Brightline West (XpressWest, DesertXpress) Las Vegas - Victorville - Rancho Cucamanga - LA Proposal

electricron wrote:Has anyone looked at how many get to Branson, Mo? Most come by tourist bus.
Can you imagine how many will be willing to take a tourist bus to Victorville from
Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Burbank, Pasadena, Arcadia, Azusa, Glendora, Pamona, Ontario, Fontana, and San Bernardino to Victorville and that's just a list of cities along I-10?
Look at all the cities in southern California that I left off my list. They could run a tourist bus from each city to Victorville that could fill several trains a day, saving the bus line the expense of going all the way to Las Vegas. It also makes it easier to get passengers from every city too. A similar bus strategy would be needed later to feed passengers with the DesertXpress terminating at Union Station in downtown Los Angeles.

Why would anyone want to take a bus to Victorville, which is literally the middle-of-nowhere, just to pay for an expensive HSR ticket to get to Vegas? Why pay for two inconvenient forms of transportation, spending time waiting for a bus, or two connecting buses, then waiting for this mythical HSR train in Victorville, when it would cheaper and quicker to simply get in your car and drive to Vegas?

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Why would anyone want to take a bus to Victorville, which is literally the middle-of-nowhere, just to pay for an expensive HSR ticket to get to Vegas? Why pay for two inconvenient forms of transportation, spending time waiting for a bus, or two connecting buses, then waiting for this mythical HSR train in Victorville, when it would cheaper and quicker to simply get in your car and drive to Vegas?

Why do so many people ride a tourist bus to Branson, Mo vs driving their cars?

I'm not suggesting everyone would, but there will be many who will. More than enough to turn a profit, and that's what the PRIVATE backers of the DesertXpress are betting on......

Why would anyone take the service road with all the stop lights when they could have taken the controlled access toll road?

Answer: Because they can and to save some money.

electricron wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Why would anyone want to take a bus to Victorville, which is literally the middle-of-nowhere, just to pay for an expensive HSR ticket to get to Vegas? Why pay for two inconvenient forms of transportation, spending time waiting for a bus, or two connecting buses, then waiting for this mythical HSR train in Victorville, when it would cheaper and quicker to simply get in your car and drive to Vegas?

Why do so many people ride a tourist bus to Branson, Mo vs driving their cars?

I'm not suggesting everyone would, but there will be many who will. More than enough to turn a profit, and that's what the PRIVATE backers of the DesertXpress are betting on......

I really don't have a clue as to "what the PRIVATE backers of the DesertXpress are betting on?" Perhaps there is an assumption that all loans will be guaranteed by the federal taxpayers or that all investors in HSR will be bailed out?

The comparison between Victorville, CA and Branson, MO is not valid, as Branson is something of a destination due to a number of country music venues while Victorville is an airliner storage facility on the edge of the desert. My guess, is that the age and income demographics favor package tours and bus charters to Branson, in much the same was that elderly, slot-machine playing seniors are bused to Atlantic City. In both cases, there are attractions at the ultimate destination. Victorville is not a desirable destination, or even a pleasant stopping off point. Victorville is the sort of California town that makes you want to keep on driving until you cross the border into Nevada - at the maximum posted speed limit, of course.

"Can the X Train generate enough riders who don’t care that the trip would take longer for them than to drive in their own cars?"

Sure. Enough people ride lots of amtrak trains that take longer than a car ride. The difference is, Amtrak doesnt make a profit on these routes, while these folks would have to. Im not even talking about the 5 day trains, even the downeaster is slower than a car. Popular enough to expand, but not popular enough to support a private company.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: There are far more potential patrons for a $99 L.A. to Vegas roundtrip ticket than $400 to 600 for a round trip HSR ticket from Victorville to Vegas. I believe the fare projections from Vegas X Train, but I don't believe DesertXpress' fare projection for a second and I honestly believe that a one way HSR ticket from Victorville to Vegas would have to be between $200 to 300 just to break even, and even that is assuming unreasonably high ridership levels. I also don't see much potential for DesertXpress to subsidize ticket prices on the basis of beverage and gaming profits.

Where are you getting these ridiculous prices from? Why would it cost $200 the break even? Acela makes a profit, and they dont charge that much. The european trains are expensive, but not $300 dollars expensive.

I just picked a random date next month, and the round trip airfare from los angeles to las vegas is less than 100, after taxes.

Even better, allegient is offering a one way fare of $9.99 right now from Fresno (not including taxes). Thats not a typo, nine dollars and ninety nine cents.

If these train companies want to compete, then they need to be sub-$50.

jamesinclair wrote: I just picked a random date next month, and the round trip airfare from los angeles to las vegas is less than 100, after taxes.

Even better, allegient is offering a one way fare of $9.99 right now from Fresno (not including taxes). Thats not a typo, nine dollars and ninety nine cents.

It should be pretty obvious that the airline is losing money on those fares. Think about it. Even if you fill up all 150 or however many seats at 10 bucks a head, that's $1500. That won't even cover the crew's salary for the trip, never mind the fuel or depreciation on the plane. In fact, I doubt an airline could break even charging $100 a head for the trip. If the airlines are offering these fares, then I've little doubt the casinos are covering their losses in order to bring in customers. And they might be willing to do the same if a high-speed train existed, assuming the train couldn't charge enough to cover its costs.

The economics of train versus plane are quite different anyway. A train requires an enormous initial outley in the form of a ROW. Once built, however, the ROW is relatively inexpensive to maintain. Moreover, these expenses aren't directly proportional to the number of trains. Adding more trains means reducing the maintenance portion of the expense per train. Furthermore, trainsets themselves cost less to purchase, and far less to operate, per passenger than planes. Like I said, the real problem is the initial costs to build that ROW. If you can get a government to cover all or part of it, then there's little doubt the train can do better than the plane in terms of cost per ride if you can fill that ROW to capacity. A lot of the plane's costs are fixed. They can't be reduced by running more planes. Each plane needs a crew, fuel, a landing slot. Fuel alone is the single biggest expense of airlines, with the long-term cost going nowhere but up, and no ready alternative in sight ( I doubt stringing wire at 35,000 feet would work ).

In the interests of fairness before anyone here says planes don't require a large initial investment, can anyone say airport? Maybe an airport doesn't cost as much to build as 250 miles of high-speed ROW, but it is expensive enough so that traditionally governments have had to contribute all or part of the cost. Why do governments do this? Easy-by paying for an airport or a road or a railroad, in the long run enough new economic activity is generated from which the government can collect taxes and use those taxes to offset their initial investment. So long as the infrastructure projects are carefully chosen, the basic model is sound. Not so sure if that's the case here. Unless/until there is a direct connection to LA via CHSR, this might indeed be a train to nowhere.

jamesinclair wrote:"Can the X Train generate enough riders who don’t care that the trip would take longer for them than to drive in their own cars?"

Sure. Enough people ride lots of amtrak trains that take longer than a car ride. The difference is, Amtrak doesnt make a profit on these routes, while these folks would have to. Im not even talking about the 5 day trains, even the downeaster is slower than a car. Popular enough to expand, but not popular enough to support a private company.

You can't drink alcoholic beverages while driving to Las Vegas, but you certainly could while you're riding the train. The same goes for gambling.

The sheer stupidity of the DesertXpress business model is that after people make the long, long drive to Victorville, there would be very little opportunity to gain revenue from drinking and gambling on the way to Vegas. The whole purpose of the DesertXpress seems to be moving people in a hurry from the middle of nowhere to casino hotels on the strip, with very little opportunity for on-train revenue. Honestly, if you're willing to drive, or take the bus to Victorville, you can't be in much of a hurry anyway?

In the end, the Vegas X Train would seem to have low start up costs and the potential for non-fare revenue streams far in excess of DesertXpress. If UP is truly onboard with this venture, it might have an outside chance - better odds than I'd give DesertXpress.

jamesinclair wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: There are far more potential patrons for a $99 L.A. to Vegas roundtrip ticket than $400 to 600 for a round trip HSR ticket from Victorville to Vegas. I believe the fare projections from Vegas X Train, but I don't believe DesertXpress' fare projection for a second and I honestly believe that a one way HSR ticket from Victorville to Vegas would have to be between $200 to 300 just to break even, and even that is assuming unreasonably high ridership levels. I also don't see much potential for DesertXpress to subsidize ticket prices on the basis of beverage and gaming profits.

Where are you getting these ridiculous prices from? Why would it cost $200 the break even? Acela makes a profit, and they dont charge that much. The european trains are expensive, but not $300 dollars expensive.

I just picked a random date next month, and the round trip airfare from los angeles to las vegas is less than 100, after taxes.

Even better, allegient is offering a one way fare of $9.99 right now from Fresno (not including taxes). Thats not a typo, nine dollars and ninety nine cents.

If these train companies want to compete, then they need to be sub-$50.

Actually, Acela fares are in the neighborhood of $200 to 300, NYP to WAS, which is pretty good indication of what the actual ticket prices might be on the DesertXpress - although the Acela has the economic advantage of running on an exiting right-of-way improved with taxpayer money. I know I can't quote exact fares due to forum rules, but I can assure you that DesertXpress isn't going to be making a profit with charging the same sort of fares that Amtrak charges on the Acela.

As far as the Vegas X Train, a $99 round trip fare seem to be possible, especially since they are talking about buying in existing, conventional rolling stock and motive power. In addition, with 5 and a half hours, there is a very significant revenue stream from beverages, and once the train crosses the Nevada state line, gambling.

jtr1962 wrote:

jamesinclair wrote: I just picked a random date next month, and the round trip airfare from los angeles to las vegas is less than 100, after taxes.

Even better, allegient is offering a one way fare of $9.99 right now from Fresno (not including taxes). Thats not a typo, nine dollars and ninety nine cents.

It should be pretty obvious that the airline is losing money on those fares. Think about it. Even if you fill up all 150 or however many seats at 10 bucks a head, that's $1500. That won't even cover the crew's salary for the trip, never mind the fuel or depreciation on the plane. In fact, I doubt an airline could break even charging $100 a head for the trip. If the airlines are offering these fares, then I've little doubt the casinos are covering their losses in order to bring in customers. And they might be willing to do the same if a high-speed train existed, assuming the train couldn't charge enough to cover its costs.

The economics of train versus plane are quite different anyway. A train requires an enormous initial outley in the form of a ROW. Once built, however, the ROW is relatively inexpensive to maintain. Moreover, these expenses aren't directly proportional to the number of trains. Adding more trains means reducing the maintenance portion of the expense per train. Furthermore, trainsets themselves cost less to purchase, and far less to operate, per passenger than planes. Like I said, the real problem is the initial costs to build that ROW. If you can get a government to cover all or part of it, then there's little doubt the train can do better than the plane in terms of cost per ride if you can fill that ROW to capacity. A lot of the plane's costs are fixed. They can't be reduced by running more planes. Each plane needs a crew, fuel, a landing slot. Fuel alone is the single biggest expense of airlines, with the long-term cost going nowhere but up, and no ready alternative in sight ( I doubt stringing wire at 35,000 feet would work ).

In the interests of fairness before anyone here says planes don't require a large initial investment, can anyone say airport? Maybe an airport doesn't cost as much to build as 250 miles of high-speed ROW, but it is expensive enough so that traditionally governments have had to contribute all or part of the cost. Why do governments do this? Easy-by paying for an airport or a road or a railroad, in the long run enough new economic activity is generated from which the government can collect taxes and use those taxes to offset their initial investment. So long as the infrastructure projects are carefully chosen, the basic model is sound. Not so sure if that's the case here. Unless/until there is a direct connection to LA via CHSR, this might indeed be a train to nowhere.

Since we're living in the era of $11 million locomotives and $4-6 million railroad passenger cars, not including the truly exotic, high cost, high maintainence European trainsets, it's far from clear that even conventional passenger equipment is all that cheap compared to basic single aisle airliners in the 737/A320 class. Take into account the high labor costs compared to the regional and discount airlines, and any private venture HSR service will have a tough economic battle without taxpayer subsidies, at which point, it stops being truly private and starts becoming a "bailout."

DesertXpress is really the worst of all possible worlds, given the high costs of building a right-of-way, the high upfront and high operating costs of European style trainsets and the high labor costs of what will surely be a fully unionized workforce. We're talking about billions of dollar in debt for a line than termininates in the middle-of-nowhere, otherwise known as Victorville, CA. How exactly is this sort of plan going to lead to profits?

In contrast, the airport, interstate and conventional dual-use railroad infrastructure already exist, and in every instance there are enumerable connections, not a terminus in the middle of nowhere.

I personally believe that Vegas X Train could accomplish an on schedule start-up with an investment in the "tens of millions," rather than the billions required by DesertXpress. It is equally clear that a single seat L.A. to Vegas service also has more ridership potential than Victorville to Vegas.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:Actually, Acela fares are in the neighborhood of $200 to 300, NYP to WAS,

Wouldn't a better comparison be NYP to ACY/ACE and regular trains vs the ACES service?

If this is tourist rail serving the casinos I'd expect the rates to be in the ACES ballpark ... and note without a quote that ACES NYP to ACE seems to be cheaper on short notice than a regular trip NYP to ACY. $200-$300 is too much.

As far as the Vegas X Train, a $99 round trip fare seem to be possible, especially since they are talking about buying in existing, conventional rolling stock and motive power. In addition, with 5 and a half hours, there is a very significant revenue stream from beverages, and once the train crosses the Nevada state line, gambling.

$99 would be more likely to work. You are marketing to people with the money to go and blow and hopefully still have a home to come back to.

jtr1962 wrote:

jamesinclair wrote: I just picked a random date next month, and the round trip airfare from los angeles to las vegas is less than 100, after taxes.

Even better, allegient is offering a one way fare of $9.99 right now from Fresno (not including taxes). Thats not a typo, nine dollars and ninety nine cents.

It should be pretty obvious that the airline is losing money on those fares. Think about it. Even if you fill up all 150 or however many seats at 10 bucks a head, that's $1500. That won't even cover the crew's salary for the trip, never mind the fuel or depreciation on the plane. In fact, I doubt an airline could break even charging $100 a head for the trip. If the airlines are offering these fares, then I've little doubt the casinos are covering their losses in order to bring in customers. And they might be willing to do the same if a high-speed train existed, assuming the train couldn't charge enough to cover its costs..

Theyre not losing money, they're a profitable company. Allegient is actually known for eliminating a route as soon as it becomes unprofitable (and pissing off cities in the process). $1,500 does cover the salary for a pilot, co pilot and 3 attendants (minimum required by law I believe) with room to spare for the gas. The fresno-vegas flight I mentioned is only about 55 minutes long.

They make even more money charging $10 a head by pushing for full package deals (they also charge for everything, even water, I opt for a glass of ice and let it melt)

Check out their website:
http://www.allegiantair.com/

"Flight only" isnt even preselected, they do everything they can to sell you a package. Little things like "route maps" are hidden away in favor of "hotels" and "deals"

Could the train companies do this? Of course. The question is, how many transportation companies can attempt to profit off package deals?

Allegiant also has another advantage: low capital costs. They dont buy new planes. When I flew them a couple of years ago, there were TWA stickers in various places! Their fleet is made up of planes other airlines are trying to get rid of. According to wikipedia, the average fleet age is 20 years.
It appears that this "X" line is copying this portion of the business by buying used rail cars.

I doubt that these companies can attract people with fares above $99. If they can't make a profit charging below this amount, then maybe they should invest in another form of transportation. Is there a large party bus market between Vegas and Nevada? When I traveled in Mexico, my first class bus included a full meal, movies, clean bathroom and an enclosed smoking room in the back. I'm surprised such a model hasnt been attempted in america.

IMO, X Train and Desert XPress would serve different demographics, so they might be able to coexist. X Train would serve those with less disposible income and also those with more time on their hands. This might generally be the AARP crowd, although you could include 20-somethings there as well. Desert XPress would serve those traveling on business for whom time is an issue but money isn't. No idea how much travel to Vegas is "business", but it wouldn't surprise me if it's quite a bit.

Maybe expand on the X Train model and include hookers as well as gambling once past the Nevada state line. Include complimentary Viagra for those who need it. With a name like "X Train" this only seems logical.

Travel distances, times, and speeds?

Google Maps’s highway route closely parallels the UP route, and is about 270 mi long. That gives the X-train an average speed of 49 mph, about the speed of an intercity bus.

For Victorville – LV, it’s 182 mi, and a projected travel time of 84 min yields 130 mph, over 2 1/2 times faster.

Only about 39 mi of the trip is in Nevada – 48 minutes for the X-Train, and 18 minutes for the DXP. All the rest is in California.

Let's see if either the X-Train or the DXP teams get regulatory approval for Nevada-only gambling, since the gambling stuff will have to be present on the train for the entire trip. If the trains will have slot machines and video poker machines and the like, they would presumably be shut down on the California side. Perhaps it could be automatic, with GPS.

lpetrich wrote:If the trains will have slot machines and video poker machines and the like, they would presumably be shut down on the California side. Perhaps it could be automatic, with GPS.

Either that or California might approve in-state gambling. Given their budget crisis, they'll likely be looking for any potential source of revenue.

lpetrich wrote: For Victorville – LV, it’s 182 mi, and a projected travel time of 84 min yields 130 mph, over 2 1/2 times faster.

Which means significantly batter equipment utilization. Ignoring the higher ridership a faster trip attracts, that alone makes the economics for DXP more compelling than this out of nowhere X train (which seems to be based on the repeatedly-failed 'premium train' model...)

There's a reason why slow speed long distance passenger services have either died off or are quickly on the way out in the industrialized world: They're money pits, pure and simple. People don't want a barely-better-than-bus average speed - they didn't on the LA-LV route 15 years or so ago. Why would they now?

Do people really think the casinos backing DXP have _no_ idea what they're doing? 3 billion's chump change to them for a reason...

Nasadowsk wrote:

lpetrich wrote: For Victorville – LV, it’s 182 mi, and a projected travel time of 84 min yields 130 mph, over 2 1/2 times faster.

Which means significantly batter equipment utilization. Ignoring the higher ridership a faster trip attracts, that alone makes the economics for DXP more compelling than this out of nowhere X train (which seems to be based on the repeatedly-failed 'premium train' model...)

There's a reason why slow speed long distance passenger services have either died off or are quickly on the way out in the industrialized world: They're money pits, pure and simple. People don't want a barely-better-than-bus average speed - they didn't on the LA-LV route 15 years or so ago. Why would they now?

Do people really think the casinos backing DXP have _no_ idea what they're doing? 3 billion's chump change to them for a reason...

Actually, the entire casino gaming industry seems to be facing issues of overcapacity. I suspect that a number of Vegas casinos have become "money pits" in their own right, and the industry can't afford to prop up a $3 billion white elephant HSR line to nowhere.

On the other hand, the Vegas X Train has a minimal capital requirement and might work if a suitable agreement can be made with the UP.

California High Speed Rail Blog » More Vegas Rail Options Emerge – And So Does Union Pacific Opposition

More proposals.

The Z-Train looks like an imitation of the X-Train, complete with its name. It will use rebuilds of existing rolling stock, and it will have luxury accommodations. It's currently expected to start at the end of 2011. The site contains a concept drawing of the train, which looks like two Genesis locos pulling lots of Superliners -- and with the windows painted over or with a bus wrap on them. I don't think that either the engineers or the FRA will like those locomotive cab windows.

The X-train and the Z-train will both use existing trackage, and Union Pacific, its owner, does not like that idea very much.

Yet another entrant in the race: Genesis High Speed Rail America with its proposed "Desert Lightning" lines:
Push begins for LA-Vegas-Phoenix rail - Phoenix Business Journal
Desert Railroad: Las Vegas to Los Angeles by Train - Newsroom News

That company is currently looking for funding to do feasibility studies for the project; preliminary cost estimates are $35 - $40 billion. However, the trains are to travel at 200 mph.

In that CAHSR-blog comments was Donk:

FYI I found a cheesy local news clip about the Genesis HSR project and they had a picture of the proposed map in the background. It appeared that they plan on going along the 10 corridor east from LA then along the CA62 corridor right N of Joshua tree and S of Mojave, therefore avoiding parks. The line would have a bifurcation near Havasu, with one line heading staight N generally paralleling the 95 and the other line heading straight E/SE to towards Phoenix. The bifurcation would be more or less be the midpoint between the three lines.

That point I'll call Havasu Junction; I'll use the US-95/CA-62 intersection. Google-Maps highway distances:
HJ - Los Angeles: 235 mi
HJ - Las Vegas: 159 mi
HJ - Phoenix: 170 mi

So it's about 400 mi between LA and LV. By comparison, LA - Palmdale - Victorville - LV is about 300 mi, and a Cajon-Pass / Inland-Empire route is not much shorter. All three routes avoid tunneling through the San Gabriel Mountains north of Los Angeles; such a tunnel would have the problem that its northern end would be very close to the San Andreas Fault.

So of the four proposals,

• DesertXPress - close to breaking ground
• Desert Lightning - expensive and likely to get pre-empted by DXP
• X-train - questionable business model, unwillingness of Union Pacific
• Z-train - just like X-Train