From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 08-Apr-15 22:49, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   > Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   >> ... 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.   
      
   Well, I'd agree that most of them hate passenger trains, with the   
   notable exception of BNSF.   
      
   However, they've been living in a world where they've been forced to   
   accept Amtrak's trains at a loss, so that's not surprising.  Their job   
   is to maximize profits for their shareholders, so you have to present a   
   deal that gives them what _they_ want rather than what _you_ want.  And   
   Amtrak has, to date, not been able to do so because Congress won't give   
   them the necessary funds.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I agree; that's a poor decision on CSX's part.  OTOH, it may be due to   
   SEPTA's limited funding or poor negotiation skills rather than CSX's   
   supposed hatred for passenger trains.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Is that order just enough to replace what has been damaged over the   
   years, or would it actually expand the fleet in a significant way?   
      
   > 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.   
      
   That's one of the many reasons why the FRA needs to start accepting   
   standard UIC passenger cars.  Not only would it give our operators   
   access to stable suppliers, but it would also reduce the cost of   
   equipment due to economy of scale.  And it might even help get some US   
   manufacturers back in the business, once they could compete on an even   
   playing field with foreign makers.   
      
   US operators have no problem getting light or heavy rail equipment; they   
   don't have to deal with the FRA like commuter and intercity rail ones.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)