Do we really need HSR for LD?

[jis]

I think it would be a tad more realistic to have Amtrak force coach to pay. I do agree though, having free WiFi for all would be a huge bonus.

In order to get decent uninterrupted WiFi service on western LD trains either mucho dinero has to be given to wireless companies to setup cell towers along the routes of LD trains, basically to serve one train per day plus a few incidental stray people around in the sticks. Or develop a multi-mode wireless system which can tap into terrestrial WiFi where available and hook up to satellite link where not, to hook into something like the Panasonic system that is used by airlines, or maybe even use exclusively the new Elon Musk system coming on line soon.

In a moving body going through random landscape a terrestrial WiFi system engineered to serve it, will always be the best, and a satellite system will always have unpredictable drop offs when terrestrial features get in the way. And none of them have a work around in the matter of tunnels, short of installing leaky coax in the tunnels hooked upto antennas outside the tunnel.

In short, it is not just throw in some existing out of the box stuff into the train and it just starts working fine. It is complicated where telcos do not otherwise have any incentive to provide cell service.

 

[Qapla]

The Interstate Highway System does not have speeds that come anywhere close to 100 MPH. While it would be nice if Amtrak could go 100 MPH in more places - it is not absolutely necessary to improve LD travel. Higher "average speed" needs to be improved as well as OTP.

Now, it Amtrak could achieve speeds close to 100 MPH on most of the trip it would make train travel so much faster than cars that it would seem like "high speed".

 

[jis]

The Interstate Highway System does not have speeds that come anywhere close to 100 MPH. While it would be nice if Amtrak could go 100 MPH in more places - it is not absolutely necessary to improve LD travel. Higher "average speed" needs to be improved as well as OTP.

Now, it Amtrak could achieve speeds close to 100 MPH on most of the trip it would make train travel so much faster than cars that it would seem like "high speed".

That is why I prefer to work towards an end to end time goal like "New York to Chicago in 12 hours", and let the rest follow from that as parts of the solution to the techno-economic problem of getting there. Maybe you need 100mph, maybe not. And because of a quantum leap in ROW improvement needs (e.g. grade crossing elimination) you set constraints within which you must work, like restrict max speeds to 110mph.

There is real economic and operating convenience value to being able to do NY - CHI in 12 (or 14) hours instead of 20. You can run the service with fewer consists. You have to keep toilets clean en route for much shorter time so they tend to be in better shape. You have to carry and dole out much smaller overall quantity of food, which makes it easier to accommodate better quality of food for the same cost of operation. OBS costs are reduced considerably for the same or higher revenue collection, and on and on. It is not just about getting there faster, though that in itself is likely to have an extremely positive effect on revenues and demand, making it easier to introduce multiple services per day instead of one train per day trundling along slowly.

And mind you I am not talking about HSR. I am merely talking about being at par with the world for standard speed trains.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I do not feel punishing coach passengers is the way to gain ridership. It doesn't really cost more to provide Wi-Fi to sleepers and coach as it would to provide it for sleepers only. Making coach passengers pay for Wi-Fi will not get them to start riding in a sleeper - it will just send them to some other type of transportation while leaving a bad taste in their mouths

As someone who has to deal with rural wireless networking I can assure you it absolutely does cost more money to facilitate hundreds of users versus a dozen.

Yes, but it you add Wi-Fi ... let all the riders use it - don't make some pay extra for it while the privileged get it for free (that is how it would be perceived). Free Wi-Fi is so common these days at so many places ... making some pay for it while others get it "included" would not set well with people used to having free Wi-Fi at McDonalds.

Sleepers passengers were paying for it through higher fares before it was taken away again. It was just barely functional for the handful of people in range and would have never worked with a entire train trying to use it.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Now, it Amtrak could achieve speeds close to 100 MPH on most of the trip it would make train travel so much faster than cars that it would seem like "high speed".

There should be more 90-110 mph running across the country. Once it goes over 110, the costs get high enough that it needs to be in specific corridors.

And of course there are other issues like what good is 100 mph running on a Chicago to New York line (there is already some 100 mph running on that route) if you don’t have a flyover and passenger main coming into Chicago.

But building that flyover isn’t sexy... it’s just an over pass. So how does it get funded without people calling out that it’s a waste of taxpayer money!

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

There should be more 90-110 mph running across the country. Once it goes over 110, the costs get high enough that it needs to be in specific corridors.

And of course there are other issues like what good is 100 mph running on a Chicago to New York line (there is already some 100 mph running on that route) if you don’t have a flyover and passenger main coming into Chicago.

But building that flyover isn’t sexy... it’s just an over pass. So how does it get funded without people calling out that it’s a waste of taxpayer money!

Which flyover are you referring to? The only at-grade diamond crossing I can think of on the LSL route within Chicago is the CN near the Chicago River Bridge, which doesn't see an excessive amount of traffic and would be difficult to build a flyover at given the close proximity of the river bridge and elevated Orange Line tracks. There used to be a junction with the Metra Rock Island District but a flyover for the Metra tracks was completed a few years ago. It seems to me at this point the issues on that line are more due to general freight congestion than any specific junction.

 

[MARC Rider]

I was thinking these features should be the thrust of advertising for rail travel. Don't bemoan the fact that it takes several days to cross the country (as compared to the speed of a plane) - highlight the relaxed pace!

Crossing the country by train is strictly a niche market. Aside from people who can't fly (or drive, for that matter) due to medical reasons, it's a really small number of people who are going the whole distance for a "relaxing experience." While these people help the revenue bottom-line of long-distance service, such service is really designed for people making shorter trips, especially to and from places not well served by the airlines. (Hello, Hi-Line!)

Also remember, doing a round trip by train coast to coast requires 8 travel days in addition tot the time one spends at the destination. This is opposed to the two travel days one needs for a similar trip by air. Given that most people have limited free time for travel or are traveling for business, most people don't have the time to take a coast-to-coast trip by train.

 

[MARC Rider]

More importantly, different ideologies about government spending. If we were trying to build the interstate highway system today, people would be screaming about waste and taxes, and arguing that all we need to do is patch a few potholes on the state roads we've already got.

It's worse than that, it's gotten so bad that it's hard to get funding to patch the potholes and repair bridges on the highways we now have.

 

[MARC Rider]

You all are talking about heavy use corridors like DC--Atlanta. I've taken the Crescent from DC to ATL and back several times. It does NOT get heavy use.

Well, yes, if all that's available is an overnight train whose timekeeping is erratic, I would imagine ridership is somewhat limited. But a DC-Atlanta Corridor not only connects two populous cities, it has some populous cities along the route, such as Richmond, Raleigh, and Charlotte. This is assuming that he corridor is based on the proposed southeast High Speed Rail to Raleigh and the Piedmont/Carolinian route to Charlotte. If you can make DC-Atlanta a day trip with multiple trains, plus have traffic to the intermediate cities (and also traffic to the NEC), there's no reason why that corridor shouldn't be "heavy use."

 

[MARC Rider]

Well, I was talking about the western long distance serves, which at this time, don't have WiFi at all.

Well, of course they don't have wifi. There is also very spotty and non-existent cellphone reception along most of the western routes once you get out of the towns or parallel interstate highways. The wifi signal on a moving train is transmitted to the train by cellphone signals. So no cellphone, no wifi. Thus, unless Amtrak were to install satellite phone receivers, there's no point in having wifi on the western long-distance trains.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Well, of course they don't have wifi. There is also very spotty and non-existent cellphone reception along most of the western routes once you get out of the towns or parallel interstate highways. The wifi signal on a moving train is transmitted to the train by cellphone signals. So no cellphone, no wifi. Thus, unless Amtrak were to install satellite phone receivers, there's no point in having wifi on the western long-distance trains.

The only train I’ve had serious cell phone signal issues with is the Coast Starlight in Oregon.

 

[jiml]

It's worse than that, it's gotten so bad that it's hard to get funding to patch the potholes and repair bridges on the highways we now have.

This is not a US-only problem. Governments have other "priorities" than basic infrastructure.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Do we really need HSR for LD?

I would break it into separate questions.

1. Do we really need LD? Yes.
2. Do we really need HSR? Yes.
3. Does LD need to be HSR? No.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

This is not a US-only problem. Governments have other "priorities" than basic infrastructure.

I think the difference is that outside of the Western Hemisphere, where the US retains dominant influence, passenger rail is growing in popularity among developed nations. Even developing countries are signing up for HSR with loans and technology that could be coming from us if we hadn't abandoned our superpower status for proud mediocrity.

 

[NES28]

There is one thing that must be kept in mind when planning more trains in the U.S. The freight railroads don't want more passenger trains on their main routes. If they are forced to take them it is crystal clear that speed will be limited to 79/80 mph (possibly 90 on CSX or BNSF). The only way to get a significant number of more passenger trains is to build new track (i.e. Texas Central, Brightline) or buy track (like LA-San Diego or Virginia). Once you're building track, you may as well build it with very limited curvature and without grade crossings (which will allow 125 mph diesel or 220 mph when electrified) since this doesn't cost much more than a line with curves and grade crossings. Passenger trains are well-powered, so grades are not that much of a factor. To justify the large investment required to build new track you need to run a lot of trains and carry a lot of passengers. There are not a lot of corridors where this level of investment is justified. Beyond the ones now in the works, FRA regional studies show CAHSR, LA-Phoenix, a limited Midwest network, including a through Chicago-Orlando line via Indianapolis and Atlanta, and Atlanta-Charlotte. Others not included in the FRA-led studies include the other sides of the Texas Triangle (beyond Texas Central) and Portland-Seattle-Vancouver.

 

[Barb Stout]

Currently, coach passengers get free Wi-Fi on the Eastern trains. If you take that away and make them start paying extra for it you will just drive more passengers away - you know, like flex-dining. It is too late to start charging now for a service that has been being provided free for several years now.

I had heard, rightly or wrongly, that at one point in time the western LD did have wi-fi and that it was taken away. If that's true, I assume there was a reason that it was taken away and I can think of several reasons. Does anyone of the forum know if what I heard was true and if so, the reasons(s) behind that?

 

[crescent-zephyr]

If they are forced to take them it is crystal clear that speed will be limited to 79/80 mph (possibly 90 on CSX or BNSF).

There is 90-110 running on bnsf, csx, and UP. Needs to be more of it, but it’s possible.

 

[fdaley]

I know that the Coast Starlight had WiFi when we took it in 2017. But when we last rode it in February 2019, I asked the sleeper attendant if I needed a password for access, and he said the WiFi had been discontinued just a few days before that. He didn't know why. I also recall that when we rode in 2017, my son kept going from our sleeper room back to the business class car to sit, because the signal was stronger there.

 

[jis]

There is 90-110 running on bnsf, csx, and UP. Needs to be more of it, but it’s possible.

Where is the 90-110 running on CSX? Not on the Empire Corridor, since all that track is now Amtrak/NYSDOT, not CSX. Once you hit CSX at Hoffmans it is down to 79.

 

[Trogdor]

Where is the 90-110 running on CSX? Not on the Empire Corridor, since all that track is now Amtrak/NYSDOT, not CSX. Once you hit CSX at Hoffmans it is down to 79.

Or UP, for that matter? Unless we're counting the short-lived (and apparently redowngraded) couple of miles just south of Joliet, IL.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Where is the 90-110 running on CSX? Not on the Empire Corridor, since all that track is now Amtrak/NYSDOT, not CSX. Once you hit CSX at Hoffmans it is down to 79.

I was counting empire.. it used to be csx and 100 correct?

Or UP, for that matter? Unless we're counting the short-lived (and apparently redowngraded) couple of miles just south of Joliet, IL.

They spent all that money and are back at 79!?

 

[sttom]

So how does it get funded without people calling out that it’s a waste of taxpayer money!

You explain to people what the costs of building highways actually is compared to rail. 1 mile of rehabbed double track can cost between $2.5 and $2.7 million on average. Compared to highway construction which costs $3 to $11 million per mile to build depending on where you are building and what standard it is being built to.

Another aspect to show rail isn't a waste of money is to explain the economic impact of rail. Passenger rail in specific has a total economic impact nearly 4 times what the capital spent is. Highways can't be built quick enough to ever relieve traffic. Not to mention expanding roads induces more demand until the extra capacity is eaten up.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

You explain to people what the costs of building highways actually is compared to rail.

If only it were that easy. (Looks at American politics).

 

[me_little_me]

In reality, the number one thing Amtrak needs for speed improvement in LD is getting priority on the tracks.

Number 2 is getting the RRs to stop using slow orders to avoid keeping their tracks up to snuff.

Number 3 is improving station wait times - electronic signs indicating where people should stand before the train comes in, disembarking through different doors than embarkation, high level stations with long enough platforms so multi-stopping is not necessary, improved overcrowded stations (like Atlanta)

Number 4 is the new engines and cars coming and those that should come (superliners) to avoid delays caused by broken equipment.

That would dramatically improve on-time performance.

Then they should look at running trains faster.

As to non-LD (including all the existing short-distance trains and future city pair like Virginia to Charlotte/Atlanta, Chicago to Cincinnati, Chicago to MSP), those are good candidates for HS rail. West Coast is in progress as, hopefully, Houston-Dallas/FTW, and the Brightline services. LA-Vegas is a must if private work falls through.

 

[PaTrainFan]

In reality, the number one thing Amtrak needs for speed improvement in LD is getting priority on the tracks.

Number 2 is getting the RRs to stop using slow orders to avoid keeping their tracks up to snuff.

Number 3 is improving station wait times - electronic signs indicating where people should stand before the train comes in, disembarking through different doors than embarkation, high level stations with long enough platforms so multi-stopping is not necessary, improved overcrowded stations (like Atlanta)

Number 4 is the new engines and cars coming and those that should come (superliners) to avoid delays caused by broken equipment.

That would dramatically improve on-time performance.

Then they should look at running trains faster.

As to non-LD (including all the existing short-distance trains and future city pair like Virginia to Charlotte/Atlanta, Chicago to Cincinnati, Chicago to MSP), those are good candidates for HS rail. West Coast is in progress as, hopefully, Houston-Dallas/FTW, and the Brightline services. LA-Vegas is a must if private work falls through.

Exactly. Fundamentals. Blocking and tackling first, then go long.