Crying Shame the Sunset Doesn't Run East of NOL

[jis]

From the sounds of it the UP + SP merger should never have been approved to begin with.

In hindsight many, many people were definitely questioning that approval.

Mind you NS had similar problems after the partial absorption of Conrail. It wasn't quite as bad as UP, but it wasn't pretty either.

At that point in time, after the proposed SP SantaFe merger had already fallen apart, the only other choice would have been partial shutdown and piecemeal divestment of SP, and the net net of that would not have been any prettier than what happened with UP merger as far as the Sunset was concerned IMHO. Sp was in truly dire straits at that time.

Of course the whole mega-railroad trend is possibly questionable as a concept from a pure competitiveness angle. There are talks off and on about the next round possibly involving a UP - CSX merger and a BNSF - NS merger. The airline industry is also trending in the same direction. After United+Continental, there is speculation about AA+who? Perhaps USAirways who was left standing at the alter by United when it eloped with Continental? Perhaps B6?

 

[SunsetLimited01]

From the sounds of it the UP + SP merger should never have been approved to begin with.

In hindsight many, many people were definitely questioning that approval.

Mind you NS had similar problems after the partial absorption of Conrail. It wasn't quite as bad as UP, but it wasn't pretty either.

At that point in time, after the proposed SP SantaFe merger had already fallen apart, the only other choice would have been partial shutdown and piecemeal divestment of SP, and the net net of that would not have been any prettier than what happened with UP merger as far as the Sunset was concerned IMHO. Sp was in truly dire straits at that time.

Of course the whole mega-railroad trend is possibly questionable as a concept from a pure competitiveness angle. There are talks off and on about the next round possibly involving a UP - CSX merger and a BNSF - NS merger. The airline industry is also trending in the same direction. After United+Continental, there is speculation about AA+who? Perhaps USAirways who was left standing at the alter by United when it eloped with Continental? Perhaps B6?

UP and CSX merging? If that happens anytime soon the middle of Florida can expect even longer freights on top of what they are dealing with now and what they will be dealing with when SunRail opens.

 

[AlanB]

UP and CSX merging? If that happens anytime soon the middle of Florida can expect even longer freights on top of what they are dealing with now and what they will be dealing with when SunRail opens.

Not that SunRail will really care, since they own the tracks now and they get to tell CSX when it can run.

 

[SunsetLimited01]

UP and CSX merging? If that happens anytime soon the middle of Florida can expect even longer freights on top of what they are dealing with now and what they will be dealing with when SunRail opens.

Not that SunRail will really care, since they own the tracks now and they get to tell CSX when it can run.

Not talking about the A-line the S-line. They were discussing this issue about an increase in freight trains on the news not to long ago.

 

[colobok]

If we extend the City of New Orleans east along the Gulf, let us take about 19 hours from Chicago to New Orleans, add 4 to Mobile, 2.5 to Pensacola, 4 to Tallahassee, and another 4 to Jacksonville, we have over 33 hours between Chicago and Jacksonville.

So what is the problem? They could run it tri-weekly if they don't have enough equipment.

And, New Orleans to Jacksonville by rail is probably at least 4 hours slower than a relaxed driving time.

"relaxed" driving time??? about 9 hours or so? Can you drive that distance without breaks???

I would definetely prefer to sleep 13 hours in a sleeping car rather than spending the whole day for driving on highway.

The train has always taken around 17 hours to go from New Orleans to Jacksonville. The rail route is not direct and makes a big hook around Mobile. Driving time is around 8 hours via I10. The problem today is that Jacksonville isn't the destination of choice, Orlando is. Driving time NOL to Orlando is around 10 hours because you can take the cutoff. Rail still has to go through Jacksonville which adds three more hours to the trip or 20 hours NOL to Orlando. I have driven from Houston, Tx to Orlando in one day or about 14 hours. That is with stops for food and fuel. It's not that hard as it's interestate highway all the way and you by pass NOL on I12. You can fly Southwest in a couple of hours.

This logic can apply to any other route. For example, Denver to SanFrancisco is 19.5 hrs by car. So why to take 33 hrs train? And also you can fly this distance in couple of hours. So what? Let's cancel Zephyr now?

People take trains not because they are fast, but because they provide comfort. As I said it's better to spend a night in the sleeping car rather than to spend a day driving on a highway.

And not everybody needs to ride the whole section between New Orleans and Orlando. For example, a lot of people from Midwest would take train to Pensacola should CONO be extended east of NOL.

And also - what is the point in these arguments if LD trains are sold out anyway? Look at the Sunset West - it's usually sold out several days before departure.

Just run Sunset East and let people to vote by their money!

 

[jis]

This logic can apply to any other route. For example, Denver to SanFrancisco is 19.5 hrs by car. So why to take 33 hrs train? And also you can fly this distance in couple of hours. So what? Let's cancel Zephyr now?

Actually, AFAIR the Zephyr goes through some spectacular scenery. I am not sure that the NOL - JAX route comes anywhere close. Hence given a choice between canceling the Zephyr or canceling the NOL - JAX service one would probably cancel the latter. Of course ideally it would be nice if both could be run.

I also agree with an earlier post that JAX is hardly a suitable origin/destination for any train. If the train is run at all it should be to Orlando, and even if it totally misses JAX and somehow manages to go down through Ocala to Orlando, that might even work better.

 

[colobok]

Actually, AFAIR the Zephyr goes through some spectacular scenery. I am not sure that the NOL - JAX route comes anywhere close. Hence given a choice between canceling the Zephyr or canceling the NOL - JAX service one would probably cancel the latter. Of course ideally it would be nice if both could be run.

You are right. But Amtrak is not a tourist train company, it's a transportation company, so this argument should not matter.

And there are many other routes that are not scenic, but they take much longer by train than by car.

This should not matter at all. The only factor that should be considered is the load of the train.

Sunset West is constantly sold out and Sunset East had better load before it was cancelled than Sunset West,

so restore Sunset East (or extend CONO) and it will be sold out too!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

You are right. But Amtrak is not a tourist train company, it's a transportation company, so this argument should not matter.

Amtrak's LD network doesn't really cater to tourists but it also doesn't really cater to business travel either. For me I can only use Amtrak for tourist related trips as the timing, frequency, and reliability would be hard to explain to my employer. It would appear that Amtrak sees itself as an East Coast, Midwest, and West Coast corridor service that just happens to have government mandated obligations to connect all these markets to each other. If given free reign I would imagine Amtrak would cut large portions of their LD network and redirect those funds and resources toward corridor use. That's not to say there would be no more LD routes at all, but I could see them being chopped in half or even down to a third of what they are today.

 

[jis]

I agree. If we want the LD system to thrive we must get the Congress to articulate a clear policy regarding them and stand behind that with adequate funding. Otherwise the days of LD service as we know it today are numbered, and with that the days of Amtrak as an unified system. The heavily used Corridors will somehow continue to have heavy service Amtrak or not, but there will unlikely be a consistent LD network without something like Amtrak.

Even in the British privatization "Cross-Country" was hived off as a separate TOC from all others which were specific Corridor or Region/Sub-Region oriented TOCs. Ironically in France and also in Japan, their "LD" network essentially amounts to their HSR corridors, with everything else having faded away. In France, in addition they have what is essentially highly subsidized Regional operations which are subsidized by the Departments that they run in. I have no idea what the financial setup is for the Japanese passenger service that runs in the sticks, like the services on Shikoku and Hokkaido.

In this context, Sunset East is but a precursor to the issue that will come up over and over again, absent a consistent policy regarding LD service. Basically anything that was not in the original network and is performing poorly will be at risk, and of course stuff that was in the original network and are gone are not about to come back either. Sorry to be a downer, but that is the political and financial reality that we are faced with, until someone figures out how to get LD trains to cover their full cost of operation from evey possible angle.

 

[trainviews]

You are right. But Amtrak is not a tourist train company, it's a transportation company, so this argument should not matter.

Amtrak's LD network doesn't really cater to tourists but it also doesn't really cater to business travel either. For me I can only use Amtrak for tourist related trips as the timing, frequency, and reliability would be hard to explain to my employer. It would appear that Amtrak sees itself as an East Coast, Midwest, and West Coast corridor service that just happens to have government mandated obligations to connect all these markets to each other. If given free reign I would imagine Amtrak would cut large portions of their LD network and redirect those funds and resources toward corridor use. That's not to say there would be no more LD routes at all, but I could see them being chopped in half or even down to a third of what they are today.

Actually putting the available means into building up corridor services is much the sensible thing to do, but that is a political decision and not up to Amtrak (and nor should it be). Keeping up the LDs would be nice, but it is icing on the cake.

The job of the federal government should be to provide transportation and connecitivity, preferably with alternatives and in as environmentally friendly way as possible.

Now going on vacation, visiting granny or some other non-business purpose is a transportation need too, (even if providing scenic routes isn't), but whatever the reason, the travel needs best solved by trains are in high volume corridors (the NEC, California, Hiawatha) or in medium volume corridors with little competition/transportation alternatives (the Virginia services, several of the midwest routes). For very long distances or low volume corridors planes and cars respectively are more feasible. The society simply gain less by putting its' subsidy money here.

Sadly the american rail debate has gotten into a total dismantle/preserve deadlock. Actually the Obama administration took some sensible initiatives with the high speed and stimulus grants to expand train service in the right places in states that were ready for it and had done their homework, but then left all operating subsidy up to the states, diminishing the incentives even tough it has a good overall benefit to society. And now the federal money for infrastructure upgrades seems to be getting lost in the total Amtrak-rage of the teahadists not able or willing to see any differences between a train and a train...

And Henryj: Whining about the NEC getting everything is somewhat tiresome and not really fair. The NEC is paying for itself operationwise, even with some surplus for investing in new equipment. As for upgrading the infrastructure, the states are actually chipping in together with the feds(excluding the stimulus money, and that was a one off). The same goes for the Midwest, and putting money into upgrading routes that are already well patronized and with a decent operating economy is plain sound. Texas had the same opportunity and several corridors are among the most feasible in the country, but it did not have its' act together, and had to settle for peanuts to make the studies and plans to apply if and when congress gets a railfriendly majority again. But it requires electing politicians with that kind of vision, locally and nationally. It is not in the hands of Amtrak.

 

[George Harris]

And Henryj: Whining about the NEC getting everything is somewhat tiresome and not really fair. The NEC is paying for itself operationwise, even with some surplus for investing in new equipment.

It has been said by others and I suspect that it is really true: With any honest accounting system the northeast corridor would be found to be a sinkhole for money. With its complexity and the investment and operating expense to try to squeese as mucch speed as possible out of a 19th century alignmetn that the Pennsylvania Railroad considered to be at best an 80 mph railroad, it is probably one of the most expensive pieces of railroad to operate on a per passenger mile basis in this country. Given that it is a virtual necessity for transportation fluidity in that part of the country, I am not suggesting that it be dismantled, simply that the costs be honestly stated, and there be contributions from the various govenments in the area proportionate to the benefit. I am absolutely in agreement with the politicians from the more rural states when they say, if you expect us to contribute to your rail operation, there had better be a proportional contribuion to rail service in our areas.

 

[henryj]

And Henryj: Whining about the NEC getting everything is somewhat tiresome and not really fair. The NEC is paying for itself operationwise, even with some surplus for investing in new equipment.

It has been said by others and I suspect that it is really true: With any honest accounting system the northeast corridor would be found to be a sinkhole for money. With its complexity and the investment and operating expense to try to squeese as mucch speed as possible out of a 19th century alignmetn that the Pennsylvania Railroad considered to be at best an 80 mph railroad, it is probably one of the most expensive pieces of railroad to operate on a per passenger mile basis in this country. Given that it is a virtual necessity for transportation fluidity in that part of the country, I am not suggesting that it be dismantled, simply that the costs be honestly stated, and there be contributions from the various govenments in the area proportionate to the benefit. I am absolutely in agreement with the politicians from the more rural states when they say, if you expect us to contribute to your rail operation, there had better be a proportional contribuion to rail service in our areas.

Thanks George for that insite. As anyone knows that has followed this over the years, some 100's of billions of public funds have been dumped on the NEC to make it work. Just the initial track upgrades years ago was in the 10's of billions. I forget how much extending the electrification all the way to Boston costs or the Acela train sets, but it was a bunch. There is no way operating revenues come even close to even paying for the maintenance or depreciation on this stuff much less the construction. Basically, the rest of the country has subsidized the NEC for decades. All the improvements spent on Amtrak related projects across the entire nation do not equal what has been spent on the NEC. And of coure(whine whine whine) down here in texas we get next to nothing back.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I am absolutely in agreement with the politicians from the more rural states when they say, if you expect us to contribute to your rail operation, there had better be a proportional contribution to rail service in our areas.

Thanks to the structure of the senate rural states have long been gifted with a legislative advantage over far more populous states. This artificial benefit continues to increase in importance as our country becomes more and more urbanized. If the rural states really want a more even-handed representation at the federal level I say we give it to them. Then they can watch their priorities vanish as the majority pushes them onto the sidelines. Either that or they can stop crying foul over a system that overtly favors their minority status.

 

[Ispolkom]

Fairness is very much in the eye of the beholder. According to this chart, the states the NEC goes through rank 33, 40, 42, 44, 48, and 50 in federal spending per dollar of federal taxes. That would, I imagine, include Amtrak spending on the NEC. All of them rank below Texas (35) except for little Rhode Island (33). For that matter, Michigan and Illinois, the two midwestern states that are getting high-speed rail funding, rank at 37 and 45, also both below Texas.

The states in the eastern extension of the Sunset Limited mostly get lots of federal funding even without Amtrak. They rank 2, 4, 7, and 34 (Florida).

So perhaps the northeastern states and some midwestern states do get more Amtrak funding, but that doesn't make up for the massive wealth transfer in other federal spending.

Who is really getting it in the neck from Amtrak? My state. Minnesota ranks 46 in federal spending ($0.72 for every dollar in federal taxes) and we only have two horribly late trains a day.

EDIT: Okay, Nevada has it even worse at #48.

 

[jis]

Basically, the rest of the country has subsidized the NEC for decades. All the improvements spent on Amtrak related projects across the entire nation do not equal what has been spent on the NEC. And of coure(whine whine whine) down here in texas we get next to nothing back.

A very odd definition of "subsidized" considering who the net donor states are for feddybucks. But I guess everyone can get there kicks whichever way works for them

 

[henryj]

Fairness is very much in the eye of the beholder. According to this chart, the states the NEC goes through rank 33, 40, 42, 44, 48, and 50 in federal spending per dollar of federal taxes. That would, I imagine, include Amtrak spending on the NEC. All of them rank below Texas (35) except for little Rhode Island (33). For that matter, Michigan and Illinois, the two midwestern states that are getting high-speed rail funding, rank at 37 and 45, also both below Texas.

The states in the eastern extension of the Sunset Limited mostly get lots of federal funding even without Amtrak. They rank 2, 4, 7, and 34 (Florida).

So perhaps the northeastern states and some midwestern states do get more Amtrak funding, but that doesn't make up for the massive wealth transfer in other federal spending.

Who is really getting it in the neck from Amtrak? My state. Minnesota ranks 46 in federal spending ($0.72 for every dollar in federal taxes) and we only have two horribly late trains a day.

EDIT: Okay, Nevada has it even worse at #48.

Yep you are getting screwed just like the rest of us. I posted on here before, the Chicago to twin cities route boasted multiple trains on multiple routes and many wrote speed records for years. Now basically nothing, just an always late EB.

The debate on here I assumed was about passenger rail, not what each state gets back in Federal dollars for other stuff. Argue all you want, but there is no doubt that a vast section of the country is being overlooked by Amtrak while vast sums are being spent on the NEC. Here in Texas we have the wandering Eagle that can't get into stations like San Antonio for want of a simple cross over or switch. This goes on all over the country while the NEC gets gold plated. What is going to happen like it or not is Amtrak is just going to be out politicized by the have not states. They have truncated their system and cut back everywhere else and the states are going to rebel. If it happens, it won't be pretty.

 

[jis]

The debate on here I assumed was about passenger rail, not what each state gets back in Federal dollars for other stuff. Argue all you want, but there is no doubt that a vast section of the country is being overlooked by Amtrak while vast sums are being spent on the NEC. Here in Texas we have the wandering Eagle that can't get into stations like San Antonio for want of a simple cross over or switch. This goes on all over the country while the NEC gets gold plated. What is going to happen like it or not is Amtrak is just going to be out politicized by the have not states. They have truncated their system and cut back everywhere else and the states are going to rebel. If it happens, it won't be pretty.

I agree with you. It is quite possible that this could happen and the results will be way uglier in the states that have a few LD trains than those which have frequent corridor service (or even a single LD train) on which the economic well being of the area depends. Many more of the states that have a few LD trains will cease to have any, and the corridors will continue to have service albeit may not be as fast as before. A vast section of the country is being overlooked partly because there is little political support in those parts anyway. Parts where there is political support gets trains either via Amtrak or via local agencies.

 

[Ispolkom]

The debate on here I assumed was about passenger rail, not what each state gets back in Federal dollars for other stuff.

I'd think that it's misleading to look at federal subsidies program by program. If the NEC has been subsidized by the rest of the nation, as you claim, does it not bear noting that the Interstate System and other transportation programs have been subsidized by the heavily populated northeastern states? It's sort of like listening to my wheat-farming cousins complain about welfare, ignoring the hundreds of thousands of dollars their outfit has received in various subsidies. Mote and beam, anyone?

 

[henryj]

The debate on here I assumed was about passenger rail, not what each state gets back in Federal dollars for other stuff.

I'd think that it's misleading to look at federal subsidies program by program. If the NEC has been subsidized by the rest of the nation, as you claim, does it not bear noting that the Interstate System and other transportation programs have been subsidized by the heavily populated northeastern states? It's sort of like listening to my wheat-farming cousins complain about welfare, ignoring the hundreds of thousands of dollars their outfit has received in various subsidies. Mote and beam, anyone?

Speaking of interestate highways, that is my idea for financing Amtrak. Passenger rail should be treated as an interestate highway with the Fed supplying 80-90% and the states paying the rest. Amtrak picks the routes and runs the trains or for intrastate the states can run them. Funding is from a fuel tax or a national sales tax.

 

[user 1215]

No matter how it's done, there needs to be a Southern connection to the West from Florida & Georgia. It's silly having to go through DC to get to Houston and Chicago to get to Dallas.

 

[cirdan]

The debate on here I assumed was about passenger rail, not what each state gets back in Federal dollars for other stuff. Argue all you want, but there is no doubt that a vast section of the country is being overlooked by Amtrak while vast sums are being spent on the NEC. Here in Texas we have the wandering Eagle that can't get into stations like San Antonio for want of a simple cross over or switch. This goes on all over the country while the NEC gets gold plated. What is going to happen like it or not is Amtrak is just going to be out politicized by the have not states. They have truncated their system and cut back everywhere else and the states are going to rebel. If it happens, it won't be pretty.

But doesn't that also have to do with how succesful such states are at campaigning for money, or to put it bluntly, holding out the begging bowl?

In places like Texas, I guess if you asked people what the 10 or even 20 most important issues were that they felt the state ought to be acting on, then Amtrak probably wouldn't be on that list. It's not a topic people mention during elections and its not a topic people write to their governor about so it's not something that gets acted on.

If the Texas Eagle can't run, maybe a couple of dozen people are inconvenienced. It's not a big deal. If the NEC stops working, thousands of people can't get to work on time and there are massive business repurcussions. That's why that corridor simply must work.

This can only change if more people start demanding more rail in their states.

 

[cirdan]

No matter how it's done, there needs to be a Southern connection to the West from Florida & Georgia. It's silly having to go through DC to get to Houston and Chicago to get to Dallas.

If you look at the Amtrak system map there are lost of other important gaps as well. For example Florida to Chicago or maybe even Kansas City to Houston. I don't see NOL - Florida as being more important than either of those.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I would have to agree with Cirdan on this. Very few people in Texas are asking for more intercity passenger rail. Thus, we don't get more rail. Texans do keep asking for more highways and freeways and lanes and lo and behold they are everywhere. Seems pretty simple to me. But maybe that's not as fun as playing the victim card and blaming a handful of liberal states for being unfair to tiny little Texas.

 

[henryj]

I would have to agree with Cirdan on this. Very few people in Texas are asking for more intercity passenger rail. Thus, we don't get more rail. Texans do keep asking for more highways and freeways and lanes and lo and behold they are everywhere. Seems pretty simple to me. But maybe that's not as fun as playing the victim card and blaming a handful of liberal states for being unfair to tiny little Texas.

It's a matter of which comes first, the trains or the demand for trains. Here in Texas we have been without any substantive passenger rail service so long that most people don't even know what it is or that it still exists. When the interstate highways were built, there was no demand from the states for it, it was Eisenhower's idea that he brought back from seeing the German Autobahn. The Federal Government passed the legislation and the system was built. This idea that most short haul trains should be state supported is a boondoggle. The NEC for instance will never be given to the states. They would squable and argue over it until it just fell apart. If you are ever going to have a national system then it has to be centrally controlled and financed just like airlways, highways and waterways. Once this is clear the freight railroads will cooperate because it will be to their benefit. Putting Amtrak under the DOT and running and funding it like the interstate highways would be one way to do this.

 

[Ryan]

But maybe that's not as fun as playing the victim card and blaming a handful of liberal states for being unfair to tiny little Texas.

It's always easier to blame the "others".

It's a matter of which comes first, the trains or the demand for trains.

There's more to it than just riding trains. Try electing some pro-rail politicians and see what happens. As was mentioned upthread, you'll have a DoT that makes plans for rail projects and state money becomes available for those projects. Then you can talk about getting your slice of pie from my tax dollars.