Discussion: Efficacy of Long Distance Trains

Freight rail traffic, and actually freight traffic in general, has grown significantly over the last decade, primarily as part of intermodal freight traffic

from Chip72

I agree, there has been a large gain in intermodal, did it surpase coal this year... but isn't an intermodal train, differing on the equipment type, very compatable with a passenger train making stops? Even some of the eastern roads are wrapping their minds around running intermodal trains at a maximum of 60 -65- 70 MPH. An Amtrak train, running to timetable of course, makes from 45 to 55 MPH on average when station stops are counted. Intermodal freight is averaging over the mainline from 30 to 45 MPH, depending upon the number of sidings on a mainline.

So the obvious answer is to restore equity to the taxation and highway freight cross and general fund subsidy so the railroads can have just a little bit more to invest in capital spending.

Sidings do cost money, at an investors rate of capital around $900/day to $1400/day for a new installation. Yet they benifit all the traffic out there. When I did the calculations I got a cost of around $200/train hour for wages and interest on equipment. So if that one siding can get rid of few hours of delay to all trains passing it makes money. This was the old calculus that assume that the rates paid by freight was the same. But on a per trainmile basis the cost is not that great. Say $1000/(30 trains x 8 mile spacing) = $4.2/trainmile. Then we will see the average over the road velocity increase for intermodal trains, providing more

During the seventies, as soon as they had convinced Congress to change the laws, the railroads almost instantly took the elevation out of curves. Railroads optimized their networks to carry 45mph traffic, Amtrak be damned. It would be very interesting to see a scientific study of how much capacity would be added by re elevating the curves and running container trains at something near 70mph. I don't see why it would cost a lot of money to refit the rolling stock to handle sustained increased speeds. Sure, railroads would have extra maintaince cost due to the heavy and slow trains using elevated curves, but they would make-up for it by running more trains. Who knows, if they would speed up delivery they might even be able to charge more than they currently do. I am sure that the shippers would LOVE the increased speeds. SO why has this not happened? Inquiring minds would like to know.

The railroad montra is "we don't have the capacity to run pasenger trains and we will not be able to afford to do so. If America wants passenger trains again then the Government needs to buy us more capacity" To which I say "Not so fast Bubba, let's take a look at how you run your business"

During the 50's and 60's, the passenger train advocacy community, which did include the likes of DPM but not NARP - that wasn't around until '67, tended to "poo-poo' the so called 'ICC formula Passenger Train Deficit". The contention was that much of it represented 'common' facilities, such as a switch tower, that would be there if the railroad chose to run any train.

But I think the past thirty six years has shown that much of that deficit allotted as a result of 'common' facilities was real and avoidable. ICGSteve notes removal of superelevation that existed because a road in his one time backyead (we have known one another 'along the way') removed such when passenger trains were discontinued on A-Day. If a road has obviated the extra cost of maintaining superelevation by discontinuing passenger trains then I would say such cost was "solely passenger".

But the most illustrative example of how much plant some roads maintained solely to benefit the passenger class of service is evident taking an EB (#48) Lake Shore ride. Passing through stations such as Erie, which during summer you will pass by dawn's early light , one can clearly see the amount of facilities that have been abandoned since the 'Great Steel Fleet' became a "one a day". Even an any time of year passage on #48 by Buffalo Central Station and the following stop at DePew also will bear such out.

The railroads did count the elevated curves into the PTD. That was debatable then but what is not is that it would no longer be so. With the change in freight traffic the railroads now gain benefits from the speed of elevation that they did not have potential for then. Ditto for the CTC (centralized train control) systems, which the railroads counted into the deficit and which they fought hard to remove, eventually succeeding. If the railroads were to run a hefty percentage of their traffic at the old passenger speeds ( as an aside, much higher than current passenger train speeds) then they would benefit from CTC, or what ever they use to replace it.

The changes in the network that would benefit passenger operations are no longer at odds with what would benefit freight operations.

Edit: it was not just the passenger advocacy community that thought that the PTD was divorced from reality, it was pretty much everybody who either believed or assumed that these numbers were wildly inflated. It would be possible to go back, and with hind sight, figure out conclusively if these numbers were real. I have not been able to find such a study. Looking at the numbers myself, in particular the inflation of the PTD number in the ten years before Amtrak, the mail rev numbers 1960-1972, and looking at the freight financial numbers for 1970-1975, there is no doubt in my mind that the PTD numbers were a fraud.

From a dispatcher's standpoint, some traffic is more "marginal" than others. The dedicated intermodal and automotive moves get top priority, while the general freights running from end points to major classification yards are regarded as less time-sensitive. When I worked along the UP main in the Omaha-Fremont (Neb.) area a few years ago, the typical pattern on weekends was that the intermodals kept moving, while the general freights were allowed to run out of crew time at any point where they could be taken off the main.

Now let's add an LD or two to this mix. The contribution to revenue is probably even less than the service hauling paper, chemicals and scrap metal, but the necessity of a schedule, frequent stops, and greater variability of speed between those stops is probably going to put more strain on the dispatching system than any other move.

Given the scenario that a government-mandated service strains the facilities more than any other component of the traffic mix, governmental assistance in underwriting major improvements in the capacity and flexibility of the infrastructure seems a fair quid pro quo.

I don't think that anyone will disagree that running passenger trains on a schedule induces inefficiency into the movement of freight. It is also true that optimizing the network back to passenger speeds will increase the costs of carrying heavy freight. But are these costs deserving of compensation from the government, or are they just anothers in a long list of costs of doing business? Maybe we should expect the railroad to suck it up, and in order to maintain the competitiveness with road freight we could impose a higher tax on diesel fuel (which hurts the truckers more than the railroads) and then use these funds to pay for a HSR network. This is just one of an infinite number of options we have to create an transportation economic environment that serves the needs of the nation and its citizens. Legal systems and economic systems are changeable, and are in place to serve the needs of the society. The argument that the desired change can not happen for economic or legal reasons is a red herring.

Mr. ICG - Exactly who is it that wants the freight railroads to do as you request?

The LD trains are marginial at best. In FY97 the California service had about 80% as many passengers as the Intercity network. In FY06 CAl trains had 30% more than the Intercity total. Why should the $$ not go where the people will ride the trains.

Forcing the Class 1 RRs to increase capacity for a train that carries 50 or 100 people is not going to happen. In 1971 the idea of Amtrak was to let the freight RRs survive. The govt. figured most of the trains would soon vanish. Some lasted some stayed.

Now I don’t know which “Class I” this Zeta Tech study was done for. But the cost of superelevation needed for Amtrak over the entire network was $0.6 million a year and the possible savings fro a reduction in track class from 4 to 3 (60 MPH freight to 40 MPH freight) of $9.4 million. First, the Class I railroads are not going to Class 3 as this would hinder their intermodal operations. So the full cost of Amtrak is $0.6 million, over an entire 1,700 mile Amtrak operation of a Class I. Assuming a single train for each route mile that is less than $0.50 a trainmile.

any studies that show the benefits of going to timetabled operation ? i.e so Amtrak is only one of many trains operating to schedule?

Paris06 wrote:Mr. ICG - Exactly who is it that wants the freight railroads to do as you request?

The LD trains are marginal at best. In FY97 the California service had about 80% as many passengers as the Intercity network. In FY06 CAl trains had 30% more than the Intercity total. Why should the $$ not go where the people will ride the trains.

Forcing the Class 1 RRs to increase capacity for a train that carries 50 or 100 people is not going to happen. In 1971 the idea of Amtrak was to let the freight RRs survive. The govt. figured most of the trains would soon vanish. Some lasted some stayed.

Money should not be allocated in the future based upon how people ride trains now (or I would argue- are allowed to ride trains now) because this is complete rear view mirror driving.

A few years back congress tasked one of its investigative bodies to go back a look at the creation of Amtrak to see under what terms it had be created. It found that there is zero factual basis for the claim that those who created Amtrak believed that there was no future in passenger rail. There are no statements on the record that indicate that people thought this at the time . There also is almost nothing to indicate that anyone believed that Amtrak would ever turn a profit, one statement only. The charge that Amtrak was never supposed to succeed in passenger service, and that it Has failed to operate financially what as it was intended to are both charges rooted in revisionist history from the right wing think tanks. There were in fact many reasons For Amtrak. Some believed that the operating history during the sixties, (the purposeful bad service, the sham PTD et al) proved that the railroads could no longer be trusted to run passenger rail. Some believed that the division of operations would help both freight and passenger service to be better. The railroad argument that they could no longer afford to run passenger service had some merit. But no one with authority claimed that Amtrak was intended to be a grave for passenger service. I can not find this document on line for free, but it can be purchased. http://www.pennyhill.com/index.php?last ... oc=RL31473

EDIT: so far as I can remember the CRS study went to the record of the time. It could be that everyone lied on record, but so far as I know not a single significant actor in the creation of Amtrak has claim even now, many years later, that Amtrak was expected to fail. Washington makes an industry out of death bed tell all books, so if this allegation were true we would have a lot more support for it than what exists.

David Benton wrote:any studies that show the benefits of going to timetabled operation ? i.e so Amtrak is only one of many trains operating to schedule?

Going by a timetable for freight would make hash of modern computer optimizing methods. These same optimizing computer dispatching systems could be used to optimize Amtrak performance along with the high value freights that they currently guide through the rail network, but that is a different story I suppose. It does make one wonder how the railroads get away with the song and dance about how they can't get Amtrak through on time, as all they need to do is reset the priorities on their computer model to accomplish the task. Railroads could run Amtrak ontime, they CHOOSE not to do so.

Having lived through the startup of Amtrak (working on a freight carrier) I would suggest that the history of the passenger train for the previous 15 years made most people think that such trains were on the way out. The reasons Mr. ICG cites for the creation of Amtrak are somewhat naive. Amtrak arose strictly out of fear that the Penn Central bankruptcy, the largest American bankruptcy as of 1970, would spread to other carriers around the country. What is the evidence for this - U.S. history - we are a reactive not proactive people. Govermentally, we generally fail to act without the appropriate crisis and, usually, it needs to be a big crisis.

If one goes back to 1971, those that supported passenger trains then are probably surprised that so many trains have survived and quite a few new ones began: Ethan Allen, Vermonter, Downeaster, Illinois Zephyr, Heartland Flyer, Capitol Corridor, San Joaquins, Blue Water, Pere Marquette, STL-KC, Pere Marquette, Carolinian, Piedmont and expanded: Keystone, Empire, Hiawatha, Cascades, San Diego, CHI-STL plus great improvement on NEC. What is dissipated on rising LD losses could do a great deal to support more services that many more people would ride. American rail passenger has a place, actually many places, but hauling a few people over vast empty expanses to pick up/drop off a handful here and there at huge expense to the taxpayer is not one of those places.

Paris06 wrote:The reasons Mr. ICG cites for the creation of Amtrak are somewhat naive. Amtrak arose strictly out of fear that the Penn Central bankruptcy, the largest American bankruptcy as of 1970, would spread to other carriers around the country. What is the evidence for this - U.S. history - we are a reactive not proactive people. Governmentally, we generally fail to act without the appropriate crisis and, usually, it needs to be a big crisis.

While it is true that the failing PC drove the timetable for the political work, it is not true that a solution was driven by the PC bankruptcy. The corporation filed after the work was well underway. It had been well known for many years that all of the class one's were in serious trouble, and that the reasons were wide spread. By 1967 it was clear that the railroads were going to need major help, but this help did not need to come by way of government takeover of passenger operations. The idea of the national Rail Passenger Corporation was sold to the people by the politicians with the aid of the PC bankruptcy as illustration, but that actual bankruptcy had very little to do with the solution chosen by Washington. Those working on the deal knew full well what the railroad's financials looked like, the bankruptcy held no knew information for them, it did however prod the factions along.

I haven't posted in this topic in several pages; I have a few different responses.
First, UPRR Engineer compared the cost of moving a freight car with the revenue to be produced by a passenger car. He posited a capacity of 20 passengers per car, and came up with a cost of $500. However, Amfleet coaches can hold 80 pax, and double deck cars can hold more. So, the cost for his hypothetical run would be closer to $100 per passenger.
Of course, no passenger wants to be subjected to the schedule of a low-priority freight. But I would figure that a multi-track railroad like UP must have figured out a way to run hotshot container trains on predictable schedules. I would suggest that Amtrak trains could be treated like container trains. They would probably be subject to delays, because "stuff happens" on the railroad, but then, Amtrak trains these days are subject to delays that are often greater, partly because their faster scheduled times are more disruptive of freight schedules than "go with the flow" trains would be.
Mr Norman says that railroads can't accommodate Amtrak because they are maxed out on freight. I'd ask two questions there: 1) are they really maxed out, or would they be able to accommodate a "go with the flow" train? 2) If a railroad route is maxed out, can we calculate the value of the "slot" an Amtrak train would occupy? We'd need to compensate the railroad if we wanted them to run the Amtrak, and it would be nice to know what kind of money we are talking about.
Mr Halstead, as we know, has a dim view of Amtrak, but when he objects to the tyranny of having to meet a schedule to take a train, I wonder why he doesn't feel the same oppression when he takes a plane.
One thing we should consider, when we consider the worth of LD travel, is the true cost of using our cars. I believe most people, when they intuitively figure the costs of a car trip, only figure the cost of gas. For 2006, the IRS allowed a mileage allowance of 44.5 cents, and next year's will likely be higher becasue of of the incresed cost of gas. On that basis, a 500 mile Amtrak trip might be worth around $250. So, Amtrak's actual rates might turn out to be a bargain. Considering how expensive car travel turns out to be, it seems that our ever-increasing annual car mileage per capita is partly responsible for the stagnant or declining standard of living of our middle and working classes. To the extent that we provide attractive public transportation alternatives to private vehicles, we will ultimately reduce the cost of transportation, although we will have to put up a lot of capital to do it.
One last thought. Our LD network, with its worn and poorly maintained equipment and appalling 1 train per day usual frequency, is, of necessity, expensive per passenger mile, and provides lousy service. If we did as Europe and Asia do, we would have much more attractive and efficient LD trains that Americans would be eager to ride.

Without the PC bankruptcy there would have been no Amtrak. It focused attention on the process. The New Haven bankruptcy ten years earlier pushed along state aid for commuter service.