Fixing Amtrak

>>1050512
>Cut up the national network into six regions and create a separate operating company for each
>Cut off federal funding
>Place bets to see which of the six regions go under first and which survive
>Heavily invest in demolition and metal scrapping companies for no reason in particular
>????????
>Profit!

Alright, I have extreme autism and I love Amtrak. So I decided to put some thought to this question myself, and created a cost-recovery by route spreadsheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S4zlhla4ynXFSdXYeAGJLZUJcmAtpWrK0gHApU5X1Lw/edit?usp=sharing

Some things to note.

1. If the Long Distance routes didn't exist, Amtrak would make about $40,000,000 per year, BEFORE state subsidies for the state-supported routes.

2. Having done this two years in a row, I can tell you that the reason the Wolverine is so fucking expensive is because Amtrak owns those tracks directly and are upgrading them to higher speeds.

3. The Auto Train makes money, just like Australian long-distance trains do because it completely solves the last mile problem. Most people wouldn't mind paying another 500 or so on a ticket if it meant avoiding having to rent a car.

4. The routes branching off the NEC either make money or come pretty damn close.

5. The routes in the Southeast are actually less wasteful than you'd imagine, proving that demand exists in the South. This bodes very well for All Aboard Florida. The obvious choice for them once they start making a profit on the Miami-Orlando segment is to go Orlando-Jacksonville-Atlanta.

Amtrak has been demanding that Congress fund upgrades to the system, and more tellingly that Congress subsidize the true cost of the Long-Distance routes as opposed to making the profitable NEC pay for it. What this tells me is that Amtrak is preparing to go private relatively soon. As it is, they are improving their fare-recovery by about 3% per year, give or take. If they dropped a few Long Distance routes and used the equipment to reinforce the state corridors, they could survive tomorrow. So how do you improve it?

Firstly: Trains need to be competitive by offering a service that airplanes cannot. Specifically, trains can carry cars via auto train. This is how it is done in Australia, and they make money. Imagine if Chicago were the gateway to the entire midwest, as opposed to just...Chicago. Imagine if instead of having to pay for airfare and a car rental and hotels along the way, plus meals, you could take the train and then cruise around at your destination by car? Los Angeles and all the other big western cities are laid out for cars, this would be ideal for them.

Secondly, split off Amtrak California and let it sink. BNSF and Union Pacific overcharge Amtrak significantly, causing the cost per passenger to be some of the highest in the entire roster. California truly is the biggest waste of existence in this country, I wish the Oreville dam washes the entire thing into the ocean.

Thirdly, partner with All Aboard Florida. If AAF works out, this could be the beginning of a passenger rail boom. Cancel the Silver Service to Miami. This will save tons of money and time they currently spend backtracking from Tampa to Orlando.

Fourthly, shake down the Western states for funds or abandon what western routes can't be solved by turning them into auto trains. Congress controls Amtrak, if this continues it will eventually kill it. Becoming an independent, private entity is absolutely critical.

>>1050523
amtrak's only reason to exist outside of the state-funded corridors [eg., northeast corridor, chi-mke, et al] is the long distance trains.

its a public service. it doesn't have to make money. public transportation doesn't make money anyway, nor should it.

amtk's problem is that nobody wants to arrive at their destination 4 hours late, and at 2:45 am.

File: coast_starlight03.jpg (76KB, 620x381px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 620x381px

>>1050512

>Go back to the pointless arrow logo
>Reinstitute Phase I paint scheme on ALL Amtrak rolling stock
>Negotiate with city of San Francisco to reinstate the Coast Daylight service (this was once one of the most profitable train routes in the U.S.). This could be covered by either axing the Starlight service past San Jose and transferring passengers to the Daylight from there
>Expand Autotrain service with more destinations (Chicago, New York, New Orleans)
>Reinstate Sunset Limited service to Florida for a true coast-to-coast route (Maybe it could be combined with the Autotrain service in Sanford, thus allowing passengers to ride from coast to coast with their car).
>Begin research into replacing aging Genesis series locomotives and Superliner/Amfleet rolling stock. Preferably with something resembling the classic streamliner design (bulldog nose, dome/observation cars, etc.), but can be run at high speed.
>Spread fake news on internet and television on the dangers of the deteriorating Interstate Highway System and that taking the train is safer
>Negotiate with Class I railroads to begin updating their track for high speed service in exchange for tax breaks/subsidies
>Contract Rohr to begin producing improved Turboliners (increased speed, reliability, fuel efficiency, etc.) for use on commuter routes outside of NEC for the purpose of running high speed routes outside of the electrified Northeast (as much as we may circlejerk to electrifying all American railroads, it probably won't happen in our lifetimes).
>Gradually replace conventional rolling stock with Turboliners for all services outside of long distance (i.e. overnight) trains. Resurrect commuter routes that were axed on or prior to Amtrak's formation such as the Powhatan Arrow, City of St. Louis, Crusader, and Nancy Hanks, running them with Turboliners
>inb4 costs

You didn't say we needed to operate on a budget

File: Amtrak RTG Turboliner.jpg (439KB, 1024x755px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1024x755px

>>1050550

Forgot one

>Extend Amtrak service to ALL major American cities (San Francisco, Las Vegas, Louisville, Columbus, Tulsa, Augusta, Phoenix, etc.) in some form or another. There is no reason why major American cities should lack service on the NATIONAL passenger rail carrier.

File: Empire Builder.jpg (939KB, 1554x1004px) Image search: [Google]

939KB, 1554x1004px

>>1050550

This one's purely aesthetic/not very cost effective but I'll throw it in anyway since one of the biggest complaints about Amtrak apart from the usual (late trains, ineffeciency, stolen baggage etc.) is it's uniformity and loss of refined culture. As in all the trains are basically the same no matter where you are.

>Change the names of long distance trains back to a famous one that preceded it(i.e. the Southwest Chief becomes the Super Chief again, Lake Shore Limited is split into the Broadway/20th Century Limited on the New York route). Amtrak already owns several rights to historic names such as the City of New Orleans and many of the railroads that held such names have long since ceased to exist so copyright shouldn't be much of a problem.
>Repaint the locomotives and rolling stock in the colors and logos of the predecessor railroad that ran it (sky blue/green/black and orange for the Empire Builder, red, yellow, and silver for the Super Chief, orange,white and black for the California Zephyr, brown red and orange, grey and white for the 20th Century Limited etc.)
>Add a unique element to each service (elaborate menu based on the original train's offering, observation/dome cars based on the original train's, renovated interiors in different colors, region-based performances and music shows, etc.)

This one's definitely not economical but would be fun to see

>Rebuild diesel locomotives to resemble the old streamlined steam locomotives that ran on those historic routes (Hudsons on the 20th Century Limited, Class A on the Hiawatha, J Class for the Pelican/Crescent)

>>1050556
It's a neat idea, but in practice wouldn't it just end up being a return to the rainbow era once rolling stock inevitably gets shuffled around? Like isn't the idea of a uniform scheme so that like a Superliner can arrive in Seattle on the Coast Starlight, and the next day head out on the Empire Builder?

>>1050551
oooh this is a good one. All cities with more than X inhabitants should be connected by Amtrak, and maybe all state capitals as well, something like that.

>>1050527
this nigga right here understands.

>>1050556
im the opposite, I think to save cost and make the UX of the service more satisfying, it should be more appealingly uniform with a simplified naming structure based on location.

airlines did this because its fucking dumb to have a different name for every line you're one.

A simple oneword or alphanumeric system of train designation by trip helps both ticket takers and passengers. Just update the aesthetic the way virgin Airlines did and you're golden.

I love traditionalism as much as the next shmuck but theres a reason Applefying shit helps sell and increase profits.

>>1050516
We JR now

>>1050512
1) split the network into different regions since the US is varied enough geographically that it can be treated as different countries and a have business model for each region.

2) start buying the ROW for extremely unused or abandoned rail lines so they can be upgraded for potential passenger lines in the future and not having the be at the whim of freight trains similar to what AAF has done with brightline.

3) offer more holiday/event trains due partly to the unexpected success of the Denver ski train.

4) get a highly effective advertisement to sway people into riding the train, if theirs any brits in the thread I'm talking about some "This is the Age of the Train" type shit only without the pedophile.

5) wifi on all rolling stock.

6) upgrade the NEC so trains go go there max speed.

Most of these will probably never happen but i have a small bit of hope that the current CEO will make Amtrak a little better (at lest more than the last guy), hell he already lined out some key projects there going to do in the next few years
>Construction of the Portal North Bridge and new Hudson Tunnels, both parts of the larger Gateway Program that will ensure that 450 daily Amtrak and NJ Transit trains can continue to serve New York City from the south;
>Construction of new B&P Tunnel and Susquehanna Bridge in Maryland to expand service and improve trip-time;
>Expansion and improvement of Chicago and Washington Union Stations to improve accessibility, expand capacity, spur local development and enhance safety;
>Construction of fleet of new or rebuilt diesel locomotives to support Amtrak’s National Network; and
>Construction of track, signaling, and other improvements to remove choke points on our host railroads or restore service in key undeserved markets, like along the Gulf Coast.

First, implement a system where each station has its own on-time performance rating so on-time rates can no longer be artificially deflated and give proper run times so even if the trips take longer people get to their destinations on time, no longer giving first-time riders terrible impressions. This information would be available public ally in a similar system to Amtrak's current OTP data.

Second, be very aggressive when it comes to eliminating delays and excessive run times. This could be done by upgrading track speeds, moving to new ROWs, even if it means skipping or moving stops in extreme circumstances, or even building a new single track exclusively for Amtrak trains, and having the trains run on that track, using passing sidings where trains are scheduled to meet.

For any non-long distance route with high reliability, ditch the Amtrak branding since it's associated with unreliability and inconvenience in most people's minds.

Be much more lenient with carry-on bags or vastly expand checked baggage service so that people can actually take luggage with them, which would increase attractiveness.

On medium distance corridors (MSP-Chicago, Omaha-Chicago) run trains multiple times a day (i.e. 4) where warranted to be competitive with services that offer more flexibility. Also greatly expand medium-distance services since there are many corridors (like the ones above) lack said service.

>>1050698
On short distance corridors run trains at least every two hours, and on corridors with high potential (Milwaukee-Chicago, Albany-NYP) at least hourly. Possibly run these as extensions of the commuter rail systems (being called METRA and Metro-North respectively, and operating commuter rail equipment but with a bit more amenities such as outlets and wi-fi (this last part is not preferred but may need to be done for cost issues). These would still be run by Amtrak, but again, would not use the Amtrak branding, so instead of using a third, alternative branding, it would just use the commuter system's instead. If we go down this route, then try to make deals with the commuter agency where their fare system is valid on said trains (like MARC formerly had with Amtrak).

Also start a new, additional, separately branded service that offers extreme-low cost service running with nothing more than used commuter rail cars and no traditional Amtrak amenities. Service would run initially between NYP and DC, making all, or close to all stops, as a trial. If it's not a complete failure, adjust to find an optimal service type (i.e. cars, frequency, stops) before possibly being expanded. When you consider how many Chinatown buses are running on the NEC, you could easily pack a train with competitive fares, and when you have that many people on a single vehicle, the cost to operate would decrease dramatically, to the point where the service can turn a profit. This would not affect current Amtrak service in any way, this being a completely separate entity.

>>1050699
I'd also evaluate each station, and see if it can be moved closer to the CBD (stops like Fulton, KY are ridiculous) and/or have more parking added. Moving stops closer to the CBD is self explanatory, and adding more parking would make Amtrak competitive to air travel, as you'd be able to drive to/from the station, and just leave it there for a week while you go on vacation/visit relatives/whatever.

On Amtrak owned lines, make sure that commuter rail service is not impacting travel times or contributing to delays. If it is, limit the types of service the agency can run (i.e. no semi-expresses, no more than 4TPH between these hours), or offer to contribute a minority share to costs of adding sidings, new tracks, switches, etc.

And of course, making sure that trains are going the highest speed allowed by the track, upgrading the track/catenary if necessary, and making sure the equipment can handle said speeds and actually accelerate properly (compare NJT acceleration to Amtrak acceleration on the NJT, even at the same stop).

And of course of course, running new lines in general (I have some specific ideas) as the more places that are served, the more people will take Amtrak, and the more the public opinion of it grows.

File: sky blue empire builder.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>1050566

Well Amtrak already has dedicated rolling stock for certain routes (Amtrak California, Cascades etc.) so I don't see how that wouldn't work out.

Plus as I mentioned in >>1050550, conventional rolling stock would be phased out from commuter routes and be reserved for long distance routes, which should cut down on the need for shuffling.

>>1050575

Except Applefying is one of the reasons long distance service is a money drain. They don't sell enough tickets.

Remember, commuter service doesn't sell to the same crowd as overnight service. If anything the loss of individual identity caused revenues on long distance passenger rail to collapse. You can tell this from the fact that lines such as the Panama Limited and Super Chief that their retained high level of service right up until Amtrak were somewhat more economically solvent because they retained their reputation. As a result, the trains were still popular with tourists and even celebrities.

>>1050550

>expand autotrain service with more destinations

This is 100% the correct course of action. I am hesitant to say that we should do it East of the Mississippi, because those cities are finally getting their public transit shit together, but it certainly can't hurt.

>Reinstate Sunset Limited as autotrain

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention: Amtrak's less-than-daily routes should be upped to daily. The reason for this is that they have to pay extra to house the crew at both ends, causing them to be the worst performers for fare recovery.

>Resurrect the commuter routes

Ah, and there's the spicy one. In order to do this, Amtrak needs to go private (which is precisely what I believe they intend to do). My guess is that Amtrak's long-term strategy is going to be to cannibalize the larger commuter railroads and unfuck their shit. Did you guys know that the Metro-North is the reason the Acela is restricted to 50 MPH south of New Haven? They own the tracks and don't maintain them to high speed standards. Christ, it's awful.

>>1050551

So basically resurrect the idea of the Iron Interstate. I think that this should only be done if auto train service is created for the largest, most car-bound cities. In the old days, trains were rolling hotels. This is how we should still view them and if they started acting like it they would make money.

>>1050625

>2) start buying the ROW for extremely unused or abandoned rail lines so they can be upgraded for potential passenger lines in the future and not having the be at the whim of freight trains similar to what AAF has done with brightline.

This. The motto of the USDOT right now should be 'Keep the ROW, you never know'.

>3) offer more holiday/event trains due partly to the unexpected success of the Denver ski train.

I would love to see the exact numbers for how successful it is. I suspect it probably makes some amount of money considering it has been sold out every weekend. Because I have extreme autism and love numbers, I'll add it to my chart above once they are released.

>>1050747
My maths probably gonna be a little wrong but guesstimating:

a ticked costs range from $39 to $59 one way (children 2-12 are half the price) and its estimated 15,000 passengers have used it so far so:
39-59 (ticked price) * 15,000 (passengers) * 2 (you have to pay for the return trip) = a net profit of 117,000 - 177,000

And it it might be safer to round that down to $100,000-160,000 to factor in the lower cost for kids and people who only bought a one way ticket and doesn't seem that bad considering the train only runs on Saturdays and Sundays (it started Jan 7 meaning its run for about 14 days so far meaning it has made an average between $7142.85-11428.57 per day)

>>1050527

8th largest economy, global seat of culture
>biggest waste of existence in this country

sure thing m9

I'm not actually in disagreement with most of the ideas here - run autotrain on routes west, increase service, move train stations to CBDs. Transit doesn't (shouldn't) have to make a profit. Just wait for a construction industry correction and then throw passenger rail infrastructure projects at it to sop up the oversupply.

>>1050736
correlation does not equal causation.
I understand the burden of proof is on me, but the likelihood that those remained solvent to that point probably has to do with microeconomic decisions dependent on the regional management and less on the chosen brand standard for the aesthetic.

Im being anecdotal, but I think the success rate of bigger firms applefying their shit to be uniform and easy to navigate and correlate "X design look = x quality experience" mentality into their users has a major effect.

>>1050512
Give the JR corporation a shit ton of money to design a HSR for the US, and then do it.

>>1050797
If only the TCR would actually happen

>>1050797
One of my problem is you can't do nice through service (classic compatible) or improve existing passenger rail a lot without building new grade separated exclusive lines or revamping FRA regulations and the industry. Something we have to live with and conform to, or do lots of overtaking to accommodate slower higher capacity local trains by scheduling and classing in operation (a la E1/E4 series and older 0/100 series Kodama). Japan, UK, France, Germany would be amused otherwise.

>>1050807
TR Gulf.
We can wait for maglevs, active or passive in our dreams.

>>1050826
My bad it should be AR Gulf lolz.

>>1050755

>a net profit of 117,000 - 177,000

The question is whether it balances out the following: Fuel cost, crew cost, depreciation on assets, and maintenance per ton-mile. If those costs are covered, then it made a straight profit, otherwise it isn't.

That being said, if it is sold out I'm sure it probably is making a profit, if not it's definitely covering the variable costs and so still contributing to the overall recovery of the company and by existing it is better than if it didn't.

>>1050778

>8th largest economy, global seat of culture

California is literally hell, if it weren't for the tech industry California would be one of the most dependent, poor states in the country.

>>1050825

>you can't do nice through service or improve existing passenger rail a lot without building new grade separated lines

This is 100% not true. Most rail lines in the United States operate significantly under capacity, most could handle a doubling or even tripling of traffic without much ill effect. The reason passenger rail is currently a mess is because the private railroads don't want to maximize the profitability of trains, they'd rather not have them running on their networks at all in many cases. Trust me, all these problems will go away when/if the passenger rail boom comes.

>>1050856

>California is literally hell, if it weren't for the tech industry California would be one of the most dependent, poor states in the country.

>if it wasn't for cars Michigan would be dependent
>if it wasn't for oil Texas would be dependent
>if it wasn't for finance NYC would be dependent

Also, the only parts of California that are hell are the inland empire dumps that they fenced the Okies into in the 1930s

>>1050856

Nonetheless thanks for sharing your work in the spreadsheet above, although looking at it, the obvious thing Amtrak needs for profitability is to renegotiate with western states ROW holders, and to trash the massively dumb transcon routes (which at this point are just subsidized sightseeing vacation for boomers)

>People thinking you can "fix" Amtrak. An corporation built on the shambles of a very unprofitable industry.
The only thing Amtrak is "good" for is that you can always get access to class I's track if Amtrak "runs" the trains. That's it.

>>1050859
Essentially yes. There is, however, one other major consideration to have: Amtrak doesn't own its own infrastructure outside of the NEC, and it doesn't even own the entire thing. Even if Amtrak somehow did manage to become profitable, it would still be stuck with a bunch of commuter railroads around its neck. Since I didn't talk directly about what needs to be done to make it profitable as an independent entity, I will now.

1. Get to the point where with the NEC and supporting states they could survive on their own, if they dropped the long distance routes

2. Use the above as a way to target the real long-term problem for private operation: the restriction on running commuter services. Renegotiate with Congress until the route length minimum is removed

3. Buy out the commuter railroads on the NEC, buy up the rolling stock and all, then start running them themselves, giving the Acela and Northeast Regional absolute priority over commuter trains until tracks are upgraded.

OR

Wait until they are profitable overall, then buy people out. Start buying out individual rail lines from both private companies and commuter lines. If any of the Big Seven private companies whine, bring in an anti-trust lawsuit against them. They might shut the hell up if the alternative is being broken up by the Feds. No matter what, Amtrak isn't stupid and they have taken the smartest course of action, which is to just slowly out-maneuver the commuter railroads and the NIMBY's until Amtrak is in a position to threaten people into supporting them.

>>1050869
My god, I hate when people scream 'unprofitable'. No single train is profitable, retard. The majority of Amtrak's trains cover their operating costs plus depreciation on assets, it's just that freight trains have a higher rate of profit above that level, causing the only remaining variables (track maintainence and signalling and administration) to be better served by only running freight trains. This is not always the case.

>>1050856
Well to be fair the ski train only runs 2 days a week and of the those 2 days only runs 2 trains a day, one from Depart Union Station to Winter Park in the morning and one vise versa in the evening so they've effectively used about 28 train journeys over a 56 mile route to make that amount of money.

But like I said I was only guesstimating there's probably a lot more factors going in which short of reminds me of one video I say where this guy worked out why the price of flying is the way it is. Don't know how much shit gets thrown at the guy here on /n/ but I kind of hope they make a part two where they go over some off the more "profitable" Amtrak routes.

>>1050869
Historically, private companies ran passenger trains because it was a way to minimize losses on lines. Imagine this: You have ten trains running on a line per day. Each one of them makes just enough money above what it costs to run the train itself that you can maintain the tracks, pay property taxes, signal the whole thing, dispatch, ect. if you combine the total profits together. (IIRC, this amount needs to be about 70,000-80,000 per mile per year.)

Now imagine that on one day a week, there is only demand for nine trains. You, however, have the ability to run either a passenger train or a small, shitty freight train. The passenger train isn't as profitable as the other nine, but it is MORE PROFITABLE THAN THE ALTERNATIVES. As long as it covers its operating costs and depreciation on the physical train cars, it is absolutely worth running it, because it minimizes your loss.

Alternatively, imagine if you have a rail line where you are running those ten freights a day, but there is plenty of room for more trains. The problem is that there is no more freight to run. So what do you do? You run passenger trains, because once again, the cost of your tracks is ALREADY PAID FOR BY THE FREIGHT TRAINS, and since the passenger train's profits cover its operating costs and depreciation it is literally just free money.

Remember, unused capacity on rails is potential profit wasted. The only reason that private passenger rail isn't a thing is because

1. The freight railroads have realized they can use Amtrak to upgrade their tracks for them, so free money

2. Investing in passenger rail is not the most profitable investment. This is why All Aboard Florida is a thing, because they have maxed out their freight capacity, so the only thing left to make money on IS passenger rail.

>>1050550
>"aging genesis fleet"

How time flies wow

The fact that the monthly pass for Philly to NYC, a route that is only approximately 80 miles, is fucking ridiculous.

Amtrak will never be good, so long as it is more expensive than a flight, and take 3 times as long.

>>1051022
>Renegotiate with Congress until the route length minimum is removed
Never heard of this before, is there a source somewhere? The Hiawatha is only 86 miles and they used to run trains just between Philly and NYC.

>>1051028
>I know absolutely nothing about the history of railroads nor their business practices.
It's pretty sad how some of you think you're such experts but have absolutely no idea how trains are ordered, run, operated, and dispatched.

>>1050512
Early 90's mountain bike with slicks.

>>1051115
Okay then, big boy, since that guy seems to know what he's talking about, how about you enlighten us?

a railroad tries to make the most money possible, so if the best performing option is passenger trains, why wouldn't they do what that guy said as the way to minimize losses?

>>1051164
It's not the best performing, though. Passengers have lots of added costs and don't like sitting around and don't tolerate delays.

A loaded tank car typically makes you $300 pulling the damn thing then thousands when you ship it. A loaded coal train here makes about $250,000 on a round trip. Why mess with passengers that will require hiring much more staff, more facilities, maintaining those facilities, and all the other passenger equipment? Freight is where the real money is.

>>1051174
And to give you an idea, that coal train makes about 2 round trips a week and they have 3-5 of them running the cycle.

And that's just coal on a 600 mile stretch. Add in the manifest, grain, industrial switching, and you see why passemgers are a waste of time by and large.

>>1051174

I'm not saying it's the 'best performing' overall, only a retard would think that. I'm saying that once the high-tier freight trains max out their demand it makes sense to start in on other services, IE passenger rail.

>>1051182
But it doesn't. The passenger trains only ever made money for the railroads because of the mail they hauled on them.

Once the USPS ended rail mail contracts, you saw railroads trying to abandon passenger routes.

I would probably just accept the bribes from airlines to keep Amtrak dogshit and noncompetitive. Sorry guys, wish I were more principled.

>>1051186
>but it doesn't

Proof? The anon above created a list of all the actually profitable passenger rail lines right there for you to see. Is it really unreasonable to say that sometimes passenger rail can sometimes outcompete some of the less frequent or lower tonnage freight trains? Is that really that unreasonable? Yes, when the country had <100,000,000 people who were mostly farmers in the midwest the mail service kept things afloat, but I really don't think that it's a universal constant throughout US history.

File: chain_gang.jpg (68KB, 670x358px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 670x358px

>>1050512
I would begin contracting with state prisons to recreate chain gangs. The new lines would be referred to as punishment lines, with the engine bearing the phrase "You can't run from the Law!" Also purchasing land to try to make the lines more contiguous. And some steam engines here and there just for fun.

>>1051212
>s it really unreasonable to say that sometimes passenger rail can sometimes outcompete some of the less frequent or lower tonnage freight trains?
Yes, because even Amtrak was trying to haul freight up in the North East and the freight railroads put an end to that.

>>1051259
proof or link pls

>>1051279
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB870212698467745500

>>1050858
Despite its economy and natural beauty, California is a shitty socialist state infested with mexicans who hate America, and nonwhites who always vote democrat because of gibs/welfare, free shit. And the white people that live there are some of the shittiest brainwashed liberals ever who worship people like Marx, Stalin, Che, and Castro. It's not a race thing anymore, most people from California suck, otherwise the state isn't that bad.

Jerry Brown now prioritize ILLEGALS over actual citizens for college scholarships, not even a middle class people are going to get scholarships now.

MAKE HACKENSACK AN AMTRAK STOP BECAUSE HACKENSACK DESERVES THE PAIN OF THE BIGGEST FLOP IN THE UNITED STATES.

File: IMG_0120.jpg (67KB, 432x243px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 432x243px

RTL's are great.
What i see as a big flop incoming however is the new avelia liberty. Track upgrades with existing acelas could bring those sets up to avelia's said speeds. The NEC may be killed with the avelia as its just another HHP-8 waiting to happen it seems... the attempt for a high speed service that cant be done because they are trying to improve things in the wrong areas.

File: IMG_26022017_132516_0.png (345B, 221x105px) Image search: [Google]

345B, 221x105px

>>1052107
>u
currently it should be that way because amtrak is wasting money on things like running down lines that DONT NEED SERVICE AT ALL

>>1052108
I actually engineered 942 in its Phase 3 days

Also Acela's are shit. Why keep them in service? send them to the Scrapper.

File: Amt_929-Downingtown.jpg (396KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1280x960px

>>1052111
ever get 929?
favorite one out of the entire fleet.

>>1052112
Yes. 929 Has a distinct smell of ass in it though. Some 9 year old wants to preserve it. I would donate but I would feel bad to tell him she's long gone.

We should privatize Amtrak in my honest to god Opinion. The NEC is the only thing keeping Amtrak Alive. Other then the few Short Distance routes in Michigan, Illinois, New York and the West Coast.

>>1052115
And the benefit of that would be.....?

>>1052115
Privatization will happen whether or not we force it now. This is undeniable.

Amtrak has been slowly working towards becoming independent of Federal funding for day-to-day stuff and relying on them for capital funds for infrastructure projects only.

As >>1050527 outlined above, Amtrak is already throwing its weight around and demanding that Congress fund the money-losing routes while Amtrak itself reinvests the profits from the NEC into the network.

It is likely that in the event Amtrak managed to pull a profit, they would partner with the private railroads to start bringing back passenger rail service on a wider scale, while at the same time buying up the lesser used rail lines and cannibalizing as much as they can. How Amtrak would survive as a private company I don't know (because right now, the Feds demand priority for them on privately owned rail lines, which might stop if they were freed) but they are probably gearing up for an attempt at it nonetheless. Rushing it, however, is to basically prematurely kill it.

>Electrify all the rail in the USA
>no more long distance trips
>Amtrak now only does regional trips to feed people into airports and commuter stuff.
>tunnel boring machines to go straight through mountains and shit. To make travel times shorter.

File: Amtrak_network_map_2016.png (2MB, 4800x3200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4800x3200px

Temporarily shut down some branch lines.

Fuck Port Huron, Stalbans and Quincy.

>>1050516

This isn't such a bad idea. The hub-and-spoke model is the most efficient logistics model, and it can work for Amtrak. The six regions/hubs would be:

- NYC
- Chicago
- Atlanta
- Houston
- Los Angeles
- Seattle

Problem is, Amtrak exists for their long distance routes. This is why Amtrak is STILL studying dual Empire Builder routes (through both the North and South Dakotas), Pioneer (SLC-Portland) and similar routes. It's also why the Sunset Limited limps along. Even though none of these make money, they have the maximum amount of political support as the Republican communities they serve would be damned if their service were cut.

>>1052115

Amtrak will eventually get privatized, but road tolling would have to happen first. Greyhound will get fucked over but the Class 1s would return to passenger services.

>Amtrak exists because private operators wanted to get rid of passenger service
>"Hurr Amtrak should/will get privatized soon"
fullretard.tif

>>1052595
It may be some what to break up the longer routes into different chunks and run a different amount of trains depending on how much demand in the section

For example in case of the empire builder: One train still runs the entire full route in each direction but an additional 1 or 2 "mini empire builder trains" that only runs between 2 or 3 of the major cities in the route

>>1052608
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the dramatic irony in these retards reasoning.

>>1050550
Genesis are being replaced by the Chargers, they did their job of making one unified fleet. Turboliners are shit, Jet Liners are better.

Regarding Amtrak, why doesn't USPS send their mail by rail anymore?

UPS and Fedex do it, USPS used to do it but not anymore, except for between a few cities. I think they should expand their contract with Amtrax and put a mail car or two at the ends of trains on lines where it makes sense.

>>1052729
IIRC, they tried this and it just didn't work out for...reasons. I'm not 100% sure why, exactly, but I suspect that the problem was mail volumes. The days of shit-tons of first class mail being sent intercity are gone, there's no two ways about it. Think about it, in the old days companies would send millions of letters between Boston, New York, and DC every hour. Today, man, I doubt the volumes are even 1/10th what they were when mail supported the trains.

I could see them express shipping physical goods (Professor Stilgoe in his book about the return of railroads to power in the US discusses the possibility of this extensively) but plain old mail is done for.

>>1052729

The USPS still does, just not through Amtrak. Amtrak isn't allowed to move mail anymore because mail is a type of freight and the freight railroads successfully (in a lawsuit) claimed that Amtrak moving freight harms their business, and is not the purpose of Amtrak (which is to move passengers).

>>1052115
Privatization is a meme. Mixed mode plz.

>>1050512
Set up high speed north/south maglev routes connecting major cities on the east and west coasts, and radiating out from Chicago: New Orleans via St. Louis, NYC via Albany, DC via Pittsburgh.

This would make Amtrak competitive with air travel for a big fat chunk of the country by population, and be cool as hell.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (238KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1920x1080px

>>1050512
Completely scrap most of the Genesis fleet and replace them with the Charger as well us start/convince the railroad companies who own the rails to upgrading the track little by little so it cab run close to its max speed of 125 mph.

I know its not true high speed rail and we won't have one for a long time but to be honest we probably don't absolute need one
since speed while has some appeal to it isn't the most important aspect, comfort

Case and point if speed was the most important, why did the Concord a 3 hour flight across the Atlantic ultimately fail when pit up against the normal 7 hour flight.

Amtrak will need to to get faster no doubt so its a far better option than driving or taking a greyhound like bus survive (maybe even in some limited cases even airlines) but it doesn't have to be speeds of 200+ mph for now and could probably get a decent amount more travelers if they did things like: Built in wifi and usb/normal charging outlets, decent on train food that doesn't cost an arm or a leg to buy, a decent rolling that is somewhat nice to look at (which is why they should retire the genesis), and a couple other odds and ends

>>1054444
also, upgrade single-track main lines to double-track; current doubles get a third track as a backup pls. & t.y.

File: ancap.jpg (57KB, 800x682px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x682px

So to everyone ITT pushing the privatization meme...

What happens when the company decides that scrapping the tracks & selling off the right-of-way is more profitable than running trains?

>>1055064
Milwaukee Road pt 2

>>1055064
It doesn't because Amtrak owns almost no rail outside of the North East.

It's amazing how people forget that the whole reason that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation exists is because nobody wanted to run passenger trains and they weren't profitable.

>>1055072
Exactly.

>>1055073
I am curious, what is making Florida East Coast give it another shot?

File: C6WNhuxU0AAhNRm.jpg (189KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1200x900px

>>1055077
The main reason why FEC is running Brightline is because the specific railway corridor there using is basically maxed out for how much profit they can get with freight alone (which wasn't that demanding in the first place) so they decided to launch a passenger service to make more money

Now some might say that ticket fares aren't enough to net a profit for FEC, which is completely true, but tickets are only a 1/3rd of how Brightline will generate money, the other 2 goes as follows

Real estate investments: the actual stations Brightline will use are far from your typical amshack and in addition the company is building commercial and residential developments around its 3 South Florida stations.
Food and Beverage: basically having a few big name chefs open restaurants only at the stations so people have a reason to go there and spend money not involving the train

I'm not sure if this is enough to keep it in the black hopefully its enough to keep it running for 2.5 years till the Orlando leg is finished, we'll know for sure when it launches in July (might need to start a new thread for it around then)

>>1055098
Do you think there are other corridors across the country where we might see something similar if Brightline is a success?

>>1055098
Nice pic! That's pretty smart of FEC though, by making those investments and also probably generating more TOD in the future, maybe translating to more customers and revenue. Traffic between Miami and WPB is always horrid even with two highways and multiple large N-S roads, not to mention Tri-Rail is also pretty busy as well, so they'll have no shortage of passengers on that leg.

It's going 2.5 years of construction alone. This does not include the time they will spend on legal battles with some of the surrounding counties and I'm not entirely sure if they have all the ROW yet. I think Indian River and St. Lucie counties are suing Brightline? It's some petty shit. But completing the Brightline to Orlando might not be until 2021. Otherwise the multimodal station in Orlando International Airport is coming along nicely.

>>1055105
Eh maybe. Like I said we have to wait till July to know if its a success or not, but if it does prove a success I can see it used as a template for other companies and maybe some states to reference. For instance I'm a MNfag and we have a proposed corridor that runs from the Twin Cities to Duluth caled the NLX (Northern Lights Express) that will pretty much use the same rolling stock as Brightline so I can imagine them taking a few notes from it to try and boost the chances of success

>>1055105
Yeah its a nice pic, I didn't take it myself (stole it off of brightlines website) although what I wouldn't give to be able to ride in it, I mean can you imagine if Amtrak decided for one time only to use these types of cars for one of there long haul routes.

The Orlando portion (phase 2) was supposed to start a year later but because of the lawsuits by Indian river and Martin counties, it prevented FEC from selling bonds needed to pay to build completely new track along the route thus halting progress on about 30 months wroth of construction.

>>1055112
first part was supposed to be for >>1055104

>>1052090
Go back to /pol/

We don't serve your kind here.

>>1055104

Not him but the most obvious is California's via CAHSR. Both ends have 20+ million potential customers each. Only issue is that CA doesn't have any toll roads (yet).

>>1054465
Third track may be good for rush hour traffic. Quadruple is usually redundant. Expand stations for more platforns and side lines is an easy way to accommodate mixed traffic overtaking.
Single-track and dual-track have their place, even on main lines depending.

>>1054444
>not true high speed rail
Dude we call them higher-speed. Tbh 200km/h should be made very achievable on all conventional-speed rail.

>>1054406
At least propose Inductrack, which has common design supposedly supporting freight...
As a fan of them, HSR and maglev and such are overhyping rail solutions.

>>1050527
>Firstly: Trains need to be competitive by offering a service that airplanes cannot. Specifically, trains can carry cars via auto train. This is how it is done in Australia, and they make money. Imagine if Chicago were the gateway to the entire midwest, as opposed to just...Chicago. Imagine if instead of having to pay for airfare and a car rental and hotels along the way, plus meals, you could take the train and then cruise around at your destination by car? Los Angeles and all the other big western cities are laid out for cars, this would be ideal for them.

I admit I'm really high right now, but as someone who lives in Chicago and *wants* to do a vacation out west driving but hates the idea of driving through Missouri/Iowa/Nebraska/Kansas, this quite possibly is the best idea I have heard.

Why does Amtrak have such horrific delays on long distance routes? I rode RZhD in Russia all the way across shithole Siberia and it was on time to the fucking minute, every time.

>>1055098

>Real estate investments

infrastructure improves property value
everybody needs to be reminded of this forever

>>1055112

>Twin Cities to Duluth

This would be pretty neat. I looked it up and didn't realize Minneapolis and Duluth are that close to each other (155 miles).

If you're familiar with anyone working on the project you should let them know that their website appears to be down.

File: corridor-map.jpg (285KB, 585x918px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 585x918px

>>1055240
True but FEC is going to directly benefit from it since they own the land being developed

And as for the NLX its still in the environmental study phase, no idea when construction is going to start

Here's a link to the MNDOT page for it in case your interested
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/nlx/

And like I said I hope either the state or BNSF take note of brightline since they announced some cutbacks to save money resulting in a the initial 8 round trips at a top speed of 110 mph to about 4 round trips with a top speed of 90 mph

>>1055213
I imagine it's because more people travel long distance via train in Russia. They probably can't afford a plane ticket from Petersburg-Vladivostok.
Also the Soviets were pretty good at building their railroads to have huge capacities.

>>1055213
Because US railroads are freight first and are starved for capacity. So passanger trains are bumped all the way down on their priority list.

>>1055391
That's not true at all. Amtrak is given the highest dispatching priority by law.
>B-b-but I read a thing online and it said...
I've watched it in real life. Amtrak moves and freight sits. I've sat for hours waiting on Amtrak. I never see Amtrak waiting more than 10 minutes on a meet, and if they are waiting, it's actually an issue. Phone calls are being made and higher ups want explinations.

>>1050527

Trains don't need to offer auto service, all they have to do is offer a more convenient service. This is where land use matters and why trains suck in California (a state known for it's low density suburbs).

File: 1429217408315.jpg (143KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x720px

>>1054406

>maglev

Everybody who seriously proposes building an entirely new system of transportation that is completely incompatible with existing ones should fuck RIGHT off. This includes maglev and monorail autists.

>>1054444

This is a valid suggestion. Everybody thinks that speed is the most important factor, when in reality traveling is not just about speed. Nobody would say 'oh, but why would you ride a bike at 7 miles an hour when you could take a car at 25?' But we see that EXACT argument used for high speed rail constantly. Bollocks, all of it. You're correct, good suggestion.

>>1055073

>le trains can't make money maymay

Fucking kill yourself. When the passenger trains were failing, the US had 150 million people spread out largely in suburban and rural areas, with literally trillions of dollars going to making the largest highway system ever created in world history. They were profitable when we had a fraction of the urban population we do today, and they will be again. FEC's Brightline is proof of this.

>>1055098

Worth noting is that historically railroad and streetcar/interurban companies were also major property developers for exactly this reason. They would send a line up through an area, while developing entire neighborhoods, making so much money from it that it was worth it to do. Brightline just happens to be the first private company to do this in 100 years. Amtrak couldn't because they can't buy and develop property (this and the restriction on commuter rail operations are the two things that ensured Amtrak would never be too viable as a private entity).

>>1055104

Any line where the freight traffic is maxed out and passenger rail covers its operating costs is a viable potential corridor, because the revenue from the train would increase overall cost recovery of the infrastructure. There are probably a dozen or so corridors where this is the case or will be soon, mostly in the Midwest. If Brightline proves that it is possible, I'd expect that Norfolk Southern and CSX (who are seeing coal volumes drop like a stone) will jump at the opportunity. They just need proof of concept.

>>1055556

Auto service IS the most convenient service they can offer though.

>>1055628
If I had to take a bet at which company would jump first at following brightline it would probable be Norfolk Southern since there old CEO now runs Amtrak so I can imagine they have some ties that can help start a passenger rail system from the two companies.

File: orient_express_dining_car_by_mattrullz-d2z98an.jpg (158KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1032x774px

>>1055098

Is it gonna be too much to ask or will Brightline have a decent dining service?

I'm not asking for Orient Express-tier service, but something like the Eurostar's new cafe car would be nice.

>>1050512
>when the tram, subway, bus, train, ferry is late
>when its full and the heat and smell of dirty humans makes you want to vomit and you have to hold onto the bars which have never been cleaned
>when its not full but the driver ignores your stop because he is running late or thinks it is full when it isnt and is a bastard whoreson
>when some maniac suicidal hobo decides to run into the tunnel and live there and the tracks are closed for weeks
>when your electronic ticket runs out during the trip and the faggot assblaster wants you to pay a fine
I hate transportation /n/

File: R14kkDj.png (13KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 657x527px

>>1050512
make more trens go faster

>>1050527
Nothing in your post explains why privatization is necessary.

Certainly congress has not allowed amtrak to flourish, but that speaks more to certain replaceable politicians' own idiocy and self-serving motives rather than any inherent structural problem.

I don't think a "sink or swim" business mentality is the best way to run a public transit system. Not every route needs to be "profitable" for it to be "useful." The MTA in new york isn't profitable either, but nobody would argue that it isn't a worthwhile and useful system.

>>1050869
Since when does getting people where they need to go have to be profitable?

Education isn't profitable. We fund it with tax money because it's something people need.

Where do you draw the line on this kind of mentality that everything must earn money to be worth doing?