From: cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca   
      
   On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 20:49:06 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
      
   >On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 11:07:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   >   
   >> Unfortunately, railroads are an incredibly capital-intensive business,   
   >> so you need a pretty significant investment in track to make _any_   
   >> difference in speed or capacity, though it should be pointed out that   
   >> the freight RRs _already_ need major track investments for their own   
   >> traffic, and a fairly small contribution by Amtrak would likely sway   
   >> them toward investing in the particular routes Amtrak uses, thus getting   
   >> Amtrak a lot more bang for their buck than you'd expect.   
   >   
   >Unfortunately, it seems most modern railroad managements are pre-conditioned   
   to hate passenger trains and will have nothing to do with it, even if   
   reasonable negotiations could result in Amtrak picking up much of the tab for   
   track improvements.   
   >   
   >On a section of busy bi-directional double track that CSX shares with SEPTA,   
   CSX is spending money to build a third track dedicated for its trains.  I   
   think this is foolish.  CSX will go from a very fluid two-track line to a   
   single track line that will    
   hurt, not help its freight trains.  The two-track line was busy, but not   
   over-crowded, and the bi-directional signalling made it flexible.   
      
   Given that SEPTA needs to upgrade to high level platforms for ADA and   
   performance reasons, this could make a lot of sense.  Differing speed   
   bands and maintenance needs (50 mph heavy haul versus 80 - 90 mph   
   every 15 minute or half hourly passenger service) can make separate   
   lines the best answer.  Switches are expensive.   
      
   Clark Morris   
   >   
   >But this attitude is nothing new.  Back in the 1950s, some railroad managers   
   were convinced their passenger trains lost money, even when in fact they were   
   profitable, including with overhead.  (Ref "Twilight of the Psgr Train" by   
   Fraily).   
   >   
   >Not helping the situation was the ICC, forcing the railroads to carry   
   extremely expensive trains no one rode, for years.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> Adding rolling stock is much simpler, at least until you need to add   
   >> more crew (or especially locos) to a particular run.  But many Amtrak   
   >> trains are sold out due to being far too short, and profitability would   
   >> be increased (or losses reduced, for LD routes) by adding a few cars to   
   >> each train--or by adding a few new trainsets and consolidating the   
   >> remaining ones.  However, fare revenue will never match expenses when   
   >> Amtrak's trains are competing with bicycles, not cars or buses, on   
   >> speed--and that's where track improvements come in.   
   >   
   >Amtrak has new rolling stock on order, but the order is delayed.   
   >   
   >One problem is the "feast or famine" nature of building passenger cars.    
   There isn't enough standardization and on-going orders to keep carbuilders in   
   business and healthy.  So, too many orders go to start-ups and thre are long   
   delays.   
   >   
   >(However, I don't understand the screwup with the PATCO rebuild order, which   
   is YEARS late, by an experienced builder.  And it's a rebuild of a rapid   
   transit car of 45 y/o technology, not even a new design, though I think   
   they're doing it all with    
   computers.)   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)