How Amtrak Derailed the Passenger Train

[Bob Bufkin]

Gotta agree with you there John.  Also standing along the NEC between DC and Baltimore wondering why they don't run more trains.  Even with MARC running along with Amtrak and sometimes  CSX train headed to the Popes Creek branch, it is sometimes  a long wait for a train to go along.  Seems Amtrak could easily run more trains as most seem to be full.  Maybe just a lack of equipment.  I remember back in early Amtrak days before the took over running the NEC that PRR/PC/CR ran freights, locals, commuter and long distant passenger with no probems using dispatchers controlling tower operators who knew their territory and did a god job of keeping everything running on time compared to the computer disptching done today.

[Hyperion]

I'm kind of confused by some of this capacity issue .. I railfan on occasion on the CSX line in Baltimore to DC .. I can sit and not see anything for an hour or two, then a couple come through at once ..  some of the railroaders I know tell me the dispatchers don't always know how to handle volume either .. I bet if they worked at it -- they could add some capacity

Certainly they could.  Anything human-controlled, human-managed, and then human-operated isn't going to be the most efficient thing in the world.  Throw in the real-life 'politics' of every terminal essentially being its own little kingdom, and you get a system that is not terribly efficient. Just ask the guys who work for railroads that Hunter Harrison is brought into to fix what that's like -- because that's abig part of what he does.

While dispatchers certainly play a role, Terminals do as well.  Railroads unfortunately tend to get into a mode of what we call "Fleeting", where traffic moves in bunches in one direction in or out of a facility.  It's terrible for overall system flow, but it's a dispatchers natural tendency to route traffic because it's much, MUCH easier to manage on single-track and terminals do it because it can momentarily make your yard performance appear really good... so if you're having a bad day and the numbers are looking bad, you just start shoving them out the door in one direction.  That, in turn, just screws up the next guy down the line who ends up having to do the same thing unless he wants to eat a bad day of yard dwell metrics because he got all his Eastbound trains at once and the 'right' thing to do is have them sit and meter them out, but he doesn't want to look bad, so he does the same thing, and so on, and so on.    Even if a subdivison isn't truly single-track, there's often areas of it that are either into or out of it or other features that can make it sometimes act as if it is for a bit (crossing over traffic, etc). 

It's also something that's made exponentially worse by traffic with high variance in speeds.  Trying to manage bi-directional flow is hard enough.  Trying to do it with traffic with highly disparate speeds is exceedingly difficult.   So what you get is even on double-track, you end up 'fleeting' your traffic with slow trains on one track and fast trains on the other, all hoping to pass one another before any oncoming traffic forces them behind the slow stuff.  So you effectively turn even your double-track into single-directional traffic, and you end up essentially waiting for the line to clear out before you 'fleet' the other direction back again, because they've been bunched up waiting for these two lanes of trains coming at them to clear out of the way.

Then you have Marketing selling traffic that goes against flows or train make-ups that take excessive amounts of terminal time to handle.  It may look like the line is empty, but it may be because the terminal on the other end is botched up taking traffic from a direction it's not really designed to, getting fleeted from one side and asking for the other side to hold off, or having to do an added hump it doesn't have the capacity for, and doesn't flow as well so inbound traffic is held until the terminal can handle it.  The capacity of the line and the capacity of the terminal are different things that work off one one another.

The best way to maximize capacity is to simply set a speed limit and expect all your traffic to hit it.  It would of course mean that some traffic slows WAY down.  Without trains having to leapfrog one another all the time, the actual average train speed will increase significantly.  The very first project I ever did at BNSF was to build a computer simulation model that demonstrated the capacity and overall on-time percentage increase that could be yielded if we did this.  I won't state the number here, but it was a very sizeable increase in both traffic and service.  However, Marketing likes the ability to offer 'tiers' of service, and it allows the railroad to charge varying rates and higher margins for traffic that will get to its destination faster.   UPS and some express LTL business would, for example, automatically go to UP if such a model were implemented as they want very specific arrival times that are XX hours from departure and nothing else will do.

Until computers do it all -- and they pretty easily could, the models I built 13 years ago essentially automated dispatching to maximize for capacity, but I'm sure you can guess the hindrance to automated dispatching -- this is the system we've got.

Regardless however, even if said capacity were freed up, you'd find that capacity in most cases being used to move more freight. It just makes more money than passenger traffic ever will and in many cases it's there just waiting for efficiences to make it possible to move it.

[Hyperion]

Gotta agree with you there John.  Also standing along the NEC between DC and Baltimore wondering why they don't run more trains.  Even with MARC running along with Amtrak and sometimes  CSX train headed to the Popes Creek branch, it is sometimes  a long wait for a train to go along.  Seems Amtrak could easily run more trains as most seem to be full.  Maybe just a lack of equipment.  I remember back in early Amtrak days before the took over running the NEC that PRR/PC/CR ran freights, locals, commuter and long distant passenger with no probems using dispatchers controlling tower operators who knew their territory and did a god job of keeping everything running on time compared to the computer disptching done today.

My understanding of Amtrak's capacity in the NEC (and that's their own line anyways as I'm sure you know, so freight concerns don't really apply) is that it's really equipment-limited, not fixed-infrastructure or operational limitations.

[John]

Mark .. very informative posting ..

[victor miranda]

"That doesn't say that running passenger trains is a concern."

*sigh*

ok let review... you said...
"It's not that the railroads "don't want" passenger trains on the rails."


so I just did a quick search to find a report that shows that they don't want more passenger trains.
(I do not really care why at this point.)

Just pointing out the fact.

I find discussions go a lot better when facts and truth are allowed to stand.

victor

[packers#1]

"That doesn't say that running passenger trains is a concern."

*sigh*

ok let review... you said...
"It's not that the railroads "don't want" passenger trains on the rails."


so I just did a quick search to find a report that shows that they don't want more passenger trains.
(I do not really care why at this point.)

Just pointing out the fact.

I find discussions go a lot better when facts and truth are allowed to stand.

victor

What Mark was probably trying to say is that railroads don't refuse to run passenger trains, it's that they won't because they don't make them enough money to be worth it to run them.

So yes, I suppose you could say they don't want them because they don't make enough money. And it isn't really right to force a private business to run trains that won't make them money. You could argue that they should, but then that breaks down into a government discussion that probably isn't permissible on this forum.

[victor miranda]

Hi Packers,

one of the things going on is that "mark" says:
"no no no no, and here are all the reasons you are right."

it is actually funny.

There are not to many pieces to this puzzle.

one is, railroads want to make a profit moving freight.

second is, the fact is that passenger trains will interfere with that.
I call it a sharing... it is a tax on the profits...

Where I get the most mirth from all this; the third is,
the distances from place to place here in the US is far enough that airplanes are often faster.
so passenger train service nationwide is unlikely to be a viable solution.

however.... do not mistake that for a level playing field.
the fourth piece is, while the railroads companies do not want passenger service...
Take my word for this part... they do not want a passenger rail network created as well.
That would become more competition.
can you say "fast freight"?

hohohohohohohohohoho

victor

[packers#1]

Hi Packers,

one of the things going on is that "mark" says:
"no no no no, and here are all the reasons you are right."

it is actually funny.

There are not to many pieces to this puzzle.

one is, railroads want to make a profit moving freight.

second is, the fact is that passenger trains will interfere with that.
I call it a sharing... it is a tax on the profits...

Where I get the most mirth from all this; the third is,
the distances from place to place here in the US is far enough that airplanes are often faster.
so passenger train service nationwide is unlikely to be a viable solution.

however.... do not mistake that for a level playing field.
the fourth piece is, while the railroads companies do not want passenger service...
Take my word for this part... they do not want a passenger rail network created as well.
That would become more competition.
can you say "fast freight"?

hohohohohohohohohoho

victor

Uhm, but if a passenger network is created, wouldn't it be used to haul, well, passengers. I don't imagine that a bullet train is going to be hauling crude oil, intermodal containers, or the like.

You are right though, with how big the US is, planes make more sense than trains; this is just a fact that we're going to have to accept. There are places like New England or some of larger metro areas where commuter rail etc works well, but the airline system seems superior to the rail network, even if there was a dedicated rail network for passengers. And then we also have to remember cars. Unless gas gets taxed to the point where Europe feels sorry for us, the Interstate system is also superior to the rail network because you have the freedom to go anywhere at anytime and you also have personal transportation when you arrive at your destination. I think we've beaten this horse to death enough by now 

[Mark5]

Europe has those wonderful services because the distances are right, there is density of demand, and high fuel taxes fund the infrastructure and operation while making auto travel more expensive. China is doing what they do because there is a need and a market ready to use the service and they have buildings full of dollars they can use to fund it, employ their citizens, and develop technology that showcases their talent to the world (like we did with NASA) and can be marketed.

Just wanted to comment on this: Europe's rail service and every other successful rail system on this planet are heavily subsidized. Some parts of the world place more emphasis on this than others.

The situation in the USA is a bit different than in other places, but I guess it comes down to national priorities.

Mark

[victor miranda]

Hi packers

mark5 points out a bit of reality that is a serious consideration,
that a separate passenger train service with its own rails will be created using taxpayer money...
if it ever gets created.

I very much doubt that vision will ever come to pass,
and I am sure the rail service would be the world's fastest for some very practical reasons.
( fastest top speed. who can know about the rest...)

back to your point about hauling passengers...
the passenger rail lines will be for fast speeds.
as long as the freight train does the same speeds as the passenger trains
it can run. This is something Hyperion points out as part of efficient use of rail time.

the profit can be used to subsidize the passenger operations....

hohohohohohohohohoho!

the rail companies KNOW this is a possibility
and will do everything they can to avoid letting a passenger rail network get created

... yet another reason it will never happen for the forseeable future.

victor

[eric220]

The problem with the freight argument is that AMTRAK isn't allowed to haul freight, and I doubt a nationalized high speed rail network would be either. The lasting memory that my wife has of the consist that hauled us across the country on our honeymoon was the long string of MHC's. There's a reason that there were a lot of them. There's also a reason that they haven't been seen in a long time.

I would argue @packers#1 's characterization of air travel as "superior". It's faster. Over long distances, a lot faster. As a frequent user of both rail and air travel, I would call rail superior in just about every other way.

[packers#1]

Hi packers

mark5 points out a bit of reality that is a serious consideration,
that a separate passenger train service with its own rails will be created using taxpayer money...
if it ever gets created.

I very much doubt that vision will ever come to pass,
and I am sure the rail service would be the world's fastest for some very practical reasons.
( fastest top speed. who can know about the rest...)

back to your point about hauling passengers...
the passenger rail lines will be for fast speeds.
as long as the freight train does the same speeds as the passenger trains
it can run. This is something Hyperion points out as part of efficient use of rail time.

the profit can be used to subsidize the passenger operations....

hohohohohohohohohoho!

the rail companies KNOW this is a possibility
and will do everything they can to avoid letting a passenger rail network get created

... yet another reason it will never happen for the forseeable future.

victor

Ok, I'm completely and totally lost by your line of reasoning    I thought you had said that this taxpayer funded passenger network would be taken over by the freight rail companies? Now you're saying that we would create fast freights, run them with the passenger trains, and use the profits from the freight to subsidize the passenger rail? Just huh?  If this were a nationalized service (which I sincerely hope never comes to pass but that's a discussion we can't really have here  ) then I can see your point. If it's a private company trying to survive then it's not going to use its profits to subsidize passenger trains, it will cut them and haul more freight. That's the point. Passenger rail doesn't turn a profit. To expect railroads to accommodate passenger rail without being fairly compensated for the lost revenue in freight is rather unfair. And if we fund a nationalized passenger network, I don't think that would be a wise investment of taxpayer dollars.

I would argue @packers#1 's characterization of air travel as "superior". It's faster. Over long distances, a lot faster. As a frequent user of both rail and air travel, I would call rail superior in just about every other way.

That's really what I meant by superior as faster. I've never taken a passenger train anywhere and the last time I was on a plane I was five, so perhaps it's more than a bit silly of me to be in this discussion, but at the end of the day, I'm just looking at what's faster because the majority of people are going to gravitate to what's faster, at least in my opinion. Anyways, I'm probably just talking out my  anyways

[Scottl]

After living in Germany, I found my perspective on passenger trains and transit in general has changed.  They have an integrated system, so it is easy to move from home or business on efficient city transit to stations with long distance trains.  It is all rather seamless, and you can even use the regional trains with the local tickets.  This all works very well because their cities also benefited from a transit/train centric land development synergy, so the layout of the city is quite effective for this kind of transport.  Given the different development of North American cities, it is highly inefficient to try and replicate the same density of public transport, with rare exceptions like NY.  Thus, trains play a role in a system that can get you from home to destination.  They are neither the fastest way, or often the cheapest way, and they have to compete with buses and vigorous air competition, as well as automobiles and the highway system.  My understanding was that DBahn made good profits, and many people would complain about the fares that DB charge.

By virtue of historical land use planning and developed preference to cars, it is almost inconceivable to envision such an effective network could evolve in North America, even if the will existed.  Amtrak and VIA are remnants of a bygone era- they can serve some dense corridors reasonably well, but they are marginal in part because the urban networks that feed them also suffer from their own limitations.  Add to that the dominance of freight traffic, and you have a perfect scenario for the marginalization of passenger rail.  The lack of political will, together with the chronic under investment in all infrastructure means the competition for funding is tough too.

I should add that I travel by VIA frequently.  I'm fortunate to live in one of the few places in Canada with frequent and convenient VIA service, being located between three major cities.  VIA is hands down more pleasant than flying, but I have no illusions about the future of rail in North America.

[Rich_S]

That's really what I meant by superior as faster. I've never taken a passenger train anywhere and the last time I was on a plane I was five, so perhaps it's more than a bit silly of me to be in this discussion, but at the end of the day, I'm just looking at what's faster because the majority of people are going to gravitate to what's faster, at least in my opinion. Anyways, I'm probably just talking out my  anyways

Packers, you are really not out of line. Railroad Passenger cars do provide more leg room than most jets, but Passenger trains cannot compete with Jets outside the Northeast Corridor. Case in point, I've ridden the Amtrak Pennsylvanian between Pittsburgh, PA and Harrisburg PA, the train trip takes 5 hours, the same trip by car takes 3.5 hours and once you arrive in Harrisburg you still have personal transportation when you drive your car.  The travel time increases with distance. A flight from Pittsburgh to LAX is 8 hours direct or 10 hours with a 2 hour layover in San Francisco with a ticket price of $280. A train trip between Pittsburgh and LAX is a 3 day journey with a ticket price of $227 and having to change trains in Chicago. So for $50 more I can be on the west coast in one day. Now yes, some people say that if we had high speed rail, the trip between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg could take less time than driving, but how many billions of tax payer money do we really want to spend to see if people would use the system?

   

[victor miranda]

Hi Packers,

sorry, I have been told I am not always clear in my writing.

it may help if you read it knowing that I do -> not <- 
think a highspeed rail network will be created for passenger trains.

I thought it a humorous way to point out a few reasons for that thinking.

victor