June 11, 201411 yr Cincinnati should hold on to it, and may be in 20 years turn it into a high speed rail line! I think the city would be very wise to negotiate the right to have passenger service on this line as a part of a new lease agreement with NS when that comes due. The city should retain ownership of the line and at least a part of the proceeds used for public transportation improvements including the expansion of the streetcar, Cincinnati Union Terminal and other rail passenger services. The new lease will be signed in 2037, so we've got some time to figure it out.
June 11, 201411 yr Cincinnati should hold on to it, and may be in 20 years turn it into a high speed rail line! I think the city would be very wise to negotiate the right to have passenger service on this line as a part of a new lease agreement with NS when that comes due. The city should retain ownership of the line and at least a part of the proceeds used for public transportation improvements including the expansion of the streetcar, Cincinnati Union Terminal and other rail passenger services. The new lease will be signed in 2037, so we've got some time to figure it out. I agree. Profit from the railroad should be earmarked (at least a big chunk of it) for transportation projects.
June 11, 201411 yr ^Be careful what you wish for. They could earmark the profits for transportation, and then use it to widen I-75.
June 11, 201411 yr The revenue did build I-75. Around 1947 the Ohio Legislature passed the Cincinnati Southern Railway Expressway Bond Act, which permitted projected railroad revenue to back construction of the city's expressway network. This revenue backed construction of the Millcreek Expressway prior to the Highway Act of 1956, which saw the federal 3-cent gasoline tax redirected into the trust fund that constructed and maintains the Interstate Highway System.
June 11, 201411 yr The revenue did build I-75. Around 1947 the Ohio Legislature passed the Cincinnati Southern Railway Expressway Bond Act, which permitted projected railroad revenue to back construction of the city's expressway network. This revenue backed construction of the Millcreek Expressway prior to the Highway Act of 1956, which saw the federal 3-cent gasoline tax redirected into the trust fund that constructed and maintains the Interstate Highway System. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
June 11, 201411 yr ^Yes, and keep in mind that this project destroyed the subway system. They could have simply left a center reservation in I-75 for future tracks to replace the completed ROW that they took, but instead they intentionally killed it.
June 12, 201411 yr ^Yes, and keep in mind that this project destroyed the subway system. They could have simply left a center reservation in I-75 for future tracks to replace the completed ROW that they took, but instead they intentionally killed it. Ugh.
June 12, 201411 yr ^Be careful what you wish for. They could earmark the profits for transportation, and then use it to widen I-75. I really hope that by the time the current contract expires in 2037, we realize that subsidizing interstate highways and ignoring mass transit is not a sustainable way of investing in transportation.
April 3, 20196 yr https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/02/08/city-owned-railroad-no-not-that-one-will-fund-more.html
February 11, 20214 yr According to this video, the FRA studied the electrification of the Southern RR in the 1970s after the oil crisis:
February 11, 20214 yr Penn Central also looked at extending electrification west of Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. But Conrail will ultimately deactivated electrification on some of the freight lines south and east of Harrisburg. Even Amtrak looked at deactivating electrification between Harrisburg and Paoli. But infusion of federal capital dollars some 15 years ago changed their minds. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 21, 20214 yr Enter into an agreement with Amtrak. Electrify it and improve the track for high-speed service. Run Avelia Liberty sets from Cincinnati-Lexington-Chattanooga and Atlanta.
November 19, 20222 yr https://www.wlwt.com/article/norfolk-southern-could-buy-cincinnati-owned-railroad/42009709
November 19, 20222 yr City could sell Cincinnati Southern Railway for $1.6 billion Cincinnati could sell the Cincinnati Southern Railway, the nation’s only municipally owned railroad, for more than $1.6 billion, producing a major, annual cash infusion for city government for decades to come, the Business Courier has learned. The Cincinnati Southern Railway board, which technically owns the railroad, is scheduled to meet at 1 p.m. Monday to consider the sale or lease of railroad property, according to the railway’s website. Under the potential sale, which would have to be approved by voters and require action by the Ohio General Assembly, the city’s annual revenue stream from the railway would more than double, according to sources familiar with the proposed agreement with Norfolk Southern. That’s because the proceeds from the sale would be invested and produce a return each year that the city would have to spend on its infrastructure. In fiscal year 2023, the city is set to use $23.6 million from the railway in its capital budget. The railroad produces lease payments of about $26 million per year, which only can be used for infrastructure under a longstanding City Council policy. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/11/18/cincinnati-could-sell-southern-railway.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
November 19, 20222 yr I’m torn. I don’t think they should sell but if the city invests it at 4% in a fund. That’s $64 million a year in interest alone.
November 19, 20222 yr 46 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said: I’m torn. I don’t think they should sell but if the city invests it at 4% in a fund. That’s $64 million a year in interest alone. The deal is not a lump sum payment. It's going to be over 3 decades and the city won't be spending any of the principal balance. We'll see what their projections say but I still think it's better to keep it. The current lease is set to expire in 2026, which is also set to adjust for inflation. Why not attempt to play hardball, work towards an even higher lease for the rail, and set aside any extra that is not currently planned to be used in the capital budget for this investment fund? It will take much longer to build enough returns to have a noticeable impact on the budget, but it reduces the risk of wasteful spending, corruption etc while maintaining public ownership of the asset. Amtrak's long-term plan has a noticeable gap in Kentucky and Tennessee, so not only could this line be potentially used as an airport shuttle but it could connect Cincinnati to Lexington, Frankfort, Knoxville, Chattanooga, and Atlanta.
November 21, 20222 yr It's official-ish. Cincinnati Southern Railway board approves sale to Norfolk Southern Corp. Former Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory and former Councilwoman Amy Murray did not agree on much in the time they served with each other at City Hall. But working together as members of the Cincinnati Southern Railway board, which oversees the nation’s only interstate municipally owned railroad, the Democrat and Republican concurred that it was unlikely they would ever agree to sell the railroad. That changed Monday when they and their board colleagues voted 5-0 to sell Cincinnati’s railroad to Norfolk Southern for $1.6 billion. The sale price was too lucrative and the long-term benefit to the city too good, Murray, Mallory and their colleagues, former Mayor Charlie Luken, attorney Paul Muething and accountant Paul Sylvester said before the vote. “We said no often. We said no a lot in the last couple of years,” Murray said, but in the end, “it was better to sell for $1.6 billion than continue leasing.” They were joined by the current mayor, Aftab Pureval, and former mayors John Cranley, Roxanne Qualls and David Mann in urging its approval. Under the proposal that will be sent to voters if Ohio lawmakers approve needed changes to state law, the money will be set aside and invested by the board with the help of money managers. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/11/21/cincinnati-southern-railway-sell-approved.html Aftabulous is on a roll... "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
November 22, 20222 yr What is the potential for passenger rail on this line? The Lexington-Chattanooga section seems pretty hilly to me, but commenters early in this thread were complimenting the engineering. @KJP - do you think your previous analysis holds up? On 8/14/2009 at 5:51 PM, KJP said: I followed the line on satellite views from Cincinnati to Chattanooga and it looked like a very well engineering line, though "high-speed" is probably pushing it since it is a busy freight route. It appeared to be a relatively straight alignment considering the rough terrain it travels through. Too bad it bypasses Knoxville (a station just west of it on I-40 might work tho), but that's about the only knock against it as a future passenger rail line. It's 337 miles from Cincinnati to Chattanooga. At 79mph and no stops, that is 4hrs16mins. At 90mph, it would take 3hrs45mins. Atlanta is another ~100 miles away. On 8/14/2009 at 10:50 PM, KJP said: True, and that would work well for a 79 mph passenger rail service (or possibly 90 mph if tilt equipment were used). But to run above 90 would require a totally separate passenger track built with its centerline 28 feet from the centerline of the nearest freight track. The right of way is probably not wide enough in some sections of the CS RR in order to do that very easily -- unless some serious earthmoving and tunneling were done. If you have to do that to exceed 90 mph, you might as well just go ahead and engineer the passenger track for 220 mph.... I wonder what the status is of the Norfolk's capital improvements: On 1/28/2012 at 12:15 PM, KJP said: That's interesting about the PTC installations, too. If you increased curve super-elevations and lengthened warning circuits at road crossings, passenger trains can operate up to 90 mph on PTC signaled NS lines. Glad to see NS is going ahead and doing this work. It's perhaps the greatest expense to attaining 90 mph.
November 22, 20222 yr 7 hours ago, carnevalem said: What is the potential for passenger rail on this line? The Lexington-Chattanooga section seems pretty hilly to me, but commenters early in this thread were complimenting the engineering. @KJP - do you think your previous analysis holds up? Unfortunately, the way passenger rail is funded and that carriers own their infrastructure (or in this case soon will), passenger rail is more of a political challenge than an engineering challenge in America. Passenger rail expansion isn't up to Amtrak. Because of that, getting passenger rail between Cincinnati and Chattanooga/Atlanta is problematic at best. The states of Kentucky, Tennessee/Georgia would have to step up and purchase service from Amtrak and Amtrak would have to get permission from Norfolk Southern to run trains on what will soon be their right of way. Tennessee might -- and I emphasize *might* -- be willing to support passenger rail expansion. Kentucky won't. They're at least as bad as Ohio when it comes to political support for passenger rail. Georgia won't either. Atlanta should be served by multiple trains from multiple directions. It's a political reason why the trains don't exist. Georgia sucks when it comes to passenger rail support. Trying to coordinate disinterested states to support something that the federal government should be doing across state lines is a challenge few if any will want to pursue. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 22, 20222 yr 16 hours ago, ColDayMan said: It's official-ish. Cincinnati Southern Railway board approves sale to Norfolk Southern Corp. Former Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory and former Councilwoman Amy Murray did not agree on much in the time they served with each other at City Hall. But working together as members of the Cincinnati Southern Railway board, which oversees the nation’s only interstate municipally owned railroad, the Democrat and Republican concurred that it was unlikely they would ever agree to sell the railroad. That changed Monday when they and their board colleagues voted 5-0 to sell Cincinnati’s railroad to Norfolk Southern for $1.6 billion. The sale price was too lucrative and the long-term benefit to the city too good, Murray, Mallory and their colleagues, former Mayor Charlie Luken, attorney Paul Muething and accountant Paul Sylvester said before the vote. “We said no often. We said no a lot in the last couple of years,” Murray said, but in the end, “it was better to sell for $1.6 billion than continue leasing.” They were joined by the current mayor, Aftab Pureval, and former mayors John Cranley, Roxanne Qualls and David Mann in urging its approval. Under the proposal that will be sent to voters if Ohio lawmakers approve needed changes to state law, the money will be set aside and invested by the board with the help of money managers. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/11/21/cincinnati-southern-railway-sell-approved.html Aftabulous is on a roll... I think they showed a good united front in their presentation to sell the deal to the public. Of course Tom Brinkman is against it, but otherwise it seems as if everyone who is knowledgeable and familiar with the situation is aligned. I do not think it is a huge issue to get through the legislature, but you never know what to expect when you have to put it before the voters.
November 22, 20222 yr 2 hours ago, KJP said: Unfortunately, the way passenger rail is funded and that carriers own their infrastructure (or in this case soon will), passenger rail is more of a political challenge than an engineering challenge in America. Passenger rail expansion isn't up to Amtrak. Because of that, getting passenger rail between Cincinnati and Chattanooga/Atlanta is problematic at best. The states of Kentucky, Tennessee/Georgia would have to step up and purchase service from Amtrak and Amtrak would have to get permission from Norfolk Southern to run trains on what will soon be their right of way. Tennessee might -- and I emphasize *might* -- be willing to support passenger rail expansion. Kentucky won't. They're at least as bad as Ohio when it comes to political support for passenger rail. Georgia won't either. Atlanta should be served by multiple trains from multiple directions. It's a political reason why the trains don't exist. Georgia sucks when it comes to passenger rail support. Trying to coordinate disinterested states to support something that the federal government should be doing across state lines is a challenge few if any will want to pursue. Is this dynamic where states must purchase service unique to how Amtrak is organized? If it were a good enough route (not saying this particular one is), couldn't Amtrak just run the route on their own initiative? And if Amtrak isn't up to the task, couldn't a independent rail company run the passenger trains instead, like Brightline in Florida? I'm asking all of this because I'm trying to determine what the option for passenger rail is worth. I've seen some people point out there is a gap in Amtrak's map that could be filled by this line, but I wonder how good of an option this route is. I could see the Cincinnati-Lexington segment being useful, especially if Lexington decides to preserve their greenbelt and build up instead of building out. But the Lexington-Chattanooga section is long, hilly, and connects two small cities with no population centers between them. Of course, getting to Atlanta is the prize, but travel speeds would need to be pretty high to compete with airplanes at that distance.
November 22, 20222 yr 10 hours ago, carnevalem said: What is the potential for passenger rail on this line? Ding-ding-ding. This is part of the reason why N-S, I suspect, really wants ownership of this line. Otherwise, Cincinnati would have leverage to prioritize passenger rail as terms of a future lease. There are several single-track tunnels in Tennessee. If passenger rail is guaranteed priority, that would throw off N-S's operation. Tunnel #1: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chattanooga,+TN/@35.9813785,-84.5603815,1460m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x886060408a83e785:0x2471261f898728aa!8m2!3d35.0457984!4d-85.3093995 Tunnel #2: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chattanooga,+TN/@36.0698597,-84.6497927,1226m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x886060408a83e785:0x2471261f898728aa!8m2!3d35.0457984!4d-85.3093995 Tunnel #3: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chattanooga,+TN/@36.0829717,-84.6431568,1031m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x886060408a83e785:0x2471261f898728aa!8m2!3d35.0457984!4d-85.3093995 I think that there's a fourth tunnel but I wasn't able to find it quickly. Right now, N-S stages NB and SB tunnels at either end of the tunnels and then runs several trains through in the same direction before switching directions.
November 22, 20222 yr Quote could see the Cincinnati-Lexington segment being useful, especially if Lexington decides to preserve their greenbelt and build up instead of building out. But the Lexington-Chattanooga section is long, hilly, and connects two small cities with no population centers between them. Of course, getting to Atlanta is the prize, but travel speeds would need to be pretty high to compete with airplanes at that distance. I don't sense that the big time gains would be made in improving the hilly section. The bigger gains would be the immediate approach to Cincinnati, which is currently a mess. The climb is chronically clogged with mile-long trains struggling to make it up that climb. There has been talk of building electrified HSR between Atlanta and Chattanooga since the 1990s.
November 22, 20222 yr That's my intuition as well. The segment to Lexington provides rail priority over a busy corridor, connects Cincinnati to a small city (500,000 MSA), and maybe a park and ride rail to Ludlow, Crescent Springs, Erlanger, and Walton could be built. But the segment to Chattanooga doesn't make as much sense to me without major investment, which at that point, you might as well pick a better city pairing. The Amtrak map above imagines Chicago and Atlanta as regional hubs, so if the goal is to connect the Midwest and South, connecting those two cities is the priority. In which case, the route through Louisville-Nashville-Chattanooga makes more sense. Chicago->Louisville and Atlanta->Nashville are already good enough routes to justify electrification and high speed investment. The Louisville->Nashville segment is harder, but would connect the networks.
November 22, 20222 yr 34 minutes ago, Lazarus said: Ding-ding-ding. This is part of the reason why N-S, I suspect, really wants ownership of this line. Otherwise, Cincinnati would have leverage to prioritize passenger rail as terms of a future lease. There are several single-track tunnels in Tennessee. If passenger rail is guaranteed priority, that would throw off N-S's operation. Tunnel #1: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chattanooga,+TN/@35.9813785,-84.5603815,1460m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x886060408a83e785:0x2471261f898728aa!8m2!3d35.0457984!4d-85.3093995 Tunnel #2: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chattanooga,+TN/@36.0698597,-84.6497927,1226m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x886060408a83e785:0x2471261f898728aa!8m2!3d35.0457984!4d-85.3093995 Tunnel #3: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chattanooga,+TN/@36.0829717,-84.6431568,1031m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x886060408a83e785:0x2471261f898728aa!8m2!3d35.0457984!4d-85.3093995 I think that there's a fourth tunnel but I wasn't able to find it quickly. Right now, N-S stages NB and SB tunnels at either end of the tunnels and then runs several trains through in the same direction before switching directions. Outside of passenger rail romantics, I really do not see why people would be seriously considering passenger rail as an option anyway. It is really just a pipe dream of a few and not really viable as a commercial enterprise outside of the Northeast/MidAtlantic corridor, or Chicago/Milwaukee corridor. It is much slower, does not provide significant connectivity, and would not be the preferred travel of the masses. If you want proof, look no further than Greyhound which has long been struggling as a bus business in this country. When you have discount airlines that are offering fares to fly from Atlanta to Chicago or Cincinnati to Florida for $60-$80 per ticket, busses and trains cannot compete with that for the average middle class traveler. An Amtrak route from Cincinnati to Atlanta or Chicago to Atlanta is never going to be viable when you can fly a discount airline for the same price or less than a train ticket and get there 1-2 days sooner. People need to acknowledge that reality.
November 22, 20222 yr The distance between Cincinnati and Atlanta is about 450 miles. This is about 75 miles farther than LA to San Francisco. A high speed rail line could be built between Cincinnati and Atlanta for *WAAAY* cheaper than CAHSR, no doubt half the price or less. No major tunnels would be required (possibly zero - I-75 doesn't have any) and the two city approaches are much simpler.
November 22, 20222 yr 6 minutes ago, Lazarus said: The distance between Cincinnati and Atlanta is about 450 miles. This is about 75 miles farther than LA to San Francisco. A high speed rail line could be built between Cincinnati and Atlanta for *WAAAY* cheaper than CAHSR, no doubt half the price or less. No major tunnels would be required (possibly zero - I-75 doesn't have any) and the two city approaches are much simpler. But would people actually ride it? Allegiant, Spirit, Frontier, Jet Blue, Breeze are all offering competitive prices and compelling reasons to use them over a high speed train that is still going to be much slower.
November 22, 20222 yr 10 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: When you have discount airlines that are offering fares to fly from Atlanta to Chicago or Cincinnati to Florida for $60-$80 per ticket, busses and trains cannot compete with that for the average middle class traveler. An Amtrak route from Cincinnati to Atlanta or Chicago to Atlanta is never going to be viable when you can fly a discount airline for the same price or less than a train ticket and get there 1-2 days sooner. People need to acknowledge that reality. The way things are is the way things will always be. I agree.
November 22, 20222 yr 2 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: The way things are is the way things will always be. I agree. I would never agree with such a statement. However, as a society, I think the goal is go create transportation systems where we can travel to places quicker and more efficiently than we did in the past. Cars have replaced horse and buggies, trains have replaced riverboats and barges as the chief way to ship goods around the inland of the country. Now there are still places where barges are more economical and make sense, but trains carry the biggest amount of freight now. Planes have replaced trains as the method to move people fastest across long distances. Let's not pretend that high speed rail in this country is going to be some huge technological leap forward than what we currently have. If anything, it is a step back (yes, faster than normal rail, but still a step back). Passenger rail across the country and connecting cities 500 miles a way is the thing of a romance novel. It sounds pretty and nostalgic but not a viable way to move people efficiently between their markets on the scale you would need for it to be economically viable. Most rational people would choose a 1-2 hour plane ride over a 5-6 hour plane ride if given the choice for a similar price point. It is a heavy lift of infrastructure to justify projects like this as economic development. There are certainly times where rail makes sense. Certainly, in densely populated areas it has proven to be viable and an alternative method of transport that is easier than flying and roughly takes the same time/or not much longer and is cheaper and less hassle. Outside of those few corridors it does not fit that model. Rail in cities as a LRT model I think is a viable idea because it creates efficient transportation to move people in a dense environment where plans or other methods of transportation cant compete. These long distance rail projects are never going to be viable and just the stuff of romantics. If people want rail, focus on the projects that are actually viable.
November 22, 20222 yr 23 minutes ago, Lazarus said: The distance between Cincinnati and Atlanta is about 450 miles. This is about 75 miles farther than LA to San Francisco. A high speed rail line could be built between Cincinnati and Atlanta for *WAAAY* cheaper than CAHSR, no doubt half the price or less. No major tunnels would be required (possibly zero - I-75 doesn't have any) and the two city approaches are much simpler. That's an interesting comparison. On the cost side, I'll defer to your judgement. It's definitely a less populated route than California, and maybe I'm overestimating how hilly it actually is. On the demand side though, California looks much better, when just looking at the paths of each route. Metro area sizes (2020): Los Angeles: 13.2M Riverside: 4.5M Bakersfield: 0.9M Fresno: 1M San Jose: 2M San Francisco: 4.7M Total: 26.3 Cincinnati: 2.2M Lexington: 0.5M Chattanooga: 0.5M Atlanta: 6M Total: 9.2 If you envision Cincinnati and Atlanta as being regional hubs, then it starts to look a little better. California only has San Diego (3.3M) and Sacramento (2.4M) as easy expansion cities, while this route could connect Charlotte (2.7M), Nashville (2M), Indianapolis (2.1M), Columbus (2.1M), etc. Edited November 22, 20222 yr by carnevalem
November 22, 20222 yr 18 minutes ago, carnevalem said: That's an interesting comparison. On the cost side, I'll defer to your judgement. It's definitely a less populated route than California, and maybe I'm overestimating how hilly it actually is. On the demand side though, California looks much better, when just looking at the paths of each route. Metro area sizes (2020): Los Angeles: 13.2M Riverside: 4.5M Bakersfield: 0.9M Fresno: 1M San Jose: 2M San Francisco: 4.7M Total: 26.3 Cincinnati: 2.2M Lexington: 0.5M Chattanooga: 0.5M Atlanta: 6M Total: 9.2 If you envision Cincinnati and Atlanta as being regional hubs, then it starts to look a little better. California only has San Diego (3.3M) and Sacramento (2.4M) as easy expansion cities, while this route could connect Charlotte (2.7M), Nashville (2M), Indianapolis (2.1M), Columbus (2.1M), etc. You would probably want to throw in Indy and Chicago if you were going to do such a route because such a connection from Cincy - Atlanta would not draw much interest, It would have to connect to Chicago or you could add (Dayton/Toledo/Detroit) or (Columbus/Cleveland). It would be much longer, but you would probably need a route like that to even consider it something viable (and I dont even think you get there adding those markets)
November 22, 20222 yr I was assuming that connecting Chicago to Atlanta via Cincinnati would be too circuitous compared to the Nashville route, but I just measured it and it's essentially the same distance. So you're right.
November 22, 20222 yr 6 minutes ago, carnevalem said: I was assuming that connecting Chicago to Atlanta via Cincinnati would be too circuitous compared to the Nashville route, but I just measured it and it's essentially the same distance. So you're right. Which poses a different question. Does a Nashville/Louisville route offer more potential than the LExington Cincy Route. You may need to connect through Dayton too to bolster the Cincy potential.
November 22, 20222 yr 9 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: Which poses a different question. Does a Nashville/Louisville route offer more potential than the LExington Cincy Route. You may need to connect through Dayton too to bolster the Cincy potential. The distances are in the same ballpark, so it comes down to demand. Metro areas: Nashville (2M) + Louisville (1.3M) = 3.3M Cincinnati (2.2M) + Lexington (0.5M) = 2.7M So the Nashville route has a slight edge there, but not large enough to make it clearly superior. Looking at this map again, Chicago and Atlanta are clearly regional hubs. Thinking strategically, the best case scenario for Cincinnati is to obtain secondary hub status as a connecting node between the primary hubs. A system like this would funnel all Midwest<->South traffic through Cincinnati, making it a critical node in the network. Of course this all making some huge assumptions that a system resembling this is even possible.
November 22, 20222 yr In the old days trains took about 12 hours to make the Cincinnati-Atlanta run. Average speed was probably less than 50 mph due to the mountainous territory the route traversed. The top train back then was the Southern Railroad's Royal Palm, a train that handled sleepers from Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo to Florida
November 22, 20222 yr 3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: I would never agree with such a statement. Your entire premise was that as long as budget airlines exist with flights to Florida for under $100 no one will take a train to Florida. That future is not guaranteed, and if we reach a point in 5 or 10 or 20 years where the cost of flights become unaffordable for the vast majority of Americans, we'll regret not building out better rail infrastructure. Some decisions, like selling the Cincinnati Southern Railway, are irreversible. And it may be a decision we learn to regret. We may never regret it, but basing your opinions on the current situation with cheap domestic flights is extremely shortsighted. To be honest, I haven't decided one way or the other how I would vote. But I'm skeptical of selling off a city asset for something that is not likely to depreciate.
November 22, 20222 yr 2 hours ago, neony said: In the old days trains took about 12 hours to make the Cincinnati-Atlanta run. The TVA researched electrifying the line in the 1970s. The Oil Crisis ended right as Reagan took office, so it and other railroad electrification efforts never occurred. The project is briefly summarized at 3.1 in this report - they anticipated that electrification would be in operation by 1984: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/16045/1980_RAILROAD ELECTRIFICATION ACTIVITY IN NORTH AMERICA.PDF Electrification of the line, absent of any other improvements (including top speed), would dramatically improve total travel times because electric trains are able to climb, descend, and accelerate/decelerate at station stops much more quickly than conventional diesel trains.
November 22, 20222 yr 6 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: Outside of passenger rail romantics, I really do not see why people would be seriously considering passenger rail as an option anyway. It is really just a pipe dream of a few and not really viable as a commercial enterprise outside of the Northeast/MidAtlantic corridor, or Chicago/Milwaukee corridor. It is much slower, does not provide significant connectivity, and would not be the preferred travel of the masses. If you want proof, look no further than Greyhound which has long been struggling as a bus business in this country. When you have discount airlines that are offering fares to fly from Atlanta to Chicago or Cincinnati to Florida for $60-$80 per ticket, busses and trains cannot compete with that for the average middle class traveler. An Amtrak route from Cincinnati to Atlanta or Chicago to Atlanta is never going to be viable when you can fly a discount airline for the same price or less than a train ticket and get there 1-2 days sooner. People need to acknowledge that reality. What you're not acknowledging is that trains serve more than just endpoint cities. They serve lots of enroute towns and cities that airlines don't serve or serve poorly with costly fares and few nonstops. The few remaining non-express buses are slow because they must get off the highway, go into town where its riders are, and come back to the highway. Only 10 percent of people riding Chicago-East Coast trains, for example, ride from Chicago to the East Coast or vice-versa. And yet each of these routes, despite having just train in each direction, carries the equivalent of 5-10 fully loaded Boeing 737s per day, or three times as many Greyhound buses. How? Because of passenger turnover. One seat will have two to three people sitting in it per trip. BTW, private-sector passenger trains were heavily used right up until Amtrak but didn't make money. The private-sector railroads did everything they could to scare away passengers so they could get ICC permission to cancel them. They rescheduled trains so they would just miss imprortant connections, or remove on-board food service, or shorten trains thereby forcing many riders to stand, didn't accept credit cards, or intentionally ran passenger trains behind freight trains, or charged an entire freight yard's cost to the one passenger train for which a switcher crew would regularly remove a sleeping car enroute, etc. I know it's hard to admit, but a government corporation is doing a much better job of running passenger trains than the private sector was in the 1950s and 60s. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 23, 20222 yr Mayor Pureval: Cincinnati intends to grow railroad trust fund By Chris Wetterich – Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier Nov 23, 2022 Updated Nov 23, 2022, 8:30am EST If Cincinnati voters allow the sale of the Cincinnati Southern Railway for $1.6 billion, creating an infrastructure trust fund designed to last in perpetuity, the city intends to add to that base amount in the future to combat inevitable inflation, Mayor Aftab Pureval told the Business Courier. Asked about criticisms that the railroad will be worth even more in a decade or two if the city keeps it and the money received under the deal will not go as far in the future, Pureval confirmed the plan is for the $1.6 billion to grow over time. “No one can tell the future. There’s a chance it (the railroad’s value) appreciates in 30 years. There’s also a chance that railroad transportation becomes obsolete. No option is without risk,” he said. MORE
November 23, 20222 yr In what universe does rail transportation become obsolete? It’s the most efficient way to move freight across land, and as we battle climate change it will become more important and valuable
November 23, 20222 yr 18 hours ago, ryanlammi said: To be honest, I haven't decided one way or the other how I would vote. But I'm skeptical of selling off a city asset for something that is not likely to depreciate. 100% agree with you on this. Personally, I am on the fence if this is a good idea or not. In one sense, you are getting out of an asset ownership where the city may not be an expert in owning (whereas N&S understand running a railroad much better) and the city is taking a lump sum of money and depositing it into a trust/endowment. In one sense, we should not look at this as the city selling an asset. Yes, they would be selling the railroad asset, but they would essentially be transferring the proceeds into another asset (in this case investible funds held in a trust). Just like the hard asset value of the railroad, the investible funds (in an ideal situation) cannot be invaded, and only the interest is used (just like the railroad paying $25million a year under their lease). So in that sense, you are not "selling" an asset, but rather "trading" it for a different asset. The bigger question is whether the $1.6 billion is sufficient value for the asset. Clearly, N&S sees value in the line to justify the price and given their expertise in running the line, they can create more value out of the line than the city of Cincinnati ever could by continued ownership. On the flip side, the benchmark they are stating is that we currently get $25/million per year under the lease and upon sale we would get $50-$60 million. While that seems like a no brainer, they gloss over the fact that there are 3 years on the lease and if/when it would be renewed, how much more per year would the city receive under a new lease?? I do not think it would be fair to look back 5-10 years after the sale and see that N&S is generating $XX from the purchase of the railway and saying the city was fleeced on the value simply because N&S could maximize the value of the asset much better than Cincy could. So of course they will be able to generate more value by owning the line than the city. However, as the city needs to be upfront about and not spin the taxpayers on is that the delta from the sale is not an additional $25-$30 million to the city, and they need to represent the estimated delta in funds to the city that would be realized after a new lease would be executed. My guess is that the city would get less money over time than they would get for continued ownership. However, that does not necessarily mean that selling now is the wrong decision. Reallocating those funds to a different, easier to manage asset class, even if they would produce a lower income, could still be the prudent decision.
November 23, 20222 yr 1 hour ago, JaceTheAce41 said: In what universe does rail transportation become obsolete? It’s the most efficient way to move freight across land, and as we battle climate change it will become more important and valuable Freight service is very viable. Passenger service is not as much unless you really operate in certain corridors. Passenger service has to be efficient and either get you there quicker or for much less money than alternative means. Passenger trains are slower than planes and not that much less than discount carriers to operate. For a long time Greyhound transported people more efficiently than trains. Greyhound is struggling now, maybe that opens the door for more train service? I just do not see passenger rail as the path forward for the majority of our country outside of dense population centers and then LRT/streetcar rail for cities unless the rail connects areas that are not efficiently connected otherwise by existing transportation nodules.
November 23, 20222 yr 1 hour ago, JaceTheAce41 said: In what universe does rail transportation become obsolete? It’s the most efficient way to move freight across land, and as we battle climate change it will become more important and valuable Right, that comment was fear-mongering. The United States has the greatest network of freight railroads on the globe - four east/west transcontinental railroads, many redundant routes in the East + thousands of miles of double-stack clearance. The U.S. is a relatively flat country so there are few technical bottlenecks. No gigantic tunnels or bridges are contemplated because...we don't need them. Since 2000, Switzerland and Austria have been building 100+ miles of new deep railroad tunnels under the Alps to achieve some semblance of the freedom of movement that the United States enjoyed in the 1800s. The Cincinnati Southern is one of the important north-south railroads in the East. The parallel CSX line that connects Cincinnati and Knoxville is nowhere near as important for a variety of reasons. The N-S line has 30 trains per day whereas CSX has about 5.
November 23, 20222 yr IIRC there is a specific reason why Kentucky is a big gap in Amtrak's plan. It was either some legislation passed by the state or something Mitch McConnell wrote into the authorization bill. I can't remember which but it's safe to say that passenger rail through the central part of the state isn't going to happen any time soon. I definitely think it should be left on the table but it is what it is for now.
November 23, 20222 yr ^ 2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: For a long time Greyhound transported people more efficiently than trains. Greyhound is struggling now, maybe that opens the door for more train service? I have ridden Greyhound many times (30~). Over the years they moved their scheduled routes from the state routes (i.e. US 27) to the interstate highways (i.e. I-75). They stopped regularly serving the small towns in between major cities. This means that they are for the most part only serving the major cities (cities the size of Lexington and Chattanooga are about as small as they get). Yes, this is much faster for those traveling from one significant city to another, but the rural population is being completely avoided. Amtrak's Cardinal is almost like an old-school Greyhound line in that it serves towns and cities in Kentucky, W Virginia, and Virginia that don't even have Greyhound service, let alone an airport. The every-other-day train is literally the only way out of town other than a personal vehicle. Unfortunately, The Cardinal suffers from the same sort of primitive station facilities in awkward locations that harm Greyhound. By contrast, the new California High Speed Rail project is building big-time stations right in the center of various small Central Valley cities. Fresno and Bakersfield are fairly large (each roughly the size of Lexington or Knoxville) but even the smaller cities are getting nice stations. Air travelers joke about small airports but even small commercial airports with 10~ flights per day (i.e. Hilton Head, SC) have bathrooms and a vending machine. You can't say that for Amtrak and Greyhound.
November 23, 20222 yr 5 hours ago, Dev said: IIRC there is a specific reason why Kentucky is a big gap in Amtrak's plan. It was either some legislation passed by the state or something Mitch McConnell wrote into the authorization bill. I can't remember which but it's safe to say that passenger rail through the central part of the state isn't going to happen any time soon. I definitely think it should be left on the table but it is what it is for now. Automotive is the largest industry in Kentucky.
November 27, 20222 yr On 11/18/2022 at 11:01 PM, stashua123 said: Would be a terrible mistake. What would be worse? A train accident causing 100's million in damages? A bridge collapse? Selling would get rid of all the liabalities and maintance of the line.
November 28, 20222 yr On 11/26/2022 at 9:05 PM, unusualfire said: What would be worse? A train accident causing 100's million in damages? A bridge collapse? Selling would get rid of all the liabalities and maintance of the line. NSR is responsible for maintenance of the line and I would assume that also includes liabilities. They've spent a lot of their own money upgrading some sections to straighten the line, or replace the bridges and tunnels.
Create an account or sign in to comment