Privatizing USA Passenger Rail

[IsambardKingdomBrunel]

( just been informed that we will be a few minutes late getting into Paddington)

Aahhhhhhh the joys of privatisation.............:hehe:

Sorry Bill i could not resist that.

"Fluffer"....now there is a job i will definately leave in the hands of privatised railway employees and Tory MP's.

IKB.

 

[StorkNest]

I just looked up "fluffer" on Dogpile.

Learn something new all the time....but I didn't need this!

And no pictures thankfully!:hehe:

 

[gfisher]

claiming the record for being the first member on the forum to post from an actual moving train

Sorry, but that happened a long time ago.

 

[Euphod]

Sorry, but that happened a long time ago.

I remember that! He did a whole travelogue from the train, did he not?

 

[gfisher]

Yeah, I think so Ed. He was on the Coast Starlighter as I recall.

 

[wholbr]

Hi Everybody.

Sorry, but that happened a long time ago.

I am appealing that decision
I demand an independent referee.
A video action replay of this...this... "pretender"... posting his trash.
An independent panel of arbitration to a judge the outcome.
an appeal panel in case the arbitration agrees with gfisher.

If the decision goes against me I shall call my supporters onto the streets.
I've never been so outraged, this is a worse stitch up than a football Derby match such as Chelsea v Arsenal where the referee runs around with a Chelsea shirt on.:'(

Your day of reckoning will come

Bill

 

[StorkNest]

I've never been so outraged, this is a worse stitch up than a football Derby match such as Chelsea v Arsenal where the referee runs around with a Chelsea shirt on.:'(

So long as it is not the sports arena that had snow make the dome collapse!

 

[HSSRAIL]

Hello

Just finished disposing of Download Stations request to fix errors in my content I just finished that project. I have some experience in the United States with passenger trains on freight railroads.

The biggest delays to Amtrak off the Northeast Corridor or on the Northeast Corridor is bad order equipment not freight train interferrence. Amtrak because of its funding situation does not do preventive maintenance rather they wait till it breaks before fixing it. Breakdowns in service can result in signifigant delays. Also Amtrak holds trains for late connections which results in numerous Amtrak trains running late because 1 train ran late. Late Amtrak trains going onto freight railroads presents problems especially if scheduled track maintenance needs to be done. Freight railroads can not necessarily jugle slots to accomodate late Amtrak trains and railroaders resent it seriously when the public suggests they should. Most feel passgenger trains should be able to at least get out of their origin terminal on time and it is unfair to whine about freight train interferrence when the first condition is not being met.

Private operation in the United States:

While I agree private operation has not been historically successful in the United States I have tried to dig deeper into this issue and determine why?
I am deeply involved in railroad historical research.

Most of my research is in connection with the Erie-Lackawanna and the Northeast Railroads why their passenger and freight services became unsuccessful and declined.

1) Lack of Co-operation within the US Railroad Industry. In Europe you are accustomed to one railroad serving one country their may be several exceptions to this but as a proposition most European Countries have had unified railroad operations Germany, France come foremost to my mind. The US Railroad network was developed by private investors in many cases to further the business interests of their limited regional areas. For example the Pennsylvania Railroad was built and planned to benefit and grow Philadelphia and tie it to the west. The Delaware Lackawanna & Western was funded by Scranton Interests to promote the distribution of Anthracite coal in and around Scranton. These competing interests obviously had visions that were local in nature not national. As the big railroads developed traditionally called Class I's the inter regional rivalry that created their births intensified.

For example every northeast railroad serving New York City insisted on building and maintaining their own marine operations and carfloat and lighterage services:

Erie, Jersey City, Weehawken
Delaware Lackawanna & Western, Jersey City
Jersey Central, Jersey City
Lehigh Valley, Jersey City
Long Island Rail Road, Bay Ridge
New Haven, Bay Ridge
New York Central - 60th Street Manhattan, Weehawken, NJ
Pennsylvania Railroad, Harsimus Cove, Greenville
Reading, Port Reading

Guess what? One efficient terminal could have handled most of this business. Proposals to create a unified railroad marine operation in New York City were being proposed and accepted as necessary since the 1920s. By maintaining all of these duplicate and inefficient facilities the Northeast Railroads increased the size of their asset base beyond what earnings could maintain.
What does this have to do with passenger service? Everything because the same situation developed in Passenger Service:

Penn Station, New Haven, Pennsylvania Railroad, LIRR
Grand Central Station, New York Central, New Haven
Weehawken, NYC, NYO&W
Hoboken, DL&W
Jersey City Pavonia, Erie
Jersey City Exchange Place, PRR
Jersey City Liberty State Park, B&O, RDG, CNJ
Long Island City, LIRR

By not being able to agree on a Union Passenger Terminal in New York City the railroads serving this area ended up running a series of disconnected segments that never did and still do not operate as a unified network. For example if you wish to travel from White Plains New York to Beaches on Long Island you not only have to change trains you have to change stations this is not easy as 10 blocks separate Grand Central from Penn Station tight connectons are impossible. The rivalry was expressed in another destructive way none of the railroads ever wanted to agree on a common standard for electrification in the New York Metro Area. For example the Long Island chose a third rail system that is not compatible with the third rail system on former New York Central Lines. The Lackawanna chose an overhead 3000 volt DC system while the PRR and New Haven chose an 11,000 volt AC system. Running Integrated systems was never something that the individual railroads would ever have considered and I believe is a big factor in why their passenger services declined over the long haul.

US railroads planned passenger services to be exclusive to their lines there is a major problem with this. For example consider passenger service between Milwaukee and Chicago. The Milwaukee Road line runs further to the West and serves stations like Glenview, Sturtevant and the Milwaukee Airport. The Chicago & Northwestern Line that ran further to the East served major population centers like Evanston, Waukegan, Racine, Kenosha, Great Lakes Training Station. In planning a succesful Passenger service it is obvious that the Chicago & Northwestern and the Milwaukee Road should have run a co-ordinated service on the former Northwestern Tracks between Chicago and Milwaukee. But these railroads were fiece competitors and no such co-ordination ever occurred. Optimum passenger routes may not be confined to the lines of one railroad but theoretically require components of several different companies. By failing to consider this possibility the United States never really developed a viable intercity passenger network. Instead Railroads established competing and redundent services between two cities. Chicago to St Louis was mentioned earlier in the 1950s the following railroads operated this service:

GM&O via Springfield, IL (Now running under Amtrak)
IC via Gilman, IL (dropped)
Wabash, via Decatur, IL (dropped)

There wasn't enough traffic between Chicago and St Louis to support all these services and some of them went thru very sparsely populated areas.

Nor did the railroads make any efforts to co-ordinate their commuter services with their intercity services. With different commuter lines terminating in different locations this was made impossible.

It is this lack of planning, commuter railroad, regional railroad and intercity railroads as a unified connected network that has stunted the growth of passenger trains in the United States.

The intercity highway system was the big success it was partly because it always functioned as an integrated network.

Heavy subsidies for airlines, and other competing modes created infrastructure that private railroads could not match however; private railroads overbuilt their infrastructure which increased the amount of capital that would be necessary to improve and maintain them. Private railroads also failed to agree on uniform equipment standards for various passenger services, they never formed a committee to come up with a standardized commuter coach, Intermediate Coach and Long Distance Coach. Having car builders build equipment for the same kinds of services but customized to the individual whims of the various railroad companies greatly increased the acquisition costs for equipment, even today, standardization has not occurred while costs to buy new passenger cars escalates exponentially.

I don't know if $10.00 a gallon gasoline would make railroad passenger services in the United States profitable. I believe that the infrastructure of the system as it developed in the United States contributes to the losses incurred on passenger services.

For your consideration

 

[sparky15]

What gets me is that where I live, all these towns grew up around the railroad and most of the track work was or is still in place. I live where I do because the cost of living and taxes are so low. Instead of capitalizing on that and attracting business back to the area, they are tearing those old lines out and selling it for scrap. With the surge in intermodal they missed a great opportunity to take the first step in restoring rail service to these areas, along with business.
The reason we have to have roads is that we need to drive so far to find work. More local business fueled by the railroad, more other businesses popping up to support it, less need to commute for employment. Once the lines are running again the old joke about going to the big city on the weekend would become more a reality.
With the current economic situation, we will be going back somewhat to those times I think. Sadly we squandered the hard work and most expensive part of a plan like that that was already in place. Investing in regional short lines would have gone a long way with minimal outlay of funds and affected more people positively. It would have also allowed smaller companies the chance to relocate to areas with a smaller tax burden and lessened the need for workers to commute long distances.
We shot ourselves in the foot I think.

 

[StorkNest]

The reason we have to have roads is that we need to drive so far to find work.

Actually it is for national defense.

 

[sparky15]

I was addressing the current situation in my area. We have no choice but to maintain so many roads since we have no other options. No freeways here and a major artery is only two lanes, and there are a lot of them, that takes a severe beating from all the truck traffic.

 

[paperatzi]

Wow there are a lot of views on the privatization of the railway system.

I am personally working on some rail related innovations and in light of the Florida governors recent announcement, I would like to propose a way of addressing some of the limitations that are often missed when it comes to rail travel. I am an environmentalist and a realist when it comes to understanding the best option for a specific territory. For example in Florida, its such a amazing idea to connect the state with a network of varied routes spanning the state, however it amazed me that an oversight in the plans would & probably was the alkalies heal for the rejection of the proposal.

From Miami downwards, the cost of building multiple lines (the plans indicated a lot of tracks (3-4)) to service all the demand of the islands of the Florida keys was going to cost a lot of cash, many billions.

So what could be used? I would not change the freight lines, but I would suggest the German Maglev trains as they can both operate as a commuter local train and a super high speed express for the operational cost of a local commuter train whichever purpose it is intended. Building one to two lines is enough to service the keys and a majority would only need one line.

The use of Alweg Monorails is also practical for the cities of Miami, Orlando, St Pete's & Jackson ville, and given the ground structure, it's the most practical 70-80 MPH commuter train.


yes I think the US rail network needs to be dramatically changed and more ecologically responsibly solutions must be considered, but rather than privatization, where the state and You pay in your taxes to build the routes and the private company gets subsidizes to operate as a public service whilst keeping the profit they make and still you are giving the private operator a free lunch. The company should remain part of the Government but as a separate organization run for profit to ensure the platform exists outside normal government interference.


Well after all that, I am trying to make a full size test bed, comprising of the Alweg monorail platform and a TGV / Japanese bulitt train. But alas I cannot find where the assets are for the Monorail track in the survey program. I am using 2006 Trainz & the Track constructor. But I have no clue how to expand and use the Monorail in that program. Is there a full Monorail Trainz? Thank You :0)

 

[Tokkyu40]

Judging from some of the posts, it may be time to clear up some confusion about what High Speed Rail is.
First, it's not a trolley. It doesn't crawl through high density cities, picking up passengers every few blocks. It's a long distance speed route that runs through empty country between cities. Stops on the Tokaido line are 30 to 50 miles apart: farther on the Nozomi service that only stops at the largest cities. Tokyo is one of the few cities that has two stations: Tokyo and Shinagawa.
On the I-10 it's 50 miles from LA to Riverside-San Bernardino. Another 45 to Palm Springs. From there it's only 120 miles to Blythe, and 350 miles all the way from LA to Phoenix: roughly the same as the Tokaido line, and with heavy air and highway traffic between the two cities; indicating a strong passenger base for high speed rail. The time difference between air travel and train would be minimal at that distance, and the convenience and personal comfort of the trip would be far superior on the train.
If I were building the train, I'd start with LA to Tucson. The population centers are fairly well developed and spaced reasonably, with heavy traffic flows. Then Dallas, through Beaumont, Lake Charles and Lafayette to Baton Rouge, before turning south to New Orleans. Then build out to connect the east end to El Paso and Las Cruces, then connect the two ends of the route together.
Then I would build north from Las Cruces to Albuquerque and Denver, and along the I-35 from San Antonio to Dallas and Oklahoma City.
By building along high traffic corridors I can build a strong customer base that will support a more comfortable alternative to airlines over short and middle length trips.

Claude

 

[gfisher]

but I would suggest the German Maglev trains as they can both operate as a commuter local train and a super high speed express

According to Trains magazine who's latest issue is all about high speed rail, the maglevs cost almost 10 times as much to build as regular high speed rail, so you are not going to see any serious proposals to use them any time soon except for a few political publicity stunts such as China's maglev.

Interestingly, it seems that while quite a few of the new systems are running or projected to run at 220 mph, they have been tested at much higher speeds, up to about 350 mph. The reason they don't run at 300 mph is that at that increase of speed they burn twice as much fuel, so 220 mph seems to be the practical limit for now. Trains points out that elsewhere in the world a travel time of 4 hours seems to be the magic tipping point...beyond four hours more people will begin to take a plane, under four hours and more people will take the train.

Four hours at 220 mph would almost be NYC to Chicago...wouldn't that be nice. Interestingly also, almost all of the inter-city high speed rail lines are projected to make a profit operating on their own right of way, although the payback time on the original capital investment may be 30 years or more.

We could do this in the US if we weren't wasting so much public money on other foolish things that we are flat broke.

 

[StorkNest]

I was addressing the current situation in my area. We have no choice but to maintain so many roads since we have no other options. No freeways here and a major artery is only two lanes, and there are a lot of them, that takes a severe beating from all the truck traffic.

I understand situations like this and partly agree with them.
But the road network was primarily for national defense after a President, Roosevelt I believe, saw the advantages from Germany's road system.

In my area for a few winters now, my borough sees major pothole problems on roads. There has been efforts made for better public transport but they keep getting stonewalled and the method and materials of pothole repair are constantly complained about.

The reactivation of the North Shore passenger line from the B&O days is constantly under study and when one ends, another begins.

There has been talk of bringing the NJ light rail over the Bayonne Bridge especially since it was built to accomodate rail lines and has the least traffic plus it might have some cabling already there to support electric trains (though I do not know what condition that is in).

There are plans for another bridge to replace the aging Goethals Bdridge that has smaller than average lanes with 4 total (two each way) using some new structure with 6 lanes and room for rail lines (don't know if they mean passenger or to replace the Arthur Kill Lift Bridge), right now that is in the bidding stage among several companies.

All this in the borough with the worst national commute times.

 

[JCitron]

I understand situations like this and partly agree with them.
But the road network was primarily for national defense after a President, Roosevelt I believe, saw the advantages from Germany's road system.

In my area for a few winters now, my borough sees major pothole problems on roads. There has been efforts made for better public transport but they keep getting stonewalled and the method and materials of pothole repair are constantly complained about.

The reactivation of the North Shore passenger line from the B&O days is constantly under study and when one ends, another begins.

There has been talk of bringing the NJ light rail over the Bayonne Bridge especially since it was built to accomodate rail lines and has the least traffic plus it might have some cabling already there to support electric trains (though I do not know what condition that is in).

There are plans for another bridge to replace the aging Goethals Bdridge that has smaller than average lanes with 4 total (two each way) using some new structure with 6 lanes and room for rail lines (don't know if they mean passenger or to replace the Arthur Kill Lift Bridge), right now that is in the bidding stage among several companies.

All this in the borough with the worst national commute times.

I've heard the rumors about the LR over the Bayonne Bridge. I've been to Staten Island many years ago, and I remember the old B&O North Shore in operation. I was only about 6 at the time and we were visiting relatives so I don't have a lot of details other than being told "We're going to Staten Island", and then there were the trains, which I remembered more about.

 

[Tokkyu40]

...Four hours at 220 mph would almost be NYC to Chicago...

As long as you remember that 220mph is the peak speed, not the average speed.
You also need to slow down for built up areas (which is why high speed rail travels in the open areas between cities rather than the built up corridors.) and stop at stations. The shinkansen averages about 100mph point to point through its route, socoast to coast in America would be about 30 hours. Less because the cities are farther apart, so we can have a higher average travel speed. I would do that for my vacation.
Although there may be people who actually enjoy airline seats, the grope probe and the nuclear strip search (aka, the Junk Shot). Me, I've given up flying unless I absolutely, positively have to.

Claude

 

[HSSRAIL]

My understanding of this thread is it was on privatizing the US Passenger Network.

The costs of operating and building rail systems goes up considerably the faster you wish to go. Privatized High Speed Rail is out of the question because it is not possible to raise the capital to build and operate such a system in the private sector. In addition the fares that would have to be charged to cover operating costs and earn a return on such an investment would not produce enough ridership to make the venture worthwhile. High Speed Rail has to be heavily subsidized. The rational for doing this is that profit and loss does not take into accounts the economic value of a service to the communities served. It could very well be that a high speed train between say Jacksonville and Miami would produce economic benefits that exceed the costs of building and operating the line. I am referring to increased property values along the corridor that generate higher tax revenues, Companies that relocate their business's along the corridor generating more jobs, economic growth as a result of more people living along the corridor, etc. While Americans have been able to comprehend this concept of economic value when it comes to highways and airports they have more trouble applying the concept to passenger rail.

 

[StorkNest]

My understanding of this thread is it was on privatizing the US Passenger Network.

It is. As the thread starter, I'll clarify.
Not only Amtrak but also local assets are, "open season." I came up with this because of commentary on a home news site about both Amtrak funding and people claiming the MTA should be privatized. So anything passenger related is fair game, Amtrak, MTA, DART, any local service publicly funded.

Allows for discussion of subjects like this:
Today it was announced the MTA finished an upgrade several years in the works just in time to find out all the technology is or will be obsolete, some of the upgrades no longer have replacement parts. Would this happen under a private company?

Also I remember under the recent bank bust, it was discovered a lot of local passenger transit systems had been, "playing games," with the banks selling things to the banks then leasing them back but when the banks went bust, this added debt to the public transit systems. Would privatizing any of these transit services have avoided that?

 

[Klinger]

The sad thing is that in the little poll that went with the "calculator", 85% of the respondents opposed the high speed rail spending plan, 5% didn't know, and only 10% were in favor of the plan. Of course, this is from viewers who look at the Fox website, so there is a bias against government spending of any kind there, but even so the lack of support is rather discouraging for people like myself who feel we need to do it for all kinds of good reasons.

Well thats how sites like that get ratings, scare people with really big numbers.

Fact is, if you spread out those numbers over 300 Million Americans, and spread it out over the given number of years, its actually fairly cheap

There was a big complaint about the C&TS costing Colorado and New Mexico taxpayers I saw recently (which was an argument over lettering of all stupid things). I can't remember the exact number, but spread out, over the course of 40 years of service, the average tax payer had contributed about 12 cents total in the last 40 years of service.

Not bad if you ask me.

The big thing in Denver now is FastTracks. They want to raise taxes....again, to pay for the project, which is horribly over budget. But if they go ahead and do the full .4% increase, it only amounts to about 10 cents for every $100 spent. I'll gladly pay that if it means bring full fledged commuter trains to Denver by 2019, and finishing the WHOLE FastTracks project, not just bits and pieces

Privatized High Speed Rail is out of the question because it is not possible to raise the capital to build and operate such a system in the private sector.

Not really. The Chicago L system (not high speed, but important for the city) was built largely by private investors NOT the City of Chicago. They spent upwards of $1 Million a mile (in 1888, about $24 Million a mile today) to build the system. They got their moneys worth, and made back the cost of construction over the course of many years. Now this was the late 1800's, the age when anything was possible, but maybe its time to believe that once again. Time to stop being greedy and do something for the good of the country, not your pocket book