Virgin Trains in America?

[PJAMA]

I keep on seeing these ads on television for Virgin Airlines America, and I want to know: Will they ever bring Virgin Train service to America? I think they should because Joseph Boardman and Sir Richard Brandson could put more money into our railroads; Mr. Brandson is a tycoon in Communications and Transportation, so why not? Maybe It'll create competition between Amtrak and Virgin Trains America and establish new routes, along with Pendolinos running the NEC, and the Super Voyagers running the Keystone Corridor, maybe even refurbishing Pullman/Budd cars into Virgin paint schemes like VIA Rail did with their remaining historic cars for sleeper services. They could even refurbish some old PRR trains into their old selves again, and do fan trips. Who knows? Maybe Virgin Trains America would be cheaper, and run better than Amtrak.

I can see it already... Super Voyager entering Harrisburg Station on the Keystone Service. :udrool:

So, what's your opinion on this?

 

[RooRocz]

Virgin Trains would have to either buy up existing rail-lines (expensive, freight railroads probably wouldn't go for this) or build entirely new lines (even on abandoned ROW, ludicrously expensive, also NIMBYs will be NIMBYs.). Virgin Trains would then have to comply with ridiculous FRA safety regulations (a 50-year old Budd streamliner is clearly safer than a Pendolino because it weighs more, right?) and probably buy entirely new rolling stock, likely custom-made. Virgin Trains would then have to increase service to be competitive with freeways (easy in some areas, like the Northeast, the urban part of the Midwest, crowded parts of California, etc., but coincidentally these are also the places where it would be most expensive to build new infrastructure.)

I can't see Virgin Trains setting up shop in the US and making a profit. Our rail network is far too antiquated for a private organization to even take a look at reinstating convenient, competitive, and quick passenger rail service, which is why the government is probably going to have to do it in the end.

 

[leeferr]

Virgin Trains would have to either buy up existing rail-lines (expensive, freight railroads probably wouldn't go for this) or build entirely new lines (even on abandoned ROW, ludicrously expensive, also NIMBYs will be NIMBYs.). Virgin Trains would then have to comply with ridiculous FRA safety regulations (a 50-year old Budd streamliner is clearly safer than a Pendolino because it weighs more, right?) and probably buy entirely new rolling stock, likely custom-made. Virgin Trains would then have to increase service to be competitive with freeways (easy in some areas, like the Northeast, the urban part of the Midwest, crowded parts of California, etc., but coincidentally these are also the places where it would be most expensive to build new infrastructure.)

I can't see Virgin Trains setting up shop in the US and making a profit. Our rail network is far too antiquated for a private organization to even take a look at reinstating convenient, competitive, and quick passenger rail service, which is why the government is probably going to have to do it in the end.

I'd have to agree with you 100%. In fact, I was going to post almost the same thing. Virgin Trains would most assuredly have to acquire new right of ways (probably an EPA impossibility) or reach agreements with existing lines to run over their rails (again probably an impossibility without gov't intervention which isn't likely). The airlines thing is a little easier since once the plane enters airspace, there are no rails or associated infrastructure to own and maintain. Just setup the route with the FAA, pay the associated fees, pass the required tests and inspections, and you're off to the wild blue yonder.

Mike

 

[PJAMA]

I'd have to agree with you 100%. In fact, I was going to post almost the same thing. Virgin Trains would most assuredly have to acquire new right of ways (probably an EPA impossibility) or reach agreements with existing lines to run over their rails (again probably an impossibility without gov't intervention which isn't likely). The airlines thing is a little easier since once the plane enters airspace, there are no rails or associated infrastructure to own and maintain. Just setup the route with the FAA, pay the associated fees, pass the required tests and inspections, and you're off to the wild blue yonder.

Mike

This is true. But the problem with me and flying is that, I've never been anywhere by plane before because I'm scared of flying. Another agony about flying is the TSA, who will make you take your shoes & socks off, and keep all your liquids under 3oz. I understand this is for our own safety due to 9/11 paranoia & extremism, but come on! Amtrak goes very easy on security with it's own unique system of dogs and officers patrolling stations along with random bag checks. Can't the Airport have the same-style security as Amtrak's?

Also Amtrak shares track with other freight railroads like Norfolk Southern, CSX, Union Pacific, and BNSF; Why can't Virgin Trains do the same? I'm not just talking about Hi-Speed everywhere in the United States, I'm talking about affordable long-distance sleeper services from New York Penn Station and 30th Street Station to perhaps Las Vegas, San Diego, Houston, or Seattle. Also Virgin Trains America could do high speed services to Harrisburg if they adjusted the Gauge of a Super-Voyager to Standard Gauge and sturdy the Concrete Ties, maybe do trial runs. I'm not talking about new equipment, I'm talking about them refurbishing equipment that can be put to good use. Not only would this benefit the economy and conditions of our railroads, it will also create jobs.

But if this never comes to be, I can always live out the fantasies of Virgin Trains America in Trainz. I'll show off some reskins later...

- Paul

 

[sawyer811]

Virgin Trains would have to either buy up existing rail-lines (expensive, freight railroads probably wouldn't go for this) or build entirely new lines (even on abandoned ROW, ludicrously expensive, also NIMBYs will be NIMBYs.). Virgin Trains would then have to comply with ridiculous FRA safety regulations (a 50-year old Budd streamliner is clearly safer than a Pendolino because it weighs more, right?) I can't see Virgin Trains setting up shop in the US and making a profit. Our rail network is far too antiquated for a private organization to even take a look at reinstating convenient, competitive, and quick passenger rail service, which is why the government is probably going to have to do it in the end.

I'd have to agree with you 100%. In fact, I was going to post almost the same thing. Virgin Trains would most assuredly have to acquire new right of ways (probably an EPA impossibility) or reach agreements with existing lines to run over their rails (again probably an impossibility without gov't intervention which isn't likely). The airlines thing is a little easier since once the plane enters airspace, there are no rails or associated infrastructure to own and maintain. Just setup the route with the FAA, pay the associated fees, pass the required tests and inspections, and you're off to the wild blue yonder.

Mike

and that is how it should be. the day I see one of those @$$ ugly Pendolinos riding on U.S. rails is the day I jump in front of a speeding Pendolino God, in all his wisdom, granted the U.S. the beauty of the 4-6-2, 4-6-4, 4-8-4, the E-unit, and the PA-unit as proper motive power for pulling proper passenger trains.

This is true. But the problem with me and flying is that, I've never been anywhere by plane before because I'm scared of flying. Another agony about flying is the TSA, who will make you take your shoes & socks off, and keep all your liquids under 3oz. I understand this is for our own safety due to 9/11 paranoia & extremism, but come on! Amtrak goes very easy on security with it's own unique system of dogs and officers patrolling stations along with random bag checks. Can't the Airport have the same-style security as Amtrak's?

- Paul

Really? I've been flying all my life: At this point I probably should just get my own Boeing 707...actually, make that a Lockeed L-1049G Constellation :hehe:

PS, the Acela is ugly enough...DON'T make the NEC look any worse.

 

[leeferr]

Paul, I can appreciate your point of view, but you need to take off those rose colored glasses. You can't legitimately compare Amtrak to a completely independantly owned passenger rail service, or are you suggesting that the govn't subsidize privately owned passenger service also. Can't see that happening where there's so much controversy in the federal budget about Amtrak's subsidies.

It's all about business and turning a profit. The vast expanse of the U.S. makes profitable rail service an almost impossibility except in very densly populated areas such as the Eastern Seaboard and possibly the West coast. It's really a poor comparison to pit airlines against rail. The parameters and business models are completely different. Comparing the security problems of air vs. rail is also misleading. The problems are quite different. The romance of riding the rails is in most of us railfans, but railfans alone won't pay the bills. I doubt that very many airline passengers are real 'air' fans, but air travel fulfills their basic needs. You certainly can't be on the east coast in the morning and on the west coast in the afternoon by rail. In today's business world, time is money, as it always has been.

Mike

 

[PJAMA]

@sawyer811 @leeferr thanks for your points of view. Well, at least someone can dream...

- Paul

 

[leeferr]

That's okay Paul. Dreams are what keep us going sometimes and there's nothing wrong with that. Just trying to point out a few simple things. I'll guarantee one thing about American business. If there was a profit to be made in it, someone would be doing it.

Mike

 

[RooRocz]

This is true. But the problem with me and flying is that, I've never been anywhere by plane before because I'm scared of flying. Another agony about flying is the TSA, who will make you take your shoes & socks off, and keep all your liquids under 3oz. I understand this is for our own safety due to 9/11 paranoia & extremism, but come on! Amtrak goes very easy on security with it's own unique system of dogs and officers patrolling stations along with random bag checks. Can't the Airport have the same-style security as Amtrak's?

Also Amtrak shares track with other freight railroads like Norfolk Southern, CSX, Union Pacific, and BNSF; Why can't Virgin Trains do the same? I'm not just talking about Hi-Speed everywhere in the United States, I'm talking about affordable long-distance sleeper services from New York Penn Station and 30th Street Station to perhaps Las Vegas, San Diego, Houston, or Seattle. Also Virgin Trains America could do high speed services to Harrisburg if they adjusted the Gauge of a Super-Voyager to Standard Gauge and sturdy the Concrete Ties, maybe do trial runs. I'm not talking about new equipment, I'm talking about them refurbishing equipment that can be put to good use. Not only would this benefit the economy and conditions of our railroads, it will also create jobs.

But if this never comes to be, I can always live out the fantasies of Virgin Trains America in Trainz. I'll show off some reskins later...

- Paul

Sure, Virgin Trains could share tracks with the freight railroads. Then instead of the Supercheif (or whatever half-assed name Amtrak is calling it these days) being stuck behind a 3/4th mile long 10mph coal drag, it'd be a Pendolino. Service quality would be terrible, and no one would ride it.

Also, the issue with running European rolling stock in America isn't gauge, it's weight. FRA safety regulations are based entirely on weight (because heavy == safe, right? you've never seen anything go wrong on a heavy thing, have you?) so imagine the performance of a Pendolino + 20% more weight on each car.

It'd be a money-losing venture, the railroad would go bankrupt in months. It'd be a far better investment to fund new Midwest Hub regional routes out of Chicago and the California HSR route.

 

[paulzmay]

Actually, I'd imagine that Richard Branson is just waiting for an invitation to tender for the operation of California's HSR network... I suspect that the CA government will put the whole job out to a consortium who will design, build, operate and maintain. Virgin Trains would be a quite likely member of such a bidding consortium.

I agree with the other posters that there's no money in running long slow services on freight lines, and the payback periods are too long for most private companies to build their own infrastructure.

Bear in mind when comparing the economics of air travel, most airports the world over have been built with public money. There's no real reason why passenger railroads can't be built the same way, with operators paying the government to use it. IF the journey is time competitive by rail, it can secure a big enough market share to make some money.

Paul

 

[ShadyCadence]

IF the journey is time competitive by rail, it can secure a big enough market share to make some money.

Aye, there's the rub. Even if the TSA delays people for three hours everywhere, flying will still be faster. This fact makes air travel the MOST popular means of traveling large distances, which is why public money goes toward airports and there's no outcry against it. Get rail into the 300-400mph range and it has a shot at competing. (so long as you can guarantee nothing will get in the way) It works in Europe because countries are the size of our states, and they laid out the infrastructure years ago.

 

[paulzmay]

Aye, there's the rub. Even if the TSA delays people for three hours everywhere, flying will still be faster. This fact makes air travel the MOST popular means of traveling large distances, which is why public money goes toward airports and there's no outcry against it. Get rail into the 300-400mph range and it has a shot at competing. (so long as you can guarantee nothing will get in the way) It works in Europe because countries are the size of our states, and they laid out the infrastructure years ago.

True, but all of the true high speed services are largely on new infrastructure. The USA is unlikely to get a national HSR network, but there are plenty of pairs or groups of large cities that are under 500 miles apart (i.e. easy for a 3hr journey time). HSR can be made substantially more attractive than current flying arrangements, and give a choice between downtown and edge-of-town stations.

Paul

 

[ShadyCadence]

Unfortunately, there are too many environmental groups that are hypersensitive about anything being built anywhere near something "sensitive", which lately has come to include a recurring wet spot in your yard. Impact studies alone will drive up cost and reduce appeal, not to mention the vilification campaign which will surely manifest itself.

Money is currently thin to keep running what we have. I just don't see multi-billion dollar projects "flying" right now. (pardon the pun)

 

[Deano5]

and that is how it should be. the day I see one of those @$$ ugly Pendolinos riding on U.S. rails is the day I jump in front of a speeding Pendolino God, in all his wisdom, granted the U.S. the beauty of the 4-6-2, 4-6-4, 4-8-4, the E-unit, and the PA-unit as proper motive power for pulling proper passenger trains.



Really? I've been flying all my life: At this point I probably should just get my own Boeing 707...actually, make that a Lockeed L-1049G Constellation :hehe:

PS, the Acela is ugly enough...DON'T make the NEC look any worse.

And just how is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_express so very different from the Pendo? Appart from the obvious that is. I would say you need to go jump in front of this almost Pendo as promised :hehe:

 

[Quetzocuatl]

Uh, I just saw a picture of what you were talking about. The Pendolino is far from ugly. I'm just saying.

 

[Paulsw2]

Ask a few people in the UK what they think about Virgin Trains, then decide whether you really want it in the US!

Paul (standing all the way to Glasgow)

 

[rjhowie]

Well at least you were arriving here in Glasgow (!). More coaches are obviously needed. I dare say there are unhappy passengers but there are also others where there is a reasonable satisfaction and we do have a national passenger railway. Likewise the number of passengers continues to rocket and even more than during the interrupted years of Nationalisation. Rail travel has always been the butt of jokes and we should remember the jokes about British Rail buffets and indeed the constant complaints about BR.Although increasing passengers is always good news it has caused overcrowding and in some places saturation points. But we do have a modern system and modern trains and track tends to be in good shape. America has a shadow of what once was and much track seems to be not that great either with goods trains being the income provider and over here the opposite.

 

[TorenHynes]

All you'd have to do to make passenger trains a lot faster in Canada and the US is make all trunk lines double-tracked.

 

[H222]

Soo... Double the cost of a single-tracked line?

Jamie

 

[pfx]

Making comparisons between the US and UK rail systems is completely pointless, since they are so completely different both operationally and geographically.

It would take more than just making the trains faster in the US. Without some evidence of a return, the massive investment just isn't going to happen if left to the private sector. Similarly, while the UK government invest in HS2, it is somewhat short-sighted considering the state of the existing infrastructure which is what severly limits improvements to capacity/reliability.