BNSFboy
Train Attendant
What do you think would happen if Amtrak service was to go back to the Class 1 railroads they used to belong to?
But you know businessmen, they'll drop anything that dosen't earn money strategically. The only pax train left in Mexico is the Copper Canyon express/local, and that's because it does not have much access from other modes of transport.BNSF and maybe UP might keep one or two. I think they will be much more dedicated to them if they are there own trains.
True, however if they can also can have the passenger cars on the front and then have very high priority freight behind the passenger cars it could be profitable.But you know businessmen, they'll drop anything that dosen't earn money strategically. The only pax train left in Mexico is the Copper Canyon express/local, and that's because it does not have much access from other modes of transport.BNSF and maybe UP might keep one or two. I think they will be much more dedicated to them if they are there own trains.
Yes, it could be, but you would have to have streamlined freight cars and the company would probably earn more money without the pax. It's worth a try though.True, however if they can also can have the passenger cars on the front and then have very high priority freight behind the passenger cars it could be profitable.But you know businessmen, they'll drop anything that dosen't earn money strategically. The only pax train left in Mexico is the Copper Canyon express/local, and that's because it does not have much access from other modes of transport.BNSF and maybe UP might keep one or two. I think they will be much more dedicated to them if they are there own trains.
I thought that pure freight trains run at 59 mph. Don't know about combo freight/pax though.79 MPH should be good for passenger cars and a couple of double stacks or auto racks.
Stacks run at 70I thought that pure freight trains run at 59 mph. Don't know about combo freight/pax though.79 MPH should be good for passenger cars and a couple of double stacks or auto racks.
edit: error, spell check does not work.
There is quite a lot of 70 mph freight territory out there.I thought that pure freight trains run at 59 mph. Don't know about combo freight/pax though.79 MPH should be good for passenger cars and a couple of double stacks or auto racks.
Some nice information. Looks like combo freight/pax trains will be possible, but I would not expect UP to operate them unless they find a way to make money. That may not actually be impossible if UP owns the track themselves.There is quite a lot of 70 mph freight territory out there.I thought that pure freight trains run at 59 mph. Don't know about combo freight/pax though.79 MPH should be good for passenger cars and a couple of double stacks or auto racks.
59 mph goes back to the same ICC decision that gave us 79 mph. It works this way: A line without automatic block signals or some other form of automatic control system is not allowed to run passenger trains at speeds of 60 mph or faster or freight trains at speeds of 50 mph or faster.
The 79 mph rule is based on lines with signals but without some form of automatic train control, automatic train stop, or cab signals can not run trains at speeds of 80 mph or faster. I think that rule is all trains, that is both freight and passenger.
There rules are entirey separate from and unrelated to the FRA track classes.
What it says is that no matter how good your track is, if you do not have signals your speed limits can be no more than 59P/49F. This is the maximum speed limit and the reason for it on the line that was used by the Sunset East between Flomaton AL and Tallahassee FL. I do not know the actual numbers, but this would also be the ceiling on any speed limit set on the line used by the Vermont train north of White River Jct.
By the way, if a line has a 70 mph speed limit for freight, that means the track class defined by the FRA has to be good enough that a passenger train speed limit of 90 mph coud be set. However, without the required signal and train control system in place, 79 mph is the maximum no matter how good the track.
The reason Amtrak was formed in 1971 was because the Class I railroads wanted out of the passenger train business. The post WWII streamlined cars were getting old and the Class I's did not want to have to fund capital improvements necessary to operate good passenger trains. Amtrak tried hauling freight in the Warrington era. That drove away passengers because of delays and caused Amtrak to lose more money. There might be some high density areas such as Miami to Orlando where a private railroad would make money such as the proposed FEC trains. If Amtrak were disbanded by Congress the US would end up like Mexico except for a few places like the NEC and other state supported corridors.True, however if they can also can have the passenger cars on the front and then have very high priority freight behind the passenger cars it could be profitable.But you know businessmen, they'll drop anything that dosen't earn money strategically. The only pax train left in Mexico is the Copper Canyon express/local, and that's because it does not have much access from other modes of transport.BNSF and maybe UP might keep one or two. I think they will be much more dedicated to them if they are there own trains.
This.I think we'd probably end up like Mexico. Enjoy it while it lasts.
If the passenger railroads think they can turn a profit now, what's stopping them from starting their own passenger service?The only reason rail passenger service was getting so bad was because the advent of air travel and better cars. Now gas is getting expensive and air travel is through the roof making passenger rail pick up popularity again, so it could actually be profitable and more enticing to freight haulers to have passenger trains if Amtrak were to disappear.
I don't think they could earn a worthwhile profit, for the reasons others have well stated. Then there is the matter of law....when the railroads 'joined' Amtrak, not only were they relieved of the obligation to operate passenger trains on their own, but Amtrak was given the right of exclusive operation of said trains over those roads.If the passenger railroads think they can turn a profit now, what's stopping them from starting their own passenger service?The only reason rail passenger service was getting so bad was because the advent of air travel and better cars. Now gas is getting expensive and air travel is through the roof making passenger rail pick up popularity again, so it could actually be profitable and more enticing to freight haulers to have passenger trains if Amtrak were to disappear.
Depended on the railroad. AT&SF, UP, SCL ran passenger trains with great service right up until the end, particularly Santa Fe. They did train-offs when they could, but what remained was superb. SP, PC, not so much.There was way more than competition from Airlines and highways that led to Amtrak. The Class Is started downgrading passenger trains as early as 1950. It was about the same time that European countries and Japan started upgrading theirs. By 1970, except for a few, service was so bad, only die hard passengers were left. As Ryan stated, if Amtrak hadn't started, the US passenger trains would have followed those in Mexico.
I must disagree about the ATSF. People who took their trains post-1967 found the service quite horrible, commenting that most LD and nearly all SD trains had no sleepers or diners and just a cafe serving cold cuts. I got this from a book about passenger trains. They say that Amtrak's SWC by the 1980s were already better than ATSF pax trains 1967-1971. I forgot what exact trains they talked about but probably not the Super Chief.Depended on the railroad. AT&SF, UP, SCL ran passenger trains with great service right up until the end, particularly Santa Fe. They did train-offs when they could, but what remained was superb. SP, PC, not so much.
Enter your email address to join: