New Rail Study

[Brakie]

"try to mitigate this and prevent government from picking the winners and losers."
-------------
This is exactly what happen with Ike's and the trucking industries' interstates..The losers was the railroads and of course as a back draft the railroads had to get Federal help.In the mean time the airlines was killing the passenger train and the USPS shifted from rail to trucks and the end result was more Government "bailouts" for the railroads and the death of the remaining passenger trains..Enter the "Big lie" on how Amtrak was going to save the passenger train and be self sufficient in 15 years.

Today under Amtrak and their tight operating budget you simply can't take a train from Columbus,Oh to (say) Chicago or New York..Greyhound Bus is the only public mode of ground transportation to Chicago or New York from Columbus.

[doctorwayne]

Today under Amtrak and their tight operating budget you simply can't take a train from Columbus,Oh to (say) Chicago or New York..Greyhound Bus is the only public mode of ground transportation to Chicago or New York from Columbus.

I recall reading that, in pre-Amtrak days, a hog could travel from the east coast of the U.S. to the west coast without changing trains, whereas it was not possible for a human passenger to do so.

Nowadays, the hog rides in a truck, going just about anywhere it needs to be, while the human passenger, if he wants to travel by train, has even less choice than previously. Last year, I thought about taking the train to visit my good friend Deano, in Wisconsin. I can get an Amtrak train locally, which would put me in Buffalo, NY, with a long, late-night layover, waiting for a train to Chicago, the nearest that I could get by rail. That left either a bus ride (yeck!!) or a rental car. For the same money, I could have driven, making use of the Lake Michigan ferry service, arriving sooner and having money left-over for another two or three additional visits.

Rail is more fuel efficient that airplanes (or, for freight, trucks), and the tracks are, for the most part, still in place. However, the cost of all the support infrastructure, such as stations, booking and ticket sales, baggage handling, etc., not to mention track upgrades for passenger train speeds, along with increased signalling, dispatching, and scheduling costs, combine to make long distance rail travel a bottomless pit for public funding. Too bad, but that's the cold reality.

Wayne

[MountainMan]

"try to mitigate this and prevent government from picking the winners and losers."
-------------
This is exactly what happen with Ike's and the trucking industries' interstates..The losers was the railroads and of course as a back draft the railroads had to get Federal help.In the mean time the airlines was killing the passenger train and the USPS shifted from rail to trucks and the end result was more Government "bailouts" for the railroads and the death of the remaining passenger trains..Enter the "Big lie" on how Amtrak was going to save the passenger train and be self sufficient in 15 years.

Today under Amtrak and their tight operating budget you simply can't take a train from Columbus,Oh to (say) Chicago or New York..Greyhound Bus is the only public mode of ground transportation to Chicago or New York from Columbus.

And Greyhound is a disaster...

[MountainMan]

Today under Amtrak and their tight operating budget you simply can't take a train from Columbus,Oh to (say) Chicago or New York..Greyhound Bus is the only public mode of ground transportation to Chicago or New York from Columbus.

I recall reading that, in pre-Amtrak days, a hog could travel from the east coast of the U.S. to the west coast without changing trains, whereas it was not possible for a human passenger to do so.

Nowadays, the hog rides in a truck, going just about anywhere it needs to be, while the human passenger, if he wants to travel by train, has even less choice than previously. Last year, I thought about taking the train to visit my good friend Deano, in Wisconsin. I can get an Amtrak train locally, which would put me in Buffalo, NY, with a long, late-night layover, waiting for a train to Chicago, the nearest that I could get by rail. That left either a bus ride (yeck!!) or a rental car. For the same money, I could have driven, making use of the Lake Michigan ferry service, arriving sooner and having money left-over for another two or three additional visits.

Rail is more fuel efficient that airplanes (or, for freight, trucks), and the tracks are, for the most part, still in place. However, the cost of all the support infrastructure, such as stations, booking and ticket sales, baggage handling, etc., not to mention track upgrades for passenger train speeds, along with increased signalling, dispatching, and scheduling costs, combine to make long distance rail travel a bottomless pit for public funding. Too bad, but that's the cold reality.


Wayne

Not necessarily. Most of the ticketing for airlines is now done by computer without a human agent present at all. The same technology is available to the railroads, and railroad stations do not demand the enormous resources of airline terminals.

[nkp_174]

"try to mitigate this and prevent government from picking the winners and losers."
-------------
This is exactly what happen with Ike's and the trucking industries' interstates..The losers was the railroads and of course as a back draft the railroads had to get Federal help.In the mean time the airlines was killing the passenger train and the USPS shifted from rail to trucks and the end result was more Government "bailouts" for the railroads and the death of the remaining passenger trains..Enter the "Big lie" on how Amtrak was going to save the passenger train and be self sufficient in 15 years.

Today under Amtrak and their tight operating budget you simply can't take a train from Columbus,Oh to (say) Chicago or New York..Greyhound Bus is the only public mode of ground transportation to Chicago or New York from Columbus.

I think we generally agree on this one...but I'm not entirely certain if you agree or disagree with what you quoted.

Many railroads were losing big time to the trucks long before the interstate system...as a narrow gauge enthusiast, I can confidently state that normal roads caused the abandonment of nearly all of the narrow gauges which survived into the 20th century (the 19th century failures were typically due to sub-par construction practices, poor planning, and interchange).

After WW2, imo, many of the major railroads were doomed whether Ike led his convoy or not. The Great Depression and WW2 slowed the development of the trucking industry much as they prolonged the lives of steam locomotives by limiting first the $$$ and then the materials to produce diesels. Railroads such as the Pennsy and NYC which built their systems around the premise that freight couldn't move more than 10 miles or so without rail were obsolete. Of course, the political pressures and the ICC wouldn't allow (if the management had sufficient foresight to ask) the roads to abandon their many obsolete redundancies and branch lines. It sure seems like there are more abandoned PRR lines in western Ohio than there are that still exist. I don't think that government fully picked the winner here...but I would agree that the Interstate System certainly exasperated the underlying problems for the railroads and increased the speed of the process (probably too far towards the highways).

What I was getting at earlier was that I would prefer for the complete costs of flying be passed on to the airlines which in turn, pass it on to the consumer...rather than having government hide the costs and pass it on to the taxpayer. Same thing with the highways...I'd like to see the complete cost reflected in some combination of the license plate fees, toll booths, and/or gas taxes. For Amtrak and the freight roads, the same applies...the cost to move people/cars is reflected in the ticket prices/shipping rates. If the airlines are given a 10% subsidy, I'd l prefer to see the same given to the railroads...allowing ridership to be determined by the free market...but I'd prefer there to be no subsidies at all. How much money have a taken from my fellow citizens of Cincinnati, Ohio, and the USA in my flights to England, France, Germany, Hawaii, etc? It is one think for Delta to offer me a fine rate on what is practically a deadhead flight, but it is something else for me to travel on Mountain Man, Brakie, and every other enlightened (enlightened because you're railfans!!! ) person's nickel.

Mountain Man, on the flip side to what you've said....how many passengers are served by every employee at both the rail station and airport? Here in Cincinnati, I wouldn't be surprised if the airport personal serve 10x or even 100x the number of customers than the people at the Amtrak Station. Sure, the Airport has a much larger payroll...but it has far more customers...so the employees are less efficient. If the traffic was equal, I'd expect the Amtrak employees to serve more people...as a passenger train requires far less staff per passenger than an airplane...but the friendly skis require far less maintenance than the high iron. I believe that the fixed costs of railroads are much higher than airlines, but the variable costs of planes are much higher.

[MountainMan]

"try to mitigate this and prevent government from picking the winners and losers."
-------------
This is exactly what happen with Ike's and the trucking industries' interstates..The losers was the railroads and of course as a back draft the railroads had to get Federal help.In the mean time the airlines was killing the passenger train and the USPS shifted from rail to trucks and the end result was more Government "bailouts" for the railroads and the death of the remaining passenger trains..Enter the "Big lie" on how Amtrak was going to save the passenger train and be self sufficient in 15 years.

Today under Amtrak and their tight operating budget you simply can't take a train from Columbus,Oh to (say) Chicago or New York..Greyhound Bus is the only public mode of ground transportation to Chicago or New York from Columbus.

Eisenhower actually built the Interstate system for defense purposes, not for the trucking industry.

[nkp_174]

Eisenhower actually built the Interstate system for defense purposes, not for the trucking industry.

As I understand, part of the reason was for it to serve, in part, as air strips! I've heard of a few emergency situations...but it certainly would ruin my day if an F-22 landed on top of my Corolla.

At least I'd get to see an F-22!

[MountainMan]

By nkp:

Mountain Man, on the flip side to what you've said....how many passengers are served by every employee at both the rail station and airport? Here in Cincinnati, I wouldn't be surprised if the airport personal serve 10x or even 100x the number of customers than the people at the Amtrak Station. Sure, the Airport has a much larger payroll...but it has far more customers...so the employees are less efficient. If the traffic was equal, I'd expect the Amtrak employees to serve more people...as a passenger train requires far less staff per passenger than an airplane...but the friendly skis require far less maintenance than the high iron. I believe that the fixed costs of railroads are much higher than airlines, but the variable costs of planes are much higher.

In fact, on my recent flights back and forth to California, the number of ticket agents was practically non-existent, even at airports like DIA and San Francisco. By far the greatest number of employees are now TSA employees screening for security.

You do have a point about AMTRAK; however, an automated computerized system such as the airlines currently employ would virtually eliminate all but a handful of station personnel.

It is often difficult to calculate the cost of airlines, especially as they now contract their maintenance to foreign countries or defer it altogether, as in the case of Southwestern Airlines. However, this much I do know - when a plane malfunctions,. it falls from the sky and a great many people die. When a train malfunctions, it coasts to a stop. Even a disastrous collision rarely kills as many as a single plane crash, and given the current trend towards larger and larger aircraft with more and more passengers crammed in, this unpleasant fact will only get worse.

I'm one of those people who actually want to enjoy the trip as well as the destination, something I have been unable to do on an airliner for many, many years. Speed is nice, but it fails to overcome rudeness and discomfort enough to change my mind. I miss the pleasure of the journey itself.

[Brakie]

"try to mitigate this and prevent government from picking the winners and losers."
-------------
This is exactly what happen with Ike's and the trucking industries' interstates..The losers was the railroads and of course as a back draft the railroads had to get Federal help.In the mean time the airlines was killing the passenger train and the USPS shifted from rail to trucks and the end result was more Government "bailouts" for the railroads and the death of the remaining passenger trains..Enter the "Big lie" on how Amtrak was going to save the passenger train and be self sufficient in 15 years.

Today under Amtrak and their tight operating budget you simply can't take a train from Columbus,Oh to (say) Chicago or New York..Greyhound Bus is the only public mode of ground transportation to Chicago or New York from Columbus.

Eisenhower actually built the Interstate system for defense purposes, not for the trucking industry.

That was the popular belief at that time however,defense had little to do with the interstates that was pushed by the trucking industry by lobbying and political support..After all WWII proved war material could move by rail in a timely manner.

Even today the military depends on rail for moving equipment-just like they do in other countries where they maintain bases.

[MountainMan]

In 1916 the US Army sent a convoy from Washington DC to the West Coast. It took them 62 days to make the trip. The military long argued that moving men and material was all but impossible without a decent road system. Eisenhower's avowed reason for the Interstate Highway Act was national defense. I'm sure the trucking industry lobbied for it, and no doubt the railroad industry lobbied against it, and the Congressmen and Senators who saw endless pork in their future voted for it irregardless as long as it meant money for their states. Such is the nature of government actions.

Given the strain on the airlines to even stay in operation today, I'm wondering what form of transportation is left to handle the needs of the nation. I expect the government to assume ownership and operation of the nation's airlines and railroads in the near future, or lose them entirely.

[Brakie]

In 1916 the US Army sent a convoy from Washington DC to the West Coast. It took them 62 days to make the trip. The military long argued that moving men and material was all but impossible without a decent road system.
--------------------
I recall reading about that convoy and there was no real roads since most was nothing more the the old wagon routes.Terrible conditions for the troops driving those old trucks that seen mechanical break downs and lots of flat tires every day..

Oddly by the end of WWII that was a mote concern since they could use transports and fly men and air drop supplies to any area...

[Sumpter250]

the Congressmen and Senators who saw endless pork in their future voted for it

Herein lies the quintessential devil in these matters. . . . . Government!

There is, of course, the "American mind", and "the stock market". A business that makes its overhead, and a small percentage for future growth, is a successful business. A business that answers to "stockholders", is a doomed business. The only entity, faster than government to suck the economic life out of any business, is the sheer greed of "the stockholder". . . . . . . .and it works hard to stay ahead of government.

For the same money, I could have driven, making use of the Lake Michigan ferry service, arriving sooner and having money left-over for another two or three additional visits.

And, an interesting crossing of Lake Michigan! I really have to do that one of these days.

[Russ Bellinis]

In 1916 the US Army sent a convoy from Washington DC to the West Coast. It took them 62 days to make the trip. The military long argued that moving men and material was all but impossible without a decent road system. Eisenhower's avowed reason for the Interstate Highway Act was national defense. I'm sure the trucking industry lobbied for it, and no doubt the railroad industry lobbied against it, and the Congressmen and Senators who saw endless pork in their future voted for it irregardless as long as it meant money for their states. Such is the nature of government actions.

Given the strain on the airlines to even stay in operation today, I'm wondering what form of transportation is left to handle the needs of the nation. I expect the government to assume ownership and operation of the nation's airlines and railroads in the near future, or lose them entirely.

I don't know what the future of the airlines holds. As far as I know, none of the airlines have ever made a profit. I think that the existing class 1 railroads since deregulation allowed them to abandon many of the branch lines are very profitable. In addition, many of the branch lines that have been taken over by shortline railroads that are non-union are also able to show a profit since they no longer need to work under union rules.

Unfortunately the situation with Amtrak probably needs a complete rethink in terms of goals and purpose, but it probably won't happen as long as the government is involved with it. Amtrak was set up to replace national rail passenger service that the railroads wanted to get rid of. That is fine except that the entire concept was seen as another source of "Pork" for powerful congressmen. When Amtrak was first established, they received cast off worn out equipment from the freight railroads. The result is that the only original equipment that Amtrak is still running are the original high level cars and the big dome from the Santa Fe El Capitan. They are still having to run unprofitable routes that are forced on them by powerful members of congress. They are not supposed to engage in commuter rail service, but do it in the Northeast corridor and Southern California, and probably other areas of the country in cooperation with local transit authorities. Of their cross country routes is there any besides the Southwest Chief, Sunset, and Empire Builder that consistently make a profit? I suspect the Auto Train probably does well in the fall going South, and the spring going North, but does that route run anywhere near full capacity when the "snowbirds" aren't migrating? Other routes that could be profitable for Amtrak are closed to them. An example here in California is San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles via the central valley. They have done studies that indicate that a train running through Sacramento, Fresno, and Bakersfield to Los Angeles would consistently be full of passengers both ways for the entire route, but Southern Pacific first, and now Union Pacific refuse to allow passenger trains to use the Tehachapie pass. They don't want any passenger trains in the way of freight operations, and so far no one has found another practical route or room to add passenger tracks parallel to the existing freight tracks in the area. I think they may be looking into the possibility of running as far South as Bakersfield and then going West to join the Coast Route somewhere North of Santa Barbara and continue into Los Angeles on that route, but that would require Amtrak or Cal Trans to acquire right of way and build passenger quality rail from Bakersfield to the Coast.

[MountainMan]

In 1916 the US Army sent a convoy from Washington DC to the West Coast. It took them 62 days to make the trip. The military long argued that moving men and material was all but impossible without a decent road system.
--------------------
I recall reading about that convoy and there was no real roads since most was nothing more the the old wagon routes.Terrible conditions for the troops driving those old trucks that seen mechanical break downs and lots of flat tires every day..

Oddly by the end of WWII that was a mote concern since they could use transports and fly men and air drop supplies to any area...

It was still a big concern, as the need to transport millions of men and millions of tons of war material to the East and West coasts during the war amply demonstrated. Beyond that, ships were the method of transport for the bulk of the troops and material sent to the European and Pacific theaters of war. Aircraft faced a three thousand mile journey just to reach Europe, and they could not carry even a fraction of the needed materials.

Eiesenhower's wartime experiences, particularly his knowledge of the immense value of the German autobahn system, had much to do with his decision to create America's interstate highway system.

[Russ Bellinis]

I think it is interesting that sometime during the 1960's or 1970's, I think when LBJ was president, but I'm not sure, the government decided that we did not need ships to transport war materials any longer. We could fly everything in with jumbo jets. Then we needed to resupply Israel after one of their wars in the mid 1980's. It took over 60 days, if I remember correctly, to do the job. The problem was not that we couldn't fly everything in, it was that we could not get the planes on the ground, unloaded, and back in the air quickly enough. We ended up with a backlog of planes "flying the pattern" waiting for landing space. Sea Land was replacing their steam powered SL-7 ships with more economical but slower diesel ships. The government bought the SL-7's, retrofitted them with ramps to convert them into roll-on/roll-off operation and put them in service with the Navy. One SL-7 could haul as much tonnage as all of the aircraft flew into Israel in 60 days in one load and get it anywhere in the world and unloaded in less the 20 days! You would have thought we would have learned something from the Berlin Air lift in the early 1950's!