Amtrak: Connects US // American Jobs Plan Infrastructure Legislation

Only problem - government now owns the ROW again, but as far as I know, not nearby real estate.

photobug56 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:52 pm I believe the environmental study was completed years ago.

If it was done too many years ago they'll want to redo the entire thing all over again, like they did with the Camden-Glassboro light rail line.

I believe it was the basis for the most recent work and the ongoing work.

From what I can tell, Bloomberg is stating that adding new lines would only increase Amtrak's financial burden. Once again, I feel this supports my stance of having Amtrak's routes being given to the private sector so that the government doesn't have to worry about giving inadequate funding for more branches and passenger routes due to having too many programs to fund (vive la brightline), but I'll leave the article here for further discussion.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... wTSwxo7Fi8

...
Expanding passenger rail doesn’t just burden the federal budget. It could also harm the broader economy. On most of its routes, Amtrak pays private freight carriers for access to their tracks. Because passenger trains are (by law) given preference on these routes, they’re likely to slow down the nation’s freight network and hence raise shipping costs. Because they may require improvements (such as longer sidings or safety upgrades), they can also entail huge upfront costs. Amtrak’s proposal to restart its Gulf Coast line could require as much as $1.3 billion, according to a report commissioned by the Florida Department of Transportation — for a service that might carry a few hundred passengers a day, on what one local politician called a “joyride for the affluent.”

You might still argue that passenger-rail expansion is necessary on environmental grounds. But this, too, fails a cost-benefit test. Displacing freight rail means more cargo will likely be carried by trucks, which produce perhaps 10 times more carbon per ton-mile. Moreover, Amtrak’s trains outside of the northeast are diesels, which emit about 167 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger-mile, not much better than planes (174 grams) — and that’s before any construction is factored in. Even on optimistic assumptions, a decades-long expansion of passenger rail is a grossly inefficient way to fight climate change.

In fact, the infrastructure bill almost seems designed to maximize inefficiency. It specifically prohibits Amtrak from reducing service on unprofitable rural routes. It requires human ticket agents at every station that serves more than 40 passengers a day. Outraged at Amtrak’s attempts to reduce chronic losses on its dining service — by offering prepackaged meals, for instance — lawmakers demanded that it create a “Food and Beverage Service Working Group” to solicit advice about menu items from nonprofit groups, state agencies, and (of course) organized labor. It’s hard to parody this sort of thing.

God forbid the government provides a public service that doesn't turn a profit.

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:01 pm From what I can tell, Bloomberg is stating that adding new lines would only increase Amtrak's financial burden. Once again, I feel this supports my stance of having Amtrak's routes being given to the private sector so that the government doesn't have to worry about giving inadequate funding for more branches and passenger routes due to having too many programs to fund (vive la brightline), but I'll leave the article here for further discussion.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... wTSwxo7Fi8

...
Expanding passenger rail doesn’t just burden the federal budget. It could also harm the broader economy. On most of its routes, Amtrak pays private freight carriers for access to their tracks. Because passenger trains are (by law) given preference on these routes, they’re likely to slow down the nation’s freight network and hence raise shipping costs. Because they may require improvements (such as longer sidings or safety upgrades), they can also entail huge upfront costs. Amtrak’s proposal to restart its Gulf Coast line could require as much as $1.3 billion, according to a report commissioned by the Florida Department of Transportation — for a service that might carry a few hundred passengers a day, on what one local politician called a “joyride for the affluent.”

You might still argue that passenger-rail expansion is necessary on environmental grounds. But this, too, fails a cost-benefit test. Displacing freight rail means more cargo will likely be carried by trucks, which produce perhaps 10 times more carbon per ton-mile. Moreover, Amtrak’s trains outside of the northeast are diesels, which emit about 167 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger-mile, not much better than planes (174 grams) — and that’s before any construction is factored in. Even on optimistic assumptions, a decades-long expansion of passenger rail is a grossly inefficient way to fight climate change.

In fact, the infrastructure bill almost seems designed to maximize inefficiency. It specifically prohibits Amtrak from reducing service on unprofitable rural routes. It requires human ticket agents at every station that serves more than 40 passengers a day. Outraged at Amtrak’s attempts to reduce chronic losses on its dining service — by offering prepackaged meals, for instance — lawmakers demanded that it create a “Food and Beverage Service Working Group” to solicit advice about menu items from nonprofit groups, state agencies, and (of course) organized labor. It’s hard to parody this sort of thing.

There are few routes outside NEC where Amtrak has a significant impact on freight rail traffic. Where it does, it is likely that happens because of poor foresight along with greed from railroads that removed tracks, single tracking or otherwise reducing capacity. Also, this tendency towards longer and longer trains, so long that sidings are a joke - either way too short, or they have to be immensely long, is a problem.

Passenger rail is important for many reasons, frequently discussed. And if you want to claim that Amtrak diesels pollute too much, if they were regularly replaced or upgraded they would have far lower emissions. The "Gulf Coast Line" problem is absurd - the service should have resumed as soon as the lines were repaired. That a small number of trains per day would cost so much to deal with strongly suggests that the railroads in question are excessively tight on capacity - not Amtrak's fault, and they would likely soon need these improvements even without Amtrak. The issue of food service makes me cringe - any passenger train needs food service, and the longer the ride the more complete the service needs to be - plus, good food service attracts more passengers out of planes and cars, and also allows for more people to ground travel without a major increase in pollution. Political efforts to destroy Amtrak food service mainly had the effect of reducing ridership. I'll grant that low ridership stations need less in person service, and that rules should allow part time workers to fill those needs as appropriate.

Reminder - Bloomberg (the company) is all about making money, not reducing pollution, serving the people of the country. IMHO, internally, it's as ruthless as it gets, and few within care about the damage done by managers and others. Some of what I've observed would make at least some of you sick. And if it were European based, it might understand that long distance passenger rail should be encouraged and greatly improved. It should certainly be treated a lot better than it long has been - it should be a lot faster and more reliable. But that's hard to do as corporate greed has taken lines from, say, 4 tracks to 1 or 2 to one, and as Amtrak, which inherited a completely worn out fleet and rail system (whether it's own or not), has never been properly funded to put it into a state of good repair. And it's been subject non-stop to political interference, much of it meant to put Amtrak out of business.

Small point of correction to the Bloomberg story: all stations that were staffed as of Oct. 1, 2017, must be staffed under the new law.

"An empty highway is a sign of success; empty public transit is taken as a failure." I must admit that's a paraphrase of a meme I saw on Twitter. In truth, it's a balance of course, with Amtrak's unique political environment and all that.

It is probable that Amtrak adding service will diminish the overall subsidy required to operate its network of routes. Firstly, the overhead of the entire business will be spread over a larger number of trains and passengers carried. I'd expect a fifty percent increase in revenue trains to increase the overhead by five or ten percent at most. (Doubling the lines on an accounting spreadsheet shouldn't bother the accounting department that much.)
Secondly, the addition of new services will probably lead to incremental increases in the passengers carried on existing services. For example, the Quad Cities to Chicago service would probably generate many passengers that would continue on existing Amtrak trains to destinations beyond Chicago. The 3C + D proposed services in Ohio should also be expected to increase the use of existing Amtrak trains.
Finally, additional frequency on existing routes can only be beneficial. An additional train from Chicago to the Twin cities would create many more travel possibilities from intermediate stations and encourage use of Amtrak by people who found the once daily service unrealistic for their needs.
The United Kingdom made a huge mistake cutting branches from its national network because British Railways was losing money on them. The Government report failed to anticipate the rapid change in technology that allowed for fewer employees with more centralized signaling and unmanned stations.
Not expanding Amtrak would be equally a tragic error.

Exactly right , and accepted by transport planners as most likely scenario.

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:01 pm From what I can tell, Bloomberg is stating that adding new lines would only increase Amtrak's financial burden. Once again, I feel this supports my stance of having Amtrak's routes being given to the private sector so that the government doesn't have to worry about giving inadequate funding for more branches and passenger routes due to having too many programs to fund (vive la brightline), (snip)

If the tracks get sold, whoever buys them is going to want to make money. That means…
- There will be lots of freight on the line. Say goodbye To HSR quality track.
- Amtrak will not have the protection of RPSA 70, it will have to pay real money for its time on the line.
- But what about the sales contract? NO RATIONAL BUSINESSMAN will accept conditions on the sale that keep him from maximizing revenue v

The way the freights are shedding business , the passenger trains may make more money on some lines.
Virtually all of railways infrastructure costs are fixed. I am not sure how many are saying running a passenger train imposes significant costs on a freight railroad, unless that railroad is running at capacity. Or is so badly run it can't figure out how to run a passenger train around a freight without causing delays to both . I remember the Swiss had the most intensively used single lines in the world , yet were also the most punctual. They had a mix of passenger and freight.
In fact it seems to me , where there is intensive traffic , both freight and passenger , the dispatchers seem to deal with it efficently , the delays seem to come when there are one passenger train a day .

Do European railroads single track and reduce capacity as is so popular in the US?

photobug56 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:10 am Do European railroads single track and reduce capacity as is so popular in the US?

In some instances , if the traffic level warrants it . Generally branch lines I would say . they would leave enough properly spaced sidings to suit the traffic level . And i doubt they would run freight trains that don't fit in the sidings.
The Swiss single lines , with double lines levels of traffic , are generally in terrain which is either impossible or expensive to build a double track .

Interesting about Switzerland -- I don't remember whether I ever posted about this, but through a mutual friend I had a conversation some decades ago with the stationmaster at Zurich Hauptbahnhof in which he said that their rule of thumb is that any serious delay (i.e., 10 minutes or so) to one train would spread to the borders of Switzerland in about four hours if they didn't get a handle on it, such is the density of interconnecting services. So they make sure to get a handle on it, starting with the principle that if you can save 20 seconds' dwell time at three successive stations, you've gained back one minute -- keep up the good work. ("Late trains get later?" Not here.) One time at Lucerne I was able to get a glimpse of the model board in the "tower" (actually right at the platform level) and realized that of the four main lines (not counting the narrow-gauge Brunigbahn) feeding the (stub) station, only one, the line to Basel, was all double track; the lines to Zurich, Bern, and the St.-Gotthard (a major route from Germany to Italy) had significant stretches of single track where there was no room for more. They make it work because it has to work, and everybody understands that.

TurningOfTheWheel wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 7:01 pm God forbid the government provides a public service that doesn't turn a profit.

God forbid the government providing an affordable public service that doe not bust the economy.
How much subsidy is enough? 50%, 100%, 500%, 1000%, 5000%?