# High speed train travel on the Northeast Corridor is not feasibile



## Casey Jones (Mar 22, 2017)

I did not realize that there was a dedicated forum for High Speed Rail. I had previously posted this link in the discussion forum.

This link is my slant on the feasibility of high speed travel on the Northeast Corridor.

http://www.railwayag...?channel=00Bill


----------



## Brian_tampa (Mar 22, 2017)

Casey Jones said:


> I did not realize that there was a dedicated forum for High Speed Rail. I had previously posted this link in the discussion forum.
> 
> This link is my slant on the feasibility of high speed travel on the Northeast Corridor.
> 
> http://www.railwayag...?channel=00Bill


Where to begin...
You say this reflects your 'slant', so own it:

Generation 1 trainsets were equipped with the latest tilt system, yet could only equal, not exceed, the running time of the 1969 Metroliners between New York and Washington D.C.

Why do you omit that tilt systems were meant for the more curvy section between NYC and Boston yet you make the comparison with the relatively straight section between NYC and DC? Tilt trains would never be much benefit for that section of the NEC. Seems like you intentionally chose to highlight the worst possible case to make your argument.

You say this also reflects your 'slant':

Integrated trainsets such as the Acela Express (and the aforementioned “trains of the future”) have proven impractical.

Uh, all over the world most if not all higher speed trainsets are integrated. So are the Brightline trains in Florida. It is a proven concept and technology. Only here in Amurika do we think loose car passenger trains are the norm for 1st world developed countries in the 21st century. How are they impractical if the rest of the world operates 1000's of these integrated trains every day?

You also say this reflects your 'slant':

Comparisons to European and Japanese railway systems cannot be made. Europe and Japan were bombed into rubble during World War II. With nothing in the way, the Marshall Plan and SCAP (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers), with an eye on the future, rebuilt the European and Japanese railway systems as straight and modern as practicable.

Really? Have you been to Germany or France? Do you not know they only recently in the past 25 years built their high speed lines? Same with France since 1980. Wow. HSR has nothing to do with WWII or the Marshall Plan. Alternative facts being presented here.

Japan started their HSR in the early 1960s after seeing how the North Shore line between Chicago and Milwaukee was built.


----------



## jis (Mar 23, 2017)

Brian_tampa said:


> > Comparisons to European and Japanese railway systems cannot be made. Europe and Japan were bombed into rubble during World War II. With nothing in the way, the Marshall Plan and SCAP (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers), with an eye on the future, rebuilt the European and Japanese railway systems as straight and modern as practicable.
> 
> 
> Really? Have you been to Germany or France? Do you not know they only recently in the past 25 years built their high speed lines? Same with France since 1980. Wow. HSR has nothing to do with WWII or the Marshall Plan. Alternative facts being presented here.
> Japan started their HSR in the early 1960s after seeing how the North Shore line between Chicago and Milwaukee was built.


I have given comprehensive reasons in the other thread where this has been posted as to why I believe this claim about Marshall Plan having anything to do with major basic reconstruction of the European network is bunk. However, he seems tio be unwilling to enter into a constructive discussion about the validity or lack thereof of that bit of rewriting of history.

Shinkansen in Japan also has nothing to do with US post war reconstruction aid under McArthur. That predates the construction of the Shinkansen by a decade and a half. Indeed US started the NEC program with Metroliners in order to compete with the Japanese development and then proceeded to fail miserably. How could they possibly help someone else build something that they themselves proved incapable of building in a sustainable fashion?

BTW mods ... could we please merge the two threads?


----------



## Casey Jones (Mar 23, 2017)

Brian_tampa said:


> Casey Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I did not realize that there was a dedicated forum for High Speed Rail. I had previously posted this link in the discussion forum.
> ...


It is my slant and I do own it. I stand by my article. That article has been published in numerous venues and the overwhelming favorable responses outnumber the very few (just two of you) negative responses.

There are no curves between NYC and WAS??? The tilt system is exclusively for NYC to BOS???

So tell me, what happens to an integrated train when say a wheel locks up and a major flat spot develops on one of the cars in it's consist? What is your solution to that problem?

My comments concerning WW II has nothing to do with high speed it has only to do with new infrastructure as opposed to our older infrastructure. Theirs being straighter and allowing higher speeds when the high speed trains were developed as opposed to our high speed trains running on 'ancient' infrastructure.


----------



## Casey Jones (Mar 23, 2017)

jis said:


> Brian_tampa said:
> 
> 
> > > Comparisons to European and Japanese railway systems cannot be made. Europe and Japan were bombed into rubble during World War II. With nothing in the way, the Marshall Plan and SCAP (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers), with an eye on the future, rebuilt the European and Japanese railway systems as straight and modern as practicable.
> ...


Your 'comprehensive reasons' have been countered in the other thread. Constructive discussion can be had if you set aside your 'romance of the rails' and look objectively and realistically at the state of rail travel in this country. Passenger railroads can only compete with the airlines in the 500 mile and under market. Transcontinental trains should be operated as sightseeing excursions in the summer months only.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Mar 23, 2017)

Casey Jones said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Brian_tampa said:
> ...


Why should transcontinental trains be cut? If the infrastructure is maintained to passenger quality for sightseeing excurisions, than it would not cost much extra to run the trains year-round. If you travelled extensively by long distance train, you would know that they are often sold out or very close to it, even during times other than the summer. Planes are the primary way of getting coast to coast, but trains and highways are also used by people for various reasons. You also must remember that many of the passengers travel to large urban intermediate cities or towns without convenient airplane access. That is why it makes sense to run trains on the NEC Boston to Washington rather than just two separate lines out of New York. Most people on those trains are not travelling the full route, but instead boarding in places like New York and Philadelphia. However, it still makes sense to run trains the whole way to introduce more city pairs. The same concept is applied to long distance trains. By your logic, why don't we just stop funding all roads in the rural west? They, in the same way as long distance trains, connect urban centers and are important to people living in certain rural areas. Just because planes get more passengers than the trains does not mean that the trains should be discontinued.


----------



## A Voice (Mar 23, 2017)

Casey Jones said:


> Passenger railroads can only compete with the airlines in the 500 mile and under market. Transcontinental trains should be operated as sightseeing excursions in the summer months only.


False. The passenger trains' primary competition is not the airplane but the automobile.

The "sightseeing excursions" statement completely misses the point of how Amtrak's long-distance trains are being utilized by passengers and the actual markets which the trains serve (to and from intermediate points). An examination of the distances passengers actually travel will bear this out.

A valid and reliable study of the state and potential of high-speed passenger rail in the Northeast Corridor can only be obtained through an objective approach; A "slant" invalidates the conclusions.


----------



## Casey Jones (Mar 26, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Casey Jones said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


It does not cost that much to run long distance trains year round? There is a thread on here where a long distance train is 40 hours late is there not? I assume there are attendant expenses that are out of the norm i.e. bus transportation, refunds, hotel rooms etc. for those situations that occur frequently in the winter months. It does cost that much more to run long distance trains (Chicago to California) in the fall(snow),winter(snow), spring (washouts) months.


----------



## Casey Jones (Mar 26, 2017)

A Voice said:


> Casey Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Passenger railroads can only compete with the airlines in the 500 mile and under market. Transcontinental trains should be operated as sightseeing excursions in the summer months only.
> ...


How can you pronounce something false that was not said? Who said anything about automobiles versus trains?

I miss the point? Please give examples of intermediate travel points/cities in North Dakota, Montana, Iowa , Nebraska for starters where intermediate travel warrants a transcontinental train.

Yes I agree with an objective approach and my slant is to be considered when reaching a conclusion. Please point out where/how my slant invalidates the conclusions.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Mar 26, 2017)

Casey Jones said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > Casey Jones said:
> ...


There is also a thread on here that shows that much of the costs accosiated with long distance trains would not go away and would simply be reallocated if the LDs were stopped. I believe the subsidy that would be eliminated would only be about $59 million. That number becomes even less when you factor in that infrastructure must be maintained and employees must be paid for your summer excursion trips.


----------



## Casey Jones (Mar 26, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Casey Jones said:
> 
> 
> > brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> ...


Yes the monies could be reallocated to good use in the 500 mile and under market where trains with their midtown to midtown service can compete with the airlines.

What infrastructure has to be maintained? The long distance trains are operated mainly on contract railroads.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Mar 26, 2017)

Casey Jones said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > Casey Jones said:
> ...


The railroads must be maintained to passenger standards; PTC may also be an issue in the coming years. In addition, stations must be maintained if they will be used during the summer season. Although this is not related to infrastructure, what would you plan on doing with the equipment during the rest of the year? You are clearly trying to appeal to tourists, so I don't think standard regional equipment would be operated on a summer excursion train.


----------



## Casey Jones (Mar 26, 2017)

PTC is a fact of life, shoddy and inadequate training programs ensure that all railroads will eventually have it. Stations can be closed can they not? Thousands of folks close their homes in winter and head for warmer climes, this can also be done with stations. The equipment can also be stored with some used to supplement other high traffic areas. Transcontinental trains are dinosaurs in the long distance mode of transportation as Arlo Guthrie musically states in his hit song "The City of New Orleans".


----------



## keelhauled (Mar 26, 2017)

For the love of God can you people figure out how to quote only the brief and relevant passages needed to make your points?


----------



## neroden (Mar 30, 2017)

I have demonstrated previously that (a) the eastern (single-level) long-distance trains are all profitable, in the sense that cutting them would COST more money each year than running them, except the Cardinal; (b) the Auto Train is also profitable; and © the maximum amount you could possibly save by cutting the remaining trains is about $59 million, plus the cost of operating New Orleans Union Station, if you closed that too. In fact, it appears that it would also *cost more money* to cancel the Cardinal, Capitol Limited, Coast Starlight, or Empire Builder, due to the loss of connecting traffic. In reality you could probably save no more than $46 million.

The key point is that most of the published "losses" are just allocations of overhead, which wouldn't go away if you cut a train, it would just get reallocated to another train.

Further, of that putative $46 million, it is concentrated in three trains: Sunset Limited, Southwest Chief, and California Zephyr, amounting to $38 million. Most of the putative savings would come from shutting down staffed stations and crewbases. If you ran trains in the summer, you couldn't get these savings. Skilled railroad workers don't want to be furloughed every winter and you'd have to pay them year-round to do something.

More importantly, Mr. Jones, you have completely failed to understand the market for people riding on these trains: they're mostly not sightseers. They're oil workers going from Williston ND to Chicago, or people from Chicago visiting family in Denver. Et cetera.

Basically, Mr. Jones, you don't understand the economics of railroading. It's all about scale. Do you know how little you'd get for $38 million / year in a short corridor train? I'm not sure you could run one at all!

The long distance trains are actually *more profitable* than the corridor trains, and always have been. This is becuase they are really a string of corridors overlapping, but with economies of scale by only running one train the whole way.

The transcontinentals suffer from having a few weak segments. I was all in favor of rerouting the Southwest Chief from Albuquerque to Topeka via *Amarillo and Wichita*, rather than via the tiny towns it goes through now. I would also be in favor of rerouting the Sunset Limited back through Phoenix, rerouting the California Zephyr through Moline and Des Moines, etc.

I think you've fundamentally missed that these trains are in fact city-center to city-center trains; I took one from Chicago to a convention in Kansas City not so long ago, and from Chicago to a convention in Denver,...


----------



## Casey Jones (Mar 30, 2017)

neroden said:


> I have demonstrated previously that (a) the eastern (single-level) long-distance trains are all profitable, in the sense that cutting them would COST more money each year than running them, except the Cardinal; (b) the Auto Train is also profitable; and © the maximum amount you could possibly save by cutting the remaining trains is about $59 million, plus the cost of operating New Orleans Union Station, if you closed that too. In fact, it appears that it would also *cost more money* to cancel the Cardinal, Capitol Limited, Coast Starlight, or Empire Builder, due to the loss of connecting traffic. In reality you could probably save no more than $46 million.
> 
> The key point is that most of the published "losses" are just allocations of overhead, which wouldn't go away if you cut a train, it would just get reallocated to another train.
> 
> ...


What do you base your money prognostications on? Are you privy to the inner financial workings of Amtrak or are you speculating? I stand by my statements that Amtrak can only compete in the 500 mile and under market and that transcontinental trains are dinosaurs and should be operated only in the summer(warmer) months.

You are correct when you mention "weak segments". The "center to center trains" can be operated with the equipment that is not being used on the transcontinentals. Crossing the Rockies and the Sierras in the winter/spring months is an exercise in futility and a waste of money. We should heed the lesson from the Donner party disaster.

Chicago to Denver (1000 miles) airlines win in that market. That is an overnight trip and more expensive than the airplane.

Chicago to Kansas City(500miles) the automobile wins . Folks are apt to drive this relatively short and low traffic density (in between) area on their own schedule. Again less money.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Mar 30, 2017)

The transcontinental equipment, Superliners, could not be used in the NEC, where most of Amtrak's riders are and I presume you think Amtrak should remain. Also, the time extra equipment would be needed most is summer which is also when you propose sending them out west for tourist trains. As has been previously stated, most LD Amtrak passengers are not sightseers; you seem to be misunderstanding the market. As has also been stated, it would be inefficient to keep the rail lines open for passengers in the summer and close them in winter. While an occasional delay or cancellation does pop up, Amtrak doesn't suffer any more from the winter months than other transportation modes such as planes do. In addition, I believe most of the costs associated with such inclement weather is paid for by the host railroad (snow clearing, track repair, etc.). Lastly, while planes may have more passengers than Amtrak from Chicago to Denver, there is still clearly a market for rail service to the point that ridership is limited by capacity. Not everyone is under strict time constraints, is able to fly, or is willing to fly. As for Chicago to Kansas City, I feel much of the same is true and that Amtrak could support more frequencies than they currently operate between the cities. Many people, especially in Chicago, do not have access to a car. As you said, this is too few miles for a large airline market. That leaves trains and busses, and I feel most people would much rather be on an Amtrak than a bus, even if it costs a little more.


----------



## railbuck (Mar 30, 2017)

Casey Jones said:


> We should heed the lesson from the Donner party disaster.


Exactly. Had they been riding the _Zephyr_ instead of relying on their own transportation, there would have been no disaster. But you cancelled the train during the off season and cannibalized the equipment for other routes, leaving them to their fate.

:huh:


----------



## Casey Jones (Mar 31, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> The transcontinental equipment, Superliners, could not be used in the NEC, where most of Amtrak's riders are and I presume you think Amtrak should remain. Also, the time extra equipment would be needed most is summer which is also when you propose sending them out west for tourist trains. As has been previously stated, most LD Amtrak passengers are not sightseers; you seem to be misunderstanding the market. As has also been stated, it would be inefficient to keep the rail lines open for passengers in the summer and close them in winter. While an occasional delay or cancellation does pop up, Amtrak doesn't suffer any more from the winter months than other transportation modes such as planes do. In addition, I believe most of the costs associated with such inclement weather is paid for by the host railroad (snow clearing, track repair, etc.). Lastly, while planes may have more passengers than Amtrak from Chicago to Denver, there is still clearly a market for rail service to the point that ridership is limited by capacity. Not everyone is under strict time constraints, is able to fly, or is willing to fly. As for Chicago to Kansas City, I feel much of the same is true and that Amtrak could support more frequencies than they currently operate between the cities. Many people, especially in Chicago, do not have access to a car. As you said, this is too few miles for a large airline market. That leaves trains and busses, and I feel most people would much rather be on an Amtrak than a bus, even if it costs a little more.


You seem to be misunderstanding my posts. Where do I state that any of that equipment, i.e. Superliners, be used on the NEC? What I stated was "the 'center to center trains' can be operated with the equipment that is not being used on the transcontinentals.' I was referring to the heavily traveled segments of the transcontinental routes.

Your observation of markets between Chicago and Denver and Chicago and Kansas City is pure speculation. Have you any data on how many folks do not have cars in Chicago who are in need of increased service? Do you have any data that these trains are crowded to the point that additional service is required?

You state_* "it would be inefficient to keep the rail lines open for passengers in the summer and close them in winter."*_ Are not these lines maintained by the host/contract railroads?

You yourself have stated so. _*"In addition, I believe most of the costs associated with such inclement weather is paid for by the host railroad (snow clearing, track repair, etc.)".*_

You state "_*While an occasional delay or cancellation does pop up Amtrak doesn't suffer any more from the winter months than other transportation modes such as planes do". *_ "Occasional delay" ???? Surely you jest. Planes can be diverted and can take circuitous routes to avoid storms railroads cannot.

I realize that this site is mainly populated by railroad enthusiasts, an admirable hobby I might add, but one must not let that enthusiasm cloud ones objectivity. It is nice to wax poetic about the days of yore but that was then and this is now and the demographics have and are changing.


----------



## A Voice (Mar 31, 2017)

Casey Jones said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > I have demonstrated previously that (a) the eastern (single-level) long-distance trains are all profitable, in the sense that cutting them would COST more money each year than running them, except the Cardinal; (b) the Auto Train is also profitable; and © the maximum amount you could possibly save by cutting the remaining trains is about $59 million, plus the cost of operating New Orleans Union Station, if you closed that too. In fact, it appears that it would also *cost more money* to cancel the Cardinal, Capitol Limited, Coast Starlight, or Empire Builder, due to the loss of connecting traffic. In reality you could probably save no more than $46 million.
> ...


The long-distance (LD) trains lose money (on fully allocated costs), anything further is just speculation and guesswork based on limited access to (possibly inaccurate) financial data which paint an incomplete and thus misleading picture. In fairness, however to those making the calculations, I am anxious to see the breakdown of Short Term Avoidable Costs (STAC) when that methodology is available. Done fairly and equitably, we should have a much clearer picture of just how the LD services are performing.

It has already been demonstrated that the (approximately) 500-600 mile market is exactly where Amtrak's LD services are primarily competing. If Chicago to the Bay Area were actually the market in which the California Zephyr were competing you might have a point, but the intermediate point business represents the passenger trains' true potential. This is true, to an extent, even in the Northeast Corridor.



> Chicago to Denver (1000 miles) airlines win in that market. That is an overnight trip and more expensive than the airplane.
> 
> Chicago to Kansas City(500miles) the automobile wins . Folks are apt to drive this relatively short and low traffic density (in between) area on their own schedule. Again less money.


It's not a race; No single mode of transport 'wins' anything. Prospective passengers chose a mode of travel based on a host of factors, and not just which is quickest or least expensive. You have people flying the 225 miles from Washington to New York while others drive (or take the train or bus) for trips over 1,000 miles. There further remains the matter of matching capacity to demand; You don't need much of a market share to sell out one train a day - a few hundred seats at prevailing market prices (I would have thought that last part went without saying, but apparently not).


----------



## Casey Jones (Mar 31, 2017)

A Voice said:


> Casey Jones said:
> 
> 
> > neroden said:
> ...


So you are agreeing that service should be increased because more than a few hundred people a day are traveling between Chicago and Denver and Chicago and Kansas City?


----------



## Anderson (Apr 1, 2017)

I would be supportive of a study as to the costs and feasibility of doing so. If it looks reasonable, then I would support doing so as part of a broader package of additional service. I am generally supportive of the idea of adding at least a second CHI-DEN train (generally in the context of adding service via Des Moines and/or in the context of resurrecting the Pioneer or Desert Wind).

However, the question is also where to deploy scarce equipment and resources. Even if tomorrow morning we had a guaranteed additional $1bn/yr in unrestricted operating grants, some large sum of cash for capital improvements, and four thousand cars of a desired specification mix on the way those resources would still be scarce in the sense that we'd be having honest, ugly arguments over where those trains should go and realizing that some proposed trains chew up too much of the operating grant to run.


----------



## neroden (Apr 2, 2017)

A Voice said:


> The long-distance (LD) trains lose money (on fully allocated costs), anything further is just speculation and guesswork


Fully allocated costs are speculation and guesswork. Amtrak has never properly documented its allocation methods, and there's ample evidence that they're arbitrary (i.e. guesswork).
The last time we were allowed access to a real set of numbers, direct costs data, was 2012. I figured out the difference between fully allocated costs and direct costs that year and have been subtracting it from the fully allocated numbers.



> based on limited access to (possibly inaccurate) financial data which paint an incomplete and thus misleading picture.


The fully allocated costs are certainly incomplete and misleading.


> In fairness, however to those making the calculations, I am anxious to see the breakdown of Short Term Avoidable Costs (STAC) when that methodology is available.


Me too! Amtrak was required to provide that information 9 years ago and haven't done so yet. At this point, I have to conclude they're not going to provide it. I'm not sure whether this is because they're trying to hide something, or because they simply haven't paid their accounting people enough to actually do the work.
One thing is clear: The state services, once you subtract out the state subsidies, are huge money hogs compared to the LD trains, even on the confusing and misleading fully-allocated-costs basis.



> Done fairly and equitably, we should have a much clearer picture of just how the LD services are performing.


Yeah, I'd love to see this.



> It has already been demonstrated that the (approximately) 500-600 mile market is exactly where Amtrak's LD services are primarily competing. If Chicago to the Bay Area were actually the market in which the California Zephyr were competing you might have a point, but the intermediate point business represents the passenger trains' true potential. This is true, to an extent, even in the Northeast Corridor.


This entirely.



Casey Jones said:


> Chicago to Denver (1000 miles) airlines win in that market. That is an overnight trip and more expensive than the airplane.


Tell that to the consistently-sell-out crowds on the train there.



Casey Jones said:


> Chicago to Kansas City(500miles) the automobile wins . Folks are apt to drive this relatively short and low traffic density (in between) area on their own schedule. Again less money.


Tell that to the consistently-sell-out crowds on the train there. That's facts, and you're using hypotheticals based on your personal biases.



A Voice said:


> It's not a race; No single mode of transport 'wins' anything. Prospective passengers chose a mode of travel based on a host of factors, and not just which is quickest or least expensive. You have people flying the 225 miles from Washington to New York while others drive (or take the train or bus) for trips over 1,000 miles. There further remains the matter of matching capacity to demand; You don't need much of a market share to sell out one train a day - a few hundred seats at prevailing market prices (I would have thought that last part went without saying, but apparently not).


----------



## neroden (Apr 2, 2017)

Casey Jones said:


> Have you any data on how many folks do not have cars in Chicago who are in need of increased service? Do you have any data that these trains are crowded to the point that additional service is required?


Yes and yes (though I don't have it available within seconds, I *have* researched this in the past; there is significant unserved demand). Are you remotely interested in seeing data or are you just going to continue with your baseless, evidence-free speculation?


----------



## Casey Jones (Apr 2, 2017)

neroden said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> > The long-distance (LD) trains lose money (on fully allocated costs), anything further is just speculation and guesswork
> ...


Please produce the "facts"you say you possess on the Chicago to Denver and Chicago to Kansas City services. No bias here just realism.


----------



## CCC1007 (Apr 2, 2017)

Casey Jones said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > A Voice said:
> ...


Are you aware of the ridership and other documentation available on the Amtrak website?
The improvement plans from ~2010 included cutoff cars on the CZ to allow for increased capacity Denver to Chicago as well as emeryville to Reno.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 3, 2017)

High speed rail in the NEC isn't feasible. Too many turfs and loggerheads.


----------



## Casey Jones (Apr 3, 2017)

neroden said:


> I have demonstrated previously that (a) the eastern (single-level) long-distance trains are all profitable, in the sense that cutting them would COST more money each year than running them, except the Cardinal; (b) the Auto Train is also profitable; and © the maximum amount you could possibly save by cutting the remaining trains is about $59 million, plus the cost of operating New Orleans Union Station, if you closed that too. In fact, it appears that it would also *cost more money* to cancel the Cardinal, Capitol Limited, Coast Starlight, or Empire Builder, due to the loss of connecting traffic. In reality you could probably save no more than $46 million.
> 
> The key point is that most of the published "losses" are just allocations of overhead, which wouldn't go away if you cut a train, it would just get reallocated to another train.
> 
> ...


You fail to mention whether the transcontinental trains are profitable. Are they? You took (and argue for) the train because you are a railfan not because it is faster, more convenient or less expensive.Where are the "city-center to city -center" stops after Denver, after Minneapolisor in between the Rockies, Sierras, Cascades etc.?


----------



## CCC1007 (Apr 4, 2017)

Casey Jones said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > I have demonstrated previously that (a) the eastern (single-level) long-distance trains are all profitable, in the sense that cutting them would COST more money each year than running them, except the Cardinal; (b) the Auto Train is also profitable; and © the maximum amount you could possibly save by cutting the remaining trains is about $59 million, plus the cost of operating New Orleans Union Station, if you closed that too. In fact, it appears that it would also *cost more money* to cancel the Cardinal, Capitol Limited, Coast Starlight, or Empire Builder, due to the loss of connecting traffic. In reality you could probably save no more than $46 million.
> ...


You seem to be unwilling to bend in even the slightest, but I challenge you to find one community that has Amtrak service that has people in large numbers compared to their populations actively seeking to have Amtrak stop serving their community.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 4, 2017)

Well, I can almost agree with you in principle, but your rationale doesn't seem to correlate to the conclusion.

I agree that spending money on a new generation trainset is not going to really increase speeds. I don't think that's the point. The Acelca trainsets can go 165 mph in revenue service. The problem is that it only does that for like what? 15 minutes? Total? That being said, I think that even the slowest Viewliner equipped sleeper trains going 115 MPH on the NEC isn't anything to sneeze at. That's still 50% faster than driving. True HSR? Not really. But it's respectable. It is sad that a NE Regional can make the 457 mile trip from WAS to BOS in only 90 fewer minutes - with the section between NYP and BOS only being 30 minutes different on the time table.

I also agree that for TRUE HSR, a completely dedicated ROW is required, with no delays from freight or local traffic.

Now to Japan.

The Japanese began the process of designing and building the Shinkansen well before World War II was over, though serious design didn't begin until the late 50's - about 15 years or so after the end of WWII. Plenty of time for much of the rubble to have been removed and rebuilt.

But here are some interesting facts. Under the government run JNR, there was relatively little development in new routes and rolling stock, with only one major revamp before it's privatization in 1987. After privatization, JR started rapidly increasing routes, and designing multiple new trainsets.

Interestingly, and I'm not 100% certain of this, but I believe all the bullet trains have bogeys on each car, and none are articulated. In fact, none have 'locomotives'. They are all powered cars, distributing the load for rapid acceleration and deceleration with power from only one (maybe 2?) pantographs for a 16-car trainset. Pretty amazing, if you ask me.

The biggest difference between Japan and the US is that the Japanese don't fear tunneling through mountains and exercising eminent domain. And, yes, all the lines built after the initial Tohoku line were deep into the 80's and beyond, amongst some of the highest population densities and real estate costs in the world. Probably 30% of the Shinkansen is underground. Finally, as they improved the line, they improved revenue. 16-car trains, with each car capable of carrying close to 100 people on average, and they still took out the buffet car because the train got to where it was going too quickly. No one had time to really enjoy it. Besides, seats make money, not buffets. Though they still do offer trolley food service for all classes. You won't go hungry.

So, my opinion on your opinion is that your premise is right. There will probably never be 200 MPH HSR in the Northeast. And, yes, it's because we won't invest in an all new, straight, exclusive ROW. And it won't happen with new rolling stock. But rest of the article is, well, misleading.


----------



## saxman (Apr 4, 2017)

Casey Jones said:


> I miss the point? Please give examples of intermediate travel points/cities in North Dakota, Montana, Iowa , Nebraska for starters where intermediate travel warrants a transcontinental train.


Minot, ND handled 29,424 passengers in FY2016. Houston, TX only handled 19,499 passengers in the same period. Houston is the 4th biggest city in the US, while Minot is under 50k. Minot's most popular destination is St. Paul, 522 miles away. Chicago is it's second at over 900 miles! Wait, I thought 500 miles was the break even point? Whitefish is 3rd, and a popular tourist destination. It's a day trip and probably easier to take a train than drive on a 2 lane road in in the winter. Flying would take all day too! Williston, ND is an even better example. It's smaller than Minot but handled 38,477 passengers in 2015! (54,324 in 2012 because of oil!) It's most popular destination was Spokane, over 800 miles away! Followed by St. Paul, and then Chicago (again over 1000 miles) I could go on, but you get the gist.

The fact that these are rural in the first place warrants a train that travels a longer distance for better efficiency. You mention 500 miles as being the breaking point for traveller choosing the train or to fly. You're right! Passengers on the LD trains are constantly getting on and off throughout its journey going roughly 500 miles or so. Seats are sold multiple times in one trip. Some days in the summer the Empire Builder can and does sell about 1500 individual tickets in one run from Chicago to Seattle/Portland! That's how much turnover one trip has. That's lots of revenue plus the fact people are willing to shell out hundreds to for premium. Plus these premium passengers usually are traveling much longer than 500 miles. The Empire Builder stops in 44 cities, resulting in dozens of possible city pairs. This doesn't include connections at end points, which are a HUGE portion of revenue to your beloved corridor trains.

Here's the data I used on the NARP website:

https://www.narprail.org/our-issues/reports-and-white-papers/ridership-statistics/


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 5, 2017)

As much as Ryan, jis and I seem to rub each other the wrong way politically, one thing that we all agree on is that research is your friend - not wild-ass guessing.

In this forum, we tend to get away with it a lot because we're relatively a small group of enthusiasts. But I think that personal responsibility in citing references and using real facts - even in an editorial - grows exponentially when published.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 5, 2017)

Amen, my friend.

Start with the data and see where the facts take you.

Don't start with thoughts and feelings and then maybe try to find some facts to you can stretch your narrative.


----------



## A Voice (Apr 5, 2017)

VentureForth said:


> As much as Ryan, jis and I seem to rub each other the wrong way politically, one thing that we all agree on is that research is your friend - not wild-ass guessing.
> 
> In this forum, we tend to get away with it a lot because we're relatively a small group of enthusiasts. But I think that personal responsibility in citing references and using real facts - even in an editorial - grows exponentially when published.


We need that 'like' button again. Well said.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 6, 2017)

(Note: Even the world's worst resource, Wikipedia, debunked much of the article. But Wikipedia isn't half bad if you go into the reference material.)


----------



## grover5995 (Apr 24, 2017)

Brian_tampa, on 22 Mar 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:



Casey Jones said:


> I did not realize that there was a dedicated forum for High Speed Rail. I had previously posted this link in the discussion forum.
> This link is my slant on the feasibility of high speed travel on the Northeast Corridor.
> http://www.railwayag...?channel=00Bill


Where to begin...

You say this reflects your 'slant', so own it:

Generation 1 trainsets were equipped with the latest tilt system, yet could only equal, not exceed, the running time of the 1969 Metroliners between New York and Washington D.C.

Why do you omit that tilt systems were meant for the more curvy section between NYC and Boston yet you make the comparison with the relatively straight section between NYC and DC? Tilt trains would never be much benefit for that section of the NEC. Seems like you intentionally chose to highlight the worst possible case to make your argument.

You say this also reflects your 'slant':

Integrated trainsets such as the Acela Express (and the aforementioned “trains of the future”) have proven impractical.

Uh, all over the world most if not all higher speed trainsets are integrated. So are the Brightline trains in Florida. It is a proven concept and technology. Only here in Amurika do we think loose car passenger trains are the norm for 1st world developed countries in the 21st century. How are they impractical if the rest of the world operates 1000's of these integrated trains every day?

You also say this reflects your 'slant':

Comparisons to European and Japanese railway systems cannot be made. Europe and Japan were bombed into rubble during World War II. With nothing in the way, the Marshall Plan and SCAP (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers), with an eye on the future, rebuilt the European and Japanese railway systems as straight and modern as practicable.

Really? Have you been to Germany or France? Do you not know they only recently in the past 25 years built their high speed lines? Same with France since 1980. Wow. HSR has nothing to do with WWII or the Marshall Plan. Alternative facts being presented here.

Japan started their HSR in the early 1960s after seeing how the North Shore line between Chicago and Milwaukee was built.

Chicago-MILW would be a nice start for a regional network of fast, frequent electric-powered trains running on existing tracks. This service could be expanded to Green Bay, Madison or Minneapolis and eventually include the St. Louis and Detroit corridors. A similar route could be operated between Chicago and Cincinnati by way of Indianapolis.


----------



## grover5995 (Apr 24, 2017)

Casey Jones said:


> I did not realize that there was a dedicated forum for High Speed Rail. I had previously posted this link in the discussion forum.
> 
> This link is my slant on the feasibility of high speed travel on the Northeast Corridor.
> 
> http://www.railwayag...?channel=00Bill


The newer section from Boston-New Haven includes up-to-date power supply, signals and trackwork. If similar improvements were added to the rest of the NEC, new Acela trainsets will be able to run closer to their true potential. This assumes that there will be additional tunnel capacity between NY and Newark and an upgrade of the Baltimore Tunnel which dates back to the Civil War.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 28, 2017)

I don't know who quoted who here...



grover5995 said:


> You also say this reflects your 'slant':
> 
> Comparisons to European and Japanese railway systems cannot be made. Europe and Japan were bombed into rubble during World War II. With nothing in the way, the Marshall Plan and SCAP (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers), with an eye on the future, rebuilt the European and Japanese railway systems as straight and modern as practicable.
> 
> ...


Japan's Bullet Train technically started in the late 50's after dabbling in the idea prior to WWII. However, it was early enough after WWII that much of the ROW in Tokyo was still a bit of rubble. However, much of the right of way along the route was intentionally as straight as practicable - boring through mountains and using many many tunnels. For some reason, in the US, we seem to freak out over having to build a tunnel. Anyway, there was much less private land to buy up.


----------



## B757Guy (Apr 28, 2017)

Having dealt this week with the mess created by Amtrak in NYC, I don't see how they can ever pull off true high speed rail. Funding aside, they can't seem to prioritize what needs to be done and where very effectively. Damn shame, I'm still hopeful Wick Morman gets the railroad on the right trajectory, but thus far, not sure what he's been doing....


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 28, 2017)

saxman said:


> Casey Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I miss the point? Please give examples of intermediate travel points/cities in North Dakota, Montana, Iowa , Nebraska for starters where intermediate travel warrants a transcontinental train.
> ...


Give Houston the same level of service as Minot and they would blow them out of the water. Houston probably had way more service before they canceled the Houston leg of the Texas Eagle. It not only game them Chicago service but Dallas service. I guarantee there'd be more traffic Dallas-Houston than Minot-Willston.


----------



## west point (Jun 13, 2017)

Lets get back on topic. Make another thread for other than NEC HSR.

220 MPH HSR is not needed on the NYP - WASH segment. It might only save about20 minutes. You can get more time savings by getting rid of the slower spots. If Frankford jct to north PHL station had all the curves straightened then you save almost 15 minutes. Then the B&P tunnel, The 3 speed restricted draw bridges in Maryland, Straightening curves in Maryland & Delaware. Finish 4 tracking from PHL - WASH.

All that would get the 249 miles from NYP - WASH including stops under 2:00. The LD and NE Regionals under 2:40. That should steal a lot of auto and bus traffic. Intermediate stations would benefit as well.

Another benefit would be train sets could get more miles per day increasing capacity with no additional equipment.

The situation from New Rochelle - New Haven is going to be unsolvable for at least 15 years as all the swing bridges need replacing. Each replacement will cause 2 tracking at the location as 2 new 2 track bridges are built at that location. Construction schedule if no more delays 2022 completion.

http://walkbridgect.com/pdf/17%204%2012%20public%20mtg.pdf


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 19, 2017)

west point said:


> Lets get back on topic. Make another thread for other than NEC HSR.
> 
> 220 MPH HSR is not needed on the NYP - WASH segment. It might only save about20 minutes. You can get more time savings by getting rid of the slower spots. If Frankford jct to north PHL station had all the curves straightened then you save almost 15 minutes. Then the B&P tunnel, The 3 speed restricted draw bridges in Maryland, Straightening curves in Maryland & Delaware. Finish 4 tracking from PHL - WASH.
> 
> ...


But what it seems like they are trying to do is increase the 160 mph sections to 165, which is a total waste of time.

The only way they'll be able to improve on your suggestions is to either go way high (equivalent to the height of I-95) or underground.


----------



## jis (Jun 19, 2017)

Nobody is trying to increase the currently non-existent 160mph sections to anything. They are working on increasing the current 150mph sections in RI and MA to 160mph, and the 135mph section in NJ to 160mph, the latter as an integral part of a whole series of other improvements in/reconstruction of signaling, power and control system, that will reduce congestion and improve operations.

Actually the bigger change in NJ is increasing the current 110mph outer tracks to 125mph between Jersey Avenue and Hamilton, and increasing the maximum speed on NJT trains from 100mph to 125mph so that the outer zone NJT expresses which often run on the center tracks upto County interlocking, can get out of the way of Amtrak trains faster and thus reduce congestion. Also the increased speed on the outer tracks west of County will allow Amtrak trains that stop at Princeton jct. move at full 125mph without getting stuck behind slow pokey NJT trains.

So everything about the NJ higher speed project is not about running Acelas at 160mph. That is just a small part of a much bigger overall project. But for the politicians I suppose 160 is the sexiest part. That does not mean that we, who are knowledgeable about such stuff should fall pray to the glitzy marketing fluff.  The biggest gains are actually for Regionals and NJT Expresses.


----------



## Ziv (Jun 22, 2017)

I am just about the least knowledgeable of the posters on this site when it comes to the NEC, but is seems to me that most of the problem with the NEC isn't 135 mph vs. 160 mph, it is 135/160 mph vs. *35 mph*. I may not be putting it well, but the slow parts are the killer, not the intermediate speed parts.

Until the NEC can either straighten (unlikely) or go under the slower curves, the NEC will never be all that fast, even if they were able to double the amount of trackage that is rated at 160 mph. And oddly enough, there is this guy in California who claims (probably overly optimistically) that his Boring Company can possibly reduce the cost of boring a tunnel by 90%. Well, if he can reduce the price of building a tunnel by a mere (?) 50%, then there is a chance that some of the slower sections of the NEC might actually see some form of improvement in the next 10-15 years. But given the cost of tunneling today, it won't happen without significant reductions in tunneling costs.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 22, 2017)

I honestly do think that a private company that is anxious to figure out how to build lots of tunnels cheaply can cut it by 90%. First of all a good chunk of the public cost is plain old graft. Secondly, there really is no incentive to reduce the prices of projects, and the civil engineering world is a cartel, and a lot of these projects are DBs or DBMs on cost plus basis.

So I think you can cut it at least 50% by removing waste and sloth. And you can cut even more by becoming a proficient company who is looking to figure out how to do it fast and cheap.


----------



## cirdan (Jun 23, 2017)

jis said:


> I have given comprehensive reasons in the other thread where this has been posted as to why I believe this claim about Marshall Plan having anything to do with major basic reconstruction of the European network is bunk. However, he seems tio be unwilling to enter into a constructive discussion about the validity or lack thereof of that bit of rewriting of history.
> 
> Shinkansen in Japan also has nothing to do with US post war reconstruction aid under McArthur. That predates the construction of the Shinkansen by a decade and a half. Indeed US started the NEC program with Metroliners in order to compete with the Japanese development and then proceeded to fail miserably. How could they possibly help someone else build something that they themselves proved incapable of building in a sustainable fashion?


I think this is getting philosophical..

If we look at Spain for example, in the post war period, the Franco government had a serious legitimacy problem due to itzs past connections with Hitler and Mussolini.

The US, and especially under Eisenhower, was among the first to break this taboo and even provide Marshall Plan assistance to Spain. Eisenhower recognized that Franco was playing a useful role in pushing back Communism. On the railroads this arrangement led to an influx of US-manufactured equipment, most notably the large ALCO diesels, and in later years domestically built equipment using US licences. Even after they began designing their own equipment, the US influence remained noticeable. Think for example of the unpainted stainless stell passenger cars of the Talgo III. This didn't really finish until the mid 1970s. I'm not sure whether it is a coincidence or there is a correlation that this was the time of Franco's death. Maybe it was simply that by that time the US railroad industry had little of interest to offer so they looked to European practice instead.

In an alternative universe we could imagine Soviet designed stock on those services.

As for Shinkansen, I understand in its origins this was a pre-war project. Imperial Japan took a close interest in developments in Germany, both using streamlined steam locomotives and using high speed diesel railcars, and were building prototypes of their own. They realized the classic network did not lend itself well to high speeds and were planning newer straieghter lines. Construction of some of the tunnels of the first Shinkansen line had actually begun before the wat. I think the decison to go for electric traction and standard gauge was post war though.


----------

