Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
Acela tickets are expensive because they pay for capital or long distance trains.Actually, I think the main reason for the price of Acela tickets is that's what the market will bear. I'm not a super-frequent traveler on the Acela, but of the 10 or so trips I've made, only a couple haven't been sold out.
FatNoah wrote:I think that the acela tickets just about break even with costs. Imagine amtrak w/o a subsidy, evreything would be priced in proportion w/ the acela.Acela tickets are expensive because they pay for capital or long distance trains.Actually, I think the main reason for the price of Acela tickets is that's what the market will bear. I'm not a super-frequent traveler on the Acela, but of the 10 or so trips I've made, only a couple haven't been sold out.
Greg Moore wrote:In at least some areas there are available lines. Between Trenton and New Brunswick you have US 1, which is perfectly straight and slowly being turned into a freeway. There's also a former interurban to the east, now power lines (and part of US 1's bypass around New Brunswick). However, that part of the NEC is also straight, and probably one of the newest parts of the line (having replaced a much curvier line along the D&R Canal in the 1860s). North of New Brunswick, the New Jersey Turnpike might provide an adequate alignment. Maybe the Turnpike could be used into South Jersey, where it would branch off (along Route 38? Or the old PRR line through Moorestown?) and cross the Delaware to Philly. Beyond Philly they could probably use the ex-Reading line past the airport, and then follow I-95 through Chester. Wilmington would probably need a bit of new right-of-way, but for the most part the parallel I-95 and ex-B&O ROWs should be good. I-95 gets curvier in Maryland, but there's still a fair amount of farmland to use. Beyond Baltimore the power line ROW between US 29 and I-95 might be best, right up to the DC border (this was considered for taking I-95 inside the Beltway before the freeway revolts).george matthews wrote:In Europe high speed lines are often built alongside motorways. There may well be land either alongside or over roads that would be useful. That would reduce the cost.Not a whole lot. I-95 for example, the most obvious route permits higher grades and sharper curves than are practical for a HSR.
MudLake wrote:One possibility north of NYC would be to use the LIRR and build a "Sunnel" across Long Island Sound. It would certainly be expensive, but perhaps less so than building a line across southern Connecticut to the same standards.Kaback9 wrote:Wait are you suggesting building a new ROW in Conn? Why?This is covering old ground but Amtrak has solutions to the NYP - WAS corridor. With enough money the line could be upgraded to 150 mph speed over significant sections. Change the wires and signalling, build a new tunnel in Baltimore, straighten some curves in Philadelphia (side benefit - N. Philly would improve with some demolition). By contrast, the ROW is southwest Connecticut is hopeless as is for achieving anything reasonable for speedy operation.
hi55us wrote:That's not entirely true. First of all, you can't look at the Acela as independent from the rest of the corridor. They share the assets and the costs. Second, they are breakeven when you include capital. they run an operating profit. Third, market based pricing implies supply and demand. Amtrak dramatically underestimated demand so they are short on supply. Adding extra cars (if possible) would lower the total average seat cost and, assuming those seats could be filled, would allow for lower prices without lowering net income. And let's face it, capital requirements are different on different lines. St. Louis or Milwaukee to chicago doesn't require a Hudson river tunnel, Philadelphia-Harrisburg doesn't have a secaucus jct. It's also worth noting that some of the extra costs that Amtrak has (I read they need three guys from three crafts to do what an air conditioning repairman does) woudl have to be reduced. It also boggles my mind that they terminate so many trains in ny. one of the worst things about getting to CT is driving through or around nyc. in the northeast, congestion is a very real problem in addition to the simple price of petroleum. while gas prices affect the competitiveness of train pricing, trip time is also a significant factor. with lower gas prices, improved trip time is increasingly important.FatNoah wrote:I think that the acela tickets just about break even with costs. Imagine amtrak w/o a subsidy, evreything would be priced in proportion w/ the acela.Acela tickets are expensive because they pay for capital or long distance trains.Actually, I think the main reason for the price of Acela tickets is that's what the market will bear. I'm not a super-frequent traveler on the Acela, but of the 10 or so trips I've made, only a couple haven't been sold out.
One possibility north of NYC would be to use the LIRR and build a "Sunnel" across Long Island Sound. It would certainly be expensive, but perhaps less so than building a line across southern Connecticut to the same standards.The purpose of the main Long Island lines was to meet a ferry to New London for transfer to a train to Boston.
george matthews wrote:The ferry was actually to Stonington (connecting to the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad, with another ferry at Providence to the Boston and Providence Railroad). When railroad technology improved such that a line across southern Connecticut was feasible, the LIRR was left with a well-built line through the flat but empty center of the island.One possibility north of NYC would be to use the LIRR and build a "Sunnel" across Long Island Sound. It would certainly be expensive, but perhaps less so than building a line across southern Connecticut to the same standards.The purpose of the main Long Island lines was to meet a ferry to New London for transfer to a train to Boston.
