corridors where it can outperform the airplane and the car. Philadelphia to New York or Washington comes to mind as does New Haven to New York.
Qantas uses B767s on many of its Melbourne to Sydney flights, which is a bit like connecting New York and Washington. In fact, they also use through B747s, i.e. LA to Melbourne and on to Sydney. Frequently, when flying from Melbourne to Sydney, I was booked on a 747.
IMHO Henry6 is n the right track and probably would expand these concepts in the future. A few additions.
each route that will have to be considered with different ridership metrics so will only post here the NYP - CHI as an example
The present mileage from NYP - CHI is listed as 959 miles but could change slightly with some track construction.
It is not the top high speed that speeds service but the elimination of slow order sections.
if acceleration, deccelation, and no terminal restriction a non stop at 150 MPH would take approximately 6;15. at 110 MPH it would take only 8;45.
this is only 2;30 more at 110 MPH.
Now with some slop this difference can be considered taking in station stops, acceleration times, throat times, maintenance , etc.
the intermediate passengers of course would experience even less difference in trip times.
I can see scheduled overnight trains NYP- CHI of 11;00 leaving CHI at 8;00 PM and NYP at 10;00 PM arriving at the other end at 0800 AM. This would be a perfect business person’s trip. The consist could be a mixture of sleepers, business class and lounge cars.
sales could be CHI - BUF / ALB / NYP and for those days demand is sufficient cars for those origination / destinations could be placed with occupancy at reasonable times.
crew costs for all trips would be dramatically reduced. with operating crews changed at buffalo 4 engineers ( 2 for the longer than possible 6 hr ) and 4 conductors / assistant conductors there wold be a great reduction there.
on board service crews would not require dorm space for the 11;00 CHI - NYP legs .
have not considered cleveland and toledo passengers.
this would only require 2 sets of equipment with long turn times at each terminal giving substitution to other trains a much easier time and keep equipment in better shape.
Bottom liners will see that it costs to have a trash receptical, for instance, so orders the getting rid of them and not ordering more; then they’'ll not allow the hiring of people to clean up or add to the burdon of already overworked people making them less productive and more unhappy. The point is that while one thing may not be an income or even profit source, its importance to the who
Amtrak did not dismantle tracks…New York Central, Penn Central, and Conrail did. Amtrak’s Corridor has remained the same as has the route to Boston. Amtrak never sold any of these lines to any freight companies but has been at their mercy when it comes to infrastructure or has had to ante up to pay for the needed improvements and facilities to accomodate passenger trains and services.
Read history of any of the above railroads including Amtrak…check your library for the many available.
This is absurd and impossible. Unless you are talking top 50 markets to top 50 markets, you are talking further economic disaster to the air industry. They already have pulled out of many airports in markets above the top 50 in favor of contracting out to smaller companies with smaller planes. Some airports were built for bigger planes but have not needed the plant but settle for these small planes. Your answer is a major market answer but not the answer needed for over 90% of the Americna airports or population. This is why a coordinated, rationalized, intermodal or interactive transportation system has to be divised and implimented.