Amtrak: Connects US // American Jobs Plan Infrastructure Legislation

eolesen wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:46 am Not so fast.

The other Joe (Manchin D-WV) is on record as saying he's a No vote based on the proposed corporate tax rate hike from 21% to 28

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -back.html

Mr. Olesen, sorry for reaching to an overseas source to illustrate the point following.

That WV is indebted to the Federal Government to the extent it is, Sen. Manchin will make some noise to let his conservative constituents to believe "he's fighting for them", but in the end, failing to "get with the program" could hurt those who elected him.

But I'm appalled that Amtrak has circulated this "dreamscape of new routes" that certainly has the railfan community "a buzzin". Stick to the basics and the stuff that counts. Those have names such as Gateway, Portal, and B&P. That's infrastructure - and that is what AJPA is supposedly all about.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:47 am Lord, over at "that other site" where you still remain in good standing, I get sick and tired of that "great wise financial professional" from Ithaca NY proclaiming that Amtrak Accounting is "fraudulent".

I would tend to lean in your direction that I would not call Amtrak accounting fraudulent. I'm not going to say there's no room for any criticism in their accounting but probably not any more than any other organization similar to them. They clearly do some things to make the NEC look better than it really is - it may not really make much or any profit when you factor in capital costs or the repair backlog but that isn't fraud - it's spelled out pretty transparently that capital is dealt with separately.

Manchin is the only Dem to hold statewide office in WV, which Trump carried at 70%, so that puts him in an odd position.

At 73, it wouldn't surprise me if he were to call it a day when his term expires in 2024, so he doesn't necessarily need to vote as though his re-election depends on it. But he also has been vocal on trying to keep the Senate functional, so its hard to predict if votes his party line, or represents his state's interests. I suspect 3 out of 4 constituents really don't want this bill passed, and Manchin himself may not agree that using reconciliation is the right way to go about this....

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:54 pm I would tend to lean in your direction that I would not call Amtrak accounting fraudulent

Lord, let us note, though, that capital expenditures are recovered by Depreciation through charges to Operating Expense and therefore will be reflected as expense in the various Corridor Responsibility Locations, or RESLOC's in Amtrakese.

Overall the map seems a decent compromise -I'm sure there are areas of improvement and maybe some city pairs missing (or some that aren't necessary) but they seem to be trying to keep the current network intact while expanding on it in areas where rail service could make the most difference. I'm sure there are some that begrudge no new or brought back long distance routes out west proposed but given recent trends that doesn't seem likely. They've conceded on the idea of cutting or truncating any of the current routes - that's probably as far as one can expect they will go. While I support maintaining the current network, regional city pairs and corridors is the way to go for expansion of the footprint.

As for the long distance business unit I'd rather see them focus on improving the service on the routes they are running now and dealing with the big elephant in the room - the age of the superliners - before we start talking about new long distance routes. In the east some reroutes of LD trains may make sense as some of this map starts to take shape -the obvious one being relocating the Star on to the rehabbed S line north of Raleigh and there may be some others. Not sure how additional long distance routes are feasible with the current fleet.

Ridgefielder wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:21 pm I don't really see how you'd run a corridor operation down the Gulf Coast of FL. Unlike the Atlantic side, the population centers on the Gulf are clustered around Tampa Bay and then the Fort Myers/Naples area. And there's no direct line down the coast that links them. The SAL dead-ended at Venice before being cut back to Sarasota in the 90's. The line south from Ft. Myers to Naples was cut back to Bonita Springs years ago. And so far as I know there was never a direct connection between Tampa and Ft. Myers along the line of I-75 or the Tamiami Trail.

While it is true Brightline will be taking full advantage of the FEC corridor along the east coast of Florida, you have failed to recognize Brightline use of Turnpike and Interstate corridors to reach Orlando and Disney. Brightline could just as easily use I-75 to reach the Gulf port cities along the west coast of Florida south of Tampa.

Do not get stuck with the idea new train services must follow existing rail corridors when talking about other train operators besides Amtrak. Amtrak on the other hand is usually so underfunded that it can not afford not to limit itself to existing rail corridors.
So, what will happen on Florida's west coast ultimately depends upon who will be providing the train service.

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:54 pm

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:47 am Lord, over at "that other site" where you still remain in good standing, I get sick and tired of that "great wise financial professional" from Ithaca NY proclaiming that Amtrak Accounting is "fraudulent".

I would tend to lean in your direction that I would not call Amtrak accounting fraudulent. I'm not going to say there's no room for any criticism in their accounting but probably not any more than any other organization similar to them. They clearly do some things to make the NEC look better than it really is - it may not really make much or any profit when you factor in capital costs or the repair backlog but that isn't fraud - it's spelled out pretty transparently that capital is dealt with separately.

An old saying for those in the numbers game: "There's lies, damn lies, and statistics". Another one: client: "what's 1+1?" Accountant: "what do you want it to be?"

What I find puzzling is most posters here a are ignoring the additional services proposed on existing routes. IMHO that is the low hanging fruit.
1. No need to add new stations with existing stations now costs being spread over more trains. There will be some additional costs for utilities and maybe another agent or 2 depending on times that additional services meet present ones. Different for every station.
2. Underserved routes getting service needed additional trains. JAX - Orlando - MIA'; ATL - NEC a big one; BOS - Albany; BUF - TOL - Detroit; CHI - Cincinnati - + Louisville about time to correct this service with more; CHI - MSP low hanging fruit possibly first one started; LAX - Bay area probably night time;
3. Of course equipment is an issue but with the new Siemens cars coming the Amfleet-1s can be allocated to some of these second and maybe a third trains. Could mix the two types and board passengers on new ones until Amfleets are needed maybe for shorts ?. Also Horizons.
4. The biggest equipment problem ? IMHO it will lack of sleepers. That is both single level and Superliners. East coast maybe have some single level sleeper become WASH cut off sleepers and of course Atlanta on Crescent. But that would only free up 4 or 5 sleepers to add service. The only solution for Superliner sleepers is to allocate funds to rehab any that are out of service now at Beech Grove.

Excellent points!

Yes, excellent points. Extra frequency using existing fixed costs and making service attractive to/usable by more people seems obvious to me on routes with enough population/current travel. Per-passenger costs should be lower if there are more trains and the trains are equally full. (Remember all our conversations about what Indiana was paying for the less than 1/day Hoosier State vs what the state was paying for the whole South Shore/NICTD operation? Something like $4M a year vs. $20M a year, or at least on that order of magnitude.)

In a world of cars and planes and interstates, we can't get too far by asking for subsidies and trying to get pax for lots of single-train routes. If what we want is to have the most people possible see trains as convenient and use them to get around, so that big-city streets and highways are less crowded and less expensive to maintain, so the air is cleaner, so there's less carbon emitted, etc., new one-a-day routes based mostly on local advocates hazy notions that a train will attract certain kinds of tourists won't get us nearly as far as the convenience of a whole schedule of trains for people who just need to get from a to b and might like a book, a beer, or some work time along the way, or who dislike driving or trying to park or whatever. I'd love a train from Terre Haute to anywhere, but I can't say I think that having a train here would make TH much better; but having four or five a day over on the CN-IC would make all those station towns a lot better served -- and would be useful for people like me who want to park in Mattoon and ride into the Loop for a conference or a vacation or to catch an LD east or west.

I'd put host railroad opposition right up there with lack of equipment issues as obstacles to starting new services. Didn't I read that CSX wanted $2 billion-with a b--to let Amtrak run two roundtrips to Mobile from New Orleans?

west point wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:47 am What I find puzzling is most posters here a are ignoring the additional services proposed on existing routes. IMHO that is the low hanging fruit.
1. No need to add new stations with existing stations now costs being spread over more trains. There will be some additional costs for utilities and maybe another agent or 2 depending on times that additional services meet present ones. Different for every station.
2. Underserved routes getting service needed additional trains. JAX - Orlando - MIA'; ATL - NEC a big one; BOS - Albany; BUF - TOL - Detroit; CHI - Cincinnati - + Louisville about time to correct this service with more; CHI - MSP low hanging fruit possibly first one started; LAX - Bay area probably night time;
3. Of course equipment is an issue but with the new Siemens cars coming the Amfleet-1s can be allocated to some of these second and maybe a third trains. Could mix the two types and board passengers on new ones until Amfleets are needed maybe for shorts ?. Also Horizons.
4. The biggest equipment problem ? IMHO it will lack of sleepers. That is both single level and Superliners. East coast maybe have some single level sleeper become WASH cut off sleepers and of course Atlanta on Crescent. But that would only free up 4 or 5 sleepers to add service. The only solution for Superliner sleepers is to allocate funds to rehab any that are out of service now at Beech Grove.

Low hanging fruit, huh?
1) you will need more than an extra agent or two for trains on a completely different schedule. You are going to need to park the train overnight or during the day before turning it around. Some places will have a spare track, other places will not. But this should not cost a small fortune to provide.
2) Jackson to Miami - do you expect Florida will subsidize it? The existing Silver Meteor takes 9.1 hours to travel the 412 rail miles averaging 42 mph, will anyone ride it?
Boston to Albany - who will subsidize it? NY or MA? The existing train takes 4.7 hours to travel the 200 rail miles averaging 43 mph, will anyone ride it?
Buffalo to Detroit - no existing service to increase upon, huh? Who will subsidize it, NY, OH, IN, or MI?
Chicago to Louisville - no existing service to increase upon, huh? Who will pay to subsidize it, KY, IN, or IL?
Chicago to Cincinnati - no daily service, huh? Who will pay to subsidize it, OH, IN, or IL?
Chicago to Minneapolis - who will pay to subsidize it, IL, WI, or MN? The Empire Builder takes 7.75 hours to travel the 410 rail miles averaging 53 mph? will anyone ride it?
3) Amfleet Is are being replaced by Siemens Venture cars, there will not be any left for new services.
4) Regional trains running less than 8 hours in duration do not require sleepers. What lack of sleepers?

If Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky were unwilling to subsidize trains in the past, why do you think they will now? What is needed more are trains averaging 70 mph vs the 40-50 they do now.
Some math.required for the examples above follows.
400 miles / 40 mph = 10 hours
400 miles / 50 mph = 8 hours
400 miles / 70 mph = less than 6 hours
200 miles / 40 mph = 5 hours
200 miles / 50 mph = 4 hours
200 miles / 70 mph = less than 3 hours

As long as regional trains remain running on freight owned tracks, the slower speeds of these trains will not make much of a difference when compared to other modes of transportation. Take the Missouri River Runner as the example. It takes 5.7 hours to travel 483 rail miles averaging 49 mph. It 2019 ridership was 152,709 passengers, averaging passengers 418 per day, or 103 passengers per train. The typical Horizon coach car on this train has a capacity of 68-72 passengers, so this train could run with just two cars. And this is with 4 trains a day on the route before the pandemic hit.
https://www.railpassengers.org/site/ass ... 463/56.pdf
posting.php?mode=edit&f=46&p=1568069
If this train was faster, averaging 70 mph, I strongly believe it would attract more passengers.

Low hanging fruit is not worth it if the fruit is rotten and spoiled.

NPR picked up on the story:
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/06/98446435 ... le-talking

But the idea isn't just nice family trips — it's to use improved rail infrastructure and service to alleviate problems such as traffic and air pollution as well as improve access to jobs. Transportation is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

"The American Jobs Plan will build new rail corridors and transit lines, easing congestion, cutting pollution, slashing commute times, and opening up investment in communities that can be connected to the cities, and cities to the outskirts, where a lot of jobs are these days. It'll reduce the bottlenecks of commerce at our ports and our airports," Biden said.

electricron wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:03 pm Boston to Albany - who will subsidize it? NY or MA? The existing train takes 4.7 hours to travel the 200 rail miles averaging 43 mph, will anyone ride it?

This one is likely referring to the east-west rail study being performed by MassDOT that would add additional service between Boston and Pittsfield - Amtrak is probably including this to make a bid for that service. If the project went forward it would involve capacity increases and speed increases on the B&A (particularly between Springfield and Worcester.)

I've always advocated for more frequencies. In some cases, storage won't be a problem, as long as you can turn the train and send it back. I like the analysis in the other thread about when more frequencies is worth it. Now in some cases, yeah, storage will be a problem. For example I've advocated for a day time WAS-ATL train for awhile because it's a doable route and not everyone wants to do it overnight.

As for BOS-ALB - honestly, at 43 mph, I'd take it from time to time. It's a beautiful route. That said, it really needs to be an hour faster. And keep in mind Mass is already planning on the Berkshire Flyer (though not sure what the status is based on Covid) from NYP-Pittsfield on summer weekends. Combine this with the hoped for (I won't even say planned) Pittsfield-Boston trains Mass wants to end and... well closing that gap becomes a no-brainer. Add a stop in Chatham NY and it gets even better.

Way above announced sleepers. Keep in mind Amtrak will soon have 25 additional sleepers. We're already seeing the impact of more sleepers with the return of the "Night Owl". While I'm not really keen on giving CAF more business, now is the time to order another 50 sleepers.

As I've said in the past, much of this is a dream. But a) it's more than a fantasy that some fanbois have put out, it appears in many cases to be based on simple incremental upgrades or changes already discussed or in some cases already in the works and b) we have an administration that appears to be willing to spend money on rail. And honestly that makes a big difference.

One other item: someone mentioned taxes. Honestly, tax gasoline. The gas tax hasn't been raised in nearly 30 years. Raise it 2 cents a gallon. 1 cent dedicated to the highway fund, the other to mass-transit and rail. It's clear that we're going to be moving away from a gas burning automobile focused future. This raises the money and incentivizes the move.