New Rail Study

[MountainMan]

That's sad. I'm a big believer in the old adage that "Getting there is half the fun", and I do not understand everyone's obsession with speed. America is a beautiful and historic nation, but you can't see any of it from 30,000 feet.

Back to passenger rail travel: I still do not understand the rational that huge, expensive trains are needed to move passengers by rail. We are will past the technological level needed to produce self-propelled passenger units that could easily share the rails with standard trains while moving people either locally or even across the nation. We seem obsessed with bigger and faster to the detriment of all else.

[nkp_174]

That's sad. I'm a big believer in the old adage that "Getting there is half the fun", and I do not understand everyone's obsession with speed. America is a beautiful and historic nation, but you can't see any of it from 30,000 feet.

Back to passenger rail travel: I still do not understand the rational that huge, expensive trains are needed to move passengers by rail. We are will past the technological level needed to produce self-propelled passenger units that could easily share the rails with standard trains while moving people either locally or even across the nation. We seem obsessed with bigger and faster to the detriment of all else.

I understand you viewpoint, but here's a slightly different perspective...

I have a one week vacation. I want to go to visit San Fransisco. It takes nearly 3 days each direction. If I fly, I can chase the NPC, SPC, PCRY, and a number of others in my 5-6 days in the region. If I take Amtrak, I'll spend 5 days on the train (2.5 days out, 3 days back), and have little time on the target.

[Bob C]

The point is, you are going almost the distance from London, UK to Cairo, Egypt, within one country (US) utilizing rail transport. This would not be inexpensive in Europe, nor would it be (even with the TGV, etc.), less than a day each way. This is what seems to be the expectation of Amtrak or an analog, in the US - and without using government resources/taxpayer funds. At least (being a train nut) you'd have the fun of RIDING and photo-ing from one ! Not a lot of folks will/can accept the time involved - like you, they need to be somewhere in hours. They won't pay tax or fare to subsidize my leisurely cross country ramblings (I'm retired), nor will they ante up for "Hi-Speed Rail" with it's infra-structure, property, safety, noise and other types of environmental impact. Amtrak, unfortunately, probably won't/can't get much better than it is without a better revenue source...hope someone with the genius, desire and connection$$$ comes up with an answer before I'm gone - but ... Bob C.

[sgtcarl1]

Bob C.:
No need to duck! I won't be throwing shoes or anything else. If our government weren't so full of self aggrandizing(sp) lifetime politicians, maybe we could get some of the things done that ought to be done...and don't get me started on the bailout! I have always believed the government should own everything or own nothing. The latter being preferred. Virginia has recieved some stimulus money for our railroad infrastructure, but not enough to barely make a difference in what is truly needed. If the politicos wanted to do what's right for the people, they would spend whatever it takes to get railroads up and running healthily. And then leave them alone! But the government has no money except what they take from us in taxes.
I'll shut up and go back in my corner, now

[nkp_174]

On the subject of railroads and the government...and the imperfect union of them in the 19th century's most famous gov't stimulus fiasco...the transcontinental railroad...

The UP had nice long mainline...with very little local business...and not a prayer at profitability...as it was only built because congress was subsidizing it. So, they (or more specifically, Jay Gould) began acquiring feeder lines which popped up in the decade after Promontory. My beloved Denver, South Park, and Pacific Railroad was one that Jay Gould took over, gave to the UP, and royally screwed it up (from deep black to deep red in less than 5 years!). Throughout this period, congress used the UP as a political football...setting it up, but not helping it thrive (amtrak-esc)...and demanding to be repaid of their loans. Not something I really care too much about, nor am I careful to remember it clearly...but...the point of this was a congressional hearing about the unprofitability of the UP with one of the executives and his description of the DSP&P's financial troubles:

Paraphrasing:

The railroads of Colorado were built during a wave of enthusiasm for digging holes in the ground. The railroads were built to haul people and supplies in, and dirt out. After a few years, the enthusiasm waned when people realized that it wasn't very profitable to dig holes in the ground. And so, the railroads no longer were hauling people in or dirt out, and so they have been impoverished ever since.

The transcript is published in the CRA "The South Park Line" which is currently sitting in my dad's library and so I can't copy it verbatim.

[Bob C]

NKP; Beautifully and succinctly stated ! The situation is still much the same...for great portions of our country, there aren't great populous centers of business or (particularly since the '80s) manufacture to draw volume goods or passengers for rail travel. Passenger service is out competed by a) for Right of Way by freight's higher frequency/density/profit...b) Ridership by the convenience of the auto (and the Interstate Highway System [taxpayer built & funded]), and the speed of the airlines (whose terminals and traffic control is at taxpayer expense). The "Why can't we have trains like (fill in country)" doesn't take into account the expanse of the US (and Canada), the dispersed locations of population/business centers (longer travel time and less density/stability of user numbers), and the availability of alternative modes (though that may be altered by fuel/vehicle cost/profit considerations in future). Perhaps a revival of something like "interurban" lines, built, operated, and (to some degree) regulated as intra-state carriers might be possible without massive (US) government investment and bureaucracy...sorry, I don't have the cash in my 201k right now. Bob C.

[Brakie]

That's sad. I'm a big believer in the old adage that "Getting there is half the fun", and I do not understand everyone's obsession with speed. America is a beautiful and historic nation, but you can't see any of it from 30,000 feet.

Back to passenger rail travel: I still do not understand the rational that huge, expensive trains are needed to move passengers by rail. We are will past the technological level needed to produce self-propelled passenger units that could easily share the rails with standard trains while moving people either locally or even across the nation. We seem obsessed with bigger and faster to the detriment of all else.

I suppose the real question would be:
Does the freight railroads want to share their track with passenger trains?

I fear they would not seeing they are overcrowded as it is with the upswing in rail shipments and most isn't that crazy about sharing their track with Amtrak.

[Bob C]

Absolutely, Larry. Passenger service on freight lines causes all kinds of headaches. Amtrak needs to maintain a schedule, so demands (with backup from the relevant government agencies) "superiority" for their trains - freight must be held to clear track ahead of Amtrak's schedule/actual arrival times, and is restricted by special rules on following passenger trains between control points, further tying up the freight. Track maintenance standards may also be higher to allow for greater passenger train speeds not needed or unavailable to freight. Then, someone "goes penalty", or separates/derails/hits a vehicle at a crossing, and the whole plan falls apart for Amtrak and the host railroad, and "We stuck the Passenger" again, the radio starts buzzing and the phone in the office starts to ring ! Can you blame 'em ? Bob C.

[MountainMan]

All of this leaves me wondering why passenger rail service works so well all over the world except in America...

[eightyeightfan1]

All of this leaves me wondering why passenger rail service works so well all over the world except in America...

Americans love thier cars. Short sightness of local governments.
Until last summer when gas reached over $4.00 USD per gallon, no American who owned a car,would be caught dead riding a train. I bet those who said that before, are now leaving their cars at the station.
With the short sightness of local governments, turning old un used right of ways to walking trails, and wondering how now they can get commuter rails back today, its no wonder pasenger service is lacking here in the states.

[nachoman]

They recently opened up a heavily taxpayer subsidized light rail line here in Phoenix. Before the line opened, all one would hear from the public was "waste of money", "nobody will ride it", "goes nowhere", etc. Arizona is famous for people not wanting to spend money on public anythings.

Well, the line opened about 5 months ago, and is carrying about 20% more riders than they anticipated. I work along the line, and during commuting hours, most trains are standing room only, and run every 10 minutes. The weekends are what is weird - those have turned out to be the busiest days. the one time I rode it on a saturday, and you could not find a seat. And downtown? I have never seen so many people downtown without there being a special event or sports game.

It just goes to show, you never know if people will leave their car behind or not. I hate to drive, and I would gladly take a train so long as 1) getting to/from terminals is not inconvenient 2) it does not take significantly longer than other modes of transportation 3) it did not cost any more.

I took Amtrak from nebraska to Utah once, and it took about 24 hours. Driving would have cost more, and likely would have taken 18 hours. Flying would have cost a whole lot more, and considering time to/from the airport and security lines, would have taken about 8 hours. In that case, Amtrak was definitely the best option.

[nkp_174]

I suppose the real question would be:
Does the freight railroads want to share their track with passenger trains?

Especially if Amtrak is hauling express business...

Right now, if you want to run a mainline excursion, Amtrak specials are practically the only option. CSX has killed a few excursions in recent times with there unwillingness to even help with deadheads...let alone allowing it to take place on their trackage.

I'm heading up to North Judson for an steam excursion in 2 weeks. That will be my only excursion this year (aside from a visit to Rail Festival 2009 and the Huckleberry Railroad). The only mainline excursion (that I'm aware of) on an eastern class 1 will be the Daylight's trip to Rail Festival and then the return.



-----------------------------------------------------
The problem with americans and trains is not something intrinsic to us...it is intrinsic to our geography. I've used the rail services of the UK, SNCF, SBB, OBB, DB, and such...they are predominantly medium-short distance trains. They do not have to deal with distances such as New York to Chicago or Chicago to LA. Trains lose to cars for short hauls...and lose to planes for long distance. Medium distances are the niche for passenger trains. America is dominated by long distances. We lack the population density across most of our nation which is the key ingredient in the foreign successes. Amtrak is strongest in places where it has distances/populations similar Europe/Japan/eastern China/etc...

[Brakie]

All of this leaves me wondering why passenger rail service works so well all over the world except in America...

That question has many answers..In some countries you need a Government permit to own a car..Other countries it could be the high cost of fuel per liter.Then Americans are a mobile people and while they complain about the high cost of gas many keeps driving to their vacation destinies.

Of course Amtrak is not blameless..Try taking a train to or from Columbus,Ohio..

Good luck!

In fact ain't going to happen because Amtrak doesn't go to Columbus-the capital of Ohio!!

This isn't the only city not served by Amtrak.

[nkp_174]

..Try taking a train to or from Columbus,Ohio..

Good luck!

Step one: take Amtrak to Cincinnati.
Step two: Wake up at 330am when the train stops in Cincinnati.
Step three: Find unlocked boxcar in the Queensgate Yard and say a prayer that it is both going to Columbus and that you won't get locked inside it and die.

[MountainMan]

All of this leaves me wondering why passenger rail service works so well all over the world except in America...

Americans love thier cars. Short sightness of local governments.
Until last summer when gas reached over $4.00 USD per gallon, no American who owned a car,would be caught dead riding a train. I bet those who said that before, are now leaving their cars at the station.
With the short sightness of local governments, turning old un used right of ways to walking trails, and wondering how now they can get commuter rails back today, its no wonder pasenger service is lacking here in the states.

Odd, because the preponderance of opinion thus far is that the railroads themselves do not want relatively unprofitable passenger service.