A good example of why RR's lost pasenger service

Having worked for TWA years ago, I am not one to promote AA but this Youtube video is a very good example of why the RR's lost out to the airlines. While the video is primarily about AA way back when, you can see bits and pieces of the railroads.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCnWLR28 ... re=channel

SST wrote:this Youtube video is a very good example of why the RR's lost out to the airlines.

You mean it shows how the airlines got their facilities built for them with tax dollars while at the same time railroads were paying out some of the highest tax levies of any industry?

Didn't think so.

Yes indeed the railroads paid outrageous taxes on the facilities that they built with their own money. And yes indeed the government built airports and air traffic control facilities with tax dollars. The airlines did build their own ticket offices. Was it “fair”, probably NOT, but it happened so we need to deal with it. Would different tax policies have changed the final outcome, maybe by a decade or so, at most. Once people found out that they could cross the country before the sun sets on the same day they would have found a way to make it happen, even if a black market emerged (they do exist, check out recent cigarette sales in New York City for an example)

But the basic fact is that you can travel from New York City to Los Angeles (only one typical example) in 5 hours by plane versus 3 days by train. No amount of spending will change this basic equation. Even if we could afford 300 mph high speed trains it would still takes DAYS (or a major fraction of a day) to get to LA by train.

Technologies (i.e. jet airplanes) do have a way of changing things, even if we don’t like the changes.

Passenger trains are STILL a very good solution in areas with high population densities and reasonable travel times (i.e. the North East Corridor). But they cannot compete with long distance (i.e. > 500 miles) airline travel. The New York Central realized this back in the late 1960’s when they killed the 20th Century Limited and concentrated on the Empire Service (a couple of hundred miles per trip). Not much has changed since the 1960’s.

Cheers, Kevin.

SST wrote:Having worked for TWA years ago, I am not one to promote AA but this Youtube video is a very good example of why the RR's lost out to the airlines. While the video is primarily about AA way back when, you can see bits and pieces of the railroads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCnWLR28 ... re=channel

A delightful movie, but what does this have to do with New York State Railroads?

-otto-

NYCRRson wrote:Yes indeed the railroads paid outrageous taxes on the facilities that they built with their own money. And yes indeed the government built airports and air traffic control facilities with tax dollars...Would different tax policies have changed the final outcome...

Being that New York was and is a high tax state...

Would it have changed things? If the airlines had to pay more of their own costs it would've given the railroads a greater cost advantage in fares. In a state like New York that might have translated to just enough additional traffic to have made at least some difference.

Example - Reportedly in 1967 the New York Central lost $500,000 out-of-pocket on their passenger service. Five hundred additional riders paying $20 fares per week would've meant NYC breaking even. That doesn't sound like a pie-in-the-sky fantasy to me.

Back in the 1950s Central complained bitterly about some of the perks the old Mohawk Airlines got in terms of hundreds of thousands of government dollars spent to allow the airline to serve small cities in New York. New air terminals, longer runways. Places the New York Central also served.

"Would it have changed things? If the airlines had to pay more of their own costs it would've given the railroads a greater cost advantage in fares. In a state like New York that might have translated to just enough additional traffic to have made at least some difference."

I doubt airlines would have ever reached the level they're at now without the major subsidies they've recieved throughout their history of taxpayer's money. The industry doesn't make money and never will and needs billions in government dollars to exist to underwrite their losses, reduce their cost, and let them earn something in profits so they' will continue to exist. It's simply too expensive for private enterprise to go it alone flying someone at 600mph in a Boeing 747.

It can't be done at reasonable ticket prices that people can afford, so we have to make up the difference for that to be possible. Remove the government support, and what we know as the airline industry would be nothing like it is today.

The biggest thing that caught my attention on this video is looking out the airplane window as it passes the steam locomotive.

What's this have to do with NY....look at the routing of the flight. ORD-DTW-BUF-NYC.

Good points everybody. I think this is relevant to New York State since the NYCRR was number 2 in passenger volume (after the dreaded PRR) in the whole country. Much of that traffic was in New York State.

My basic point was that passenger trains cannot compete with jet aircraft for distances over about 500 miles. They can compete for shorter distances and might have a larger portion of the travelling public if all the unfair government help had not happened.

But for longer distances the enemy is not the US government, you need to blame the Germans and the British (I know nobody uses that term anymore) since they INVENTED the jet engine. Without the jet engine more of us would probably still be traveling by train. And by the way we might as well get PO’d at those damn Wright Brothers, they started this whole “paradigm shift” in the first place. I burned out a clutch once doing a paradigm shift, but that’s a whole different story.....

Cheers, Kevin.

I think that if the airlines had to truly pay their costs - airports, air traffic control, what have you, the railroads might still have had a much larger piece of middle distance travel - 500-1000 miles. Longer distance travel would have been for those who could afford the fare, which would not have been as cheap as what we see today.

Given a more even playing field, the railroads might have been inclined to develop high-speed service. We see that potential today in the NEC, which is competetive with airline in travel time and cost. Imagine if NYC and PRR had turned a couple of the tracks of their four track mainlines into HSR. Mapquest gives a time for a highway trip between NYC and Chicago (via Albany and Buffalo, to mimic the Water Level Route) of just over 16 hours, which assumes a speed of 60 MPH. That means that 180 MPH HSR would make the trip in around 6 hours, maybe a little more with station stops. Given the time it takes to process through an airport, that's not bad at all.

I'm still in suport of trains even thow I have never been on one as a passenger. I'm planing to go to Denver, CO on Amtrak in a few months I think it will be fun. This would be a first time on Amtrak for me!

NYCRRson wrote: But the basic fact is that you can travel from New York City to Los Angeles (only one typical example) in 5 hours by plane versus 3 days by train. No amount of spending will change this basic equation. Even if we could afford 300 mph high speed trains it would still takes DAYS (or a major fraction of a day) to get to LA by train.

Cheers, Kevin.

Only about 20% of your riders on our very popular sold out long distance trains go end to end. You know the ones you say don't have a chance against the bailed out airlines. Most passengers get on and off at small towns in between. Which NO longer have air service. The airlines best days are over! It's a industry built on cheap fuel. Guess what? Fuel is not cheap and will only go up in price in the future. Just like it always has. The only thing that keeps higher speed rail from development is powerful air and highway lobbys. But with $5 gasoline ahead. It's now Dec 31st 2010. At least according to the former president of Shell Oil, Mr. John Hofmeister. President of Virgin Atlantic Airways, Richard Branson says oil will hit $200 a barrel in the next few years. Most of the air service will fly into history! The industry is about to have massive mergers which will get rid of competition, and raise the fares, and drop routes. This will only put off the slow death of most of the air service. Railfully yours Eric

scharnhorst wrote:I'm still in suport of trains even thow I have never been on one as a passenger. I'm planing to go to Denver, CO on Amtrak in a few months I think it will be fun. This would be a first time on Amtrak for me!

This popular train the "California Zephyr" can and does sometimes sell out. It also can run late. The train avoids the major population centers like the Quad Cities, Cedar Rapids and Des Moines.It runs on a out of the way route across southern Iowa. Then heads north after crossing the Missouri River on the Nebraska side for Omaha. Most people that get on at Osceola are from Des Moines. Most people that get on at Galesburg are from Peoria. The Galesburg Station the new one, will be replaced. It's too small. Of course they torn down the larger one, that used to be there.

tree68 wrote:I think that if the airlines had to truly pay their costs - airports, air traffic control, what have you, the railroads might still have had a much larger piece of middle distance travel - 500-1000 miles. Longer distance travel would have been for those who could afford the fare, which would not have been as cheap as what we see today.

Given a more even playing field, the railroads might have been inclined to develop high-speed service. We see that potential today in the NEC, which is competetive with airline in travel time and cost. Imagine if NYC and PRR had turned a couple of the tracks of their four track mainlines into HSR. Mapquest gives a time for a highway trip between NYC and Chicago (via Albany and Buffalo, to mimic the Water Level Route) of just over 16 hours, which assumes a speed of 60 MPH. That means that 180 MPH HSR would make the trip in around 6 hours, maybe a little more with station stops. Given the time it takes to process through an airport, that's not bad at all.

The New York Central went anti-passenger after the RDC speed run in western Ohio in the late 1950's They put jet engines on a RDC and still hold the rail ground speed record. Ohio and the federal government didn't care! Half the state of Ohio today still doesn't! Even with perhaps $5 gas coming. The air service is in decline. It is built on cheap oil. Most air service will be gone in a few years!

NYCRRson wrote:Good points everybody. I think this is relevant to New York State since the NYCRR was number 2 in passenger volume (after the dreaded PRR) in the whole country. Much of that traffic was in New York State.

My basic point was that passenger trains cannot compete with jet aircraft for distances over about 500 miles. They can compete for shorter distances and might have a larger portion of the travelling public if all the unfair government help had not happened.

But for longer distances the enemy is not the US government, you need to blame the Germans and the British (I know nobody uses that term anymore) since they INVENTED the jet engine. Without the jet engine more of us would probably still be traveling by train. And by the way we might as well get PO’d at those damn Wright Brothers, they started this whole “paradigm shift” in the first place. I burned out a clutch once doing a paradigm shift, but that’s a whole different story.....

Cheers, Kevin.

The faster you go the more EXPENSIVE fuel you use! What killed the old railroads passenger service was the highway lobbys getting the mail put on their trucks. Which due to the internet now run empty most of the time. The fuel for the trucks, now is killing the Post Office. Amtrak tried the mail business but was not allowed any volume. So they got all the fixed costs of operation, and no profits. Plus because they tried to get by with nothing. They delayed trains, etc. I'd like to know the fuel bill of the Post Office! Jet engines are part of the decline in today's air service. I've read how some routes no longer use them to save fuel.

Passenger rail is very popular today and in demand. The long distance trains and all trains are doing pretty well even in the past recession of the past years. Amtrak has been breaking ridership records year after year. Powerful lobby's in Washington and the state capitols are holding the industry back. They also enjoy spreading misinformation to the uniformed about transportation. People who own paving companys, convenience stores that sell gas or blocks of stock in oil companys are alarmed at today's talk of high speed rail.
The trains are selling out more and more. People think a trip to the airport is like a trip to the dentist office for a root canal. People do want someone putting their hands up and down between their legs. Shoe bombs, underwear bombs are worry of airport personel. X-rays that see all you got, a way of life. Oh, then there's fuel. The former president of Shell Oil said the other day "Gas could to to $5 a gallon" He name is Mr. John Hofmeister. Mr Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic Airways said, "Oil could reach $200 a barrel in the next few years."

What's going to do in the bailed out airlines is the cost of fuel. It will kill them in the coming years!