As Noozer points out, the line between Dayton and Indianapolis is gone and the line east of Columbus needs major work before it is useable. All of that will cost much more than could be justified for one train. I think one day it will make sense to resurrect this route. It never should have been abandoned or downgraded in the first place!

 

A second point: How about making the New York-Washington-Charleston-Cincinnati-Indianapolis-Chicago Cardinal a daily train and have it run daylight east coast-Cincinnati and overnight to Chicago from Cincy? The Hoosier State could be run separately Chicago-Indy-Cincy, leaving the Queen City in the morning, with an afternoon return. The problem with the latter is slow track in Indiana, a state very unlikely to do anything to help. How do we address that?

 

In reply to Gildone: No train will ever operate 100% on-time, not even the Shinkansen. That's an impossible standard. I will agree that Amtrak timekeeping leaves a lot to be desired, but keep in mind that it is mostly long distance trains that have this problem, not the short hauls we are talking about here. Besides, the timekeeping of airlines isn't exactly the greatest either and yet we keep flying. We have to work with what we have and make it better. I think nearly everyone will agree that we have gotten the short end of the stick for years from Amtrak, sending millions to support service we don't get. That has to end.

I would still submit that trying to put a train through Columbus would be an easier political sell than routing another one through Northern Ohio. The Pennsylvanian could run over the Wheeling & Lake Erie (I believe) from Pittsburgh to Mingo Jct and then on to the Panhandle. 

 

The problematic part is getting a train from Columbus to Indy, as you would almost have to route it almost to Cincy before it could go toward Indy.  The only other possibility is to route it up through Marysville to Kenton and hang a left on the CSX Indy line.  It's a bit of a zig-zag, but heck, Amtrak did worse things with the old National Limited in its waning days of service.

 

No matter how it is configured, getting trains back through almost anywhere in Ohio isn't going to be cheap.  But transportation projects are by their very nature expen$ive.

 

The bottom line (politically) is that the Ohio General Assembly is going to have to be able to see some benefit before it will commit funding to the extent that states like Ilinois and Pensylvania have done. Advocates are going to have to literally sell the idea on the basis of the politcal self-interest of the legislators to be seen as the ones who brought the train back.

 

But the caution, as I've noted before, is that whatever service is restored or extended, it has better be done in a thoughtful and well-planned manner.  Otherwise, it is doomed to fail.  We don't need a setback like that.

< :type: >Regarding Amtrak's late trains, the chronic problems arise on certain freight railroads because of their operational priorities, but a significant delay to one train can cascade across Amtrak's entire system.</ :type:

>

< :speech: >Amtak operates with a pretty minimal pool of equipment to cover the trains that it runs, and equipment turnarounds at terminals, especially locomotives, are often tightly choreographed. The locomotives from an arriving train may be serviced and sent back out almost immediately on another train, and if those locomotives arrive late, there may not be any spares to used for the departing train. The train and its passengers have to wait, sometimes for hours, before even beginning the trip.

 

Occasional delays can happen on any system, but when you try to run an underfunded, underequipped national passenger service over tracks controlled by freight railroads whose business analysts, with no understanding of operational realities or seasonal loading, stripped away every trace of redundancy, chronically late trains become more the rule than the exception.</ :speech: >

 

< :bang: >So long as our national transportation policies are set by self-serving politicians who pander to an uninformed/misinformed electorate, we'll have to settle for congratulating ourselves that our rail service isn't worse than it is.</ :bang:>

 

</ rant>

 

 

Well put.

I would still submit that trying to put a train through Columbus would be an easier political sell than routing another one through Northern Ohio. The Pennsylvanian could run over the Wheeling & Lake Erie (I believe) from Pittsburgh to Mingo Jct and then on to the Panhandle. 

 

The problematic part is getting a train from Columbus to Indy, as you would almost have to route it almost to Cincy before it could go toward Indy.  The only other possibility is to route it up through Marysville to Kenton and hang a left on the CSX Indy line.  It's a bit of a zig-zag, but heck, Amtrak did worse things with the old National Limited in its waning days of service.

 

Now that is a convoluted setup! The Panhandle is way too slow and extending the Pennsylvanian to Columbus from Pittsburgh would likely require at least five hours. You'd have to radically change the schedule east of Pittsburgh, screwing that market up, or arrive in Columbus in the wee hours. Running between Columbus and Indy via Kenton will be just as non-competitve and slow. Just my opinion, but I really would be afraid this would be a recipe for failure and we don't want that.

 

How about forgetting the Pennsylvanian to Columbus and have it go to Cleveland instead, which could be done in 2-1/2 hours? Meantime, we could reroute the Maple Leaf (New York-Buffalo-Niagara Falls-Toronto) and have it run all the way to Cleveland and Columbus in the time it takes to go thru customs and plod its way to Toronto. Both of these routes are at the heart of the Ohio Hub network and are on good quality mainlines.

 

 

The train and its passengers have to wait, sometimes for hours, before even beginning the trip.

 

This is the direct result of the disasterous decision by Amtrak management to implement the findings of the infamous Mercer report in the mid-1990's. Amtrak junked nearly all of its Heritage Fleet equipment (500 cars) and went to  standardized consists for all of its single level eastern long haul trains. Thus, the Silver Meteor runs all the way from Florida to New York, where it becomes the Lake Shore Limited to Chicago and back.

 

This led to all sort of problems with timekeeping and a severe lack of capacity. I saw this myself at Albany-Rennselaer NY, where a three hour late Lake Shore (delayed somewhere way down south) caused passengers on the Boston section, which pulled in on time, to have to sit and sit and sit until they could be switched into the main section from New York.

 

Capacity? I can remember the Lake Shore Limited routinely running up to 18 cars during the Summer. Now? Maybe 10 on a good day.

 

Oh, and when the Taxpayer Relief Act was passed, the Northeast Corridor got Acelas and we got boxcars. Why is it that we always seem to pay the price in this part of the country for this sort of stupidity? :?

On the contrary, the Panhandle Line is in excellent shape between Columbus and Mingo Jct. on the Ohio Central RR.  Welded rail and good roadbed.  I've ridden behind an O-C passenger train and we did 70 mph over one stretch between Newark and Coshocton.... behind a steam locomotive!  That was barely three years ago.

 

The O-C does a very good job of track maintanence, so I'm sure the line is as good today.  What needs to be added are passing tracks and a connection to Pittsburgh.  Don't underestimate the Panhandle.  It is greatly improved over what it was when the state first bought the line in the mid-90's to save it from being cut up by Conrail.

 

As far as running the Pennsylvanian to Cleveland.  I wish you luck trying to get Ohio legislators to support funding for that, especially since the House and Senate leadership are not from thet part of the state.  You're missing my point that the best way to sell funding for improving the rail infrastructure (which will have to be done on the 3-C or any other corridor) and running passenger trains on it, is to bring a train through the state capital.

 

Of course, this whole discussion is academic, given Amtrak's limited resources and equipment and the fact they have trouble running what trains they already have.  Not saying it isn';t worth pursuing.  Just trying to point out that this is as much (if not more) a political decision as it would be logistic.

 

You want the [glow=red,2,300]$$$$[/glow] from the Ohio General Assembly, you better show 'em a train on their doorstep.

You want the $$$$  from the Ohio General Assembly, you better show 'em a train on their doorstep

 

That's why I think the Maple Leaf should be extended to Columbus. I realize we MUST serve that town. Political reality dictates that.

 

All I'm talking about is a very basic level of service that does not require much in the way of capital funding, so it may not be necessary to go to the legislature at all. Running the Pennsylvanian to Cleveland requires little in the way of capital funding. However, the Panhandle does need $$$$.

 

Yes, the Panhandle is a good railroad...as far as Mingo Junction...then you have to either rebuild the direct line from there to Pittsburgh or go the long way around, following the river all the way to Pittsburgh.

 

OK...signing off now...bed time...

My personal preference is not to seek state funding for capital or operating funds for these Amtrak extensions. The congressional support for passenger rail is in northern Ohio, and they are now in the majority in both houses. We have GOP supporters in the general assembly, but we need more.

 

I'll show a comparison of potential Pennsylvanian extensions schedules later.

That steam train may have been doing 70 mph, but the engineer wasn't doing it legally. The unsignalled line has a top speed of 59 where track conditions permit, unless an FRA waiver was granted (doubtful!). The portion of the line west of Denison is in very good shape, but east of there to Steubenville, the track needs some more help.

 

Usually, a passenger train's average speed over a route is 15-20 mph less than the predominate maximum track speed. Thus, an average speed of a shade more than 40 mph for Columbus - Pittsburgh seems realistic. A 10 percent schedule recovery time should be built in to the timetable. That means that the running time for the 200-mile Columbus - Pittsburgh segment would be about 5.5 hours. Like BuckeyeB said, some passing sidings might be needed, but I don't know the track layout well enough to say if or how many sidings would be needed, or if they can be easily interlocked from a central dispatching location. If I were to spend a few million$ on this line, I'd spend it on track resurfacing and tie renewal work east of Denison to get the average speed up on that portion.

 

By comparison, existing passenger train running times on the 140-mile Cleveland - Pittsburgh segment are 2.5 hours. Current top speed is 80 mph (not 79, because NS has the cab signal system it installed in 2001 from New Brighton PA to Cleveland). On the tangent sections of tracks, if grade-crossing circuits were lengthened to increase warning times (at about $50,000 per crossing), the top speed of passenger trains could be increased to 90 on those straight segments. Consideration should also be given to elevating a few curves between longer straight sections the track to allow 90 mph speeds to be maintained (the Hudson-Macedonia, Ravenna-Industry, and Alliance-Salem segments come to mind where this could be done). If all those portions were desired to become 90 mph segments, that's 27 grade crossings that need to have their circuits lengthened, costing about $1.5 million (including contingencies). A total of 19 curves could be elevated, representing about 10,000 feet of right of way, or 20,000 feet of track. So that could be another $600,000, for surfacing costs.

 

So an expenditure of just over $2 million could get you a 90-mph passenger rail infrastructure over 45 miles of the Cleveland - Pittsburgh corridor. That could trim up to 15 minutes from the already respectable Cleveland - Pittsburgh running time.

 

Plus, the train would be able to get from Harrisburg to Cleveland without increasing the Pennsylvanian's existing train and engine costs -- that run could be made within an 8-hour shift. A second crew district would need to be added for service to Columbus, and you might have to pay them the full 8 hours, even though the train wouldn't be in operation for that full shift. Service to Cleveland could allow a decent 6:30 a.m. departure, and get into downtown Pittsburgh by 9 a.m. And even if the Pennsylvanian didn't go via Youngstown (probably would add another 30 minutes to run time and more than $6 million in capital costs), it could have a station stop off SR11 in Columbiana -- just 10 miles south of suburban Boardman.

 

In short, the Pennsylvanian between Cleveland and Pittsburgh could offer competitive travel times to driving, a very good business travel schedule, and be able to accomplish this with minimal additional train operating costs.

 

I hope this provides some further direction.

You know what?  We're all getting way ahead of ourselves here and making broad assumptions that none of us know are entirely accurate. Track conditions, running times, etc are all ultimately planning and engineering decisions to be made by people at Amtrak, the host railroads and state and federal transportation agencies.

 

What I do know is that none of this will happen unless the political will is built to get these ideas rolling. That is where the focus of advocacy efforts should be.  You may or may not need $$$ from the Ohio General Assembly, but they will still need to be involved and the job will be to convince them that more transportation dollars need to go into rail infrastructure.

 

We have serious upgrades and repairs that need to be made to any of these corridors we've been talking about before you can extend the Maple Leaf, Pennsylvanianor whatever existing Amtrak route you want to choose.  I recall a lot of talk years ago about extending the Lake Shore Limited down from Cleveland and on to the 3-C Corridor.  And that's as far as it got.... talk.

 

The Maple Leaf or any other passenger train is not going to move down the 3-C without first doing two things:

 

1. Engaging the railroads (CSX and NS) who own the rail corridor, in the discussion (from the start I might add)

2. Finding and locking in the state and/or federal dollars to pay for the new track, passing sidings, new signals and safety devices and removal of rail bottlenecks at places like Berea and Greenwich.

 

We're tossing around these proposals like they can get done in six months.  That just isn't going to happen.  Major transportation projects just do not run that way.

 

But the political side of this issue isdo-able right now. As I've said in earlier posts, we've got a "D" as Ohio's incoming Governor and a Democratic-controlled Congress that can also begin to move on this issue.

 

We've got an achievable plan to support in the Ohio Hub Plan, and many of these ideas for imrpoving existing Amtrak service are good ones to put in front of Ohio's delegation to Congress, as well as Ohio legislators.  But none of it happens unless advocates raise their voices in something more than on-line forums.

 

 

Much of what you say is true. Which is why we're ready to ramp up a grassroots effort to make it happen. We are informing the principal players at the railroads, unions and state/federal governments of what it is we seek, then will mobilize the grassroots forces to achieve it.

 

Two of the train extensions probably fall on the complexity scale somewhere between what Illinois did (in seven months from the introduction of legislation in March to service start-up in October) and what you say may confront us. We'll soon find out.

 

But I do think this discussion should be moved off-line, and I would include some of your associates.

In reply to Gildone: No train will ever operate 100% on-time, not even the Shinkansen. That's an impossible standard. I will agree that Amtrak timekeeping leaves a lot to be desired, but keep in mind that it is mostly long distance trains that have this problem, not the short hauls we are talking about here. Besides, the timekeeping of airlines isn't exactly the greatest either and yet we keep flying. We have to work with what we have and make it better. I think nearly everyone will agree that we have gotten the short end of the stick for years from Amtrak, sending millions to support service we don't get. That has to end.

 

I realize that.  What I was getting at is that late trains have become normal for Amtrak operations, even with heavily padded schedules. 

 

Yes, the Shinkensen is not on time 100%, but it is the norm for them to be on time.  It is a rarity for it not to be.  The main way to improve Amtrak's timekeeping is to invest in the infrastructure. 

 

So, let me re-phrase:  Go ahead and extend the Maple Leaf to Columbus, but enough capital better be invested before hand so that on-time operations are the norm from day 1.

 

 

Much of what you say is true. Which is why we're ready to ramp up a grassroots effort to make it happen. We are informing the principal players at the railroads, unions and state/federal governments of what it is we seek, then will mobilize the grassroots forces to achieve it.

 

Two of the train extensions probably fall on the complexity scale somewhere between what Illinois did (in seven months from the introduction of legislation in March to service start-up in October) and what you say may confront us. We'll soon find out.

 

But I do think this discussion should be moved off-line, and I would include some of your associates.

 

Can the infrastructure work that is needed to operate an extended Maple Leaf on time and at good enough track speeds to make the service attractive be done in 7 months? 

 

P.S.  Please include me in your offline discussion.

 

My feeling is that for one round trip, what we have is fine, with the possible exception of the Galion-Columbus segment. We'll have to study things a bit more. Certainly, none of us wants to promote or be associated with a service that does not do well, especially when it comes to timekeeping. We are going to move very carefully.

Keep in mind that one of the things that killed the proposal for a 2-C (Cleveland-Columbus) train during the I-71 reconstruction was that you couldn't get a train over that stretch of track in under 4 hours.  The freight bottlenecks at Berea and Greenwich, as well as the lack of adequate passing tracks were all problematic, as were the potential station stops.

 

CSX, for instance, will not let trains stop at the existing Galion Depot, because it sits to close to a major junction.  You'd have to create a new spur track that could take the passenger train off the mainline for the duration of it's stop.  Columbus no longer has a station and most of the potential sites would also interfere with freight traffic, which is much busier today than it was five years ago, when the 2-C proposal was made.

 

Not trying to be a downer on the idea, becuase it's not a bad idea.  Just trying to get everyone to realize that it's not as simple as putting a train on the line. 

Yes, I know about that stuff. We'll just see where things go.

There's a notion I can't bring myself to give up, although I get shouted down most every time I mention it.

 

In order to have a truly worthwhile passenger rail system that can compete in terms of performance and attractiveness to travelers, I think we have to create a system that is independent of the freight railroads. Passenger and freight rail share little other than the track gauge of their rolling stock; their business objectives and service needs are seldom compatible and often in conflict when they share rails and yards.

 

It's reasonable to expect that the systems would share existing right-of-way corridors, both rural and urban, wherever feasible, but administratively and operationally they need to be independent of each other, and the only way I can see to achieve that independence is to not share tracks.

 

I still like to bring up the idea of using interstate highway median space where rail rights-of-way are gone; an example of that would be the Columbus - Indianapolis route where tracks have been torn up. Unless I'm mistaken, the legislation that created the interstate highway system provided for such use, and although considerable cost would be involved, it would be nothing like the cost of acquiring entirely new right-of-way. Passenger trains could diverge from the highway median right-of-way using existing freight corridors in some cases to reach downtown stations.

 

I realize that the national will doesn't yet exist to accomplish this, and whenever I mention it some folks suggest I smoke either less or more of whatever it was, but at my age I'm pretty set in my ways. I can't abandon the notion easily. :-P

Rob, I'm with ya.  It's no coincidence that Amtrak's best-performing corridor is almost exclusively (electrified) passenger rail. 

 

Would it cost a hell of a lot of money to do this?  Absolutely, but the investment would be worthwhile--certainly a lot cheaper than highway expansion, with less negative impact on the land.  If nations in Europe--which are a LOT less financially well-endowed than the mighty US of A--can do it, so can we.  We as a nation just have to get some balls to admit that maybe the so-called "American Dream" of nothing but highways is a crock. 

Rob:

 

I won't shout you down! I agree completely with what you say. However, I have to point out we have a ways to go before we have what you are talking about. That said, it's a worthwhile goal.

 

My only point of disagreement is the use of freeway medians. In most cases, this is not practical because highway grades and curves are too steep or sharp or the median is too narrow. Bridges would have be rebuilt so the center pier is not in the median where you'd want to put your tracks.

 

I do think we need to think long term and look at separating passenger and freight traffic onto their own dedicated tracks, possibly on the same right of way. The Ohio Hub might be built that way.

 

Let's take this a step further. How about high speed freight (roadrailers/COFC only-100 mph top speed) and high speed passenger rail (125 mph) on a dedicated network in the Midwest/east coast region? That would bring a lot of new stakeholders into the mix that would not otherwise be involved.

 

The freight RR's, UPS, FedEx, the Postal Service and others too numerous to mention would play a part in this and possibly chip in private money to go with the public funds that would be invested in such a system. Think about it.

Ron & Dan...

 

These are also not ideas that are out of the realm of possibility.  It may very well be someday that we create dedicated rights of way for passenger rail.  But keep in mind that many of the existing rights of way in Ohio and the U.S. have less track on them today than 30 or 40 years ago, but (in most cases) the actual land portion of the r-o-w is still there and able to accommodate both dedicated passenger lines and even expanded capacity for freight rail.

 

Using the interstates is problematic, since many states (Ohio included) are expanding their highway capacity by building inward into the medians. It's also difficult to run rail along medians because of the highway (and railroad) overpasses that cross overhead above the Interstate r-o-w.  The alternative is to elevate the rail line, but that will also increase the cost of construction.

 

The acquisition of new r-o-w for rail is just as difficult as for building new highways... and very expensive. Will some of that need to be done anyway? Absolutely, especially around some of the big rail bottlenecks in Ohio such as Airline Junction and Nasby Junction (Toledo). Berea, Greenwich, Downtown Columbus (2 of 'em) and Cincinnati.

 

DaninDC... the Northeast Corridor is a good example, but even that was once both freight and passenger (I grew up within eyesight of it).  Even now, CSX and NS are running some freight traffic on the NEC (with Amtrak's permission.

 

No question that investing in more dedicated rights of way would be a good transportation strategy as we bring back our passenger rail systems.

DaninDC... the Northeast Corridor is a good example, but even that was once both freight and passenger (I grew up within eyesight of it).  Even now, CSX and NS are running some freight traffic on the NEC (with Amtrak's permission.

 

I'm well aware of this.  I've seen a few freight trains here-and-there on the NEC, especially in New Jersey.  I think the dedicated passenger service right-of-way is very important, though.  Because of the high priority given to passenger trains in the NEC, the trip between any two points on the line is very predictable time-wise--a key element to consider if we're ever going to rebuild a passenger service on par with our peers in Europe and Japan.

 

While right-of-way acquisition is no doubt expensive, would you rather pay to acquire land for a pair of railroad tracks, or for a six-lane Interstate?  The question is hypothetical--I think I know your answer 

 

This a particularly aggravating topic, perhaps because we're on the cusp of change, or so I'd like to think.  I would have loved to been able to hop on a train to come back to Ohio for Thanksgiving last week.  Driving is an absolute nightmare, and flying for the holidays is almost as bad.  Because of the once-daily frequency, though, and ridiculous trip time (12 hrs), the train is currently not a very realistic option. 

 

Grrrr....

 

 

Not to rub it in (OK, yes I am), but I'm going to Europe next spring and will be riding some high speed trains. I've long feared this, because I will have to return to the U.S. (unless I seek political asylum on grounds of wanting more travel freedom). So if I'm as grumpy or preachy as Noozer has been these last few days (if it's a family emergency or something like that, I apologize my friend) upon my return, you'll know why.

 

On the domestic front, I put a friend of mine on the Capitol Limited for Chicago last night. The train was right on time! Good crowds at the station. His trip to Northeast Ohio several days ago wasn't as nice. A CSX freight derailment near Ashtabula forced the Lake Shore Limited to detour over NS to Buffalo, which meant he had to get off the train at Elyria and hop on a bus to Cleveland. This is one place where Amtrak was fortunate -- there was a parallel rail line available. As most everyone here knows, we've lost a lot of those parallel rail lines since the 1970s. But even a few well-placed track connections here and there would go a long way toward offering less draconian detours than has been seen in recent weeks (ie: NS derailment at New Brighton PA, Wal-Mart landslide in Kilbuck Township PA).

My apologies for being preachy.

Dedicated right of way for passenger rail would be amazing.  As I was reminded this holiday weekend, the American public is content to putz along at 70-75 mph when other developed nations have rail lines cruising at more than twice that.  Hard to do that when you have to stop and let a freight train pass two or three times during the journey.

Rob:  Having dedicated rights-of-way would be great.  But, it it unfortunately a political impossibility in Ohio right now.  25 years ago, Ohioans voted down the TGV-style 3-C proposal that was on the ballot in, I think, 1981.  Ohio Politicians have been running briskly away from any such talk since.  OARP, at the time, opposed the measure too (At the time there was good reason for that). 

 

Keep in mind, Europe's high speed train routes have been (and are continuing to be) built incrementally.  Once we have 110 mph service via the Ohio Hub and Midwest Regional Rail Initiative-- which will be far more useable and competitive with highways and even some air routes, it will become a much easier sell to the public to start spending the big bucks required for dedicated ROW. 

 

I want dedicated ROW high speed trains as much as you do, but we can only get get there with the most viable political strategy-- which is an incremental approach. 

But to take the incremental approach, you have to actually make increments of progress!

gildone, I'm very aware of the political and economic realities facing high-speed rail; I don't expect dedicated right-of-way and any kind of advanced technology to come about quickly, especially in the midwestern states.

 

I do like to explore the possibilities that are raised by existing and proposed technologies, though. One of the first things I learned in information systems is that, when planning to implement new technology in a business system, you don't just look for ways to do the same work with faster machines (typewriter vs. pencil); you look at the whole system -- inputs, process, outputs -- to identify and eliminate wasted and redundant activity while providing greater value.

 

We have to start with incremental change, and it will take a lot of work to even get passenger rail on the public radar as a significant viable option. At some point, though, unless America annihilates itself militarily or economically, we'll reach a point where it make sense to stop patching and upgrading and build a whole new transportation system.

 

Transportation is (or should be, at least) a system, and passenger rail should be a component or subset of the system. I like to indulge in reality-based fantasy sometimes as to what could be, compared with what is. I'll admit with some chagrin that this thread really isn't the right place for it; I wander off-topic pretty easily. A fine line distinguishes a creative mind from an undisciplined one.

 

Let me mull things over a little more, and I'll launch a separate thread for those of us who, to indulge in hackneyed jargon, like to think outside the box and test new paradigms.  :roll:

But to take the incremental approach, you have to actually make increments of progress!

 

Very true.  We haven't done much of that, have we?

 

 

. One of the first things I learned in information systems is that, when planning to implement new technology in a business system, you don't just look for ways to do the same work with faster machines (typewriter vs. pencil); you look at the whole system -- inputs, process, outputs -- to identify and eliminate wasted and redundant activity while providing greater value.

 

Good approach.  Too bad our public officials and transportation planners don't think that way.  European governments appear to be much more able to think in this terms at least as far as transportation planning goes.  I often wonder if we'd do things differently if our elected officials weren't so "coin operated". 

 

 

We have to start with incremental change, and it will take a lot of work to even get passenger rail on the public radar as a significant viable option. At some point, though, unless America annihilates itself militarily or economically, we'll reach a point where it make sense to stop patching and upgrading and build a whole new transportation system.

 

I think the public is ready for 110 mph trains.  It's one of the areas where public opinion is ahead of our government these days.  Several state and national polls on passenger rail have been done over the past 5-10 years.  They all come out the same:  70-80% of Americans want a viable, useable intercity passenger rail system. 

 

 

I think the public is ready for 110 mph trains.  It's one of the areas where public opinion is ahead of our government these days.  Several state and national polls on passenger rail have been done over the past 5-10 years.  They all come out the same:  70-80% of Americans want a viable, useable intercity passenger rail system.

 

In the one part of our nation where 110mph trains currently run, and on dedicated passenger right-of-way, the train is a very popular mode of transportation.  Between DC and New York, Amtrak carries more people than all the airlines COMBINED.  There is a precedent--we just need to incrementally expound upon it. 

 

 

 

Amtrak runs faster than that, and offers 110 mph service on other routes. It's 135 mph between New York & Washington, some stretches up to 150 mph between New Haven and Boston, 110 mph between New York City and Albany, and 110 mph between Philadelphia and Harrisburg. There also is a 20-mile stretch of 100-mph running between Kalamazoo and Niles, MI.

 

But you are correct, we need to expand on that. Interestingly, for all that California has done to expand service, they don't have any services operating faster than 90 mph.

In the spirit of honestly, only the Acela trains operate at 150mph between Boston and New Haven (which is pretty sweet, I must say) and 135mph between NY and DC.  The Regional trains top out around 125 mph, if I'm not mistaken.

 

I think any successful rail plan is going to branch off existing successful rail services.  For example, the recent improvements to the Harrisburg-Philadelphia section.  There are other plans underway, as I'm sure the railfans are aware.  Connecticut is looking to improvement on the line from New Haven to Springfield, Mass.  The Downeaster from Maine to Boston keeps drawing more riders.  Richmond, VA, is looking to expand track capacity at its historic downtown station to accept more trains (including a future high speed line in the Southeast). 

 

What I think would be most successful is taking the Harrisburg-Philadelphia route, and making incremental improvements to Pittsburgh.  Take the Albany-NYC Empire route, and improve the line to Buffalo.  By inching along, you would eventually establish a web of high speed trains along the East Coast, that are connected to a hub in Chicago as well as the South.  From St. Louis eastward (and Texas) there is no reason why regular high speed passenger rail service won't be successful, save for a lack of sufficient investment.

That 150 top speed between New Haven and Boston just highlights how slow the rest of that route is.  I think the mileage is approximately 250 from NYC to Boston via Providence which means an average travel speed of less than 75mph for Acela on that segment.  Pretty pathetic.  Even though I am generally a big train guy, I started renting cars for that trip when I realized driving was faster (only 200 miles by highway from NYC to Boston), cheaper (when split between two or more) and more reliable.

What I think would be most successful is taking the Harrisburg-Philadelphia route, and making incremental improvements to Pittsburgh.  Take the Albany-NYC Empire route, and improve the line to Buffalo.  By inching along, you would eventually establish a web of high speed trains along the East Coast, that are connected to a hub in Chicago as well as the South. 

 

That makes a ton of sense.  Selfishly speaking, it would be great for Ohio to leverage investments by PA in the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg segment and NY in the Buffalo to Albany and Albany to NYC segments for much improved service from Cleveland to the east coast.

That 150 top speed between New Haven and Boston just highlights how slow the rest of that route is.  I think the mileage is approximately 250 from NYC to Boston via Providence which means an average travel speed of less than 75mph for Acela on that segment.  Pretty pathetic.

 

The trackage between New Haven and the New York state line is owned by the State of Connecticut.  They've been a little lax on maintenance over the years--it's a painfully slow ride compared to the rest of the route.  For this reason alone, Bush's brilliant plan to turn passenger rail over to the states is shown to be a rotten idea.  I can't imagine being a Metro North commuter on the New Haven line.

 

 

 

That makes a ton of sense.  Selfishly speaking, it would be great for Ohio to leverage investments by PA in the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg segment and NY in the Buffalo to Albany and Albany to NYC segments for much improved service from Cleveland to the east coast.

 

Now you're thinking like All Aboard Ohio, which used the same rationale for its Amtrak's extensions proposal.

Ronald Utt, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a think tank in Washington, D.C., says the increased ridership probably has more to do with Amtrak's continued use of taxpayer money to keep fares down on certain routes.

 

"People are willing to take a state-subsidized train as opposed to an unsubsidized bus," Utt says.

 

In fiscal year 2005, Amtrak had revenues of $1.89 billion but expenses of $2.94 billion, requiring a $1.2 billion taxpayer subsidy from the U.S. government.

 

Shut off all the general fund subsidy to commercial aviation and make the airlines pay all their costs, the way he apparently thinks passenger rail should, and see how many people can afford to fly, or for that matter how many airlines and airports continue to operate.

 

The last figure I saw, several years ago, said that the subsidy from the general fund (not from airline ticket taxes) to operate just the air traffic control system was in excess of $2 billion annually. I doubt if that has gotten smaller.

 

Most airports are municipal entities, hence exempt from property taxes, and the airlines generally do not have capital investment in passenger terminals; they pay rent or lease fees that usually do not cover the cost of operations for the facilities. Taxpayers make up the difference at one level or another (local, state or federal).

 

And the bus lines are generally not getting shafted by Amtrak; the rail and bus combined share of traffic is small. Cars have the lion's share, and airlines get most of what's left after cars.

 

And I'm sure all of those passengers based their decision to ride the train on the basis of whether or not it was subsidized. Utt is a complete moron. Do these "free market" twits ever bother to notice that people base their transportation choices on what is the best option: faster, more frequent, less costly, etc????

 

BTW: I was in St. Louis this week and rode one of the new Chicago-St. Louis Corridor trains that were added by the State of Illinois.  Great ride: just two hours from downtown St. Louis to Springfield.  During the trip, I sat with an Illinois DOT official who told be that ridership during the first three weeks of the five new Amtrak trip frequencies was up 73-Percent from what ridership was during the same three weeks of 2005. 

 

Yeah, Mr. Utt.... must be those subsidies.

Hey, Utt: Ever ride a bus on the Greyhound Highway? Ever see a Greyhound snowplow?

 

When highways get sold to private enterprise without any continuing government involvement, or the massive subsidies are ended to the oil industry, then we will:

 

+ find out how much it costs to use highways.

+ see how the transportation modal shares of the market shake out.

+ have a free market for transportation.

 

I won't hold my breath for that day, but it would sure be interesting to see. Until that happens, those who proclaim to be defenders of the free market while defending the most massive government program this side of the military need to shut Utt, er, up.

N.J. proposes takeover of Amtrak rail line

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

 

By DAVID A. MICHAELS

STAFF WRITER

 

 

A compact of states and the federal government could make a bid to take over Amtrak's Northeast Corridor rail line, a group of state transportation and business leaders said Tuesday.

 

The proposal, which supporters said would boost funding and service on the decaying line, would strip Amtrak of its ownership of the Northeast Corridor, but still rely on the company to manage the line.

 

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk3MDI4MjQwJnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mg==

There's definitely a need for restoration of intercity bus service, too. The small independent carriers went under a long time ago, and the biggies, almost exclusively Greyhound, have scaled back service so that people in many small towns and cities are completely without outside connections other than by private car.

 

It's largely conjecture on my part, but I suspect that subsidies to commercial aviation were a factor in the loss of much of America's intercity bus service. The most conspicuous part of that is the ability of low-cost airlines using taxpayer funded services and facilities to grab off the long-distance haulage that used to underwrite the intercity carriers' service to smaller cities.

 

I think most people are unaware that package and freight express used to make up a significant part of the revenue on the bus routes that served the smaller cities. Trailways' Detroit - Fort Wayne - Indianapolis route once served a half-dozen smaller Indiana cities with five daily round trips that only carried light passenger loads. They were profitable, though, because of the express business that they did; they made more money on freight than they did on passengers. Bus package express was the quickest way to ship to destinations that didn't have a commercial airport or Railway Express agency, and it was affordable. Greyhound did a lively express business on routes like their Ohio College Locals, too.

 

Outfits like UPS, FedEx and DHL have sucked up all that business now, and it was inevitable that with the loss of freight traffic the bus lines would go broke. I suspect that part of the reason the dedicated package express companies are able to function as efficiently as they do, and offer the rates they do, is because they benefit greatly on a national/international scale from the subsidies to commercial aviation.

 

Crap! Sorry! I just re-read this, and realized how far off-topic I went.

Not really. It's relevant.

 

Greyhound and many other bus companies also carried U.S. mail. There was a bus (not Greyhound) from Cleveland to State College PA that followed US422/322 (never went on an interstate), and stopped in every little hamlet. I don't know what its passenger loads were like, but it carried mail to those tiny towns. I suspect the passenger loads weren't much, because it stopped running in the 1980s when the USPS relied more on trucks (even many USPS contracts with airlines were canceled in favor of trucks).

 

The same thing happened in the 1960s when the USPS canceled contracts with the railroads for hauling mail on passenger trains. The privately owned passenger trains didn't last long after that.

Now I am gonna go off topic, but I need to bring up this tidbit that I just remembered when reading your comment about common-carrier buses hauling mail.

 

In addition to RPO cars, the USPS used to operate HPO (Highway Post Office) service through some of the small towns. When I was in my late teens (1950s), and my cousin and I were out running around at all hours up to no good, we used to see the one that stopped in front of the post office in Bluffton every night about 1 a.m.. I think it probably ran between Fort Wayne (or maybe Detroit or Toledo) and Indianapolis. It was an articulated GM (I think) coach painted mostly white and trimmed in red and blue, with USPS markings on it.

shut Utt, er, up.

 

That comment from Utt must be USA Today's idea of "balanced" reporting. Where are the quotes from NARP and others? Talk about lazy journalism. They have to know this guy has an ax to grind.

 

Anyone up for a rebuttal? How about calling it "dumb comment for the day?"

BuckeyeB, I understand your point of view, but I don't think it's that simple.  To be frank, without the NEC, the East Coast shuts down.  That's a LOT of lost economic activity. 

 

Second, the NEC trains generate an operating profit.  While the federal government spends money to maintain Amtrak's trackage in the Northeast, it has to spend money to subsidize operations in the rest of the country.  Is that fair to people in the Northeast?  We could just as easily say, "subsidize your own train operations", just as you want the Northeast states to pay for their own track infrastructure.

 

Third, the agreement for the federal government to own the NEC dates back to the formation of Amtrak.

 

And finally, railroad trackage is covered under the "Interstate Commerce Clause" of the Constitution.  It's Congress' responsibility--not the states'.

 

I am against any one of the Northeastern states assuming control of the NEC trackage.  Anyone who has ridden through Connecticut would agree.

 

 

DaninDC...

 

I'll take a bumpy ride in Connecticut over no ride in Ohio any day. All I am saying is that things should be more equitable. We are just as worthy as those in any other part of the country. That means that if we are to continue to support Amtrak, we should get at least some return on what what we send to Washington. Same applies to the Northeast Corridor. I am NOT advocating an abdication of federal responsibility for the Northeast Corridor or any other action that would jeopardize its viability. Just the opposite. We need a true national network, not service in one region to the near exclusion (I'm generalizing) of others. That is sure to lead to discontent on the part of the have-nots, who may start asking why they should support such a setup. "Why do we support trains there when we don't have trains here?"

 

You made several points, which I won't get into. I'll leave that to others. However, I will leave you with a point of my own: the Taxpayer Relief Act, which gave the Northeast Acelas and us boxcars left a sour taste in a lot of mouths out here. Not a fair deal, in my view.

 

The point is, that from here on, people have to realize that to continue in such a one-sided manner could lead to some nasty repercussions, if allowed to go on too long. It's much better to work together for everyone's benefit.

Please keep in mind that when Amtrak runs more than one train on a route, that second train doesn't cost twice as much to operate as the first one, but typically only 66 percent more. The third train may cost as little as 50 percent more, and so on. Those  economies of scale aren't enjoyed by long-distance routes which often have only train per day on them -- and sometimes less (like the Cardinal through Cincinnati).

 

And it bothers me when Northeasterners say: our trains are profitable while yours aren't. Well, whose accounting figures are you using? Amtrak's? Their accounting system has already been discredited as totally misleading and unreliable. Amtrak received a special appropriation last year of $5 million to switch to a more accepted managerial cost accounting system. I think you will soon start to see some interesting (and accurate) numbers come out of Amtrak after the changeover.

 

People seem oblivious to the fact that each dollar of capital invested into interregional markets served by the handful of long distance trains produced five to seven times more ticket revenue and transportation output than any dollar invested into shorter corridor markets, even, or especially, the Northeast Corridor. The long-distance trains consume only 8 percent of Amtrak's operating subsidy, or $100 million, yet produce 23 percent of the national system's ridership and nearly half of its revenue. Amtrak has just 15 long-distance trains, but they generated more than $550 million in revenue last year -- the same total amount of revenue as all the trains on the Northeast Corridor.

 

The problem isn't that we have too many long-distance trains. The problem is we don't have enough to capitalize on economies of scale to lower their total costs and to generate revenues. For more information, check out these charts at http://www.unitedrail.org/pubs/longdistance/index.htm

I'm not disagreeing, necessarily.  And while KJP's figures are correct, they are misleading--there are no dining or sleeper cars on the NEC trains, which consist a large portion of the revenues Amtrak collects on long-distance trains.  The truth is, long-distance trains are primarily for leisure travel, while the NEC trains are at least 50% business travel.  It's a whole different ball of wax, so direct comparisons are difficult, at best.

 

This goes back to another issue--WHY Midwestern states don't have as many trains.  As we all know too well, states like Ohio and Michigan have systematically discouraged travel by rail by overinvesting in highway infrastructure, destroying passenger rail facilities, subsidizing suburban sprawl, and dismantling local transit systems that allow one to get around once he/she alights an intercity train.  Chicago is the one exception.  If there are to be more passenger trains in the Midwest, the local infrastructure needs to be in place to build dense urban cores that would support train travel, akin to the cities and towns in the Northeast.  To date, Ohio has shown no willingness to do that.

 

 

How do you say it's misleading? How can you discount the long hauls' higher revenues because they have sleeping car and dining car revenue? That's like me discounting a car's fuel efficiency because it's a smaller vehicle. Sleeping cars and dining cars are an intrinsic feature -- as is the fact that passengers' average trip lengths are longer, seats stay occupied and produce revenue longer, and therefore generate more total revenue.