conductorbob wrote:This month's trains magazine has an article on Amtrak. Part of the article is about the Sunset Ltd and UPR. In the article it mentions the cost of allowing the train to go in operations everyday. Up and Amtrak estimate the cost to be almosts 1 billion dollars. It goes on to say how UP would need so much money for track update, distpatching, etc. I wonder if UP add another stack train or regular freight train , if it would cost so much. It seems to me that UPR does not want any pasenger trains on their rr. As a former Passenger Conductor on Conrail, PC,etc. that with the current cost of flying and gas that the passenger train has to beome a another choice the travelers have. UPR and all the rest of the freght railroads should take the time to rethink these types of trains on their tracks.At one time they were the pride of the company and a great advertizing venue for them. Just my thoughts. Conductor Bob
You're probably right that freight railroads don't want passenger trains cluttering up their lucrative business. The realities of the business in the early 50's were that people were abandoning passenger rail in favor of the interstate highway system. The railroads did everything they could to modernize after WWII and hold onto their passenger traffic base. It was to no avail. They DO remember that and are reluctant to invest the kind of $$ it would take to run passenger trains on their lines. In today's market, it would take trains running at full capacity to justify them, and even then, would it turn a profit? Also, if you have looked at the cost of riding the train over long distances, it is still cheaper to drive or fly, Driving allows one to go from Point A to Point B without any intervention in between such as changing trains or stopping at a final station, THEN going on to one's destination. With the availability of the automobile, it is difficult to compete with a conveyance that allows one to leave home and arrive at granma's house in one smoothe trip. This was, after all, besides the military applications they were orginally conceived for, one of the things that made the interstate system so attractive to consumers.
Passenger trains work best in concentrated population areas where the inverse is true for the long haul. It is rare to achieve the volume over.............say, a 500 mile trip versus a commuter haul of 50 miles or less in a densely populated area. Obviously in such case commuter trains relieve congestion and solve problems for their customers....such as parking in the big city. For the long haul, the advantages quickly disappear.
I know all the arguments---auto fuel costs, rising maintenance, congestion-----that fuel the passenger proponents enthusiasm. But, OTH, the costs of operating passenger trains has risen exponentionally, and in some cases, exceeds the cost of providing the service. *Some* of us, particularly the "foamer" element, the rail enthusiast, would love to see passenger trains running, even if they were not meeting the expense of doing so. All just so they could get their photos!
Economics drives all of this. If the day comes where the automobile exceeds the consumers' ability to operate, only then would long distance passenger trains begin to pay the bills with increased ridership sufficient to justify them. When that happens---and I doubt it ever will reach such a level to sustain passenger rail---the railroads might then invest in the plant to do so. And even then, would they be allowed to compete with Amtrak? Would they WANT to? They are quite happy as is, and don't WANT passenger trains fouling up their lines, delaying their freight trains. After all, they got shed of passenger rail in the 70's, WHY would they risk repeating history should people abandon rail yet again for some new unknown conveyance?
Gadfly
