Extending Amtrak ownership of the routes it serves

I've got a question that probably has been discussed but I got to ask. Its my understanding that the lateness of Amtrak trains is mostly due to then not owning the tracks outside of the NEC. What are the odds that Amtrak will someday have their own tracks just to say Florida? Is it even remotely possible? Does anyone have a ballpark figure on what something like that would cost and how much time Amtrak could cut off from the normal trip? Thanks always wanted to ask that. JC

around 4 million per mile.

So roughly 4 billion dollars? Does that sound close? That does not sound that high. Anyway that happens? JC

matawanaberdeen wrote:I've got a question that probably has been discussed but I got to ask. Its my understanding that the lateness of Amtrak trains is mostly due to then not owning the tracks outside of the NEC. What are the odds that Amtrak will someday have their own tracks just to say Florida? Is it even remotely possible? Does anyone have a ballpark figure on what something like that would cost and how much time Amtrak could cut off from the normal trip? Thanks always wanted to ask that. JC

In short, it's not a practical idea at all.

It's not so much that owning the tracks will make them go faster... it's that Amtrak is a "guest" everywhere it operates. A freight railroad dispatcher's priority to to move the money-making freights quickly over the road, and if the Amtrak trains happen to hit their schedule window, then all the better for them. If Amtrak misses their window, they wait and get delayed.

You're also thinking ownership is a one-time fixed cost. Sure, there's a purchase price. Then there's the cost of all the associated systems and employee contracts that go with this new found ownership. Then Amtrak as owner would still have to make sure the freight continues to move, and you'd run into the schedule problems all over again. The answer is additional capacity on existing routes, the debate is who will pay for this additional capacity as it only benefits the passenger trains (freight doesn't care if its late or not).

Ok that's a lot of good info. I didn't take into account that Amtrak would need a whole new set of Employees. That is a cost for sure. What I don't understand about what you said is Amtrak would have to make sure the freight gets through? They would own their own tracks so they wouldn't have to deal with the freight companys anymore right?

even if Amtrak owned their own track the freights still have to cross at Jct and for industrial use.
there would be no way to built a line without freight interference.

wouldn't it be far less?

no the maintenance of such a line for use by 2 to 3 trains a day, would kill Amtrak once and for all.

Ok I guess I'm not familiar enough with the RR industry to understand. Thanks for the info. how much does Amtrak pay the freight companies to use their tracks? Anyone know? Just curious. JC

Otto Vondrak wrote:

matawanaberdeen wrote:I've got a question that probably has been discussed but I got to ask. Its my understanding that the lateness of Amtrak trains is mostly due to then not owning the tracks outside of the NEC. What are the odds that Amtrak will someday have their own tracks just to say Florida? Is it even remotely possible? Does anyone have a ballpark figure on what something like that would cost and how much time Amtrak could cut off from the normal trip? Thanks always wanted to ask that. JC

In short, it's not a practical idea at all.

It's not so much that owning the tracks will make them go faster... it's that Amtrak is a "guest" everywhere it operates. A freight railroad dispatcher's priority to to move the money-making freights quickly over the road, and if the Amtrak trains happen to hit their schedule window, then all the better for them. If Amtrak misses their window, they wait and get delayed.

You're also thinking ownership is a one-time fixed cost. Sure, there's a purchase price. Then there's the cost of all the associated systems and employee contracts that go with this new found ownership. Then Amtrak as owner would still have to make sure the freight continues to move, and you'd run into the schedule problems all over again. The answer is additional capacity on existing routes, the debate is who will pay for this additional capacity as it only benefits the passenger trains (freight doesn't care if its late or not).

I'm going to have to quibble a bit. More and more the freight operators, especially the smaller guys, are finding that freight DOES care if it's late or not, especially as more industries strive for JIT manufacturing, sales, etc. That said, late for freight might mean a day, for passengers it can mean minutes or hours.

I suspect in most places, being at the "whim" of the freight companies is something Amtrak will have to continue to live with. I think in some areas however, there's an argument to be made for government owned tracks. For example, adding to the water level route in upstate NY has been discussed. And I can see if NYS gets serious about cutting travel times on passenger trains, they could add rails and then lease back slots to CSX.

But in most parts of the country, there certainly isn't the level of Amtrak usage to make that practical at all.

the line to Florida is just about all covered by proposed hsr routes . Wether or not amtrak gets to operate all or some of those routes is another matter . There are also proposals to add an extra track washington to richmond for e.g . i think the state will pay csx to build and operate that track . another option would be for the state or amtrak to own or operate it . though that would probably necistate building a double track .
Finally , there is the option of open access , whereby the govt or orther entity own and maintain the track , and operating companies pay to run their trains over it . in that case , Amtrak would be one of many operators using the tracks , wether they get equal access is another matter .

Ok here is the question. Is ridership low on those routes because the trains are always late? Maybe if those trains were not only on time but had a much faster arrival time they'd have lots more paying passengers? Lets say you had high speed rail from NYC to Florida on their own tracks,I'm talking TGV fast. How many more people would take the train over flying? How long would it take a TGV to get to Florida? Interesting questions I think. JC

I think about this question often as well. Here's my crazy idea:

Through much of the LD network, I assume the ROW is quite a bit wider than the existing tracks. So why not propose that the freight lines grant Amtrak a 100-year no-cost lease to one track's width of the property adjacent to the existing track(s). Amtrak would have to fund laying rail. But without the property acquisition and major grading costs, this is much more economical.

Why would the freight lines agree to this? For one, the Amtrak interference to their operations would be significantly reduced. Second, this land is sitting unused, so it's no skin off their back.

Of course I realize that laying a parallel track is easy across prairies, but much harder through the mountains, at river crossings, and through tunnels. Those would remain choke points in this scheme. On the flip side, in many areas Amtrak would simply be relaying track on property that once had rails (think the unused 2nd track over Donner Summit or 4th track at Horseshoe Curve...)

Now I don't for a minute think there would be a rigid "you on your line and we on ours" rule. Amtrak would still need access to the freight line for meets and for maintenance, but it could also grant access to its track to the freight operators when they need it (but at a lower priority to passenger trains for a change!).

I don't quite follow the arguments in this thread that Amtrak would have a significant burden by allowing freights to cross their line at either line crossings or industrial spurs. A crossing is quick compared to tying up a multi-mile single track block while a freight traverses it in the opposite direction, right? And new employees and equipment for line maintenance? I'd think that infrequent lightweight Amtrak trains are minimal wear and tear on modern CWR. So I guess I do believe the major expense is the capital outlay in laying track, not so much in operating expenses once in place. And to the degree Amtrak does grant access to freights on its new line, that becomes a revenue generator.

OK, lay in to me and point out the flaws in this idea.

matawanaberdeen wrote:Ok here is the question. Is ridership low on those routes because the trains are always late?

I don't believe on-time performance is the major negative to modern long distance rail. Consistent lateness doesn't help sell tickets. If the trains are "always" late then they should adjust the schedule to meet the performance. (Note the amount of time it takes for 29/30 to pass between Washington Union Station and the first station outside of Washington. There is an hour padding for inbound trains to wait for a platform at Union Station. And yet, the trains are still often late.)

Marketing and competition is what sells air tickets. Getting there fast helps, but air travel has it's own problems with early check in and delays. But people have grown to accept it. Just like people accept late trains (if they accept trains as a viable option at all).

Getting freight railroads to clear Amtrak trains better is a better goal than buying separate alignments and rails. Billions of dollars for independent rails that could go for new rolling stock and improvements that would make the host freight lines safer for everyone involved (including the general public who do not ride the train but cross railroad tracks) seems to be a better place to put the money.

I like the idea of adding an extra track to alignments when the existing tracks are at capacity. It would not have to be a dedicated "passenger only" line but could be an express line in whatever direction passengers are going. But extra rails are expensive and I'd only do it where the existing system was at capacity. Thinking that there is room for an extra track just about everywhere is problematic. Even though that space may look empty on Google Earth/Maps it may be serving a valuable purpose such as proving work crew access for trucks, storage for track materials during reconstruction projects and more often than not, a ROW for fiber optic networks laid along rail alignments. All of that gets moved when a new track is built ... or the railroad has to buy more ROW for the width of he new path. There are some specific places where I'd like to see an additional track but I know the ROW is already full.

If anything is expanded the projects will have to pay for themselves ... or we will all have to pay for it in taxes.

matawanaberdeen wrote:Ok here is the question. Is ridership low on those routes because the trains are always late? Maybe if those trains were not only on time but had a much faster arrival time they'd have lots more paying passengers? Lets say you had high speed rail from NYC to Florida on their own tracks,I'm talking TGV fast. How many more people would take the train over flying? How long would it take a TGV to get to Florida? Interesting questions I think. JC

In some locations, additional frequency and speed would certainly help. In many others though, there's simply not enough traffic to justify the additional trains. i.e. I highly doubt that 10 or even 20 NYC-Florida trains a day would generate sufficient ridership to cover the additional expenses of a HSR the entire way.