Discussion: Efficacy of Long Distance Trains

Erik,
From your short thesis, I have a hard time understanding what you are doing here. No, I am not saying all is rosey, nor turn a blind eye towards reality. Yet in all you said, you are hardly a booster, or fan of the rails. Sure you and I have a right towards our opinions, that is to be expected in a venue like this.

I also half expect this to be deleted. But still, the question remains in my mind, if you are so much against the Railroads, so much so that you ignore what they have done right. Why even bother being here?

It appears you either don't see the whole picture, or at least outside of what you can physically observe. I see so many examples of what can, and is being done on a daily basis to improve the situations we all face on the railroads now a days. Not just investments, but in ways of doing things that make a difference.

I tend to disagree in the "sick" railroad theory Mr. Halstead proposes. The large scale switch to highway freight did not occur in a free market, as it occurred during the era of the skewed ICC rate plans, nor did the highway infrastructure come into being without subsidy from local, then state, then Federal level funding as the problem became bigger and bigger.

Further, though the "public" did desire to be free of timetables as Mr. Halstead suggests the largest users were never forced to pay their share of costs, as this was defrayed onto a much larger group that did not travel the number of miles with as large a vehicle, so why wouldn't they act as cheerleaders for such expenditure? Railroads are also forced to charge a market rate for their borrowing and CAPEX programs for which highway right of ways have never done. So at a minimum, if highways paid for all expenditures from fees which they don't, they should be charging 7% to 15% above the current rates to reflect competition against private railroad ROWs. However, I would accept that only the highway freight segment should be charged such a rate.

So how does this fit into Amtrak. Considering that a mile of good railroad ROW costs from $50,000 to $65,000/year to maintain, yielding a $8.0/trainmile cost at a normal 22 - 24 trains per day the subsidy to highway freight at say $0.06/mile per container/trailer yields $9.6/mile in subsidy per train that is going to highway freight. If only we could equalize this subsidy Amtrak would not even be an issue.

I firmly believe that Amtrak is the best public policy forum to debate the level of subsidy to different transportation modes as it must operate over those investor owned tracks and ROWs. This discussion is coming to the table in the next two years with the cross over of the Highway Trust Fund into deficit territory when compared to its commitments under SAFTE -LU or whatever it was called.

Ken said "Yet in all you said, you are hardly a booster, or fan of the rails."

So let me see if I have this right; once a person has come to the conclusion that railroads do not meet the needs of the nation one can no longer be a railfan or a booster of rail transit? Please explain, as I consider a booster to be a person who wants the best possible rail system regardless of its current state.

Erik, there is one other big reason that railroads are failing. It is because they have never become sexy on wall street and have never gotten good valuations on the market management never can walk away with the tens of millions of bucks a year in compensation that can be collected from other corporations. Railroads for years now have been unable to tap the best managers. Railroads have done their best to get in the good graces of Wall street by gutting the national rail system and turning the scrap and land profits over to the stockholders, but it never worked. Railroads suck in large part because the quality of their managements have sucked for two decades.

icgsteve wrote:Ken said "Yet in all you said, you are hardly a booster, or fan of the rails."

So let me see if I have this right; once a person has come to the conclusion that railroads do not meet the needs of the nation one can no longer be a railfan or a booster of rail transit? Please explain, as I consider a booster to be a person who wants the best possible rail system regardless of its current state.

Erik, there is one other big reason that railroads are failing. It is because they have never become sexy on wall street and have never gotten good valuations on the market management never can walk away with the tens of millions of bucks a year in compensation that can be collected from other corporations. Railroads for years now have been unable to tap the best managers. Railroads have done their best to get in the good graces of Wall street by gutting the national rail system and turning the scrap and land profits over to the stockholders, but it never worked. Railroads suck in large part because the quality of their managements have sucked for two decades.

I'd suggest you go back and reread HoggerKen's post. He is not saying what you are suggesting at all.

I’m not going to say that the current roster of long distance trains is working fine–it isn’t–but now is not the time to start sticking the fork in the various LD routes. We need to make the LD trains work better. Due slow operating speeds, Amtrak only attracts the discretionary traveler to the LD trains. The utility of the LD network to a business traveler is near zero. But with the evolving state of telecommunications and investment in track capacity to reduce travel times, the LD network could be reconfigured to better serve the business traveler-- who usually pays a higher fare-- and still send grandma and grandpa to visit the kids.


Rebuilding the NEC should be Amtrak’s #1 priority but creating a New York to Chicago route that doesn’t require an overnight journey should be priority #2. A traveler could leave Chicago in the morning and arrive in New York before bedtime and every intermediate city on the route would be served during waking hours. Building that route is a big and expensive job that is going to require contributions from the host roads, the states and the federal government. But not building that route is also an expensive proposition with increased use of highways and airports and the cost to expand those systems. So I’m persuaded that the money is best spent on creating a modern passenger and freight rail system that can move people and freight efficiently.


Every Class I road is looking for money to invest in their infrastructure improvements. Even though profits and stock prices are high the Class I roads will be needing more money than they can generate internally. They are looking for public/private partnerships to rebuild the infrastructure. At this point we don’t need 125 mph trains outside the NEC, we need to concentrate on eliminating the bottlenecks and slow areas that constrain capacity on the intercity passenger and freight routes. As track speeds and railroad velocities increase so will capacity. We need to create an integrated national rail policy that addresses the needs of freight movement and passenger movement. We need a national transportation strategy that integrates passenger rail into the overall transportation system. Currently we’re hearing that more state funding is needed for Amtrak–and that’s true–but we’ll need federal co-ordination of interstate rail service. Interstate commerce is a federal responsibility, after all. Building a modern rail infrastructure is an expensive proposition, but not building a modern rail system will also be very expensive.

HoggerKen wrote:It appears you either don't see the whole picture, or at least outside of what you can physically observe. I see so many examples of what can, and is being done on a daily basis to improve the situations we all face on the railroads now a days. Not just investments, but in ways of doing things that make a difference.

First of all, can you please elaborate on some of the things that you see that are improving the railroads today?

To clarify, I would hardly be considered "anti-railroad", but I also see that railroads are playing a very different role today than they did 50, 75, 100 years ago. The idea of railroads offering LTL and short-distance freight transportation, is simply inconsistent with the operating patterns that have been developed.

The railroads are coming back onto the stock market "hip list", yet the railroads have been quick to embrace this with higher dividends, not increased investment in infrastructure. Sure, SD70M-2s and ES44ACs are sexy and 136lb CWR and CTC isn't. But SD70s and ES44s don't improve capacity by themselves.

But, let's get this argument back to Amtrak. A highway serves a common purpose, it is shared by all, can be used for all, and serves "essential" purposes like commuting to employment, obtaining food and medical services, allows for emergency services to reach emergencies, etc. Amtrak - does not do a single one of those things (it in very limited circumstances does permit commuting, but not on the long distance trains which is the focus of this thread). Debating highway costs and railroad costs has nothing to do with the fact that the public have overwhelmingly chosen other modes of transportation, when all three modes (highway, railroad, air) were presented equally. A quick glance at statistical data shows that Amtrak's long distance trains carry a statistically insignificant number of long distance passengers (about 1%.) While both highways and railroads have to cover their costs, why is Amtrak excepted from this rule? If one wants to argue that railroads didn't get the benefit of government bonds, fine - give that to them. Will that REALLY solve the problem? Will making truckers pay more to use the highways REALLY solve the problem - when virtually all of the highway projects in my area are congestion related, not weight related. (For the record, the one major statewide project which is weight related - replacing a large number of bridges on the various truck routes, was placed to the voters as an multi-faceted fee increase, and PASSED overwhelmingly.)

However, we have a small network of intercity Amtrak trains that costs some $300-400M annually in direct costs, that transports a small number of Americans, and provides services that are unmatched by any other public transportation provider or governmental body (except a prison, hospital or military base). Do the LD trains make a difference? No, they don't.

However, tying Amtrak to the success or failure of the railroad network - yes, Amtrak does make an operational dent in the railroads as Mr. Norman points out - it is a scheduling nightmare. (Imagine a long, intercity highway, that is only ONE lane wide. Not one lane in each direction, but one lane. Imagine a speeding car behind a truck. But the car cannot pass, until the next "safety pullout". But the car pays so little to use the road, that the road authority doesn't make any money off the car. That's what Amtrak is to the railroads.) But to suggest that the railroads must play an important "public policy" role - isn't that moving freight? Isn't that making sure that food is delivered to distribution centers; that coal is delivered to power plants; that the products we use to make our lives easier - like cars and appliances - are delivered; that steel is delivered, etc.? Why must "public policy" dictate passengers with railroads?

Wow, it's the same static argument all over again.

What Ken is trying to tell you is that the Amtrak status quo, and even expansion of Amtrak does not and will not affect the railroads in the manner that you claim. Ken has been on the railroad since before CNW was taken over by UP; I for one trust his judgment. Amtrak transports "a small number of Americans" due to its current size primarily; with operational speed coming in a very close second.

FTR, on toll roads, trucks always pay far more than automobiles, usually paying the automobile rate multiplied by the axles on the truck. Also, a statewide referendum on road repairs would not have a bearing on federal funding received for said roads. Would it not be more beneficial to give railroads a greater role, thus taking trucks off the roads, extending the life of highway bridge and other infrastructure? but instead, more money is being tossed down the highway abyss.

I fail to see the argument that LD trains would hamper Class 1 freight operations.

With record profits pouring in, they could well afford to be more receptive to the operation of Amtrak trains.

After all, they are not losing money allowing these trains to run.

Still missing my point. If the cross subsidy to highway freight was eliminated then railroads could be recovering twice as much in ROW costs as there would be no other transportation alternative within the price range, leaving the markets to adjust to the new pricing level. This difference is not enough to kill highway freight but when you are hauling 160 domestic containers it makes quite a difference. Then the railroad ROWs would support more investment. Mr. Halstead's example of a required sidewalk is not the correct analogy. Rather, it is the government building everyone's internal sidewalk but one business and then charging the others, through taxes, less than the cost of maintaining their sidewalk.

F3A wrote:I fail to see the argument that LD trains would hamper Class 1 freight operations.

With record profits pouring in, they could well afford to be more receptive to the operation of Amtrak trains.

After all, they are not losing money allowing these trains to run.

Here is the answer for you from the UP website:
--------------------------------------------
Employees Home > Operating
What Is Velocity?
Velocity measures the miles per hour a train travels from its departure to arrival. This is the average train speed, with no excluded time, including crew changes, time held or time laid down en route.

Gaining 1 mile per hour in speed is the equivalent of adding:

250 locomotives
5,000 freight cars
180 Train, Engine and Yard employees
Revenue growth
Improving velocity is a major focus throughout all departments, and driving velocity are Union Pacific's five critical resources – workforce, main lines, locomotives, freight cars and terminals. By improving productivity and focusing on areas that support these critical resources, employees everywhere can make an impact.

Velocity numbers publicly reported by the Association of American Railroads vary from Union Pacific's numbers because of reporting metrics used in calculation. The AAR reports train speed that excludes crew changes and time held and also may exclude time laid down en route.

-----------------------------------
To generalize what it costs to hold a train, $10,000 a minute for your average drag, $1,000,000 an hour for mail-trains and double stacks. Do you think the Union Pacific wants to throw in Amtrak?

In plain language. I come here and other places to not only read about the industry, debate it at times, and promote it based not an advocation, but as a vocation. Like my gardening and woodworking, I do this as a form of recreation.

That said, there are others who come to a "fan" based forum, and naysay the industry day in and day out. Sure, some do it with basis other than opinion. I out loud questioned why a person, especially one who moderates such a forum, has such disdain for the subject matter of the forum. Or, in blunt terms, why be an advocate or fan of something you do not like?

Again, there is room for debate, and must be. Yet to read the constant negative comments and narrow paradigms, day in and day out, I begin to wonder why even bother?

Of course no one wants lock step thinking about the industry. It will never grow nor prosper. But dooming it on face value all the time really does nothing but elicit such comments such as mine.

Besides, I don't see any of you doing anything really positive about which you write unless you are middle management, and have the ability to do as you say.

If having your railroad interfered by a 'zero sum' operation is depriving the operation of an additional freight train

Remember that interstate highways, airports, waterways and commuter railroads are also "zero-sum", but if they don't move, the nation does not move either—and all of the above have provided their own levels of "deprivation" to the railroad companies. It is not logical to assume that passenger rail operation is truly depriving a road of an additional freight train, unless signaling is at 19th-century standards (and having main lines controlled with track warrants is not a present-day practice en-masse).

wigwagfan wrote:

HoggerKen wrote:It appears you either don't see the whole picture, or at least outside of what you can physically observe. I see so many examples of what can, and is being done on a daily basis to improve the situations we all face on the railroads now a days. Not just investments, but in ways of doing things that make a difference.

First of all, can you please elaborate on some of the things that you see that are improving the railroads today?

I need to start with what I know is happening on Union Pacific. Since starting what the call their "Unified Plan" congestion due to trains working every terminal has gone down. Had not they worked this out, terminals like Mason City would be days behind in trains working it based on current volumes of trains on-line. What this means basically is a train no longer has to work every station on line from origination to destination. Functions were consolidated in order to better meet the needs of the customers, and line capacity. A good example of this is a train that runs daily from CPRS to Ft. Worth. It only works three stations in it's entire run; St. Paul, Des Moines, and Parasons, KS. It's reverse connection, originates in Kansas City, and works only St. Paul before being handed back to CPRS. It also allows cars to bypass certain busy terminals to one's that have the capacity.

The introduction of CTC on the former CNW from Omaha to Chicago has allowed much more flexibility to the operation. Along with that will be sidings in eastern Iowa to stage trains that make connection in Chicago but connecting roads cannot handle (same goes with utility customers who require spacing between trains for what ever reason). Before all this CTC was put in place, the line was double main train with almost no signals, and mostly all manual crossovers except at working terminals. This allows trains such as intermodal/perishable to pass slower coal and manifest without holding a train still til "the fleet passes".

Working with marketing and producers of ethanol to facilitate faster turn around time on their cars, mainly by using unit trains instead of single car shipments. This involved working with customers, connecting roads, and end terminals to ensure the system worked. Result is less cars those marketers had to lease, and improved turn around time on the fleet they have despite increased production.

The use of productivity tools such as new computer reports aid switch crews in determining priorities, and keeping cars in the yard current. There is no way with the kind of volume we have, to run a yard with paper switch lists and a pencil. We had this data before, but did not know how to use it.

Branch line improvements. Prior to UP taking over CNW, most all the Iowa branch lines were stick rail and down to 10 mph on most lines (there were spots of 4R's CWR, usually in curves). Upgrading to CWR not only doubled capacity, it allows better crew utilization. Before the upgrades, it was not uncommon to use two crews to pull a grain train and bring it into town. (some took 3 crews) Now, a crew can spot empties and pull loads and still make it back to town on their hours. Not only are those branch lines making money, but adding customers left and right.

I am sure I can add more to the list. But am out of time for now.

With regard to the train velocity figures posted by MR. UPRR shouldn't the transformation of the railroad ROW into a higher speed, by this I mean 45 MPH average planned speed for freights, 60 to 65 MPH maximum, be in the economic interest of UPRR?

With long-travel contstant contact side bearings such is now possible.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Remember that interstate highways, airports, waterways and commuter railroads are also "zero-sum", but if they don't move, the nation does not move either—and all of the above have provided their own levels of "deprivation" to the railroad companies.

Quite correct Mr Chieftain; I totally agree with your statement as I have excerpted it.

And while we are at it, let's throw in the Northeast Corridor and, albeit a lesser extent, the Southern California Corridors.

None of these services make a dime for their sponsirs, but their societal value is that they handle passengers in such volume that without them, alternate facilities such as more highways would be required. We all know that highways, even excepting the high social costs of cramming more motor vehicles into an urban area, "don't come cheap".

But lastly, we should be mindful that where passenger serivce is operated in a volume to "make a difference' (of which in my opinion Amtrak LD simply does not) it largely moves on dedicated, or nearly so, railroad ROW - most of which is publicly owned.