What if we reversed course and slowed Amtrak down?

[Devil's Advocate]

Over and over again I hear about proposals to speed Amtrak up. It make sense from a passenger perspective, but increased speed generally requires increased money and new right of ways. Unfortunately Amtrak is subject to nearly constant political scrutiny and adversity, which probably means seeing substantially more money is unlikely to ever happen again. This is especially true along the LD network, which is the focus of my inquiry. That being the case I wonder if moving speeds in the other direction actually makes more sense. If Amtrak speeds were reduced maybe their trains could reach more cities during daylight arrival and departure times. That could vastly increase my own level of satisfaction and would be likely to substantially increase my number of Amtrak trips. If Amtrak ran at a similar speed to nearby freight trains then Amtrak trains wouldn't have to worry as much about being delayed and freight railroads might not be as motivated to kick Amtrak off their tracks. Yes the train would become even slower than it is now, and by a fairly substantial margin, but in many cases Amtrak is already the slowest and least dependable form of mechanized transit available. It's not like Amtrak is able to keep up with anyone now, so would it really matter if it became slower but also more dependable and easier to schedule around?

 

[valkyrie]

An interesting question, however, I see one major problem with this approach: not enough sleepers/coaches/dining cars ect. to make it happen. On the western LD routes, if you slowed down the trains you will require an additional train set in each direction to allow three trains to operate simultaneously in each direction instead of the current two (I think I have that right - correct me here if I am in error). That's a lot of train cars! As you correctly point out, "substantially more money is unlikely to ever happen again." I just don't see congress appropriating the funds necessary to make this happen.

 

[jebr]

With the extra labor that would result in extending the schedules, would it not be better to simply have a second train on the route?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

We could at the last pre-midnight stop park the train at that location and leave the next morning. No one would ever be stuck on the graveyard shift again!

Sarcasm.

 

[jis]

That is how the Skeena is operated by VIA. You overnight at a hotel en route.

 

[keelhauled]

A once daily schedule will always work badly for someone or some group. Personally, my most frequent long distance trip is from Albany to Chicago. It works well since I don't lose very much time in either day; I can get most of a full of work done before leaving, and have most of the day free when arriving.

Amtrak could stuff six hours of padding between Buffalo and Cleveland, and then they'd have better calling times, but then the train would become pointless for me. IMO the best investment in long distance service is more frequencies. I would consider it far more useful if instead of buying equipment to lengthen schedules Amtrak bought equipment to put, at its simplest, another train on a 12 hour offset from most existing long distance schedules.

Long distance train travel is not fundamentally broken for what it is, and it's not like trains are running empty, not by a long shot, so it seems more reasonable to me to expand the offerings to make the service more accessible. Speed or lack thereof is not a factor, anyone traveling long distance by train already knows this, and there is demand for the service even so. The crucial pieces are reliability and accessibility.

 

[me_little_me]

I always wanted to take longer to get somewhere. I'm sure a lot of others just couldn't wait to not get there.

Slow Amtrak down any more and you'll improve the health of Americans. They'll find walking faster. Bicycling already wins out.

 

[railiner]

I always wanted to take longer to get somewhere. I'm sure a lot of others just couldn't wait to not get there.

Slow Amtrak down any more and you'll improve the health of Americans. They'll find walking faster. Bicycling already wins out.

Hey...maybe you're on to something here.....instead of charging fares by distance, maybe they should charge by the hour on board?

By that logic, you would pay a lot more to ride the Cardinal from New York to Chicago, then the Lakeshore....after all, you're 'getting more'.....

 

[west point]

IMO it is much financially less costly to clear up slow sections. Do that instead of trying to get another 10 MPH top speed out of a section. Now Newark to Trenton will be upgraded to 160 MPH on the inside tracks from 125 . That does appear to be eliminating a definite slow section. But the "S" curve near Elizabeth which is now limited to 60 MPH ( result of 188 accident ) needs to be eliminated to allow unrestricted speed EWR - TRE. Slowing and accelerating at least 3 miles in each direction + the 2+ miles of the curve costs what ? ~ 4 minutes ? It seems that eliminating that curve would cost much less than even making EWR - TRE 150.

Frankford junction where 188 derailed needs eliminating as well as well a several lesser curves north of North PHL station. Save what 8 - 10 minutes ?.

 

[jis]

Who told you Newark to Trenton is becoming 160mph? It is only County (Jersey Avenue) to Ham ( a little past Hamilton) that is getting 160mph on the inner tracks and 125mph on the outer tracks. Nothing is changing between Newark and County.

 

[capltd29]

This sounds like the Kentucky Cardinal. That worked great!

 

[west point]

Newark to county yes its not getting 160. That is too short a distance due to the Elizabeth "S" curve. Now if when the curve is eliminated ( god only knows when ) then 160 Newark to Ham. Fix Trenton to North PHL next then that section would be a class act for the US.

 

[neroden]

I realize you're a devil's advocate, but this is a really stupid proposal. If you don't see why, consider the Syracuse NY-Chicago market, one of the largest markets on the Lakeshore Limited. You'll figure out why this is a dumb idea.

Important to note: whenever Amtrak has agreed to slower schedules, the freight railroads have managed to sabotage dispatching until they have the same level of delays. Slowing down does NOT get you better on time performance.

What Amtrak needs is to buy or seize the tracks from the derelict & lawless freight companies, or build their own tracks. Reliability will get much better.

I'm also going to point out that it's very likely that Amtrak will get huge amounts of additional money in the fairly near future. I lived through the 1980s, when Amtrak really got absolutely nothing for capital improvements. Funding went way up in the 1990s, stalled in the 2000s, and went way up again in 2008. Even the drip of funding from TIGER is more than Amtrak got in the 1980s. Cities are funding new station buildings rather than trying to tear them down. *Trump* actually wants to put money into Amtrak infrastructure. The trend is unmistakable.

 

[cirdan]

I don't think the key to cutting times is always just speed.

As you say, higher speeds require work on the ROW, upgraded equipment, signals and such investements that swallow millions and millions and don't always lead to a noticeable upturn in farebox income or passenger figures.

The best way to go faster is to simply not go slow. The time lost through bad scheduling, or sitting in a siding while some other train gets sorted out etc often costs more time than these investments can make up for. So speeding trains up should not look only at making the fast bits faster but more at making the slow bits moderately fast. This can be done by better coordination with host railroads and schedulers including a meaningful buy-in so that the railroads get some positive kickback from helping Amtrak, but can also take the form of double trcaking at bottlecks and pinch points, investments that would also benefit freiagh operations and that the host railroads would thus share some of the costs of. It can also be about getting rid of some obtusely backward things such as those stations on double track lines that have only a platform on one side forcing the passenger train to change to the other trac and causing all sorts of mayhem for freight in doing so.

 

[Ziv]

I disagree with the "derelict" statement. We may wish that the freight railroads would give Amtrak a higher priority, but the freight boys are far from derelict. If Warren Buffet is willing to buy BNSF, I would say that they are a pretty going concern. Ever since the Staggers Act was passed, freight railroads have been earning huge profits and sinking them back into new equipment and improvements to the rail infrastructure.

Complaining because most of the larger freight companies don't give a higher priority to Amtrak is understandable, but it ignores the fact that the railroads make more money by ignoring the priorities of Amtrak. The question ought to be, how can we find a way to make Amtrak capable of running at a faster tempo while not interfering with the efficiency of the freight rail companies traffic. Since the answer is probably a combination of better dispatching and more double/triple tracking, it comes down to more money. Freight railroads make a ton of money and strengthen the US economy in a myriad of ways. Amtrak loses money and probably will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. The fact that Amtrak is needed doesn't change the fact that it is the lightweight in this tussle.

( I doubt that Amtrak will be able to make more than a token amount of progress in straightening out curvy portions of the LD route, unfortunately, so speeding up the slow will probably come from reducing the amount of time spent on sidings waiting for the freights to go by. )

What Amtrak needs is to buy or seize the tracks from the derelict & lawless freight companies, or build their own tracks. Reliability will get much better.

 

[jis]

Newark to county yes its not getting 160. That is too short a distance due to the Elizabeth "S" curve. Now if when the curve is eliminated ( god only knows when ) then 160 Newark to Ham. Fix Trenton to North PHL next then that section would be a class act for the US.

StillThat won't be enough to get 160 on that stretch. I am starting to wonder whether you have any idea of what the overall profile of that route is. Get hold of an old employee timetable and check out where the curves are and how sharp they are. The Elizabeth S Curve is not the only curve with speed limit below 100mph on the segment in question.

 

[HenryK]

I don't think the proposal is stupid—it's interesting—but doubt that it is really workable. Freight dispatchers might be even less inclined to keep "the Amtrak" on time. In part Ziv's right, I think—better dispatching would help a great deal. Double or triple tracking? Will intermodal make up for an increasing loss of coal and oil traffic? Who knows?

What we DO know is that passenger railroading in America will never be profitable. Except for a couple of lines in Japan, passenger trains are subsidized the world over.

 

[keelhauled]

I realize you're a devil's advocate, but this is a really stupid proposal. If you don't see why, consider the Syracuse NY-Chicago market, one of the largest markets on the Lakeshore Limited. You'll figure out why this is a dumb idea.

The question is whether Cleveland-CHI would work better than Syracuse-CHI. Someone always gets screwed on a once daily schedule. Personally I agree with you that the schedule is just fine the way it is, but that's because right now I'm not the one getting screwed.

 

[neroden]

Running trains more times per day has been proven to be extremely valuable. If you run 'em often enough you can serve all the cities with reasonable schedules.

The problem is that running lots of passenger trains per day actually does start to get in the way of slow freight operations. (In the way that one train a day does *not*, and the freights are being whiny little lawbreaking jackasses when they complain about it.) So we're back to "buy the tracks". Which has been done for commuter rail in every state in the nation plus Ontario and Quebec, and for longer lines by Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Southern California, and Canada. And aspirationally by counties in Pennsylvania, though they need help from New Jersey.

It is possible that the freight operators will become more cooperative with Amtrak now that they're running less and less coal. With the decline of bulk freight and the rise of intermodal, they have an interest in running freight trains at decent speeds. And they're losing business due to unreliable freight scheduling, so they have an interest in good dispatching. It's not clear that the old guys at the executive level of the Class Is understand this yet, but eventually there will be management turnover and someone who does will get into power.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I realize you're a devil's advocate, but this is a really stupid proposal. If you don't see why, consider the Syracuse NY-Chicago market, one of the largest markets on the Lakeshore Limited. You'll figure out why this is a dumb idea.

I have never ridden the Lakeshore Limited between Syracuse and Chicago. Have you ever ridden the Sunset Limited between San Antonio and Los Angeles? It's ridiculous to me that the Sunset still struggles to serve the second and seventh largest cities, including the route's Western terminus, at a reasonable hour for business or leisure. Rather than risk antagonizing critical passenger pools like Beaumont and Maricopa I considered what might happen if we simply slowed the train down a bit until most if not all of the major passenger centers had decent arrival and departure times.

Important to note: whenever Amtrak has agreed to slower schedules, the freight railroads have managed to sabotage dispatching until they have the same level of delays. Slowing down does NOT get you better on time performance.

It wasnt that long ago that the only way the Empire Builder could maintain any schedule at all was to slow everything down. That was more of a crises reaction but it got me thinking of what else might benefit from a slower and more leisurely pace as part of the regular schedule.

What Amtrak needs is to buy or seize the tracks from the derelict & lawless freight companies, or build their own tracks. Reliability will get much better.

So in your mind my proposal to slow trains down in order to improve calling hours and general schedule keeping is "really stupid" but your proposal to unilaterally seize thousands of miles of privately owned tracks is more reasonable?

I'm also going to point out that it's very likely that Amtrak will get huge amounts of additional money in the fairly near future. I lived through the 1980s, when Amtrak really got absolutely nothing for capital improvements. Funding went way up in the 1990s, stalled in the 2000s, and went way up again in 2008. Even the drip of funding from TIGER is more than Amtrak got in the 1980s. Cities are funding new station buildings rather than trying to tear them down. *Trump* actually wants to put money into Amtrak infrastructure. The trend is unmistakable.

Are we talking about the LD network or some commuter corridor? Where exactly is this "huge" new money going to come from? Is it coming from a GOP controlled legislature collaborating with a fascist executive branch and center-right activist Judicial branch? The trend is absolutely unmistakable and it looks like well be starting our trip at Murdoch connecting in Berlusconi on our way to Mussolini.

 

[neroden]

Nearly every other country in the world, with the idiotic exceptions of Mexico and Canada (obviously under US influence), has nearly all its tracks owned by the government (sometimes through various levels of shell corporations). Mexico and Canada are both moving back towards owning their tracks. So is the US, as I already documented.

RailROAD tracks are pretty much like roads. Nearly all of those are owned by government, worldwide, too.

Yes, my proposal to unilaterally seize thousands of miles of privately owned tracks (with appropriate compensation as required by the Constitution) is Extremely Reasonable.. Even Wick Moorman, former chairman of NS, thought it was a good idea.

As for the Sunset Limited, it's non-functional. I frankly don't care, slow it down if you like, shut it down if you like. Until it runs daily it's almost worthless.

It's a bad idea to slow down the so-called long-distance trains which actually work. Even slowing down the Empire Builder was an abject failure and didn't make it run on time.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Even if you believe that nationalizing the freight rail network is reasonable in and of itself there is no way you can see the political and bureaucratic moves necessary to accomplish such a goal as even remotely rational. What you're describing would require some sort of far left revolution at the national level. A revolution that does not appear to be in the cards anytime in the next half century or so. I cannot speak to what may or may not come after that, but I was thinking about things that could be done now, with current funding and capabilities. It does not bother me to find out that my proposal may be unreasonable or unworkable, in fact I brought it here precisely because I wanted to see how it would hold up to judgement and criticism, but to have my relatively simple proposal compared negatively to a pie-in-the-sky fairy tale of mind boggling effort and complexity seems rather absurd to me.

 

[zephyr17]

Canada is moving towards re-nationalization? News to me. CN was DE-nationalized. CP is talking about taking over NS, doesn't sound like a company on the verge of being nationalized. VIA is talking about getting their own, dedicated tracks, but those would be new, not nationalized CN or CP.

Is there something you can cite?

 

[jis]

The problem is just because something seems reasonable does not make it realizable in the current environment.

Ironically, on my last visit to the UK armed with a Britrail Pass, everything that went wrong was with the nationalized part of the system. The privatized parts worked exceptionally well. One should not generalize from that, but nationalization is no panacea. At the end of the day how well or poorly something is managed is what matters most.

 

[Ziv]

On the idea of slowing the railroads down, there is always the possibility of doing a slow night train to complement daily Amtrak schedules. Pick city pairs that are between 300 and 800 miles apart and run slow trains that are primarily sleepers. It won't matter that they are only doing 50-60 mph at best because the train leaves between 7 pm and 9 pm and won't be scheduled to arriver until 8 am or, for the longer distance city pairs, 11 am or noon. Maybe have half the train attendants get off at a station 60 miles from the start and bus them home after the beds are turned down. Clean the cars during the day, turn them around, head back to the origin city.

Café car could serve your choice of different types of congee to make it similar to the Chinese T trains... ;-)

Yeah, won't happen, though. Even a slow train is too expensive for Amtrak to buy. And sleepers tend to be pretty manpower intensive.