Posted on 05/29/2012 9:17:57 AM PDT by Feline_AIDS
Alternate title for this post:
Dreams from My Freightcar: A Story of Pace and Incompetence
1. Why can't private passenger trains operate like plane companies?
2. Why don't we rip up some old tracks and turn them into true high-speed elevated rail that travels at 500 kilometers/hr?
3. Why is Amtrack, as it is now, so inefficient and crappy when train transportation is supposedly so efficient (CSX's 430+miles/gallon fuel)
4. There seems to be an inverse relationship of luxury to efficiency. Plane travel is torture, but it's efficient. Train travel could be luxurious since it's not fuel inefficient, but is time inefficient. Why is this ratio not considered for leisure travel? In other words, weight doesn't seem like it should be a serious consideration in train travel like it is in air travel, so why don't we have palatial luxury compartments? Is there a limit to the length of a passenger train?
5. Is Amtrack not as bad as I think it is? (All I know is I thought maybe I'd take a train on a leisure trip, but found the prices were outrageous, at least compared to flying.)
You are on to something there. If I want to take the train to visit relatives in Virginia, I've got to be at the station at 4:30 AM. Plus, there are no parking facilities at the station!
Unbelievable.
Would all rail passenger advocates and mass transit advocates please pay their own way? I am tired of subsidizing their sentimentality and other whims.
So off the bat, you've eliminated most of the country for being viable for rail.
Now, Amtrak already owns the real estate for the NE Corridor. It would be vastly expensive for another company to create a new corridor.
So basically by default, you have a monopoly situation for the train corridor in the NE. And the fedgov, for once in its life, would have to do a realistic assessment of the most cost-effective means of running that corridor, and whether it would be cost-effective to convert it to high-speed rail. Given how nutso they have gotten with hi-speed rail projects in other parts of the country, I ain't holding my breath.
Recommend the Starlight between LA and Seattle, along the Pacific coast, as the one I like best so far.
Willie got the ZOT after basically showing that he was pushing the U.N. Agenda 21.
That is, he was a troll.
I’m with you, and I’m one of those sentimentalists. I think there’s a luxury tour potential with train travel—but it’s too regulated. Wish it could be privatized, because I think it’d either become a lot more fun *or* go out of business entirely.
“Simple answer- AMTRAK is a Government-Run Company.”
Actually, Amtrak is a private company (heavily regulated) that relies on funding from the government. Kind of like the Post Office.
I spent considerable time from 1981 until 2012 running their locomotives.... (ran freight and commuter, too)
But just in case the marketplace would have supported private passenger service, the government included a provision in the 1971 law prohibiting any private company from operating service over any route operated by Amtrak. Almost all major inter-city routes would require use of the same track as Amtrak for at least some distance.
A notable exception is the Florida East Coast Railroad. This company was in the middle of breaking a 14 year long strike when Amtrak was formed and although it serves every city on Florida's east coast, Amtrak stays off of it. The company announced a couple of months ago that it would re-enter the passenger business as early as 2014.
That claim was 430 miles / gallon per ton of cargo* A single box car can carry up to 100 tons.
If a truck is hauling 25 tons of cargo at 5 mpg, that turns into 125 mpg per ton, which isn't quite as efficient as a train but isn't too shabby.
*(or it might have been gross ton including the cars' tare weight)
. . . and the employees belong to a Union. Enough said.
Agreed.
You are so correct, put that man in a muscle car and he moans with joy.
When we drive a car on a long trip, don’t we use highways that get gazillions in federal/state funding from a number of alphabet-soup government agencies to buld and maintain them? And then when we fly, don’t we rely on government funds to build airports, maintain the air traffic control system and enforce safety requirements and pay for TSA grope-downs? Why then are we whining about funding to run passenger trains? Without trucks full of bucks from Uncle Sugar, could the airlines even stay in business? Would there be any highway without a high-cost toll? When we accept that we can rarely travel without some sort of subsidization, we can get closer to admiring Amtrak for doing as much much as they do with less than they need to provide as much as we have now. Remember 9/11 when planes were grounded? Amtrak still ran, even though there weren’t enough cars to really handle the load. If we don’t learn from history, we’re bound to repeat it.
They've even done that in Japan versus the Japanese rail system, which kicks butt, probably the most efficient in the world, and the public transportation system still lost. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
I just happened to have the TV on to Vacation Homes and they are showing a private rail car. Amtrac charges $250 for hooking up to a train and $1.75 a mile.
Passenger service was offset in the early settling of the West when rail companies ran mixed trains of heavy and light weight freight and passenger and also had U.S. Mail service. Trains at that time delivered goods to a town where the train station was the focal point of activity. Plus they delivered future customers for those goods.
Trains with mixed light weight freight and passenger consists were also used until the late 1050's with Railway Express and other front-end revenue cars adding revenue to subsidize the passenger business.
When roads and airplanes improved to reduce the time-in-transit of travel, and door-to-door delivery of goods, services and people, the passenger rail business joined the buggy whip industry in the history books and folklore of the US.
All travel is made with regard to convenience and cost. Both are sorely lacking in the Amtrack or any other passenger rail business model. Which is why no private company will venture very deeply into that shallow revenue stream. Additionally; passenger trains require approximately one employee per revenue car, six employees for every dining car, and two engineers for the motive power on consists that are usually about 15, 85-foot long, revenue cars. Whereas freight trains might require two engineers for 100 car consists where each 50-foot long car is generating between $6,000 and $12,000 in revenue. Plus, freight doesn't complain if the train is too hot, too cold, food lousy, seats uncomfortable, etc.
The only train travel I would consider is one of sightseeing where the train trip is the vacation.
A friend clued me into the American Association of Private Rail Car Owners. Click here for their Website.
They hook up to the ends of Amtrack trains and have 5 star dining, elegant staterooms and observation cars with attendants to serve beverages, etc. It is akin to going on a cruise. But without the seasickness patch and the all too often outbreak of illness onboard ships. And if the train is delayed, your vacation just got extended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.