Rethinking Amtrak and rail in the U.S.

A NY Chicago train via Pittsburgh is currently ~920 miles...if it were HSR, the run from Philly to Pittsburgh would likely be at least 40 miles shorter (the turnpike is 300 miles and Pittsburgh is 265 miles as the crow flies). at an average of 110 mph a trip from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh would be 2h45m or there abouts, 1h more for NYP. Assuming the the one hour trip will occur with improvements to the nec (acelas currently can make the run in 65 min). to get 2h45 min you'd need this

Concept 4 - New passenger only high speed rail line between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh,
generally following the Pennsylvania Turnpike or other major transportation corridor. (Cost
$6.3B).

http://testplant.blogspot.com/2012/05/k ... study.html
as well as some improvements to keystone east. beyond that, I think adding back capacity and increasing top speed to 110 could do a lot to create a functional corridor of NY-Philly-Lancaster-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Toledo-South Bend/Elkhart-Chicago. It might not compete with the nec but it would also cost far less. the NY-Phily-Pittsburgh section would be completely transferred with travel times from NYP cut from 9.5 hrs to 3h45m and from philly from 7h23m to 2h45m. you'd also be slashing travel times to DC and baltimore via Philadelphia.

Sorry but I couldn't read any further without posting this, mostly in response to the OP.

Last I checked, most Amtrak LD service recover about 80% of their operating costs. I think a good portion of that contributes to the fact that maintenance and dispatching is NOT the responsibility of Amtrak over the routes that these LD trains operate. Granted they still pay for track rights, etc (from what I understand) but that is nowhere near the cost of what it would be to own and maintain it. Additionally, it would be in Amtrak's best interest to upgrade tracks where they own them. Again, for a higher class RR, it costs more which is why routes like the Southwest Chief were in danger of getting axed because BNSF wanted to downgrade the line. Downgrades=lower speeds=not good for passenger service.

Killing LD trains is an over-simplified proposal in my opinion. I can appreciate one trying to improve Amtrak as much as the next person. One has to consider two things:

1) There are plenty of small towns and cities that can not justify the expense of a major airport that Amtrak serves on many of the LD routes you propose to cut. Amtrak LD trains are the only national network (other than perhaps a bus) that links the town to the rest of the country.

2) You also have to consider that just because the train itself runs from say Chicago to Los Angeles, doesn't mean that the people are doing that (ok, ok, people like me and my Grandmother will but that's on a totally different story ). Most folks are taking the shorter trips such as riding from Trinidad, CO to Lamy, NM or Lawrence to Dodge City, etc (on a much smaller scale, I'm working on a transit project where there are similar travel patterns. The end-to-end times don't look "appealing" but our forecast numbers show destination WITHIN the corridor not just end-to-end). Its more economical to run the daily train THROUGH than set up an exclusive daily train for that service. This is where states come in. They'll notice the ridership patterns between two points and say "hey, there's a demand for this service and if we add more we'll surely get more patronage. Let's start a commuter rail agency" OR (like the state of California) "Let's partner with Amtrak and their operating experience to provide more frequent service and we'll come to the table with the funds".

HSR will be MOST practical in corridors similar to the NEC, Pacific NW, California and other areas of the country where the terrain is favorable and land uses support rail travel. A good rule of thumb is to casually look at corridors that are heavily traveled via air travelers and the distance. The shorter the distance and/or higher the speed of the train, the more competitive rail will be with the airline and the more appealing rail will be to the traveler (hey, the time moving is much more productive than waiting to check in and then waiting to get through security). Acela in the NEC is a living example of that principle as it carries the majority of the traffic between NYC and BOS.

You get an "A" for effort and thought (Don't worry, that's all I'm judging on, the rest is constructive criticism )

Thanks for hitting all of the nails on the head there. This is the sort of thing that needs to go in a FAQ like thread so every time someone suggests Amtrak eliminate LD they just get linked to the explanation of why that's a dumb idea.

One of the things I was proposing about rethinking rail should have been explained better, that way you understood why I was talking about eliminating the slow, long distance routes.

These days, the train is used less as a method of vacation and long distance travel. Now it really is used mostly for two things: commenting and intercity travel. Trains are used to get people to work in metropolitan areas and connect cities that are either way too close to fly or on the borderline. I did not propose a 300mph train from LA to NY because I, like the rest of you, feel that would be impractical. For me, I feel the general public, aside from a few vacationers who LOVE trains, are no longer interested in 2-3 day train rides. The long distance, slow speed trains of amtrak do not really attract people like they used to before the 50's, that is why we saw private train travel plummet. Trains did not change with the times, they never evolved and for the most part, they still have not, that is why Amtrak happened in the first place. I think for passenger rail to be sensible and useful in the modern day, it needs to either be a commuter train that takes people to work, or is a direct connection between major cities.

I understand what that means, it stops connections to some of the small towns. This is somewhat sad, but I feel for people to want to use rail again, they need to be fast and actually do what the airplane does, provide high speed and reliable service but do what only rail can do, city center to city center. All of the LD routes in America use the same design they did 100 years ago, they stop at all these small towns that came into existence to get people out west. Now, MOST travelers, as in the people who we want to start riding trains again, do not come from these small towns, they come from the cities and are trying to move in between cities. This is why I feel that Amtrak needs to evolve on LD routes, they do not provide a necessary service apart for people who REALLY like trains and the very few who sue these to get from their small town to their cities.

Honestly, there should be no surprise these routes do not do very well. Most of these trains have 30+year old equipment, take days, have a gazzillion stops, and no longer have the old mystique we all miss from the early days. This is not going to change unless high speed rail becomes more widespread.

Therefore with that as my understanding, that is why I like the Hub design, it fills a need of transportation between cities in a rapid way without inconvenience. Therefore, I believe the Chicago Hub Network along with further investment in the Northeast and Northwest Corridors will be highly beneficial. I want to take what worked for these routes and do it elsewhere where it makes since.
1) Houston-Austin-San Antonio
2)D.C.-Charleston-Atlanta
3) San Fran-LA-San Diego
4) Portland-Seattle-Vancouver
5) DC-NYC-Boston

These all clearly follow the philosophy of what I proposed, but I think the others, even the longer ones could be profitable too and would provide a service people, not just train fans, would use. The DesertXpress initiative will be interesting to watch. If high speed rail goes in the previous places, why do we need Amtrak's current LD service? If we were going to use the argument that the views of the trip should save it, then sure, Amtrak should give those routes back to the privates and let them do what they want but I think that freight is so profitable that there would be no reason for them to create rail traffic that could delay freight.

The Chicago to New York thing is something different. If that route ran TGV-grade trains from NY-Philidelphia-Harrisburg-Pittsburg-Chicago, and they advertised it properly, it could be a very fast train. At 200-300mph it would be able to compete with Air traffic. So what if its the longest in the world, America has always had the most railway in the world, China has some rail lines that come close in distance to a NY to Chicago trip, at least their Beijing–Shanghai actually is very similar in distance (819 miles), (790 miles for NY to Chicago but with the Philidelphia and Pittsburg stops, it would be longer). It can be done, but would be a political headache but hey, at least its money well spent right. I mean considering how most of the great cities of the world are linked by rail, why shouldn't New York and Chicago be one such link? Its silly to me that we have not given it more effort.

RocketJet wrote: I did not propose a 300mph train from LA to NY because I, like the rest of you, feel that would be impractical.
The Chicago to New York thing is something different. If that route ran TGV-grade trains from NY-Philidelphia-Harrisburg-Pittsburg-Chicago, and they advertised it properly, it could be a very fast train. At 200-300mph it would be able to compete with Air traffic. So what if its the longest in the world, America has always had the most railway in the world, China has some rail lines that come close in distance to a NY to Chicago trip, at least their Beijing–Shanghai actually is very similar in distance (819 miles), (790 miles for NY to Chicago but with the Philidelphia and Pittsburg stops, it would be longer). It can be done, but would be a political headache but hey, at least its money well spent right. I mean considering how most of the great cities of the world are linked by rail, why shouldn't New York and Chicago be one such link? Its silly to me that we have not given it more effort.

Weren't you the one that posted this map with an orange line between San Francisco and Chicago and another line eventually to New York?
China's longer HSR trains run on HSR tracks parallel to existing rail corridors that are already over-capacity. The only passenger rail corridor in the USA approaching capacity is the NEC.

No, those are separate rail lines, not a single service from LA to NY, it is segmented. The fact that China's network is at overcapacity means success:)

RocketJet wrote:No, those are separate rail lines, not a single service from LA to NY, it is segmented. The fact that China's network is at overcapacity means success:)

China's existing passenger rail system was over-capacity long before starting to build its first HSR line. Not the other way around!

RocketJet,

You response does not suggest in anyway that you have read the responses as to why the LD are not as "absolete" as you may think. Your rebuttal does nothing to address the connection to small towns or the trips made in between these small towns other than "that's sad".

The private railroads got out of the passenger business for a reason. Their freight profits were used to subsidize the passenger services but the way in which they were structured THEN (services operated, etc.) was too much of a loss for the railroads especially when other forms of travel came online. Suggesting that the services be turned back over to them demonstrates one who has not learned their history and is doomed to repeat it.

Please go back and read replies addressing LD services. There were many MORE LD services before Amtrak took over and as it was formed, Amtrak picked the services that "worked". Your proposal had more weight back in 1970/71 but that discussion has been vetted.

I did read them, but I suppose I still was not clear with my reasoning. Everything I have learned about today's train situation in America suggests to me that the small town connections no longer make sense for long distance rail if we indeed expect it to be popular and profitable. I understand how there is a consensus among many on this site that it is still necessary for people who visit or live in those towns, but I have a different opinion.

For the people we want to bring back to rail by further HSR investment, small towns are not in their itinerary. If the Acela has taught us anything, for the most part, the stops aside from Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and DC only slow the system down. Now that does not mean those stops are not necessary, they just facilitate another need, commuter traffic. The reason Acela is the only completely successful non-commuter line in the U.S. is it is the only one that even comes close to getting people to their destination with a speed that rivals air travel.

LD train trips in this country do not do well because, for MOST Americans who either a) are not train lovers or b) do not live or have relations in small towns, the slow speed, long distance, and long traveling time does not appeal to them. We need to face it that in this day and age, few have the time to take more than a day to get to their destination.

This is not to say that I believe all rail must be high speed, I think that short-distance lines in the northeast are on the rise for a reason, and that if Amtrak updates its fleet to be more sleek and comfortable, we could see another boom in rail travel, but the investments must be made.

I have experienced European train systems and aside from commuter rail, the only lines I would consider using are the Acela and the Cascades routes. Why? Because they have better equipment, and do not take multiple days to get to their destination and I think most people want those two things in addition to convenience and speed. That is what the Acela is supposed to be, although I think the speed (trackage) can and needs to be improved.

If Amtrak want to be able to run as a business, they need to be able to peruse the markets where there is demand. In modern America, the demand for long distance trains with slow speed is no longer there. The Acela works because it fits one of these markets.

But your perspective still views trips from "one end of the country to the other", not trips in between. I've seen this with my own eyes as I was one of the "few" who did end-to-end trips.

Mind you the only reason I was fortunate to ride cross-country twice aside from having an AWESOME Grandmother, is because she has a serious fear of flying and trust me, I know for a fact that she's not the ONLY one. So what other LD travel options are there? Are you suggesting that they get on a bus and stay seated for 3 to 8 hours?

The country needs a NATIONAL network. The variable is the frequency of service to these areas. In most of these "small towns" a train a day is sufficient. As I said before, it's up to the states to provide for more frequent service if they want it. In some cases like in VA if revenues are sufficient enough, the state doesn't have to kick in any or as much money to keep the service going. That's a success story. At the end of the day, as long as Amtrak doesn't loose revenue by providing additonal services at the request of the state, Amtrak would likely maintain the service or request the state to cover the losses. A similar success story was found with the Pennsylvanian (I can't remember if that was in its current incarnation or when it was extended to Chicago).

The current network links the various existing and potential HSR corridors in the country. There's less than a handful of LD trains that traverse the country (4) as well as a handful of north south LD routes. It's a grid of sorts but nowhere do they NOT make sense. It's a skeletal system compared to what was in existence prior to Amtrak and likely reasonable for today's market. Also remember that states have stepped up to the plate with funding to maintain these services which means that there's support and demand for it. Why come in from the outside and propose taking it away without having seen it for yourself (i.e. speaking with local officials and residents and/or observing the number of folks boarding or destined for these locations)? I hear very few cases of states trying to kick Amtrak out of their back yard. If anything the few states that Don't have Amtrak service (excluding Alaska and Hawaii of course )are not necessarily thrilled about it.

One of the reasons the Desert Wind came off in '97 is that Nevada did not want to subsidize Amtrak for the operation of the train through Las Vegas (from what I recall) and thus Amtrak pulled out. I don't think it was due to the fact that they found it useless, they probably couldn't work out a deal. Mind you the state still has service to the north via the California Zephyr.

As for the LA-Las Vegas connection, there have been a number of proposals to restore that segment of the Desert Wind's route but nothing has seriously materialized from that unfortunately.

mlrr wrote:Sorry but I couldn't read any further without posting this, mostly in response to the OP.

Last I checked, most Amtrak LD service recover about 80% of their operating costs.

no, they cover about 48% of their costs, Amtrak covers about 80% overall...or maybe you just meant direct costs.
http://wiki.intranet.nrpc/download/atta ... ?version=1

RocketJet wrote: For the people we want to bring back to rail by further HSR investment, small towns are not in their itinerary. If the Acela has taught us anything, for the most part, the stops aside from Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and DC only slow the system down. Now that does not mean those stops are not necessary, they just facilitate another need, commuter traffic. The reason Acela is the only completely successful non-commuter line in the U.S. is it is the only one that even comes close to getting people to their destination with a speed that rivals air travel.

LD train trips in this country do not do well because, for MOST Americans who either a) are not train lovers or b) do not live or have relations in small towns, the slow speed, long distance, and long traveling time does not appeal to them. We need to face it that in this day and age, few have the time to take more than a day to get to their destination.

I was trying to stay out of this, but I have to ask: are you a troll or did you really think about the above statement? What you consistently overlook is these "little" places that you summarily dismiss FEED the entire system. They don't SLOW the system down, they ARE the system. This is why they STOPPED running non stop and/or two stop Metroliners and Acelas.

The train runs point to point. The people? Not necessarily.

You also ignore the fact that Amtrak is not meant to rival buses, planes, boats or ferries. It is meant to supplement the other modes of transportation, creating a well rounded transportation network.

Show us your numbers. Since you plan to eliminate all service to Florida, we'll start there. What percentage of these passengers are point to point passengers or imtermediate travel? How many are business, commuters, vacationers or people who are terrified of planes? If you are so inclined, break it down by train please.

Electrify st louis-chicago, chicago-hbg, mia-atl, van-sea, sd-sf, nyp-alb, alb-bos, and the mountain-y route segment of the empire builder to seattle.

25Hz wrote:Electrify st louis-chicago, chicago-hbg, mia-atl, van-sea, sd-sf, nyp-alb, alb-bos, and the mountain-y route segment of the empire builder to seattle.

YES! This would ideal, I just don't know where the money and political support will come from, although it would be awesome if this were to happen. The Empire Builder would be a long segment for electrification but I would like that very much too

ThirdRail7 wrote:

RocketJet wrote: For the people we want to bring back to rail by further HSR investment, small towns are not in their itinerary. If the Acela has taught us anything, for the most part, the stops aside from Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and DC only slow the system down. Now that does not mean those stops are not necessary, they just facilitate another need, commuter traffic. The reason Acela is the only completely successful non-commuter line in the U.S. is it is the only one that even comes close to getting people to their destination with a speed that rivals air travel.

LD train trips in this country do not do well because, for MOST Americans who either a) are not train lovers or b) do not live or have relations in small towns, the slow speed, long distance, and long traveling time does not appeal to them. We need to face it that in this day and age, few have the time to take more than a day to get to their destination.

I was trying to stay out of this, but I have to ask: are you a troll or did you really think about the above statement? What you consistently overlook is these "little" places that you summarily dismiss FEED the entire system. They don't SLOW the system down, they ARE the system. This is why they STOPPED running non stop and/or two stop Metroliners and Acelas.

The train runs point to point. The people? Not necessarily.

You also ignore the fact that Amtrak is not meant to rival buses, planes, boats or ferries. It is meant to supplement the other modes of transportation, creating a well rounded transportation network.

Show us your numbers. Since you plan to eliminate all service to Florida, we'll start there. What percentage of these passengers are point to point passengers or imtermediate travel? How many are business, commuters, vacationers or people who are terrified of planes? If you are so inclined, break it down by train please.

Jeez, I did not mean to insult anybody, I'm not trying to get people angry or make it personal, I'm just trying to share my ideas. I feel like your accusations are just evidence of how close-minded you are with how you see the American rail system, you look at it in a very specific way and are not willing to consider something else, even if it's different.

The Florida thing was ignored because they killed their plan;they said no. I think HSR could be great in florida, but I can't help it if they don't want it. You want numbers, you got them:

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/ ... rak/table/

The massive amounts of subsidies used to fund a substandard train system (yes that is what it is) is not something we should be spending money on, in my opinion at least, some people are positively thrilled with what we have; I'm not. Subsidies should not be seen as a thing to applaud when they happen, they just show that the service is on life support. Considering Amtrak as a supplement other forms of transportation, at least as you describe it, is such an unhealthy way to view rail as it is today (in my opinion). Amtrak should be free to go after the real markets: business people who are looking for cheaper, faster, and more convenient ways to get from destination to destination. The small town thing is something of yesterday, the stations exist for two reasons: the politics of the region or they are just left over from the westward rush of the 19th century and early 20th centuries.

My belief is that we need to look at Amtrak differently, not just a government money-suck that delivers mediocre quality service but something that the American people want. It's time we look at rail to capitalize on a need. Small towns reflect only a destination for a few, not the many. A high speed system connecting the major metropolitan areas of the east and midwest where congested highways and air traffic make travel a pain is something that can serve the many. People want a 3rd option, but Amtrak in it's current state is not that option aside from the Northeast Corridor. We should have a rail system that ignores the needs of the many where regardless of original panning, disregards change and is held back by the few: i.e.: those who fear or dislike of flying, train fans, etc...

I do not mean to offend anyone here but Amtrak is a mess and everyone knows it. Out of all the comparative countries in Europe or Asia we have the WORST rail system and I promise that yesterday's thinking that substandard slow service would be "ok" doesn't fly anymore. Let's start nation building people.

RocketJet wrote: Jeez, I did not mean to insult anybody, I'm not trying to get people angry or make it personal, I'm just trying to share my ideas. I feel like your accusations are just evidence of how close-minded you are with how you see the American rail system, you look at it in a very specific way and are not willing to consider something else, even if it's different.

I made no accusations. I asked you to justify your opinions with NUMBERS and facts. My mind is wide open, but it appears yours is closed. Define substandard rail system. You keep saying Amtrak is not an option for this, and small town that. Your assumption that only speed and time matters or buffs and vacationers rally around Amtrak is disproved but they continuing rise in ridership without the benefit of new or even additional equipment.

Where are your figures?

Help me understand your argument, which I think is this:

You are a proponent of high speed rail corridors and commuter corridors....but not an interconnected system that links them?

I'm all for change, but the reality of situation is whose's paying for it? this argument transcends trains. We can apply this to the ENTIRE United States infrastructure. Highways, bridges, roads. It's all substandard, but people squabble over costs. If you don't like the current system, you'll hate the bill for yours!