Is Passenger Rail Doomed?

sipes23 wrote:

electricron wrote: Eurostar has... 65% of London to Brussels travel routes.

I could be mistaken, but do you suppose this number may be inflated by the fact that some US > London flights then add on a stub flight LHR > BRU as a way to catch extra revenue. As in: hey look, we fly to Brussels too! (For some reason I"m thinking United does this, but I can't remember.)

I wonder if it is possible to tease out the London > Brussels passengers who did not originate their travel in London. That may deflate the non-rail numbers. Or it may be a very tiny number not worth teasing out.

There have been proposals to run Eurostars from Heathrow, but as far as I know they have not been proceeded with. The Heathrow Express station could possibly support a half set of Eurostar. But the connections from there to the Great Western and then to HS1 don't really exist. The purpose would be to eliminate some short haul flights to free airport slots for long haul flights. I think it might be easier to make connections from Gatwick as there is an electric line to the Tunnel.

In the absence of direct rail connections it is not easy for interline passengers to get to Kings Cross for Eurostar. So, I suspect there are not many passengers who transfer to Eurostar from the main London airports.

Here are some lists of metropolitan areas.
Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas - Wikipedia - combines neighboring ones from:
Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia

These pages give several sources, which suggests a problem of definition:
Largest urban areas of the European Union - Wikipedia - compilation of various sources
Larger Urban Zones - Wikipedia - in the European Union and nearby, from Eurostat
List of metropolitan areas in Europe - Wikipedia - from ESPON, Urban Audit, UN WUP, OECD, and citypopulation.de

Using the CSA's and the LUZ's:

1. NYC: 22.1m -- London: 11.9m
2. LA: 17.9m -- Paris: 11.5m
3. Chicago: 9.8m -- Istanbul: 11.0m
4. DC: 8.6m -- Madrid: 5.8m
5. Boston: 7.6m -- Ruhr Area: 5.3m
6. SF-SJ: 7.5m -- Berlin: 5.0m
7. DFW: 6.7m -- Barcelona: 4.4m
8. Philly: 6.5m -- Athens: 4.0m
9. Houston: 6.0m -- Ankara: 3.7m
10. Atlanta: 5.6m -- Rome: 3.5m

Around 17 - 18, European cities pass American ones in population, however.

Connecting the top three cities on each list, I find:
London - Lille - Paris - Strasbourg - Stuttgart - Munich - Vienna - Budapest - Belgrade - Sofia - Istanbul: 2100 mi
Best London - Istanbul hwy: 1900 mi
NYC - Philly - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City - Albuquerque - Phoenix - LA: 3000 mi
Best NYC-LA hwy: 2800 mi

The European one is close to the various Orient Express routes.

lpetrich wrote:As to HSR systems, I think that European systems now extend far enough to make possible some estimates of how many people are willing to ride such distances in trains as opposed to airplanes.
Amsterdam - Marseille: 826 mi
London - Marseille: 790 mi
Barcelona - Malaga: 731 mi
Turin - Naples: 569 mi

Well, are their any data we can read yet for any of these longer HSR routes?

What do you have in mind?

I went over to http://www.raileurope.co.uk and checked on what trains one can get for these routes. I used Wednesday mornings late in this month. I used the best cases for the trains: as few transfers as possible. I could find no-transfer routes for Spain and Italy, though not for France.

Amsterdam - Marseille:
Paris Gare du Nord - Amsterdam: 3.5 hr
Paris Gare de Lyon - Marseille: 3 hr

London - Marseille:
Paris Gare du Nord - London: 2.5 hr
Paris Gare de Lyon - Marseille: 3 hr

Barcelona - Malaga: 5.5 hr

Turin - Naples: 5.5 hr

Amsterdam - Marseille:
Paris Gare du Nord - Amsterdam: 3.5 hr
Paris Gare de Lyon - Marseille: 3 hr

Better is to change in Brussels. There is at least one through train from Brussels. I have been on it for part of its route.

London - Marseille:
Paris Gare du Nord - London: 2.5 hr
Paris Gare de Lyon - Marseille: 3 hr

In the summer there are through Eurostars from London to the South of France (Nice). A one seat ride. Probably only on certain dates in the Summer.

But again it would be better to change in Lille for the train originating in Brussels. There is no need to treck across Paris.
Details here.http://www.seat61.com/France.htm#London ... by%20train

electricron wrote:During fiscal year 2010 long distance Amtrak trains carried 4.5 million passengers 2.8 billion passenger miles.

Just for comparison, the two high-speed connections between Germany and France (Paris - Mannheim - Frankfurt and Paris - Stuttgart - Munich) alone already carry one third of that number today. With ten pairs of trains per day.

kato wrote:

electricron wrote:During fiscal year 2010 long distance Amtrak trains carried 4.5 million passengers 2.8 billion passenger miles.

Just for comparison, the two high-speed connections between Germany and France (Paris - Mannheim - Frankfurt and Paris - Stuttgart - Munich) alone already carry one third of that number today. With ten pairs of trains per day.

To be fair to Amtrak, Amtrak's Regional and Acela trains on the Northeast Corridor (America's sole HSR corridor) in 2010 had much higher numbers.
NEC = 10.375 million passengers.
Acela - 610 million passenger miles
Regional - 1,084 million passenger miles
Total = 1.694 billion passenger miles
Therefore, on the NEC your average passenger traveled 163.27 miles. This reflects the shorter distances between the major metros on the NEC, and what I would like to point out a higher market share and profitability too. But - these shorter distances between America cities don't exist once you leave the NEC.
We've so far accounted for 14.8 million passengers for Amtrak in 2010. Amtrak's total for 2010 was 28 million passengers, so the remaining 13 million passengers came from regional train services in the rest of America; Amtrak Cascades, Amtrak California, and Midwestern services from Amtrak's Chicago hub.

Don't confuse long distance services with regional services...

electricron wrote:Therefore, on the NEC your average passenger traveled 163.27 miles.

Which pretty closely matches the national IC/EC/ICE network data for DB Fernverkehr, at 178 miles (285 km) per passenger average. Somewhat interestingly, within that network, it's effectively the exact same number regarding passenger average for high-speed ICE (65% of trains) and medium-speed IC/EC trains (35%).

Of course here we're then talking about 121 million passengers and 34.5 billion passenger kilometers per year, so a slight bit more. Structurally the Northeast matches Germany rather closely - it's slightly more compact and more densely populated, but overall that's in my opinion the kind of passenger data the NEC could approach in theory based upon its environment.

scottychaos wrote:"alleged railfan"??
you can be a railfan, and still be against pointless rail development..
Im a railfan, and here in NY state we are always having discussions about high-speed rail across western NY..
its a stupid idea..
No one wants it, no one needs it, and we cant afford it.

All wrong. We need it, we want it, and we can afford it. Do YOU drive to New York City when you need to go there? By car? Pay the tolls? Pay the cost of parking? No? Well then. Lots of people from upstate need to go to New York City. Driving there sucks. The bus service is not sufficient (and is often downright nasty).

I'd rather just build the HSR than waste money on the umpteenth round of studies. There's plenty of right-of-way. The problem right now is that the trains are just too slow. There is no good reason for this; relatively little improvement would make them substantially faster than driving, and they're already more comfortable.

lpetrich wrote:I think that one can be a good railfan and believe that rail systems are not for everything, that other transport options like (flat-road) cars and buses and airplanes and ferries are worthwhile. I remember once having a very vehement argument with someone who opposed park-and-ride lots as being too much of a concession to cars. I favored them in low-density areas, and I still do, since those are the sorts of areas most suited to cars.

I'll agree with that. How do you think we get to the train station from rural areas?...

Passenger rail travel has been dying for years but yet it isn't dead. The energy, scarcity of it, the cost of it, and the waste of it will feed, I think, new interest into rail travel. If you look at rail travel in the nuts and bolts aspect it makes total sense. One power source, one driver (or a small crew), almost exclusivity of the traveling medium, namely rails, makes rail travel very attractive. We are spoiled. We have a car. Go to your garage, leave when you want, take as many people as you want, stay as long as you want, come home when you want, shop on the way, gee what convenience! Cost will be a major factor for rail. Gasoline is already at $4.00 a gallon and predicted to go up. I have been to Europe many times, England, Wales, Scotland, Greece, Italy, France amd I can tell you without reservation that Europe is miles ahead of the U.S. in travel. I have ridden the Royal Scot traveling at well over 100mph sitting in the dining car with a bottle, goblets of wine eating trout almodine and there is not even a ripple in the glass as we traveled through switches, yards, under bridges, on oevrpasses and watching the countryside fly by. Bear in mind this was years ago, probably 1990, when I did this. I have also ridden on the Orient Express traveling through London, Rome, Paris, Austria and it was glorious. No automobile even a Rolls Royce can give me that exquisite feeling. We are going to be very sorry we tore up our rails because they are not used anymore. I believe rail travel will be back albeit in a new form. Airplanes are expensive, fuel is expensive, airlines are going bankrupt, the cost of fuel is too high. How much are they charging for your luggage now? And we are also, in the future, going to be taking a sack lunch on the plane. Noone in Europe seriously even considers flying within Europe. High speed rail travel. In the stations in London, Paris, Rome sits a whole fleet of very aerodynamic trains waiting to take you practically anywhere over there. I saw destinations for Prague, Berlin, Salzburg, Madrid, Belfast, on the schedule boards. What a hustle bustle of activity. I return to the U.S. to dilipadated old little-used stations, dirty train cars, bumpy rails, poorly maintained systems and it is a big shock. Travel in the future will change. The price of autos will soar. Remember that car they used to make in the past called the Chevrolet?

neroden wrote:

scottychaos wrote:"alleged railfan"??
you can be a railfan, and still be against pointless rail development..
Im a railfan, and here in NY state we are always having discussions about high-speed rail across western NY..
its a stupid idea..
No one wants it, no one needs it, and we cant afford it.

All wrong. We need it, we want it, and we can afford it. Do YOU drive to New York City when you need to go there? By car? Pay the tolls? Pay the cost of parking? No? Well then. Lots of people from upstate need to go to New York City. Driving there sucks. The bus service is not sufficient (and is often downright nasty).

I'd rather just build the HSR than waste money on the umpteenth round of studies. There's plenty of right-of-way. The problem right now is that the trains are just too slow. There is no good reason for this; relatively little improvement would make them substantially faster than driving, and they're already more comfortable.

Did you wake up on the nasty side of bed this a.m.? this is the third post I've seen where you've been rude.

Nevertheless, to respond to your post, who's this "we" you're talking about? YOU want it, YOU need it, YOU can afford it. While I"m pro-rail, I want it where it makes sense.

neroden wrote:I'd rather just build the HSR than waste money on the umpteenth round of studies. There's plenty of right-of-way. The problem right now is that the trains are just too slow. There is no good reason for this; relatively little improvement would make them substantially faster than driving, and they're already more comfortable.

I disagree that "the problem ... is that the trains are just too slow." I would say that the biggest problem with rail travel in the USA is that, except for the NEC and a handful of other cities, there is no infrastructure to get passengers to and from the train, other than private car. For long-distance (i.e., non-NEC) trains, the usual travel paradigm is that you drive (or get driven) to a station somewhere near your home, and you get somebody to pick you up at the other end. Even driving yourself to the station can be a problem, since many stations don't have enough parking, and aren't really set up for long-term parking. By comparison, every airport I have travelled to in the US has had lots of parking (including long-term)[*], car rental agencies are set up right in the terminal, and most have ground transportation desks to help with taxis, airport limos, and local public transit.

[*] Except for my closest one: White Plains, NY. @#$%^ NIMBYs have managed to prevent expanding parking!! But they do have everything else.

Even when there is adequate infrastructure, the time spent getting to and from the Amtrak stations at each end is often more than the time spent on the train. In those cases, HSR is not going to make much difference.

amm in ny wrote:

neroden wrote:I'd rather just build the HSR than waste money on the umpteenth round of studies. There's plenty of right-of-way. The problem right now is that the trains are just too slow. There is no good reason for this; relatively little improvement would make them substantially faster than driving, and they're already more comfortable.

I disagree that "the problem ... is that the trains are just too slow." I would say that the biggest problem with rail travel in the USA is that, except for the NEC and a handful of other cities, there is no infrastructure to get passengers to and from the train, other than private car. For long-distance (i.e., non-NEC) trains, the usual travel paradigm is that you drive (or get driven) to a station somewhere near your home, and you get somebody to pick you up at the other end.

True. But that's the only available paradigm in places with no local mass transit.

Even driving yourself to the station can be a problem, since many stations don't have enough parking, and aren't really set up for long-term parking.

OK, you make a good point: the parking situation at Syracuse, NY, for instance, is really too small given that it draws people from over 60 miles away. It is, however, also well-connected to the local bus system. And this is pretty standard for cities which HAVE a local bus system.

...but the fact that the trains are just too slow hurts too. They're not *much* too slow, but they are too slow.

Even when there is adequate infrastructure, the time spent getting to and from the Amtrak stations at each end is often more than the time spent on the train. In those cases, HSR is not going to make much difference.

Well, it depends on your situation, doesn't it? Connecting upstate NY (west of Albany) to NYC, somewhat faster trains would make a significant difference for intercity travel; the time spent driving to and from the stations is no worse than the time you'd spend driving if you were driving direct; but the trains take a slightly less direct route than the Thruway, so to be competitive they have to be somewhat faster.

Jeff Smith wrote:

neroden wrote:

scottychaos wrote:"alleged railfan"??
you can be a railfan, and still be against pointless rail development..
Im a railfan, and here in NY state we are always having discussions about high-speed rail across western NY..
its a stupid idea..
No one wants it, no one needs it, and we cant afford it.

All wrong. We need it, we want it, and we can afford it. Do YOU drive to New York City when you need to go there? By car? Pay the tolls? Pay the cost of parking? No? Well then. Lots of people from upstate need to go to New York City. Driving there sucks. The bus service is not sufficient (and is often downright nasty).

I'd rather just build the HSR than waste money on the umpteenth round of studies. There's plenty of right-of-way. The problem right now is that the trains are just too slow. There is no good reason for this; relatively little improvement would make them substantially faster than driving, and they're already more comfortable.

Did you wake up on the nasty side of bed this a.m.? this is the third post I've seen where you've been rude.

Nevertheless, to respond to your post, who's this "we" you're talking about? YOU want it, YOU need it, YOU can afford it. While I"m pro-rail, I want it where it makes sense.

Jeff, I'm talking about those of us in western upstate NY, *as my post made clear*. I'd also like to point out that the person I was responding to was substantially more rude ("it's a stupid idea"/ "no one needs it"/ "no one wants it"/"no one can afford it" -- all without evidence of COURSE), but you didn't warn HIM. (Edit: nor did you warn the person who called him an "alleged railfan", which is actually genuinely rude).

I also want rail where it makes sense, and the Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse-Albany-NYC corridor makes sense by any estimation.