Though one has to wonder: given the cost per passenger mile and cost per mile, if the HSR money wouldn't be better used on 80mph class trains and infrastructure. HSR has a glamor appeal, but given how few dollars are available for rail service in total... HSR will benefit few at great cost, and probably given the politics of congress, will be an excuse to reduce existing service. I suspect that if half the monies that will be sunk into HSR were spent on the existing system if one wouldn't engender and augment more of a rail culture in this country. I still suspect that the biggest change which needs to happen is to get the 98% of the population which has never ridden a train to start thinking of trains as a possible/viable mode of transportation. After that then everything is possible. Conversely, until then I see any new services going underutilized.
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
As long as there are viable alternatives around that are faster LD trains will never gain acceptance as a viable alternative for true LD travel. This though should not detract from the fact that LD trains have a second and possibly predominant mode of use, which is as a large number of overlapping short to medium corridor service. Providing a connected network that allows more short to medium distance viable O/D pairs will help more than worrying about truly LD pairs.
The reason that HSR seems attractive to those who want the system to be as self sustaining as possible is that HSR service is capable of commanding adequate revenue streams to get them over that hump. There are no known non-HSR service that just by themselves get anywhere near over that hump. The only exception are in extremely dense suburban and exurban services. but those will do no good to help LD services that much, nor can be provided dependably as an adjunct to an LD train.
So the issue is more complex than just tossing a bunch of money at HSR or at non-HSR. There needs to be more system thinking designing an overall system with right technologies for the right segments before tossing money in random directions. In the US there is a huge reluctance to doing anything of the sort. So I suspect at least for the time being we will just toss random money at random projects and hope something sticks.
The reason that HSR seems attractive to those who want the system to be as self sustaining as possible is that HSR service is capable of commanding adequate revenue streams to get them over that hump. There are no known non-HSR service that just by themselves get anywhere near over that hump. The only exception are in extremely dense suburban and exurban services. but those will do no good to help LD services that much, nor can be provided dependably as an adjunct to an LD train.
So the issue is more complex than just tossing a bunch of money at HSR or at non-HSR. There needs to be more system thinking designing an overall system with right technologies for the right segments before tossing money in random directions. In the US there is a huge reluctance to doing anything of the sort. So I suspect at least for the time being we will just toss random money at random projects and hope something sticks.
No question about your last paragraph - demonstrably true... but my concern is: given finite resources, where might they be spent most effectively to keep rail travel alive until the populous wakes up and demands HSR. Currently it seems to be an enlightened few that are trying "to do the masses a favor," they they don't understand nor appreciate such yet. My fear is that HSR becomes a blackhole which absorbs the lion's share of the money and give the (self-serving/retrograde) congressthingies an excuse to show how this whole dance is a boondoggle and defund it entirely.
My fear with the "self-sustaining" nature of HSR, is that they are projections, and projections by those that wish it to work... I can think of a gazillion projects where the preconstruction projections said one thing, yet the after-construction reality says something entirely different. [eg, the Kearney Nebraska "arch"]... combined with my fear that rail-travel is that close to being a has-been in this country, that there is no longer any room for an ooops/miscalculation. I really don't wish to be part of the last generation for which rail travel was a reality and not something that one reads of in the history books.... there are simply too many self-serving forces wishing that it would go away, and will do whatever is necessary to hasten such.
My fear with the "self-sustaining" nature of HSR, is that they are projections, and projections by those that wish it to work... I can think of a gazillion projects where the preconstruction projections said one thing, yet the after-construction reality says something entirely different. [eg, the Kearney Nebraska "arch"]... combined with my fear that rail-travel is that close to being a has-been in this country, that there is no longer any room for an ooops/miscalculation. I really don't wish to be part of the last generation for which rail travel was a reality and not something that one reads of in the history books.... there are simply too many self-serving forces wishing that it would go away, and will do whatever is necessary to hasten such.
S
Sean Matthews
Guest
Amtrak has too many stops and they use rails that the freight companies use it's pretty annoying for example I was taking a sleeper car from Rochester ny to Chicago the train was supposed to arrive in Rochester at 11 pm but it arrived at 1 am due to freight traffic then on the way to Chicago it was delayed again due to freight congestion then when we were closer to Chicago we had to stop in Toledo Ohio then somewhere in Indiana and then finally Chicago why couldn't they just not stop there and make it easier for most passengers.amtrak sometimes gets sewed for ridiculous reasons for example they wonce got sewed for putting a fence by their tracks.AMTRACK Please have rail lines dedicated to a passenger service so their is not any congestion
And who pays billions for dedicated ROWs?
And why shouldn't people in Ohio & Indiana be able to take the train?Sean, you sound like you're from the ME! Generation.
BTW, they stop in Toledo for a crew change (engineer/conductor).
G
Guest
Guest
third world countries I find it quite saddening that third world countries have dedicated rail lines but America the richest and most powerful nation on earth does not c'mon
S
Sean Matthews
Guest
I'm not from that generation I'm almost 12 if I was obsessed with myself i would say you better get to Chicago fast or I'll kick your butts as a corporation that loses a ton of money every year and does not have to worry because of being owned by the government i think you should have better services because you do not have to worry about profitability I did not know that they stopped in Toledo for a crew change your saying that I want to deny service to ohio you stop in Cleveland I was against stopping in Toledo I do not know why you would stop in an unknown place in Indiana it was just a small suburb city near Lake Michigan
First, use punctuation. Please.
Second, why not just run the train direct from New York City to Chicago? Get rid of all the stops along the way...they're all less populated anyways.
To answer my rhetorical question: because people use these stops. Very few people on Amtrak go from endpoint to endpoint. Your trip is proof of that. The penalty for stopping is rather minimal (maybe five minutes.) In fact, part of the reason they stop every hour or so is to lower the average speed; since they share it with freight trains, it's easier to keep the trains running about the same speed as the fastest freight trains. Since a passenger train can go a bit faster, the stops every hour or so basically allow Amtrak to build back its buffer from the slower freight trains. Not to mention Amtrak is there to serve all Americans (or as many as it reasonably can.) Stopping in smaller communities is a core part of that mission.
Second, why not just run the train direct from New York City to Chicago? Get rid of all the stops along the way...they're all less populated anyways.
To answer my rhetorical question: because people use these stops. Very few people on Amtrak go from endpoint to endpoint. Your trip is proof of that. The penalty for stopping is rather minimal (maybe five minutes.) In fact, part of the reason they stop every hour or so is to lower the average speed; since they share it with freight trains, it's easier to keep the trains running about the same speed as the fastest freight trains. Since a passenger train can go a bit faster, the stops every hour or so basically allow Amtrak to build back its buffer from the slower freight trains. Not to mention Amtrak is there to serve all Americans (or as many as it reasonably can.) Stopping in smaller communities is a core part of that mission.
Ryan
Court Jester
Name one.
Because people live there and deserve service.
Also, Toledo is the pick-up point for people who live in the metro Detroit area, as the LakeShore Limited doesn't run through Michigan.
the_traveler
Engineer
Moderator's Note
I kindly request that members be civil and understanding to all posters - especially guests.
Sean - Please note that we (Amtrak Unlimited) are not affiliated with Amtrak in any way, except that we are also riders of Amtrak and like to talk about trains. Any concerns you have should be addressed to Amtrak directly. We at AU have no say with what Amtrak or any other company does or does not do.
I apologize to you for all members of AU!
I kindly request that members be civil and understanding to all posters - especially guests.
Sean - Please note that we (Amtrak Unlimited) are not affiliated with Amtrak in any way, except that we are also riders of Amtrak and like to talk about trains. Any concerns you have should be addressed to Amtrak directly. We at AU have no say with what Amtrak or any other company does or does not do.
I apologize to you for all members of AU!
Last edited by a moderator:
neutralist
Service Attendant
Guest posting should be disabled.
oldtimer
OBS Chief
I agree with Slasharoo's opinion about guest posting. Sometimes guests can add to your knowledge, but other times they are of little use. I think that allowing guests to post with moderation.
PS the only guest currently posting that I see of no use here, He shall remain unidentified, but, some posters he quacks up.
PS the only guest currently posting that I see of no use here, He shall remain unidentified, but, some posters he quacks up.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
I am still trying to figure out which third world country has tracks dedicated to passenger service outside of suburban service around big cities. AFAICT only first and second world countries, at least some of them has such, and none of those are really non-HSR LD routes. So until someone comes up with specific examples I suppose it is safe to treat the comment about "dedicated tracks in third world countries" as a hyperbolic flourish. 
Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Last edited by a moderator:
Sean says he is only 12 years old. And he is interested in trains.. Let's see if we can help educate him on how Amtrak works and maybe he will keep riding..
So Sean, I get on in Cleveland because it is the closest station to my home. It has a very good ridership, at least 25-30 people board each day/train. I would agree that perhaps having a station in Elyria and Sandusky is overdoing it a bit for Ohio but there are quite a few people who board in Sandusky, especially in the summer months when Cedar Point is open. As mentioned, the stop in Toledo is necessary for many reasons, (crew changes, passengers from Michigan, etc). The stop in Indiana at Waterloo serves a larger population in northern Indiana (Fort Wayne especially) who do not have viable train service. One could probably make an argument that having stops in Elkhart and South Bend is a bit redundant, but Notre Dame fans would disagree. . So there is some information to take with you about the operation of the Lake Shore Ltd that you ride. Best wishes
and maybe he will keep riding.. So Sean, I get on in Cleveland because it is the closest station to my home. It has a very good ridership, at least 25-30 people board each day/train. I would agree that perhaps having a station in Elyria and Sandusky is overdoing it a bit for Ohio but there are quite a few people who board in Sandusky, especially in the summer months when Cedar Point is open. As mentioned, the stop in Toledo is necessary for many reasons, (crew changes, passengers from Michigan, etc). The stop in Indiana at Waterloo serves a larger population in northern Indiana (Fort Wayne especially) who do not have viable train service. One could probably make an argument that having stops in Elkhart and South Bend is a bit redundant, but Notre Dame fans would disagree.
. So there is some information to take with you about the operation of the Lake Shore Ltd that you ride. Best wishesGeorge Harris
Engineer
First, a stop "in the middle of nowhere" does not really add that much time to a train's running time. Both by observation and by calculation on a 79 mph railroad a stop adds just about exactly 3 minutes 00 seconds plus dwell time to a passenger train's running time. The actual time does vary somewhat on power to weight ratio, but if you use 3 minutes in your analysis the difference between calculation and reality will be measured in seconds, usually single digits of those.
Second, financial and political reality says were are not going to spend megabucks to permit faster run times. As part of this, for much of the eastern US permitting faster run times requires improved alignment, and anybody who deals with consturction of ANYTHING on a new location knows how difficult it is to even be allowed to do so even if you have the money in hand.
There are more points, but at this time I must start working on the things I am paid to do.
Second, financial and political reality says were are not going to spend megabucks to permit faster run times. As part of this, for much of the eastern US permitting faster run times requires improved alignment, and anybody who deals with consturction of ANYTHING on a new location knows how difficult it is to even be allowed to do so even if you have the money in hand.
There are more points, but at this time I must start working on the things I am paid to do.
George Harris
Engineer
+1 more
Long Train Runnin'
Engineer
Laos has a dedicated passenger rail line that is 3.5km long and that's the only rail link in the entire country. Hardly counts, but it is a data point. Although I understand that they are working on adding freight service.
Last edited by a moderator:
George Harris
Engineer
But it is definitely not high speed.
Suspect also at some point, given the politics and government beholden to corporate interests: making trains faster and potentially competing with airlines, it wouldn't be long before we heard that Washington was competing with private business.
Long Train Runnin'
Engineer
Definitely not the main road to the station isn't even paved, so there is some serious room for improvement in the infrastructure.
China. Never mind the fact that there are pockets of high wealth, the majority of the country is still in abject poverty.
- Status
