Why do Amtrak trains have to be so slow?

[Train Rider]

The first few posts explained the majority of the problem very well. But there's a major piece of history that also has to be taken into account. The result of this history is that US railroads are for the most part privately owned and operated. Yes, in a few areas the road itself is owned and operated by Amtrak, and in a few areas by state gov't - NC and NM come to mind (also MI?). And there is an increasing tendency for gov't to buy out the private company and run and maintain the road itself. But the vast majority of the roads are still privately owned.
Contrast this with virtually every other country in the world, where the rail-road (infrastructure) is gov't owned and private companies pay to run trains on that road. The Eurozone is undergoing a revolution in rail operation, the whole point of which is to open access to all the gov't owned railroads to any and all train operators. So far, it's working beautifully. Operators, both freight and passenger, are competing with each other and, as best I can tell, prices are going down while service is going up. This is the way we do highways (with a few exceptions) and air routes and waterways in the US but not how we do railroads. And until this changes, we're stuck with slow infrequent passenger service no matter how much money we throw at it.

Yes, gov't can build brand-new high-speed lines. Buy the land, and build the track, and then either run or franchise the operations or just possibly allow multiple companies to compete, though this becomes harder and harder as speeds increase and the necessary technology gets more complicated. But, as others keep saying, HSR really only makes sense along the densely populated corridors, which still leaves a huge part of the country in need of much better passenger rail. And even in the corridors, it would be insane to build HSR w/o building on existing freight corridors. No, freight and HSR can’t share track but they can certainly share right-of-way and often the land adjoining the existing r-o-w’s would be cheaply acquired.

I’m not saying this will ever happen in the US – climate change may preclude any possibility of this before we come to our senses and start the process. I’m only saying it’s a necessary step if we ever are to have passenger rail like the rest of the developed world.

Flame away!

Government ownership = socialism. Socialism = the first giant step on the road to communism.

Yes, many people think this way, and it's hard to tell them they're wrong.

No only is nationalizing rail lines politically a non-starter, any discussion of it will marginalize rail advocates to the fringe.

 

[jis]

Yes, gov't can build brand-new high-speed lines. Buy the land, and build the track, and then either run or franchise the operations or just possibly allow multiple companies to compete, though this becomes harder and harder as speeds increase and the necessary technology gets more complicated. But, as others keep saying, HSR really only makes sense along the densely populated corridors, which still leaves a huge part of the country in need of much better passenger rail. And even in the corridors, it would be insane to build HSR w/o building on existing freight corridors. No, freight and HSR can’t share track but they can certainly share right-of-way and often the land adjoining the existing r-o-w’s would be cheaply acquired.

Irrespective of who builds it, part of the problem lies with the current RoWs. For example, the NYC RoW across New York has been determined to be good for upto 125mph, but to go above that consistently it will require a new straighter RoW in many places. Most other RoWs are even worse. The NEC itself is going to be an incredibly uneve hi-lo-hi-lo speed highly energy inefficient ride (even more so than it already is) even if some small segments can operate at 180mph on the current RoW. So for Higher Speed yes current RoWs can be used, but not for real High Speed. So just askibg to do the impossible will not make it possible irrespective of whether the government, private or public-private partnerships build it.
The goal should focus on acceptable runtimes between designated O/D, and preferably minimizing energy used to achieve such runtimes.

 

[RichardK]

I just checked on train service from San Antonio. Now I live in Chicago and we have great service between here and Milwaukee, approximately the same distance. And I actually live in a suburb north of chicago, with a stop on that route. So my rail time is 60 min flat. It's 90 min. from Chicago. But the times for the trip to Austin from SA is 2hours plus and the return trip is over 3 hours as listed. That is ridiculous. The departure times are perfect for day trip, 7am from San Antonio and 6:30 pm return. But the travel times are egregious.

Unfortunately, the train can't go 75-80 mph on the interstate like a vehicle. Amtrak trains are subject to freight schedules, track issues, and speed zones, and sometimes the route isn't direct. Additionally, unlike a car, the train stops in San Marcos to pick up and discharge passengers, which adds time. The schedule is sometimes padded to allow for delays, so while the timetable may say three hours, it may be closer to 2.5 hours. It's still longer than driving, and I sympathize, but until we have a dedicated passenger rail service with its own tracks and the ability for high-speed rail, the train will sometimes take longer than driving.

I can beat the Texas Eagle between Austin and San Antonio traveling at 59MPH, including a stop in San Marcos for the same duration as the train typically stops. There is no explanation or metaphor that can make the Texas Eagle's schedule look reasonable in 2013. Even a convoy of full sized school buses can outpace it. New customers are right to be shocked and amazed that Amtrak has zero chance of outpacing a car or bus. You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance. Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.

I know what you are talking about. By the same token, it take 6.5 hours to go between Dallas and Austin. This is a 3.25 hour trip by car. One problem is that it meanders through Fort Worth. I am not sure why there is this routing now, with the Trinity Railway Express having up 21 departures each way between Dallas and Fort Worth. Passengers could easily connect in Dallas. On the other hand, I am not sure about the existance or quality of trackage from Dallas direct to Austin.

 

[SarahZ]

I just checked on train service from San Antonio. Now I live in Chicago and we have great service between here and Milwaukee, approximately the same distance. And I actually live in a suburb north of chicago, with a stop on that route. So my rail time is 60 min flat. It's 90 min. from Chicago. But the times for the trip to Austin from SA is 2hours plus and the return trip is over 3 hours as listed. That is ridiculous. The departure times are perfect for day trip, 7am from San Antonio and 6:30 pm return. But the travel times are egregious.

Unfortunately, the train can't go 75-80 mph on the interstate like a vehicle. Amtrak trains are subject to freight schedules, track issues, and speed zones, and sometimes the route isn't direct. Additionally, unlike a car, the train stops in San Marcos to pick up and discharge passengers, which adds time. The schedule is sometimes padded to allow for delays, so while the timetable may say three hours, it may be closer to 2.5 hours. It's still longer than driving, and I sympathize, but until we have a dedicated passenger rail service with its own tracks and the ability for high-speed rail, the train will sometimes take longer than driving.

I can beat the Texas Eagle between Austin and San Antonio traveling at 59MPH, including a stop in San Marcos for the same duration as the train typically stops. There is no explanation or metaphor that can make the Texas Eagle's schedule look reasonable in 2013. Even a convoy of full sized school buses can outpace it. New customers are right to be shocked and amazed that Amtrak has zero chance of outpacing a car or bus. You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance. Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.

I didn't say he was wrong to complain. In fact, I said, "I sympathize..." (see the bolded point). I provided as much info as I could to answer his question since I wasn't sure if he knew about Amtrak sharing the freight lines or the stop in San Marcos. I could not get into specifics because I do not work for Amtrak or the freight company/companies that use that line, nor do I have the freight schedule. I wasn't apologizing; I was explaining.

 

[user 1215]

I just checked on train service from San Antonio. Now I live in Chicago and we have great service between here and Milwaukee, approximately the same distance. And I actually live in a suburb north of chicago, with a stop on that route. So my rail time is 60 min flat. It's 90 min. from Chicago. But the times for the trip to Austin from SA is 2hours plus and the return trip is over 3 hours as listed. That is ridiculous. The departure times are perfect for day trip, 7am from San Antonio and 6:30 pm return. But the travel times are egregious.

Unfortunately, the train can't go 75-80 mph on the interstate like a vehicle. Amtrak trains are subject to freight schedules, track issues, and speed zones, and sometimes the route isn't direct. Additionally, unlike a car, the train stops in San Marcos to pick up and discharge passengers, which adds time. The schedule is sometimes padded to allow for delays, so while the timetable may say three hours, it may be closer to 2.5 hours. It's still longer than driving, and I sympathize, but until we have a dedicated passenger rail service with its own tracks and the ability for high-speed rail, the train will sometimes take longer than driving.

I can beat the Texas Eagle between Austin and San Antonio traveling at 59MPH, including a stop in San Marcos for the same duration as the train typically stops. There is no explanation or metaphor that can make the Texas Eagle's schedule look reasonable in 2013. Even a convoy of full sized school buses can outpace it. New customers are right to be shocked and amazed that Amtrak has zero chance of outpacing a car or bus. You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance. Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.

I know what you are talking about. By the same token, it take 6.5 hours to go between Dallas and Austin. This is a 3.25 hour trip by car. One problem is that it meanders through Fort Worth. I am not sure why there is this routing now, with the Trinity Railway Express having up 21 departures each way between Dallas and Fort Worth. Passengers could easily connect in Dallas. On the other hand, I am not sure about the existance or quality of trackage from Dallas direct to Austin.

30 unnecessary minutes are found in Fort Worth where the Texas Eagle makes a back up move through the very busy Tower 55. That's on a good day. This is an intersection that handles between 100 and 120 trains per day. When/If the Texas Eagle moves to the TRE line, it will improve the timing dramatically. But I doubt that the schedule will change much, if at all. Amtrak likes to be on time, even if it means upping the padding.

Most of the track between Austin and San Antonio is good quality. But it is EXTREMELY congested. There are multiple projects being studied (some maybe even in work) to route the majority of freight traffic around Austin, allowing Amtrak a steady jaunt through the Metro area.

 

[George Harris]

I can beat the Texas Eagle between Austin and San Antonio traveling at 59MPH, including a stop in San Marcos for the same duration as the train typically stops. There is no explanation or metaphor that can make the Texas Eagle's schedule look reasonable in 2013. Even a convoy of full sized school buses can outpace it. New customers are right to be shocked and amazed that Amtrak has zero chance of outpacing a car or bus. You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance. Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.

I didn't say he was wrong to complain. In fact, I said, "I sympathize..." (see the bolded point). I provided as much info as I could to answer his question since I wasn't sure if he knew about Amtrak sharing the freight lines or the stop in San Marcos. I could not get into specifics because I do not work for Amtrak or the freight company/companies that use that line, nor do I have the freight schedule. I wasn't apologizing; I was explaining.

I realize that the explanations do not matter to those that neither know nor care about the issues that result in Amtrak being slow, but nonetheless, they are the reality that they and their passengers have to live with.

A significant issue with the Texas Eagle entering and leaving San Antonio that makes it slower than either of the pre-Amtrak trains that ran this route is the lack of a direct line into or out of the ex Southern Pacific station that it uses. If the train is on the ex-MoPac line, it goes right past the MoPac station, then reaches a point where it must back up to go to the SP station, or goes through a very slow speed connection, I do not know which. If the train is on the ex MKT line, then it goes under the ex SP line a few miles east of the ex SP station, goes to a connection that is west of the station, and must back into it. On the departure, it must back out to the sam connection and then go forward. None of these tracks over which these gyrations take place are fast.

I think the speed limit on the ex MKT track is all 50 mph or less. Some of the ex MoPac may be as fast as 70 mph, but for both there are numerous locations where the speed limit is less. Coming out of Austin there is a low speed curve immediately south of the station followed by a fairly length grade up which also acts to slow the run time.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I can beat the Texas Eagle between Austin and San Antonio traveling at 59MPH, including a stop in San Marcos for the same duration as the train typically stops. There is no explanation or metaphor that can make the Texas Eagle's schedule look reasonable in 2013. Even a convoy of full sized school buses can outpace it. New customers are right to be shocked and amazed that Amtrak has zero chance of outpacing a car or bus. You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance. Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.

I didn't say he was wrong to complain. In fact, I said, "I sympathize..." (see the bolded point). I provided as much info as I could to answer his question since I wasn't sure if he knew about Amtrak sharing the freight lines or the stop in San Marcos. I could not get into specifics because I do not work for Amtrak or the freight company/companies that use that line, nor do I have the freight schedule. I wasn't apologizing; I was explaining.

I realize that the explanations do not matter to those that neither know nor care about the issues that result in Amtrak being slow, but nonetheless, they are the reality that they and their passengers have to live with. A significant issue with the Texas Eagle entering and leaving San Antonio that makes it slower than either of the pre-Amtrak trains that ran this route is the lack of a direct line into or out of the ex Southern Pacific station that it uses. If the train is on the ex-MoPac line, it goes right past the MoPac station, then reaches a point where it must back up to go to the SP station, or goes through a very slow speed connection, I do not know which. If the train is on the ex MKT line, then it goes under the ex SP line a few miles east of the ex SP station, goes to a connection that is west of the station, and must back into it. On the departure, it must back out to the sam connection and then go forward. None of these tracks over which these gyrations take place are fast. I think the speed limit on the ex MKT track is all 50 mph or less. Some of the ex MoPac may be as fast as 70 mph, but for both there are numerous locations where the speed limit is less. Coming out of Austin there is a low speed curve immediately south of the station followed by a fairly length grade up which also acts to slow the run time.

@Sorcha: It's true that you didn't contest the complaint outright. I just wanted to point out how little effect the speed limit or the brief stop in SMC has on this equation. The TE has regressed to the point that virtually anything on the road, including a dilapidated pickup truck hauling it's maximum weight in scrap metal, would beat it.

@George: Within San Antonio the southbound TE generally stays out of trouble until it crosses 281 as it approaches downtown where it slows down considerably. By the time the TE crosses I-10 it will be slowing to a walking speed crawl while passing through where the MP yard once stood. Then it crosses some slow interchanges and turns where the MKT shops were previously located on the way to the SP station. Running the southbound TE on the same tracks as the northbound TE would probably shave a half hour from the travel time.

 

[saxman]

I know what you are talking about. By the same token, it take 6.5 hours to go between Dallas and Austin. This is a 3.25 hour trip by car. One problem is that it meanders through Fort Worth. I am not sure why there is this routing now, with the Trinity Railway Express having up 21 departures each way between Dallas and Fort Worth. Passengers could easily connect in Dallas. On the other hand, I am not sure about the existance or quality of trackage from Dallas direct to Austin.

Skipping Fort Worth would be bad idea from a revenue standpoint. But add the fact, there is no good rail from Dallas to Austin without first going to FTW. And FTW is a major maintenance/stopover point for the Eagle and Heartland Flyer. It's also the point where the Flyer departs from and there are no decent tracks there either for it to cut over to Dallas instead.

 

[battalion51]

If anything is going to speed up the TE between Dallas and Fort Worth the easiest way to do it is to move the TE over to the TRE line through Centreport. There has been a lot of work done to double track on the TRE line, and the only thing holding it back to my knowledge (I know this will shock many) is politics. A commuter train can go from Ft. Worth ITC to Dallas Union (both shared with Amtrak) in about 55 minutes (including 7 station stops). There would be minimal impact on TRE since 21 is slated to run through during the midday lull, and 22 should be able to power through before the afternoon rush sets start to come out on the main line. The run time over UP is about the same, but what kills the train is having to back in through Tower 55. If they were to switch over to TRE that lengthy (and delay proned) back up move disappears since TRE's route puts the train facing the right direction upon arrival at FTW. Switching over to the TRE line you could likely add a stop at Centreport to serve the Mid-Cities and add an easy connection to/from DFW Airport.

 

[Nathanael]

I live in Milwaukee and ride the Hiawatha. The Hiawatha is fast because its on a double-track system and because WisDOT and IDOT pay for it.

On top of that, most of the trackage is owned by Metra (the Illinois commuter railroad), which has an interest in decent-speed passenger trains. (The northern end is owned by freight railroad CP.)

TE between SAS and Austin is a long-distance train with minimal support from TxDOT.

And not used by any other passenger trains, and the track is entirely owned by freight railroads.

If anything is going to speed up the TE between Dallas and Fort Worth the easiest way to do it is to move the TE over to the TRE line through Centreport. There has been a lot of work done to double track on the TRE line, and the only thing holding it back to my knowledge (I know this will shock many) is politics.

It's actually worse than that. It's a fight over insurance & liability. Something similar happened in Florida and in Massachusetts during the setup of commuter rail, but was resolved eventually in each case. I think, though I may be wrong, that it's something like this.
Amtrak needs TRE to accept liability for certain parts of certain crashes -- Amtrak does not want to be responsible for injuries to TRE passengers caused by TRE in a TRE-Amtrak crash. However, TRE is an agency which inherits the sovereign immunity of the state of Texas and by default isn't liable for anything (IIRC). Accordingly, in any crash, all the ambulance chasers will go after Amtrak, unless TRE gets legislation from the state legislature allowing it to waive sovereign immunity for TRE.

I may have it wrong, but it's something at *least* that convoluted. And it's definitely insurance.

Apparently if the insurance issue is resolved, it unlocks a high speed rail grant to double track and improve parts of the TRE line, and allows Amtrak to shift to TRE soon after. The insurance issue has been preventing the high-speed rail grant from being spent.

 

[battalion51]

Well put Nathanael. I wasn't going to get into the whole issue, but the politics surrounding the insurance piece is a huge challenge. And in a red state such as the great state of Texas doing something transit friendly is a bit of a lift.

 

[user 1215]

Here is an article on the subject from the Star-Telegram. It says that Texas has to return the money to the Feds if they don't spend it or resolve their issues by August 31st of last year. Don't know what happened since...

 

[TVRM610]

And this is the problem! People sit and say "why can't Amtrak do this or that" and they cry like a little baby and say "why are the trains so slow."

Here's a little lesson... Even when dedicated passenger rail exists... Amtrak can't run on it due to politics and insurance issues! So it's not nearly as simple as people think it is. I know I'm mostly preaching to the choir here but the general public needs to know how amazing it is that Amtrak is not only able to run trains in 2013... But they are able to add NEW routes (such as Norfolk VA) and improve running time on existing routes (St. Louis corridor). It's nothing short of miraculous that they can get anything done.

 

[user 1215]

I asked the writer of the original Star Telegram article for an update. We'll see....

 

[jersey42]

I asked the writer of the original Star Telegram article for an update. We'll see....

What is the link to the original article? The link you posted just brings you back to this thread.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

And this is the problem! People sit and say "why can't Amtrak do this or that" and they cry like a little baby and say "why are the trains so slow."

How exactly does name calling help you make your point?

Here's a little lesson... Even when dedicated passenger rail exists... Amtrak can't run on it due to politics and insurance issues!

To be fair we're talking about Texas here. Not every state has a government as perpetually confused and inept as ours seems to be.

 

[Ryan]

You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance.

But I doubt that the schedule will change much, if at all. Amtrak likes to be on time, even if it means upping the padding.

I would love to see a quantatative analysis of the Amtrak system to see how travel times and padding have changed throughout the system over the last 40 years, I think that the results would be illuminating.

Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.

I'm also curious about the average age of the Amtrak passenger - it seems to me that I see just as many young people and families on the train as I do retirees.

 

[user 1215]

I asked the writer of the original Star Telegram article for an update. We'll see....

What is the link to the original article? The link you posted just brings you back to this thread.

Link fixed. Sorry 'bout that!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance.

But I doubt that the schedule will change much, if at all. Amtrak likes to be on time, even if it means upping the padding.

I would love to see a quantatative analysis of the Amtrak system to see how travel times and padding have changed throughout the system over the last 40 years, I think that the results would be illuminating.

Amtrak does try to be on time for a rating relevant terminus. Not so much with the intermediate stops. I do agree it would be interesting to see how the network as a whole has fared over the years.

Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.

I'm also curious about the average age of the Amtrak passenger - it seems to me that I see just as many young people and families on the train as I do retirees.

It has been claimed on multiple occasions that coach passengers (who trend younger) create a net loss while sleeper passengers (who trend older) create a net gain. If that's true then a loss of retirees could result in a bit of a problem for Amtrak. Many of the sleepers I've had looked like elderly assistance homes. Which probably explains the continued existence of the SCA I suppose.

 

[user 1215]

How do younger coach passengers create a net loss where retirees net gain? I've seen plenty of younger folks in the sleepers and my elders in coach. I've seen young professionals in the diner and retirees down in the cafe.

 

[battalion51]

I think that's a statement on more of the "general" dynamics than anything else. The average sleeping car passenger is typically going to have more expendable cash than the average coach passenger, and the older generation tends to have more expendable cash than the younger generation. You can usually put it in terms of a sleeping car passenger is there for the journey whereas a coach passenger is there for the transportation. Not to say the reverse is never true, but in broad strokes its a decent assessment IMHO.

 

[TVRM610]

People have said for 40 years now (I'm guessing I really don't know, but I've been hearing it for at least 10) that when the "older people die off no one will be riding trains" - either no one is dying, or younger people are taking trains too.

Besides... There will always be soon to be and recently retired people who have an extra dissposable income and want to travel a slower pace. I'm def. NOT saying those are the only people who take trains and sleepers... Indeed I know that they are not, but even if that WAS the case.

In all honesty I can't think of a demographic that I have NOT seen on board a train in sleeper class. I've seen Menonite families, young couples with children, young couples without children, business executives, college age, retired, as well as single adults.

Even when I rode VIA rail Canadian I was expecting more of the "land cruise" clientele, but was pleasantly surprised to see a large variety of customers.

 

[crescent2]

And don't forget, young people get old! There will always be old people and young people (hopefully, anyway).

 

[TVRM610]

Yes Crescent2... Exactly!!!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Baby boomers are not only creating the largest retirement wave we've ever seen, they're also going to be the last generation to retire with anything resembling a traditional pension or 100% of their Social Security payout. All signs are pointing to a unique one-off retirement bubble that is unlikely to be repeated for several generations to come, if ever. Generation X and Y are going to be working much later into life in return for much less purchasing power than those who came before us. Sorry to burst your bubble, but some things really do change from generation to generation.