Discussion: Efficacy of Long Distance Trains

Heres a comparison for you, loaded soda ash car from GR to Portland round trip $10,000.00 (i know i shipped a wrong car more then once when i contracted) Thats not for premium service, thats drag rate.

How many people can you stuff in a passenger car? 20? 20 X 10,000=500 dollars. 500 bucks to take back seat for everything out there, 50 miles an hour.

How does the RR's treat there customers? "You can have premium service for a premium price? Who the boxes on a passenger train? Yep you are. Its just not feasible. Maybe one day they might put a passenger car on those UPS trains, never know, i bet it would quite spendy for a ticket, and you would be without any services.

UPRR engineer wrote:....

LD's do gum up the works, adding speed to them only makes it worse. On the rail your only as fast as the guy ahead of you. Making the jump to light speed (79) and your sure to catch someones flasher. How ya gonna clear the 10 or 15 trains that are ahead of you? (remember the hold times and how much it costs? wheres the velocity now?) Efficiently on LD's isn't what needs work, down grading those trains to follow the biggest dogs out there. "You'll get there when you get there" Take that schedule and throw it out the window. If its not gonna be a joyride trip on that train, fly or drive.

You do it the same way it has always been done, you have enough sidings so that the dispatcher can dump the freight into one before the passenger train catches up to it. This process worked very well for some fifty years or so. Most LD routes run one train a day or less each way, so this is not so very much much to ask of our rail network. When and if we ever rebuild intercity rail we will need to decide if we want dedicated HSR lines or would rather add to the already existing network so that it can handle five or six trains a day each way. This is not some mystical idea, Humans know very well how to create the conditions that passenger operations need. If American have forgotten we can always get some consulting from one of about 30 nations that do it better than we do.

UPRR engineer wrote:Heres a comparison for you, loaded soda ash car from GR to Portland round trip $10,000.00 (i know i shipped a wrong car more then once when i contracted) Thats not for premium service, thats drag rate.

Point taken. Now here is another comparison, when you drive this frieght between these two points how much do you pay towards the infrastructure for your trip? That would be the gas tax right? We don't need to price the movement in this way, would could charge each truck by mile for 100% of the damage it causes to the roadway, for all of the pollution that it creates, for its portion of the cost to build the roads. We don't because we choose the economic mechanism we use to fund this human endeavor. The price paid by the final user at the time of use is completely up to discretion. Besides, people are not soda ash. We choose how to pay for passenger operations, and no country collects 100% of the cost at the farebox, so why would anyone assume that America would price in this way, or should?

wigwagfan wrote:As a person, why should I be forced to schedule my life around the arrival and departure of a train; and why should I be forced to endure the life on the railroad, when I can have the option of a bus, an airplane, or even my own personal automobile? Isn't it arguable that "the public good" includes the freedom to travel when and how I desire - and if statistics tell a story, "the public" overwhelmingly favors non-railroad transport.

Apologies for dragging up something from the first page, but I chcked and no one has addressed my points, so I feel validated.

That being said, the public good includes plenty of other things BEYOND personal freedom to do whatever one pleases. I consider an important part of doing things for the public good to be ensuring that the public still exists 20-30-40 years from now. It is for that reason that I think, no, you should not always have the option of, say, your personal automobile (or, more accurately, you should have the choice, but you should have to pay the true cost, and it ain't $1.99/gal). I'm sure you've seen what happens when you get the public together in a crisis situation -- I'm not sure I'd rely upon its decisionmaking abilities in a pinch.

As far as the statistics telling the story, I call BS. Repeating endlessly that "'the public' overwhelmingly favors non-railroad transport" doesn't make it any truer. Let's say you run one bus -- only 30 people get on. Does that mean that the general public has overwhelmingly chosen other modes of transport? No, it means that some people chose to ride the ONE bus that you ran. How many more seats than 24 million does Amtrak have per year?

I don't want to start this fight again, but an increasing number of people per year (about a million more each year, no?) ride the very limited number of trains that currently run.

Vpayne wrote:You are also using a light rail transit example as a proxy for Amtrak, which does have quite wide support within the general population per the multiple polls posted here by another gentleman just a few weeks ago.

Let's place Amtrak on a general election referendum, and see how much support there really is.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Hmm, I think that Germany, France, Holland, Italy, Spain, Japan, South Korea and even China might dispute that.

Tell me, how can you use rail to travel from Portland, Oregon, to Lincoln City? Burns, Oregon to Ontario, Oregon? Kalispell, Montana, to Missoula, Montana? Yakima, Washington, to Spokane, Washington? Should I go on?

Theoetically, rail could be placed anywhere...but today, and we are talking Amtrak here, rail is not a solution to many of the realistic transportation needs that people depend on every day; and in many cases never existed in the history of railroading and/or this country. Before anyone pulls "you're just pulling random two points", these are all points that have significant transportation patterns, and all are greater than 50 miles apart.

icgsteve wrote:if there is not currently a legal obligation to do this then then the country will create the obligation

When? We've had 35 years of Amtrak and it hasn't happened - in fact we have piecemeal removed the obligation of railroads to carry passengers - starting with RPRA '71.

We've had 35 years of Congresses and Presidents, what is going to suddenly appear to force the railroads to handle passengers? Regardless of the outcome of Election Day 2006, does anyone think that the next Congress is going to actually consider such an action?

The railroad stockholders of Amtrak are under the same obligation to Amtrak that they have always been under

The largest stockholder of Amtrak is no longer a railroad: American Premier Underwriting. (The successor company to Penn Central.) Nor does owning stock declare any obligation by a stockholder - not for Amtrak, not for any other company. (NOTE: I hold a position in at least one railroad.) I should add that of the three railroad companies that own Amtrak stock, two of them - Canadian National and Canadian Pacific are, well, Canadian companies. Why do or should they care about Amtrak, other than that they happen to own some railroad track in the United States?

The last time I checked, a company that issues stock has an obligation to its stockholders, not the other way around.

It would seem to be logical and reasonable to move the railroads under public ownership or stewardship as all other transportation infrastructure is.

That's fine, but on the same token the operating companies (including Amtrak) would need to remain private. Union Pacific, BNSF, etc., would still remain as operators in an open-access environment. Or it's AmFreightRail, AmBus, AmAir, etc.

ryanov wrote:It is for that reason that I think, no, you should not always have the option of, say, your personal automobile (or, more accurately, you should have the choice, but you should have to pay the true cost, and it ain't $1.99/gal).

If you're only paying $1.99 per gallon to operate your car, then who is paying for the registration fees, taxes, drivers license, insurance, maintenance, and most importantly, the cost of the car itself? Your view of "true cost" is simply false at best. I believe the IRS even has an official declaration that it's 48.5 cents per mile. At my current rate for fuel and my car's MPG, I'm paying about 10 cents per mile for fuel, and the State of Oregon doesn't require general fund subsidies for highway maintenance - so what am I not paying? I pay property taxes for local roads, and that's part of what a local government does.

Repeating endlessly that "'the public' overwhelmingly favors non-railroad transport" doesn't make it any truer.

And repeating endlessly "surveys" that "the public" overwhelmingly favors Amtrak doesn't make it any truer, either. Amtrak still is a statistically insignificant factor in intercity transportation.

By the way, all of Amtrak's increase in ridership was in SHORT-HAUL transportation. The topic of this thread is Long Distance, where Amtrak is down 1.3% from FY05 to FY06, or -50,000 passengers.

ryanov wrote:Apologies for dragging up something from the first page, but I chcked and no one has addressed my points, so I feel validated.

This is your first post on this thread. I'm not sure what points you want us to address.

WIGWAGFAN said:

"When? We've had 35 years of Amtrak and it hasn't happened - in fact we have piecemeal removed the obligation of railroads to carry passengers - starting with RPRA '71.

We've had 35 years of Congresses and Presidents, what is going to suddenly appear to force the railroads to handle passengers? Regardless of the outcome of Election Day 2006, does anyone think that the next Congress is going to actually consider such an action? "

The railroads are now and always have been forced to carry Amtrak. The railroads can and often do run Amtrak as poorly as possible but they can't outright refuse Amtrak. Look at what happened in Illinois just a few weeks ago when CN tried to shake down the state for capital money before agreeing to run more trains on its system. CN backed down as soon as it was clear that the state would play hardball, and as I recall one day after a US Senator from the state said that he would get involved. Legally and politically railroads can not refuse Amtrak outright, and they know it. Sorry to say I don't know that Amtrak has ever challenged the railroads in court, as if I were running Amtrak I would take a shot ot one of these railroads that outright refuse to run specific trains on a schedule. Right now I would pick the coast Starlight. I would test in court how much legal power Amtrak has to force the railroads to run Amtrak in a reasonably efficient manor.

icgsteve wrote:WIGWAGFAN said:

"When? We've had 35 years of Amtrak and it hasn't happened - in fact we have piecemeal removed the obligation of railroads to carry passengers - starting with RPRA '71.

We've had 35 years of Congresses and Presidents, what is going to suddenly appear to force the railroads to handle passengers? Regardless of the outcome of Election Day 2006, does anyone think that the next Congress is going to actually consider such an action? "

The railroads are now and always have been forced to carry Amtrak. The railroads can and often do run Amtrak as poorly as possible but they can't outright refuse Amtrak. Look at what happened in Illinois just a few weeks ago when CN tried to shake down the state for capital money before agreeing to run more trains on its system. CN backed down as soon as it was clear that the state would play hardball, and as I recall one day after a US Senator from the state said that he would get involved. Legally and politically railroads can not refuse Amtrak outright, and they know it. Sorry to say I don't know that Amtrak has ever challenged the railroads in court, as if I were running Amtrak I would take a shot ot one of these railroads that outright refuse to run specific trains on a schedule. Right now I would pick the coast Starlight. I would test in court how much legal power Amtrak has to force the railroads to run Amtrak in a reasonably efficient manor.

What would be the basis for such a lawsuit? This is a serious question. Are the railroads violating any laws or any agreements with Amtrak?

Where exactly is this topic heading. My thoughts are there is economic efficacy and customer needs efficacy.

In the economic efficacy department the loaded car of potash doesn't really seem to be the correct comparison. For the round trip mileage $10,000 works out the $2 to $2.5 a car mile. But that includes crew, classification yards, equipment, and fuel. What did that likely 286,000 lb car contribute to the ROW maintenance? I would suggest the train as a whole probably contributed around $8 to $20 a trainmile towards infrastructure but it did how much damage? Remember, with the move to a 286 k freight network we have moved the stress state of the rail so that contact stress is the controlling failure mode in the rail head. Translated this means that the life of the rail is now limited and linked to the tonnage over the railhead. So if Amtrak likely pays $3 to $9 a trainmile to use the ROW but does considerably less damage did the corporation that owns the infrastructure do better or worse compared to the freight train? It is a question of incremental income versus maintenance for which I have never seen a good comparison in any paper.

More on the efficacy in meeting the travelers needs later.

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

I see that we are starting to cross-parse each other, rather than contribute fresh material to the debate.

Since Mr Halstead is a participant in this debate, I'll be keeping an eye on activities, freeing him to be a full participant.

Mr. Payne raises a good point, we are getting off topic.

As the originator of this topic, and for which I am gratified at the maturity and respect with which the discussion has moved forth, I should note that the intended scope is Long Distance Trains (LD's, or quite specifically Trains 1....53, 58-59, 91-92, & 97-98).

But as Mr. UPEngineer notes, movement of freight is what "it's all about'. We have addressed here how relaxing a train trip can be and offers social opportunities hardly available with other modes. As such there is an ostensible "need" for LD rail. Unfortunately that need would pale if suddenly the lights didn't turn on because coal train shipments were embargoed account "passenger operational requirements' (or whatever the euphemists would dream up), or the "must have" toy dilligently made by Santa's Asian Elves wasn't on Wally World's shelf at worst by Thanx?

Additional track capacity is needed (that includes restoration of the mostly 'bonehead' management decisions made on the eve of 'dereg') - especially in the West considering the Eastward flow of imported goods. Further, there is considered question that even though the Class I's are profitable, they are not profitable enough to provide for capacity expansion, save locomotives and freight cars where the capital markets have the assurance of 'if Chessie can't pay, Uncle Pete can". What is inevitable when something is, or perceived to be, needed the private sector will not provide is public funding. Even though the Class I's would be as agreeable to accepting such as would have been the Federal government accepting humanitarian aid from Cuba in the Katrina aftermath (it was offered, folks if a Discovery Channel documentary is to be believed), it might simply be inevitable if the lights went out (I draw the line before the "must have toy'). As part of such legislation, key words such as 'and passenger' could be inserted in the "right' provisions of the legislation - and the folks on either "floor' when voting and for that matter the guy (or gal?) down the street at 1600 when signing not even aware of such!!!!

Would such legislation be "pro bono publico'? To the extent I have a say as topic originator (any other "say" for me expired last July 31) I sure think such is fair game for discussion.

One challenge to both Amtrak and the national transportation grid is the number of operators out there.

The West Coast has exactly TWO railroads: UP and BNSF. Each of them has large systems, and there is need for capital on both.

One advantage of the older, fractured corporate structures may have been increased access to capital markets, because there was smaller risk for the lenders.

We may be at the point where public funding of rail infrastructure makes sense ... because our trade (generally balance of payments negative) requires it. Amtrak access might be a condition of that.

For now, to me, the efficacy of the LD train is Political In Nature: It's the cost of doing business to generate 218 House and 51 Senate votes. When Amtrak can generate critical Congressional mass without the LD states, then the LDs may well see their last miles.

John Perkowski
speaking strictly as a member

I am seeing two distinct points here in play:

1. The continued existance of Amtrak

2. The federal role in railroads.

Not one poster has differentiated between federal ownership of the railroads, versus federal ownership of the railroad companies. Are we seriously thinking that the federal government needs to operate trains - freight and passenger? If that is the case, I again will state that if the pro-rail rally is going to demand "equal treatment", that every airline, bus line, and trucking company be nationalized as well.

If we own the railroads but not the operating companies, this forces the privatization of Amtrak - how does that further the cause of anyone on this board seeking better treatment for passenger trains?

Or, are we going to maintain the status quo of a poorly functioning and virtually non-utilitarian long distance network, but with a federally owned railroad underneath it? Does spending billions upon billions of dollars just to buy the railroad (and then, what railroads do we buy - all of them, or just the mainlines?) just to ensure that one train a day is "on time" while delaying dozens of freight trains - that is before we spend a dime on capital improvements - make sense in any possibility - fiscally, socially, whatever?

My question to everyone: Amtrak receives, on a per-passenger basis, a far greater federal subsidy than any other mode of transportation combined; and that's even assuming that passengers have to pay the full cost of roads, airports and air traffic control - and this is even with the benefit of not maintaining its own tracks throughout most of the U.S.. Meanwhile, on a product line basis, the NEC covers its costs, and the monthly financials show that the infrastructure is covering its basic operating costs as well (not just "above-the-rail", but "including the rail" as well.) I'll agree that the NEC isn't earning its cost of capital (for improvements), but the LD trains, without having to pay for the rail and the capital expense, isn't covering its operating costs. Why should we dump more money into the LD trains, given its low usage compared to other modes of transportation? More legislation isn't going to improve the situation; and I've seen no one truly justify why nationalizing the railroads is the answer.

wigwagfan wrote:

ryanov wrote:Apologies for dragging up something from the first page, but I checked and no one has addressed my points, so I feel validated.

This is your first post on this thread. I'm not sure what points you want us to address.

Those to appear following that statement -- ie. I was dragging up your old post, but no one had said what I was about to say so it would not be considered repetitive.

wigwagfan wrote:Why should we dump more money into the LD trains, given its low usage compared to other modes of transportation? More legislation isn't going to improve the situation; and I've seen no one truly justify why nationalizing the railroads is the answer.

Because something that barely runs is going to have barely any patronage. A passenger count alone is absolutely worthless information, considering the fact that people do not like to ride something that cannot run when they want to go.