Private sector investors, who believed strongly there was money there. Wanted to back such an effort. Simply could not convince the railroads, who felt the costs involved were multiples greater. And as already stated, just did not want passenger trains "in the way".
What a disappointment! Sounds like quite an experience, though. It's not exactly the same thing, though, is it? You were looking to add more trains to their traffic, right? This would give them control over all the existing trains on their rails. It would also be an event the news media couldn't avoid covering nationwide.
The only place with comparable population densities and travel distances is in the northeast corridor - and, maybe, California. The existing Acela Express trains, aside from over very limited stretches, can't reach their sustained top speed without a dedicated right-of-way. Califorina is building a new ROW for its high-speed trains. How is that progressing?
It fell flat on its face. Of course, that was awfully ill-conceived. After crossing major mountain ranges three or four times and going from San Francisco to San Diego by way of both L.A. and San Bernardino, it would have had to reach bullet train speeds just to keep up with existing trains routed directly. I believe Acela does have a dedicated right if way. Do they not run on the rails Amtrak actually owns? And you're right about population densities. Indeed, the U.S. has nothing at all to compare to Japan. I don't think competing with air travel is realistic, though I think offering business travelers overnight runs between cities eight or nine hours apart is serving them better than making them get up at four a.m. for an eight thirty arrival. But that comes down to luck; there are only so many cities just that far apart that long haul trains just happen to cross between at night. If there's potential in the U.S. then cruise ships must be the model. One can't exactly put a swimming pool on a train, but there are possibilities for "enhancing the experience" that Amtrak has not bothered with.
Amtrak owns the NEC tracks from DC to just north of NYC and from New Haven CT through RI up to MA. The states of NY, CT and MA own the rest. The ROW was not designed for 150mph+ speeds and much of it is shared with commuter and/or freight trains. Acela Express trains average about 75 mph between DC and NYC and about 65 mph between NYC and Boston. Amtrak's long-term "vision" for NEC service and infrastructure improvements, which would take at least 20 years and an estimated $150B to implement, is described here: http://www.gcpvd.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Amtrak_Amtrak-Vision-for-the-Northeast-Corridor.pdf American Orient Express/American European Express tried operating based upon the cruise ship model for about 20 years and gave up on it about a decade ago. The Coast Starlight and California Zephyr are about as close to that type of service as Amtrak presently offers.
Yes, and Canada has had only middling success at best. But do cruise ships do that much business with people who just want to sail? Or do they do better with the kind of vacationers who, like, actually do want to spend a few days in Jamaica? I say the cruise ship model, but I shouldn't. The origin and destination points do matter. What I'm trying to say is, not every vacationer is in a hurry. I'm not talking about people flying across the country to ride a round trip, and fly back. Air travel has become enough of a hassle that a good alternative could become fashionable for non-business trips. There are too many variables to know if they could become fashionable, of course. And under normal circumstances, the railroads would never make that gamble. But given some equipment (so they're gambling less) and the promise of getting Anthrax off their tracks (that has to be highly motivational), that gamble could start to look worthwhile to them. That Harrison character over at CSX would never have gone for it, even with that to gain. But he was an outlier.
This discussion has not touched on three factors, or if it did I missed it. 1) The US and Canada are much larger than Japan, or European countries. Mississippi (just one state) is larger than all but two European countries. So it has always taken longer to travel between major economic and political centers in our countries than in Europe and Japan. (16 hours between New York and Chicago, then add two nights from Chicago to California.) 2) Our business culture followed shortly by our population as a whole fell in love with airline speed and convenience after WW-II, then we built our Interstates in the mid-1950s which further kept automobile travel more convenient than in the US and Canada. 3) Europe maintained the price of gas 6-8 times higher than the US, more than $6.00/Gallon 50 years ago when it was still only 50 cents in the US. Then the European countries were more reluctant to build "super" highways. Both these factions made owning and driving an automobile a luxury in Europe. This further made rail travel more convenient and less expensive. Given the above as a whole, it isn't surprising that we, US and Canada, flipped the bird to an excellent passenger rail system. Even if US gas prices were raised to $8.00/Gallon and air travel became more of a hassle than it already is, it would take 2-3 generations (50-75 years) for our culture to give up our cars and airplanes.
As already said, it was ill conceived and poorly thought out. Gov. Newsome, but the brakes on and brought it to a halt. It was basically a train from nowhere to nowhere. A route already served by the SJ Valley Amtrak service. Sadly, It's cost the taxpayers dearly as funds for roads have been diverted and redistributed to planning costs. Consequently, roads are suffering what with pot holes, new layers of asphalt having worn down to previous levels. Asphalt coatings and the asphalt they are using is extremely poor since they took the glue out of it. I think I mentioned this earlier but a coastal route (now covered by Amtrak) from San Francisco (as in Bay Area) to Los Angeles would work. A route from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. With no stops in between. Leave that to Amtrak. To be expanded as growth demands. High speed trains through mountains isn't a good idea. Leave that to Amtrak and the scenic routes they now cover. But then that's just me thinking out loud. No idea I've ever had, have I seen to fruition. So excuse me if I yaadye, yaadye on here. I've got to get back to Home Improvement or Tool Time. And, if that's not on then it's the 70's show to see if Fez ever gets any. Local LAFF, because you know you want to. What? What? No I didn't do it again. Sheeez! If that doesn't work-out I'm going to take a drive in my car and see what if any trains are running through town. Oh, for the freedom of the road. Okay, that won't work. So off to the internet to get my Amtrak fix. Why? I'm not crazy about Amtrak, just bored. Oop's Flagstaff is down, no live stream tonight. Okay, then back to see what Fez, is up to or not. Aiiyiiyii !!
This is a huge factor, constantly overlooked. The size of the county where I reside is larger than a few countries. Given the lack of density, of our rail networks, as an alternate, such a price range would only hamstring so much of our nation. And thinking it might force construction of new lines, would not work, either. Given those lengthy battles with nimbys, outright costs...
... not to mention environmental impact studies. One wonders, if those studies were required long ago, just how many rail lines would (not) have been built given that most of them so closely paralleled watercourses.
How much money does a railroad earn running a freight train versus running a passenger train? I've watched enough European cab ride videos to note that European freight trains are much smaller and the distance between terminals much less. Europe can run small, fast freights that play well with passenger trains because the entire rail system has been optimized for that operation. American railroads are optimized to efficiently haul massive amounts of freight much longer distances. Even when passenger trains are given highest priority by dispatchers, the passenger train schedules can't avoid delays caused by moving larger, slower freight trains out of the way for passenger trains. Both trains are adversely impacted by that encounter. At one time rail passenger was viable until highways and airlines made it obsolete. I would eagerly salute anyone who can MAGA passenger trains.
That is why most passenger trains had gone away, a decade and more before Amtrak. They were money losers. For example, taken altogether Milwaukee Road's services starting losing money after about 1929. (I have the data, but am not going to move mountains of boxes...) Thereafter, only one or two years during WWII, (c.1943-1944), did they earn a profit. After c.1944, they were again money losers. Their most profitable lines, those services out of Chicago, were not even worth keeping. Hence the reason Metra (government) owns those massive money losing operations today. In fact, if I have correctly read their National Network 2019 funding numbers, the money loss (the call it a "shortfall") for Metra, this year will exceed what Amtrak requested for all of 2019. (Not counting the billions requested to modernize Metra.) Maybe it is time to scrap Metra.....? Hmm. Where is the outcry for that?
We appear to have gone full circle. So... this discussion ends where it started. As to the future of passenger trains on freight railroads: My crystal ball has never given me much in the way of a heads up. I presume it doesn't work. The future will be what we make it but what is it we want? And that's where it gets difficult as none of us can agree on one thing. We all bring to the table a variety of ideas and thoughts on the subject. Which is viewed in some circles as a good thing and in other circles not welcomed. Making it next to impossible to please all of us at the same time. I'm at a point in my life that anything I want to do, is on borrowed money and borrowed time. Not the most comfortable place to be. So for you or major investors, to depend on me to be the catalyst, the purchaser of traveling tickets is almost out of the question. The last trip I was able to pay for was a U-haul truck to...of all places...Nampa, Idaho. Proving to be less then...well... anything I was hoping it would be. More on this over at BarstowRick Moves to Nampa, ID., here on TB. Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It was an interesting discussion. A sampling of thinking from the past, as well as the future. Passenger trains and where they fit in is still a question that's up in the air. From my perspective: There is a brain teasing kind of brainwashing going on not just in America but around the globe. It suggests a better world... . Are we really ready for that? As for the present: I'd love to be able to travel by train. To have all my needs taken care of. To take side trips to see things I've never had the privilege of seeing in person. Yeah, I heard you and everyone else in the same predicament. Only in my dreams, perhaps my collection of videos and if I'm lucky...on the internet. I can only hope the future is brighter. Optimism was never my suet. If the past is any indicator of our future... I wouldn't bet on that.
Hytec, is absolutely right on all of these points as are others. Passenger trains are great in the Northeast areas. Where owning a car and driving it in some of those cites is crazy. But here in California we love our cars and the freedom they give. We will pay 4-6 dollars a gallon for gas, sit in hours of traffic, and all the other cost it takes to own and drive our cars. Opening up high speed train or even more passenger train routes will not change that at all. And it really does not matter what the government or the railroads did in the past. Passenger service in a whole only works and makes sense in the Northeast. IMO
I would utilize a rail service, if it corresponded to my needs much better than presently offered. As is, outside of commuter routes, a person loses their personal life in those once per day schedules most routes supply. I must comply with somebody else's design, hope it is on time and then when I arrive at the appointed destination, usually kill (waste) precious hours until what must be done occurs. In a service business, which is what passenger rail is, that is an inconvenience. So, I drive. I can stay home longer and when I arrive am not forced to wile away time better served doing something else. Also, when I arrive, more quickly, I am not tied into costs for renting or otherwise paying for rubber tired transport- rail rarely coming close to where I am required to be.... Thus driving is also cheaper. Hmmm. Faster, cheaper, more convenient to simply drive. Passenger rail loses the battle.
I consider myself extremely fortunate, and probably almost unique during my last ten working years, 1987-1997. Every couple of months I had meetings at our Washington office in Arlington, VA and at our sister division in College Park, MD. I'd board the Crescent in Slidell, LA at 8 AM, get off in Alexandria, VA at 9:00 the next morning, two Metro stops, and be in our office by 9:30. For College Park meetings, I'd catch a Metro in the basement, change trains in D.C., and get off in College Park about 30 minutes later, an easy walk to the facility. The return Crescent left Washington Union Station at 6:30 in the evening and arrive back in Slidell at 4:30 the next afternoon. The round trip cost was $750 including the sleeper. The airline alternative required two nights in Arlington hotels due to inconvenient airline schedules through Atlanta. That cost would have been $1650, including the hotels. I would have two traveling (non-work) days either way. Actually I worked in the roomette, when not staring out the window.
Let's look at the same situation today. On its present schedule, the northbound Crescent arrives in Alexandria at 9:30AM instead of 9:00AM, but we'll consider that difference to be acceptable. Round-trip fare in a Viewliner Roomette costs just over $1,000. You still end up spending two days away from the office while in transit. Flights from NOLA don't arrive in DC quite early enough to permit a same-day round-trip. However, you could fly in the evening before and then stay over for one night. There are evening return flights from DC to NOLA. Cheapest airfare is about $250 for a round-trip. Business travel grade hotel rooms are available for $100-150. So, the trip by air can now be accomplished for about $400 - and with no work days lost to travel.
Your analysis is valid with a few caveats. My MS office was in Ocean Springs and I lived in Gulfport. To catch an early morning flight from MSY would require me leaving home about 4:00, and fighting I10/610 congestion. Flight schedules from either GPT or MOB were not conducive to one day trips. I don't know what room rates in Crystal City are currently, but the rates you mention were not accessible twenty years ago without a car or a very long walk. Besides I enjoy riding trains, have since the late 1930s. My co-managers, and VP in CA had no problem with it. A few co-managers and some employees even took the train with me and said they had never had such a relaxing enjoyable trip. Sadly, today's Crescent's time-keeping due to NS freight traffic congestion would not support the convenience I enjoyed twenty years ago.
When I was just old enough to start driving, my family drove from DC to Montana. 4 years later, we took the train for the exact same trip. Much less stress the second time. I also spent a lot of time travelling on the Northeast Corridor going to college, before I owned a car. Fast forward a few decades, and we just took a train from DC to the Big E train show, rather than drive. Actually, a very pleasant trip, but nothing like the Capitol Limited of decades before. I hope to take the Autotrain to Florida soon. Having driven to Florida and back as a young lad, sometimes alone and sometimes with ride-sharing classmates, I just don't like the strain of such a long trip, now that I have aged. The Autotrain seems to be a good idea that is not being copied. The B&O did the same thing as an experiment back in the 1960s (I think), but it did not catch on. These days, it just seems like it would sell a lot better with all of the limitations being imposed on airline travel. Being able to pack all of your vacation toys in a vehicle and having that vehicle to drive around at your destination sure seems a lot better than having to pack a limited amount of stuff and rent the rest when you get there.
