Missouri Amtrak Service

BandA wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:21 pm We should be focusing on costs, energy efficiency, energy independence, cartel busting, antitrust, russia-busting and china-busting. Maybe we should be thinking about coal-burning steam engines, although coal fumes are nasty.

Audi's working on E-Diesel, which basically turns carbon dioxide and water into diesel. Add carbon dioxide capture from everywhere, or concentrators from everywhere... and you're zero impact.

BandA wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:21 pm Maybe we should be thinking about coal-burning steam engines, although coal fumes are nasty.

Granted the incomparable and (to many) irresistible allure of steam power, steam locomotives were hangar queens compared to diesels and couldn't support the required intensive maintenance at today's wage scales. Tourist railroads couldn't survive today without volunteers -- and donors.

1. Natural gas is somewhat less energy dense than some other fuels (like propane). But (ignoring how we get it) fairly clean to burn. I'm guessing the density issue is why you need a tender.
2. Most steamers that used coal used soft coal. Filthy, lots of cinders (great at starting forest fires). In a few places, like out of my hometown of Scranton, burned anthracite. Much cleaner, but with very different characteristics. And today too expensive because there is so much less of it and it has other uses.
3. Steam has some big advantages, but is inherently a lot more dangerous.

BandA wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:21 pm How is battery or electric going to fix their $2.9M shortfall?

The first step is not spending that $2.9M in the first place. But... that 2.9M in the title is from ten years ago.

Missouri allocates $10M a year or $27,000 a day to running the train.

I'd think you could easily charter four or five busses thru the day for that cost.

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 11:53 am

BandA wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:21 pm How is battery or electric going to fix their $2.9M shortfall?

The first step is not spending that $2.9M in the first place. But... that 2.9M in the title is from ten years ago.

Missouri allocates $10M a year or $27,000 a day to running the train.

I'd think you could easily charter four or five busses thru the day for that cost.

Okay, using some data from GoGo Charters and Google Maps...

About 250 miles between St. Louis and Kansas City, via I-70. At $5.50/mile (from GoGo Charters guide), that's $1,375 per trip. That's 19 buses a day with change... or if we go 18 buses, 9 round trips.

The thing is... there's already a few services that are doing that. You may know of one of them. It's called Greyhound.

Yup. And thanks for doing the math, which more or less proves that rail isn't the most economical way to provide the service of connecting cities along I-70... arguably its less efficient than offering multiple departures daily.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 10:31 pm Yup. And thanks for doing the math, which more or less proves that rail isn't the most economical way to provide the service of connecting cities along I-70... arguably its less efficient than offering multiple departures daily.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Actually, the Missouri Pacific doesn’t serve the I-70 corridor, it serves US 50. The red represents US-50, the blue I-70.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:59 pm

eolesen wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 11:53 am

BandA wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:21 pm How is battery or electric going to fix their $2.9M shortfall?

The first step is not spending that $2.9M in the first place. But... that 2.9M in the title is from ten years ago.

Missouri allocates $10M a year or $27,000 a day to running the train.

I'd think you could easily charter four or five busses thru the day for that cost.

Okay, using some data from GoGo Charters and Google Maps...

About 250 miles between St. Louis and Kansas City, via I-70. At $5.50/mile (from GoGo Charters guide), that's $1,375 per trip. That's 19 buses a day with change... or if we go 18 buses, 9 round trips.

The thing is... there's already a few services that are doing that. You may know of one of them. It's called Greyhound.

OTOH, with the way Greyhound/peter pan has been retrenching from areas, some sort of subsidized (more than just the roads the buses use) should at least be contingency planned.
At this point, the higher capacity that rail provides isn't warranted.

There are many states that offer intercity rail service where there is also intercity bus service for a variety of reasons. I don't know the area so I don't know how congested the highways are and what the patronage is on the train. The idea of replacing it with bus service is basically irrelevant as intercity bus service is already available between the points it seems. Either bring back the second train, continue with just once daily, or get rid of the trains - those are the decision points. Bus service doesn't really even need to come into the conversation - it's already there. Many people who ride the trains aren't going to shift over to a bus service - they're just going to drive if the train goes away. So I guess it depends on whether the state wants to cater to those riders in giving them the alternative to driving or not and if they decide that answer is no that's their choice.

A huge portion of Amtrak's customers are not interested in riding a bus - the modes are not directly interchangeable. If it was all about providing only the cheapest possible intercity transportation then we wouldn't have rail at all and we'd rip up the NEC And replace it with bus lanes - but you'd loose a big chunk of your ridership to I-95. And we certainly wouldn't have trains like the Vermonter or Ethan Allen Express. Intercity bus service certainly has its place and there are certainly corridors where providing rail service isn't sustainable while bus service may be - but ultimately those choices are up to state governments. But there is an undeniable difference in the customer base between Amtrak and Greyhound and by providing a rail option you open yourself up to additional customers who aren't going to take Greyhound.

The only reason bus is mentioned as a substitute is to quash any arguments from the "we don't own a car" crowd about providing "essential intrastate transportation options".

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 9:10 pm The only reason bus is mentioned as a substitute is to quash any arguments from the "we don't own a car" crowd about providing "essential intrastate transportation options".

I guess I see your point there. I've never been one to really push the essential transportation argument for rail. If rail's only purpose is to provide essential transportation then as you say bus service is a way cheaper way to do it. I think the primary argument for intercity rail service is the economic benefit it can bring to the communities served if executed properly. Missouri has to look at whether it feels there is enough ridership to see those benefits and if that justifies the cost.

Not sure why the buses and trains need to compete.
Lets say Missouri sticks with its $ 10 million train services. it then adds $ 5 million of thruway buses . They add 50 % ridership on the trains , plus their own routes. Say we double overall ridership , for $ 5 million at most . Less extra ridership fares. so maybe we double the ridership for $ 3 million.
Sounds like a bargain to me .
Oh and twice as many communities / destinations served.

David Benton wrote: ↑Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:51 am Not sure why the buses and trains need to compete.
Lets say Missouri sticks with its $ 10 million train services. it then adds $ 5 million of thruway buses . They add 50 % ridership on the trains , plus their own routes. Say we double overall ridership , for $ 5 million at most . Less extra ridership fares. so maybe we double the ridership for $ 3 million.
Sounds like a bargain to me .
Oh and twice as many communities / destinations served.

This is a fair point. Every time NCDOT adds a frequency on the very similar Piedmont total route ridership increases.

Yes, but last I heard, NCDOT was operating cash positive on their services... fares were covering expenses. When you cover the expenses, you can expand or add new services...

That's not the case for MODOT.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

photobug56 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 9:34 pm 1. Natural gas is somewhat less energy dense than some other fuels (like propane). But (ignoring how we get it) fairly clean to burn. I'm guessing the density issue is why you need a tender.
2. Most steamers that used coal used soft coal. Filthy, lots of cinders (great at starting forest fires). In a few places, like out of my hometown of Scranton, burned anthracite. Much cleaner, but with very different characteristics. And today too expensive because there is so much less of it and it has other uses.
3. Steam has some big advantages, but is inherently a lot more dangerous.

Yes, part of the reason is the BTU per gallon content of liquefied natural gas ("LNG") versus diesel fuel. LNG is about 60% of Number 2 oil / diesel. The other very significant, and perhaps controlling factor requiring a tender, is that LNG is natural gas condensed to liquid state at, and must be maintained at, cryogenic temperatures, i.e., minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit or lower at atmospheric pressure. Such requires a double walled storage tank for structural integrity with very thick insulation to minimize the rate of LNG warming and returning to a gaseous state. Hence, the overall dimensions of a LNG tank with reasonably sufficient fuel storage capacity for range cannot be incorporated within the confines of a locomotive.