Rethinking Amtrak and rail in the U.S.

In my mind, the ideal future of American rail travel would include 3 types of rial travel: commuter, regional, and long-distance. These services would operate out of several "reginal transportation hubs" like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc.

I will now try to lay this idea out here the best I can. I'm from the New York area so most of my examples will be using various railroads and destinations around New York, so forgive me if you might not immediately identify with the examples. Also, I'm typing this whole thing on my iPad, so there might be agood handful of spelling/auto-correct mistakes, so I apologize in advance for those as well.

I'll start with commuter rail. These would basically consist of your standard commuter rail services now, like the LIRR, MNR, NJT, MBTA, and SEPTA. They serve destinatons immediately around the city and connect with the larger transportation network at the big terminals (Penn Station, Union Station, etc). An ideal rail network wold work to better unite the differernt commuter railroads, sort of making them "play nicely" with each other. Now I'm not going to say yes or no to the idea of absorbing every little railroad into Amtrak, as competition is good–to some extent. (for example, the Metro-North New Haven to Secaucus football train should work smoothly across the 3 different agencies (MNR, Amtrak, and NJT)). I can't be certain for every metro region, but in New York things go fairly well across the railroads, but it could be better.

Next, the regional level. These would consist of realitvley short–high speed–trips that radiate out from the regional hubs. So from New York, short-haul trips to Boston, Albany, Buffalo, Washington, Harrisburg would be ideal. It would operate like the already-established corridor system in place, just replicated in other cities. Now you would have to take each corridor on a case-by-case basis. Some would be good candidates for eletficication and Acela Express-type trainsets. Others could stay desiel and operate like the Empire Corridor, but with more modern passenger coaches. Rolling stock improvements could develop engines and cars that can be rated for 150 m.p.h. service.

"Long-Distance trains" would then connect the different regional hubs. So keep services like the Lake Shore Limited to connect the Chicago and New York hubs and the Empire Builder to connect Chicago and Seattle. They will be able to reap the advantages of the improved speeds over the regonal portions of territory, then just some basic improvements over the bridge territory to make it more time-effective. It's not worth it to spend millions of dollars making New York-Buffalo 150 m.p.h. if the rest of the territory is downgraded to 10 m.p.h. becuause of neglect. It shouldn't take 19+ hours to go from New York to Chicago.

Also, Amtrak should own, maintain, and dispatch the tracks they operate over. We ave all heard of a train being delayed for a inordinate amount of time because it got stuck behind a really slow freight train. The shipment of whatever can wait an hour or so for a higher-priority passenger train. Definitely promote rail shipment of freight–but make it work in a way that is good for everyone. An *impartial* and well run national rail agency should be able to make things work. Overhaul the way Amtrak maintains their track so that if something goes wrong, it gets fixed within a couple of hours–wherever it may be. Is PORTAL bridge stuck open? Dispatch crews from Sunnyside and have it fixed and working within the hour. We don't need people standing around scratching their heads for hours saying "I dunno. Mabye someone from NJT knows how to close it."

Next, implement a unified ticketing system. Assign each and every rail station in the nation a 4-digit letter or number code and work form there. I should be able to go onto Amtrak's website and be able to book a ticket from Breakneck Ridge (a tiny Metro-North station with a wooden platform that sees just a few trains a day) to Motebello/Commerce (a Los Angeles Metrolink station). I'll get a printout of a pice of paper that has a barcode that can be scanned by my Metro-North conductor, my Lake Shore Limited conductor, my Southwest Cheif conductor, and my Metrolink conductor. Then set up a unified fare structure that spits out a fair distance based fare for every possibe station combination based on track mileage. Come out with one flat rate: 10¢ for every "commuter rail" mile, 20¢ for every "regonal rail" mile, and 50¢ for every "long distance mile". (I don't know how practical those prices wold be–but something along those lines). If my trip contains different types of rail then I just pay for each mile. So a 15 mile commuter trip on the LIRR to Penn Station (would cost $1.50), then a 300 mile corridor trip to Buffalo (not exact distances, of course)(would cost $60) and then a 200 mile long distance trip to Cleveland (wold cost $100) wold cost me a grand total of $161.50. Now their would be the same fare breakdown foreeee trip from someplace in LA to Kansas City (with the correct mileages).

Now, how to pay for this whole mess? There are about 314 million Americans living here right about now, so if you have every man, woman, and child pay $100 dollars a year toward rail travel–that will amount to over 31 billion dollars. Just tack it on to one of the many various taxes we pay now. Between that and fares, Amtrak could afford to do many well-needed projects that could lower operating and maintenance costs, as well as improve OTP. After, we could take any extra money left over and lower fares. Increased speeds, decreased travel times, and lower fares can make Amtrak a good alternative to the commuter and the vacationer alike. With that increase in ridership, we now have even more money coming in to develop and further Amtrak until it can eventually become a railroad that can stsnd up to even the best ones in Europe.

So I'll leave this here for your takes on this idea. If you have any suggestions or corrections, I'd love to hear them. If this doesn't fit with the the topic being discussed, I apologize. Thanks!

SouthernRailway wrote:Keep in mind that wherever Amtrak has expanded (generally with state-supported corridors), those areas of expansion have come on routes previously served by a skeletal Amtrak service. I don't know of anywhere (except Raleigh-Greensboro) where Amtrak has built a successful corridor where previously there were no trains at all.

The Downeaster would be another example.

I doubt LA-NYC tickets would sell well at $1500 for coach.

Kennebunkport was just a city on the map picture I used. As there is talk of building a connection between North and South station, I was wondering how conceivably difficult it would be for Amtrak to electrify a two-track corridor that mirrors the Downeaster but as I feel the population isn't there, it would not be worth it bust I feel the Bombardier JetTrain could be an interesting idea for that.

It is true, the tracks form Vegas to SLC and Denver do not exist nor do they to Arizona. That is what the XpressWest organization has proposed for when they complete the Palmdale to Vegas line. One thing I posted in another thread was asking what you thought about how feasible that could really be.

The point of me keeping the Empire Builder route is that it is the only Long Distance route that has enough patronage to come close to being payed for without subsidies. I did not talk about the same electrification and straightening treatment as for the Chicago-NY, NY route I spoke of. It would simply have sleeker trains, ideally the JetTrain by Bombardier or at least the same idea with bi-level coaches.

I like the idea of the hub plan, my suggestion was similar but based on population. I simply took a list go the top 50 populated cities and connected as many as I reasonably could. My map showed an eventual transcontinental high speed system that would eliminate the need for both chicago trains to california. Now granted, as with everything, trying to fund this would be next to impossible but also so is saving Amtrak in the current political climate.

RocketJet wrote:Kennebunkport was just a city on the map picture I used. As there is talk of building a connection between North and South station, I was wondering how conceivably difficult it would be for Amtrak to electrify a two-track corridor that mirrors the Downeaster but as I feel the population isn't there, it would not be worth it bust I feel the Bombardier JetTrain could be an interesting idea for that.

It is true, the tracks form Vegas to SLC and Denver do not exist nor do they to Arizona. That is what the XpressWest organization has proposed for when they complete the Palmdale to Vegas line. One thing I posted in another thread was asking what you thought about how feasible that could really be.

The point of me keeping the Empire Builder route is that it is the only Long Distance route that has enough patronage to come close to being payed for without subsidies. I did not talk about the same electrification and straightening treatment as for the Chicago-NY, NY route I spoke of. It would simply have sleeker trains, ideally the JetTrain by Bombardier or at least the same idea with bi-level coaches.

I like the idea of the hub plan, my suggestion was similar but based on population. I simply took a list go the top 50 populated cities and connected as many as I reasonably could. My map showed an eventual transcontinental high speed system that would eliminate the need for both chicago trains to california. Now granted, as with everything, trying to fund this would be next to impossible but also so is saving Amtrak in the current political climate.

Regarding the Empire Builder, I see what point you're driving towards, but the problem is that its success comes both from the population en route and from large numbers of transferring passengers. Removal of the transfer passengers would be problematic, at best. The Auto Train does stand alone though, and Amtrak might be able to leverage that service to lose even less money than it already does.

Though this probably wouldn't reduce the total government outlay, I've toyed with the idea of kicking long-distance passenger service back to the host railroads - it would be an interesting way to reduce the size of one governmental department, anyway. Service would be under their own banners and with their own (Amtrak-owned, railroad-leased) equipment, but with government subsidy, a common Amtrak-administered ticketing system, and Amtrak inspectors making sure the quality meets or exceeds set standards. Perhaps this would have been more appropriate in 1971, but it would certainly make small-government, pro-business people happier and might even allow for competition between certain city pairs (especially if companies are encouraged to bring lines to 110 mph standard, rather than 79 mph or slower.)

<i>I should be able to go onto Amtrak's website and be able to book a ticket from Breakneck Ridge (a tiny Metro-North station with a wooden platform that sees just a few trains a day) to Motebello/Commerce (a Los Angeles Metrolink station). I'll get a printout of a pice of paper that has a barcode that can be scanned by my Metro-North conductor, my Lake Shore Limited conductor, my Southwest Cheif conductor, and my Metrolink conductor. </I>

There's no reason this can't be done now. Plenty of other countries have it. Heck, you can plan/book travel from DB's website to other countries, even if the trip crosses multiple modes (one routing for Munich to Zurich I once found involved a ferry trip, among other modes). It's an annoying lacking thing from US rail travel, and it doesn't have to be that way.

JetTrain? Isn't that thing pretty much dead by now? Given carbon footprints, oil costs, etc, I don't see anyone trying to wedge a helicopter engine into a locomotive again anytime soon, let alone plan a nation's transportation on such a failed concept. It's a piss poor answer looking for a problem to solve. What's so damn hard about just stringing wires up? Germany has more miles of catenary than Amtrak has miles of route. Nevermind Japan, France, etc...

Nasadowsk wrote:I should be able to go onto Amtrak's website and be able to book a ticket from Breakneck Ridge (a tiny Metro-North station with a wooden platform that sees just a few trains a day) to Motebello/Commerce (a Los Angeles Metrolink station). I'll get a printout of a pice of paper that has a barcode that can be scanned by my Metro-North conductor, my Lake Shore Limited conductor, my Southwest Cheif conductor, and my Metrolink conductor.

There's no reason this can't be done now. Plenty of other countries have it. Heck, you can plan/book travel from DB's website to other countries, even if the trip crosses multiple modes (one routing for Munich to Zurich I once found involved a ferry trip, among other modes). It's an annoying lacking thing from US rail travel, and it doesn't have to be that way.

JetTrain? Isn't that thing pretty much dead by now? Given carbon footprints, oil costs, etc, I don't see anyone trying to wedge a helicopter engine into a locomotive again anytime soon, let alone plan a nation's transportation on such a failed concept. It's a piss poor answer looking for a problem to solve. What's so damn hard about just stringing wires up? Germany has more miles of catenary than Amtrak has miles of route. Nevermind Japan, France, etc...

Again, a problem of agencies not playing well together, either purposefully or through neglect.

As for JetTrain, it's also silly when high-speed diesels would do the same work (see InterCity 125 and its current MTU prime movers, let alone the original Paxman Valentas.) For that matter, it's not a big jump from 110 mph 7FDL-powered locomotives to 125 mph GEVO-powered (or 710, or 265) ones.

Nasadowsk wrote:

lirr42 wrote:I should be able to go onto Amtrak's website and be able to book a ticket from Breakneck Ridge (a tiny Metro-North station with a wooden platform that sees just a few trains a day) to Motebello/Commerce (a Los Angeles Metrolink station). I'll get a printout of a pice of paper that has a barcode that can be scanned by my Metro-North conductor, my Lake Shore Limited conductor, my Southwest Cheif conductor, and my Metrolink conductor.

There's no reason this can't be done now. Plenty of other countries have it. Heck, you can plan/book travel from DB's website to other countries, even if the trip crosses multiple modes (one routing for Munich to Zurich I once found involved a ferry trip, among other modes). It's an annoying lacking thing from US rail travel, and it doesn't have to be that way...

I completely agree. At the bottom of this post I've attached my idea of a "universal ticket" that you could just print out of your computer. You should be able to go online to Amtrak.com, easily input any origin and destination station in the country, pay for it with your credit card, and then print your real ticket right out of your printer. No more need to wait on lines at ticket windows or uncooperative machines, just click, print, and show up at the train.
Then get on the train, when the conductor goes through to check tickets, he'll carry around some sort of bar-code scanner and just quickly scan everybody's tickets. A computerized system will then be able to check if this ticket has been used before, if it has expired, is the wrong zone, train, or whatever--an alert will pop right up on his screen. Any future automatic fare collection system could be built to these specifications so I can just scan my same paper ticket going through a fare gate or on a platform touch sensor.
You can manipulate the same ticketing system to dispense all types of tickets--monthlies, round trips, special fares, etc. For LD/regional/non-commuter trips that need the person's personal information and reserved seating--just enter that in on the website while purchasing and it prints right out on the ticket. For the Long Distance trains you could be then taken to a page which shows a diagram of the whole train, and you can reserve any available seat you want for your trip--then that prints right out on your ticket too.
Unreserved commuter tickets can be used at any time with in a preset window (like 90 days or so), while specific reserved service tickets have to be used on certain trains.
Since millions and millions of Americans have computers and printers in their homes, this is the way to go. Don't have a computer/printer at home? Your usual train stations will still have their ticket agents which can schedule and print out your ticket right there for you. You could also manipulate QucikTrak and various ticket vending machines to dispense the different tickets. Then set up all different public places with the capacity to handle the sale of rial tickets--libraries, town halls, municipal buildings, Starbucks (never too far from one of those).

Lot's of the technology is already there--I can book any combination of Amtrak travel on it's website now--just expand it to include everyone!

Much of what I read on this borders on ridiculous. For the naysayers both NY - Florida LD trains were completely sold out Saturday north and south. Amtrak needs more cars to provide the level of service that is needed in many areas. They have been literally starved by our elected leaders in congress over a period of years. Another corridor service that has attracted many riders is the Boston - Portland service with its five daily trains. This route had no service for a long period of time beginning in 1964 and the naysayers said it wouldn't work, sorry but it has and well at that. We need to build up the existing service, improve it and in some cases expand it and not tear it apart.
Noel Weaver

I agree with Noel. Even leaving that aside, 2012 has been a big year for me for Amtrak travel -- I've taken 3 trips so far that I'd consider to be "long distance." None of them would even be possible with your plan.

jstolberg wrote:It can be a useful exercise to ignore existing routes and right-of-ways to see how a modern system might be planned from scratch.
...
A likely outcome might be hubs in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas and Los Angeles with electrified trains running at 200-300kph (125 to 185 mph), which is not far off from the original proposal.

The problem with this is the assumption that you can predict where people want to go by looking at a map.

My own experience is in New York State. I notice that the original proposal left off Albany. The Albany area isn't a major metropolitan area. Yet there is a lot of traffic to/from Albany, simply because it's an imperial capital (as in, capital of the Empire State.) That's why there's some justification for having several trains between Buffalo and Albany, whereas only one between Boston and Albany.

By the same token, there are loads of people travelling between the Northeast and Florida, and have been since before I was born. It's not because there are big cities in Florida, or because Florida is so close to NYC or Boston.

You have to actually do the traffic studies to find out the trips people are making, or want to make. And then figure out which trips rail is a practical transportation means for.

jstolberg wrote:In some places, trains sharing tracks with freight and running at 90 mph to 110 mph might be more appropriate. Even that is a vast improvement from the 45-50 mph that most passenger trains average today.

90 mph maximum speed translates to an average speed of more like 60 mph.

Also, my impression is that mixing freight and passenger on the same tracks results in conflicts that might depress the average speed even more.

I'm hoping that someone who actually drives trains for a living can chime in with answers based on experience.

I disagree with making Amtrak HSR trains only. While TGV might be HSR only, its parent SCNF isn't. The same is true for all the Japanese rail networks, and for all other European networks. There's not one only HSR operator in the world today.

I think we should review the history of why Amtrak was created in the first place and determine if those reasons are still valid today, before going half cocked recreating Amtrak.

Amongst the reasons of creating Amtrak was to create a national passenger rail network under one umbrella. You could fly from New York to San Francisco with a single ticket on a single flight since jets were introduced. You still can't do that today with trains, although with Amtrak you only have to buy the tickets from one store. Splitting Amtrak up into many parts breaks up the national entity.

As for the profitability of a HSR line between New York City and Chicago, what have you been drinking? Not one HSR professional advocate has proposed it, have you considered that there must be a reason why they haven't. Speed, time, and distance are difficult to overcome.
Chicago to New York City distances:
Lake Shore route = 959 rail miles per Amtrak's schedules
Pennsylvania route = 925 (481 + 444) rail miles per Amtrak's schedules
Capitol Limited route = 1005 (780 + 225) rail miles per Amtrak's schedules
Let's use the shorter distance of 925 miles for this discussion....
Chicago to New York City speed:
A Eurostar train broke the record for the longest non-stop high-speed international journey in the world on 17 May 2006 carrying the cast and filmmakers of The Da Vinci Code from London to Cannes for the Cannes Film Festival. The 1,421-kilometre (883 mi) journey took 7 hours 25 minutes, averaging 191.6 km/h (119.1 mph)
Source of Eurostar average speed
http://www.ask.com/wiki/TGV
Chicago to New York City time:
925 miles / 119 mph = 7.77 hours.

Would also like to point out that the distance between Chicago and New York City is longer than the longest HSR train travel in distance ever. And you're suggesting doing it daily.

amm in ny wrote: 90 mph maximum speed translates to an average speed of more like 60 mph.

Also, my impression is that mixing freight and passenger on the same tracks results in conflicts that might depress the average speed even more.

I'm hoping that someone who actually drives trains for a living can chime in with answers based on experience.

Average speed is definitely part of it. It's great when people talk about higher top speeds, but if you have huge bottlenecks, that's always going to hurt.

While I support moving up the New Jersey section to 160mph is a great idea, there's still plenty of much slower areas where you could see a 50-100% increase in speed.

(There is one thing to be said for top speeds though, it does attract a certain amount of business simply based on the wow factor. I can't wait to ride the Acela at 160 mph).

New York to Chicago doesnt make sense , because your ignoring all the points in between . New york - Chicago would be possible because it would be joining of 3 or 4 corridors on the way .

David Benton wrote:New York to Chicago doesnt make sense , because your ignoring all the points in between . New york - Chicago would be possible because it would be joining of 3 or 4 corridors on the way .

Maybe you have a point, maybe not. Let's assume it took 3 HSR corridors to travel between New York and Chicago are built, maintained, and operated by three different train companies (for example Amtrak, TGV, and Japan East). Let's also assume they choose three different voltages/frequency power setups, and three different positive train control systems, i.e. three independent and incompatible systems. Let's also assume the train corridors consisted of NYC to Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh to Detroit, and Detroit to Chicago. Of course a different route could be chosen using different cities. They could be using different stations in these intermediate cities too, like Amtrak using two different stations in Boston, there's the possibility a HSR train may not be able to travel the entire way. Are you going to ride three different trains with three different tickets with layovers in two different cities for that trip, or fly in one jet with one ticket in less than a quarter of the time?
Everyone assumes all HSR operations will be ran by Amtrak. Has Amtrak signed contracts with both XpressWest and CHSR? Has Amtrak signed a contract with FEC? There are other train operators interested in operating HSR trains in America, including both TGV and Japan Central. I don't think it's likely Amtrak will operate "every" HSR train, especially since Amtrak will not be participating in financing building them. At less than 750 miles in length, Amtrak expects states to pick up that tab to commence new train services. Shucks, Amtrak expects states to pick up the tab to commence new train services at distances greater than 750 miles.

electricron wrote:

David Benton wrote:New York to Chicago doesnt make sense , because your ignoring all the points in between . New york - Chicago would be possible because it would be joining of 3 or 4 corridors on the way .

Maybe you have a point, maybe not. Let's assume it took 3 HSR corridors to travel between New York and Chicago are built, maintained, and operated by three different train companies (for example Amtrak, TGV, and Japan East). Let's also assume they choose three different voltages/frequency power setups, and three different positive train control systems, i.e. three independent and incompatible systems.

You mean like we have one unified voltage/frequency and signaling system on the NEC. I know when I travel from Boston to Washington I have to stop and change several times because of that. Oh wait, no I don't. There are both technological solutions to the strawman yo're creating as well as legislative.