Discussion: Efficacy of Long Distance Trains

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:35 am I tend to think Amtrak needs to have two levels of LD service, both on the same LD lines:

1. Commuter style rail. Coach, a cafe that serves Flex Dining meals, and roomette style sleepers only.
2. Regular "Tourist" service (like we have now), with full kitchen diner.

That would split the roles a bit and spread out the load.

I see no reason to do that when the current trains already serve both of those purposes. I've ridden the Coast Starlight and the Sunset Limited, both under the "tourist" type service. Do you know what was behind the dining car and sightseeing lounge? It was regular coach service cars, filled with people riding shorter distances, using the cafe for food options, etc. Why spend the money on two crews, two engines, fighting twice as much with the freight lines, to accomplish something that already exists?

I think one thing we might be overlooking on the merits of LD trains vs. shorter runs with “bus bridges” is the issue of staging and maintaining said trains. All the LD routes start and end in major cities with sizable maintenance facilities: Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, New Orleans, Chicago, Miami, Washington D.C., NYC, Boston. If you’re going to truncate a LD train into 2 or more separate trains that means mini maintenance bases will be needed at the “intermediate end points”. And that costs $$$ too. Would it not be more cost effective to just have a single train continue to traverse that same route and be maintained/re-stocked at an existing maintenance facility?

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:35 am I tend to think Amtrak needs to have two levels of LD service, both on the same LD lines:

1. Commuter style rail. Coach, a cafe that serves Flex Dining meals, and roomette style sleepers only.
2. Regular "Tourist" service (like we have now), with full kitchen diner.

That would split the roles a bit and spread out the load.

I don’t know about two separate trains as IIRC Amtrak pays their track usage fees based on # of trains run, but having traversed the country coast to coast in coach class earlier this year -and will do so again this fall- I personally would have no complaints with the long distance trains being re-imagined as the first option with perhaps a “berth car” or two added to the consist. This provides with 2-3 travel options that are more economical in price while maintaining ride quality. Even the reclining LD coach seats -while not a proper bed- are not half bad either.

LD rail survives because people use it; perhaps not in the significant numbers of those who fly or drive the subsidized airways and highways of our nation, but not totally insignificant, either.

The future I won't ever see is coming - the handwriting is already on the wall. Infrastructure is aging and occasionally failing. The national airways are over-crowded around many major terminals and often delayed with weather ground stops and not just in the Nortneast but with a ripple affect that extends hundreds of miles beyond the region. EVs are mandated for new sales by 2035 in NYS (I think the date is correct) and likely a few other places, too.

A balanced transportation system is a real need for the future, and trains - including LD - play a genuine role in that. To suggest they only exist as "pork" is disingenuous and untrue, although there may certainly be that element at play, just as there is with EAS and public road/airport/air traffic subsidy.

Long Distance trains can do very well, if speed was improved. It will be very difficult for Amtrak to get dedicated high(er)-speed trains in populated areas, where routes that could have been dedicated to HSR trains are long-gone, but could be possible outside of populated areas. E.G. think having a high(er)-speed train between Chicago and another Midwestern city, where most of the route between them is likely going to be the middle of no-where.

I also think, for LD trains to be faster and more successful, Amtrak should look into running down the medians of interstates. Amtrak and the Interstates are both federally owned/managed, so not many worries about dealing with private property interests for new ROWs, and those interstates already go to areas where there is travel demand.

It would be a pipe dream (and I don't even know if it's physically possible), but a somewhat fast LD train that runs the path of I-95 would probably be pretty popular - you wouldn't see people from NYC take it all the way down to Miami and vice versa, but you would see a lot of people from points in between use it to get to other points in between.

Two things to note.
- Probably the only train in the entire system that is truly legitimately profitable is, believe it or not, a long distance train (The Auto Train.) I suppose for the purposes of this discussion one could consider it a separate business line due to its unique nature. The NEC of course makes a profit above the rail but there is a of course the tremendous capital expenses for maintaining the infrastructure one has to factor in.
- Many of the state supported routes have lower fare box recovery than a lot of the long distance routes and discontinuance of the long distance routes would put more fixed allocated costs on those services. The only difference is the state governments are covering some of the costs, but the federal government still covers any money Amtrak loses operating the state supported business line after the state payments (based on the formula) are factored in. As of July Amtrak lost $216.2 million operating the state supported routes. Nearly half of what it lost operating the long distance trains. Covering that $216.2 million comes from the federal national network account. If you dropped the long distance trains that number would go up by millions as millions of dollars of fixed shared costs assigned to long distance networks would get dumped onto this business line. The amount of money that would be saved is less than many people realize.

I can think of a lot of much more expensive pork that could be cut before we need to target services that regular Americans actually use. Sorry Pentagon I'm looking at you.

Food for thought.

Running a train down the median of I-95 south of DC would be so expensive to build (land acquisition to widen medians to something wider than a jersey barrier, to straighten the interstates so trains can make the curve at more than 5 MPH, and level the highways so trains can climb the hills at more than 5 MPH), it would be cheaper for Amtrak to just buy the entire existing line from CSX all the way to Miami, which, come to think of it, would still likely be more expensive than sticking with the current arrangements over a 50 year period.

The land acquisition costs may be different for rural Interstates out west, where the proportion of land either federally or state owned was much higher than in coastal areas, but even there the rebuilding costs in many places would likely mean the current arrangements are still less expensive than what you propose.

Also note that since the Federal government owns no stretches of Interstate highway outside of DC (the Feds only pay for 80% of the capitol costs), its up to the states to decide what they would lease the space to Amtrak at, if they didn't just flat out refuse to do so.

Long-term it would be more expensive for Amtrak to buy from CSX, but it would also mean Amtrak can get more frequent and faster service if they owned the rails and were able to give themselves priority. I know a few people personally who have used the Silver Service lines, and the biggest issue with using them was the train was frequently delayed due to having to wait in sidings for freight trains to pass by.

Maybe it would be a good idea for Amtrak to try building their own trackage along freight routes, instead of just using freight trackage and dealing with what happens with that.

Also, if the feds don't own the interstates but pay for 80% of them, can they not use that as leverage if they wanted to run tracks down the median? The feds rose the drinking age in the USA by threatening to withhold highway funds if states didn't' raise the age to 21.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:35 am I tend to think Amtrak needs to have two levels of LD service, both on the same LD lines:

1. Commuter style rail. Coach, a cafe that serves Flex Dining meals, and roomette style sleepers only.
2. Regular "Tourist" service (like we have now), with full kitchen diner.

I've said before and I'll repeat:

Amtrak, Incorporated, a Crown Corporation of the United States Treasury, shall fund the cost of ONE locomotive and TWO passenger coaches, per long distance train. This function will fulfill the "necessary balanced transportation network" needs of those who refuse to drive, take a plane or a bus, because they are gluten-intolerant and/or have undisclosed autoimmune disorders that can be aggrevated ONLY by using a car, bus or airplane (but magically not on a train).

"Private Rail, Inc.", a publicly traded corporation on the NYSE (ticker: RAIL), a business which exists to earn a profit, shall be permitted to add any additional locomotives and/or cars necessary to support the operation of Amtrak trains, including for-profit luxury coaches, for-profit cruise ship cars, casino cars, Marriotts on Wheels, for-profit Michelin star rated restaurants, and for-profit bars and lounges (courtesy of Molson Coors).

bridpath wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 11:09 am The future I won't ever see is coming - the handwriting is already on the wall. Infrastructure is aging and occasionally failing. The national airways are over-crowded around many major terminals and often delayed with weather ground stops and not just in the Nortneast but with a ripple affect that extends hundreds of miles beyond the region. EVs are mandated for new sales by 2035 in NYS (I think the date is correct) and likely a few other places, too.

Somehow, I don't think our "congested airspace" is really an issue over the route of the Empire Builder, or the Pioneer. Maybe in Los Angeles, but certainly not over Oregon. And our trains are just as impacted by weather, from landslides up north to forest fires, burning trestles and snowstorms east and south.

A balanced transportation system is a real need for the future, and trains - including LD - play a genuine role in that. To suggest they only exist as "pork" is disingenuous and untrue, although there may certainly be that element at play, just as there is with EAS and public road/airport/air traffic subsidy.

Balance is unnecessary - do we subsidize typewriters to make sure we have a balanced communications system? Or do we subsidize horse and buggies, or submarines for water transport? Balance is nothing but a codeword for pork to subsidize something that otherwise is unsustainable.

As for the "subsidies" you cite - the FAA is a self-funded agency that doesn't receive general funds; it only receives the funds it collects from its various taxes. Airports are largely self-funded and if they weren't owned by governments, would be considered for-profit enterprises as they consistently earn more than they cost to run (and before you say "they don't pay property taxes", they often provide all of the services on their own, such as their own police and fire departments, public works departments, etc.). Roads? They most certainly receive, on a per-passenger mile, far less than Amtrak gets. Even when you account for gas tax revenue, the road system in this country gets somewhere between 1 and 2 cents per passenger mile. Amtrak? Over 40. Why do we need a transportation system that services a decimal of a percentage point (a.k.a. statistically insignificant) of passenger trips, that costs 20-30 times more than other modes? Why is that "balance" so critical, when there are other options available? Why is there a "need" for luxury sleeping cars and white-linen restaurants for the top 1% of Amtrak riders, but we don't afford those services to any other traveller - there are no "AmRestaurants" located at airports or rest areas or bus stops, staffed by U.S. Government employees receiving U.S. Government benefits and paid for with checks drawn on the U.S. Treasury.

Many small to medium sized airports do not pay their way. Extreme example is Raleigh airport a

JohnFromJersey wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 6:41 am Long-term it would be more expensive for Amtrak to buy from CSX, but it would also mean Amtrak can get more frequent and faster service if they owned the rails and were able to give themselves priority. I know a few people personally who have used the Silver Service lines, and the biggest issue with using them was the train was frequently delayed due to having to wait in sidings for freight trains to pass by.

Maybe it would be a good idea for Amtrak to try building their own trackage along freight routes, instead of just using freight trackage and dealing with what happens with that.

Also, if the feds don't own the interstates but pay for 80% of them, can they not use that as leverage if they wanted to run tracks down the median? The feds rose the drinking age in the USA by threatening to withhold highway funds if states didn't' raise the age to 21.

You mean, like how brightline is using highway medians?

Brightline is not using highway medians anywhere. It is renting property south of a toll road from an authority separate from FDOT that happens to own a ROW 2-3 times the width of the toll road itself. This is in contrast to places like most of the I-95 north of St Petersburg in VA, or almost any highway in a city, where private property (or non-DOT property if public) is < 20 feet from the shoulder of the highway.

My comments were also about the curvature and hilliness of Interstates, although my experience is mostly not in the areas of long flat and level highways built in areas where the states or Federal government already owned the land used for the highways before the highways were planned.

wigwagfan wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:25 pm There are no "AmRestaurants" located at airports or rest areas or bus stops, staffed by U.S. Government employees.

Most are operated under franchise or concession agreements by HMSHost.

west point wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 11:28 pm Many small to medium sized airports do not pay their way. Extreme example is Raleigh airport a

One does not mean "many". One is just that, ONE. And maybe the residents, citizens, businesses and taxpayers of Raleigh should raise an issue if they don't feel it's right for them to subsidize an airport. Is that airport owned and operated by the U.S. Government like Amtrak is?

Raleigh Durham Airport is an entity managed by 4 local governments (two cities and two counties) established by the NC General Assembly. But's it also has positive income (~$47M in 2022), so how you claim it's loosing monies is beyond me.