Bringing passenger rail back to North America - What Do?

[Jozhua]

I don't know if this belongs here or in speculative ideas, so feel free to move.

Basically, I want to discuss how a comeback of passenger rail could be made in North America and what schemes are most successful.

I know Canada has had a number of successful schemes and perhaps their neighbours to the south could learn some lesssons!

Firstly, whilst HSR would be good, I don't think it is the best focus given what exists now in the US. I think there exists a fundamental chicken/egg situation with a lack of feeder routes and nothing to feed into. I think cities and states should probably focus on improving transportation within their cities primarily, light rail, subways, commuter rail.

For commuter systems that already exist, expanding service out all day and adding reverse commute could make travel more flexible and appeal to both leasure and those not working standard office hours.

Its 3AM and my brain is a bit foggy, so I'll probably post in the morning something a bit more cohesive, but I think it'd be interesting to hear other people's thoughts on what way the US & Canada could expand their rail transit options?

 

[Peter Kelford]

I think a good first step is to prioritise express sleepers that take 1 night (i.e. 8-14 hours). Looking at data, LAX to SFO and San Diego are some of the world's busiest routes.

 

[edwin_m]

Sleepers are an interesting idea. Probably easier to do than in Europe considering cities are often further apart so more likely to be a full night's journey, and the larger structure gauge helps provide the modern facilities Americans will expect. The difficulties of running above 79mph (Federal regulation and catching up with freight) are less pronounced.

On the other side of the argument the American culture is far more about driving and flying whereas much of Europe still has an awareness of the usefulness of trains.

 

[Jozhua]

Coming off what I was *trying* to say last night, basically I think proper high speed rail may end up serving as somewhat of a distraction.

For example, UK trains are mostly limited to 125mph, but outside of some edge cases, the train is still generally faster than flying/driving. Plus, the popularity of the Northeast Regional shows once you are hitting peak speeds of around 125mph, this can be enough. I also think service frequency and the times of first/last departure are very important. Having at least one service every 1-2 hours, with trains that run from around 6am-10pm is important when looking at upgrading service on a corridor.

Obviously fighting the freight operators is one of the areas Amtrak gets stuck in regards to using existing corridors, which is definitely problematic.

But there are a lot of corridors where I can see "higher speed" service being attractive. Say Louisville to Cincinnati, a distance of 99 miles, would be ripe for a frequent rail service back and forth. You could probably achieve an hourly service with maybe 3/4 diesel train consists. If state/local government reached a deal with the local freight railroad to perhaps upgrade and fully double track the existing right of way in exchange for an hourly service each way without delays, I feel this would be a sensible solution. Then I can imagine extensions to say Columbus or Indianapolis, which are both about 100 miles away from Cincinnati.

A lot of it though is down to funding and priorities. Was looking at the Metrolink (LA Metrolink) website, to see a big poster about Caltrans' $2.5bn expansion of the I5 freeway. That kind of money could get you fast and frequent rail service, instead of temporary relief from ever growing road congestion.

I think a good first step is to prioritise express sleepers that take 1 night (i.e. 8-14 hours). Looking at data, LAX to SFO and San Diego are some of the world's busiest routes.

This is true, I think they have some of these, with the Auto Train coming to mind, but Amtrak could probably shift around their offerings to prioritise these routes VS the long distance 2/3 day trips.

Sleepers are an interesting idea. Probably easier to do than in Europe considering cities are often further apart so more likely to be a full night's journey, and the larger structure gauge helps provide the modern facilities Americans will expect. The difficulties of running above 79mph (Federal regulation and catching up with freight) are less pronounced.

On the other side of the argument the American culture is far more about driving and flying whereas much of Europe still has an awareness of the usefulness of trains.

I doubt there is something inherently cultural about driving, I think it has more become the defacto due to a lack of other decent options.

Although that said, something like the Auto Train where people CAN bring their car, especially overnight, could be very attractive! Imagine if people could load their car on in LA and wake up just outside San Francisco the next morning, that would make an absolute killing!

 

[nlogax]

think a good first step is to prioritise express sleepers that take 1 night (i.e. 8-14 hours). Looking at data, LAX to SFO and San Diego are some of the world's busiest routes.

Amtrak SoCal trains direct into SF is nice idea that I imagine could be done relatively easily with paths up SF&SJ to get into downtown SF from San Jose. I know HSR is going to chew through that route in coming years but the 'when' feels uncertain.

 

[nlogax]

I doubt there is something inherently cultural about driving, I think it has more become the defacto due to a lack of other decent options.

It's a bit chicken and egg, that one. My view is that on the whole Americans prefer cars - which is why other options have traditionally taken a back seat and is also why the interstate system is so expansive.

 

[glbotu]

It's a bit chicken and egg, that one. My view is that on the whole Americans prefer cars - which is why other options have traditionally taken a back seat and is also why the interstate system is so expansive.

I'd point out that the interstate system was all built in a very short space of time, post WW2. America was built on the railways, but several things kind of counted against them. Largely speaking, when the railways had a monopoly on transport (which was true pretty much everywhere in the world before WW2), they really behaved like it and did lots of horrible things like price-gouging (that second part being less true everywhere in the world, because of different levels of regulation/nationalisation etc). Post WW2, when you suddenly have a huge chunk of the population able to drive - and cars are starting to "feel" like the future - with fast air travel becoming increasingly commercial, the US govt was thrilled to have alternatives and subsidised roads and planes to an enormous degree. The railways saw barely penny of subsidy between 1945 and 1971. Additionally, because of the distance scales involved, passenger operations in the US were just not profitable. They never actually were, but they were run as loss-leaders for the freight operations (if we can get you somewhere this quickly, look how quickly we'll get your freight there), or were subsidised by various branches of govt (or house building - a la Metroland in the UK).

All this came together to result in a pretty solid murdering of US passenger rail over about 20 years.

As for how to bring them back, turning the current "Commuter Rail" operations into more "Suburban Rail", would probably go a long way. For those who haven't looked into this, US "Commuter Rail" generally tends to be about 5 trains per day, in the peak direction, during the peaks only. All the trains come in in the morning and go back out in the evening and that's it. Better "regional" services would probably help too. Transport lives and dies by the network effect. Having a point-to-point city centre to city centre high speed service won't help, if it's not connected at either end to an extensive public transport operation.

The main issue basically is that to achieve this, you need to undo a lot of the "rationalisation" that the freight operators did as well as pay for greatly increased maintenance, and the various govts (local, state, federal) just don't seem to see the value in things that aren't "shiny high speed" or "light-rail".

 

[Jozhua]

Amtrak SoCal trains direct into SF is nice idea that I imagine could be done relatively easily with paths up SF&SJ to get into downtown SF from San Jose. I know HSR is going to chew through that route in coming years but the 'when' feels uncertain.

Hahahaha the HSR project has become a complete disaster. It is reckoned that California high speed rail will never leave the Central Valley, at least under current plans. They are also ditching overhead electrification for Brightline style diesel trains on this section. Currently it looks to be running between Bakersfield and Merced.

I'd point out that the interstate system was all built in a very short space of time, post WW2. America was built on the railways, but several things kind of counted against them. Largely speaking, when the railways had a monopoly on transport (which was true pretty much everywhere in the world before WW2), they really behaved like it and did lots of horrible things like price-gouging (that second part being less true everywhere in the world, because of different levels of regulation/nationalisation etc). Post WW2, when you suddenly have a huge chunk of the population able to drive - and cars are starting to "feel" like the future - with fast air travel becoming increasingly commercial, the US govt was thrilled to have alternatives and subsidised roads and planes to an enormous degree. The railways saw barely penny of subsidy between 1945 and 1971. Additionally, because of the distance scales involved, passenger operations in the US were just not profitable. They never actually were, but they were run as loss-leaders for the freight operations (if we can get you somewhere this quickly, look how quickly we'll get your freight there), or were subsidised by various branches of govt (or house building - a la Metroland in the UK).

All this came together to result in a pretty solid murdering of US passenger rail over about 20 years.

As for how to bring them back, turning the current "Commuter Rail" operations into more "Suburban Rail", would probably go a long way. For those who haven't looked into this, US "Commuter Rail" generally tends to be about 5 trains per day, in the peak direction, during the peaks only. All the trains come in in the morning and go back out in the evening and that's it. Better "regional" services would probably help too. Transport lives and dies by the network effect. Having a point-to-point city centre to city centre high speed service won't help, if it's not connected at either end to an extensive public transport operation.

The main issue basically is that to achieve this, you need to undo a lot of the "rationalisation" that the freight operators did as well as pay for greatly increased maintenance, and the various govts (local, state, federal) just don't seem to see the value in things that aren't "shiny high speed" or "light-rail".

Oh yeah, I was surprised to discover when the LIRR had trains only going in one way during the peak. Then I found out this was the norm, rather than the exception and that most other systems simply run trains during the morning and evening peaks. To me, this made little sense from my experience of rail commuting to and from college. Sometimes I would leave early, or late. Sometimes I would need to rush home to pick up some equipment, etc. Then you consider those who work outside office hours. So I feel they are leaving a lot of ridership on the table due to the inflexibility of when they operate services.

I feel like light rail is still quite a sensible option for a lot of US cities, provided the systems they build actually connect well with other public transport and don't just take some silly circular route around downtown. LA's expansion of light rail services seems to be quite sensible, although the city is still missing the scope of what is needed to make public transportation truly competitive. Using light rail as a cheap way to re-open disused lines, or increase service/frequency on existing ones that pass through relatively urban areas, similar to Manchester's Metrolink seems quite sensible. A lot of these systems fail though, as local governments see them as separate from existing transit and try to keep them that way, completely missing the point of the network effect.

 

[edwin_m]

Oh yeah, I was surprised to discover when the LIRR had trains only going in one way during the peak. Then I found out this was the norm, rather than the exception and that most other systems simply run trains during the morning and evening peaks. To me, this made little sense from my experience of rail commuting to and from college. Sometimes I would leave early, or late. Sometimes I would need to rush home to pick up some equipment, etc. Then you consider those who work outside office hours. So I feel they are leaving a lot of ridership on the table due to the inflexibility of when they operate services.

I feel like light rail is still quite a sensible option for a lot of US cities, provided the systems they build actually connect well with other public transport and don't just take some silly circular route around downtown. LA's expansion of light rail services seems to be quite sensible, although the city is still missing the scope of what is needed to make public transportation truly competitive. Using light rail as a cheap way to re-open disused lines, or increase service/frequency on existing ones that pass through relatively urban areas, similar to Manchester's Metrolink seems quite sensible. A lot of these systems fail though, as local governments see them as separate from existing transit and try to keep them that way, completely missing the point of the network effect.

LIRR and a few others, mostly in the North East, are recognizable to European eyes and do have a reasonable service all day, unless it's been cut back drastically since I visited in the 80s. LIRR was always mostly passenger-orientated and for many years has been fully owned by the State, and most of the lines with all-day passenger service have been bought out by the States concerned. The ones with peak time only service tend to be smaller-scale operations on the tracks of the freight companies, and I suspect they have to pay a large fee for each journey (unlike Network Rail which charges a large fixed fee and a marginal fee for extra journeys) or the track owner wants them out of the way when they want to run freight. Either would make it difficult to run journeys outside peak times, even though in all other ways it makes perfect sense.

 

[Peter Kelford]

VS the long distance 2/3 day trips.

Or better time the long-distance routes so that unpopular city pairs are served by day but the more popular pairs by night. Interestingly Chicago - New York would take 12 hours by car but 20 hours by train. If rail timings could be made to run at 12h-odd timings then I imagine that a fairly affluent clientele of young pro-environment professionals would be tempted by the offer.

 

[Jozhua]

LIRR and a few others, mostly in the North East, are recognizable to European eyes and do have a reasonable service all day, unless it's been cut back drastically since I visited in the 80s. LIRR was always mostly passenger-orientated and for many years has been fully owned by the State, and most of the lines with all-day passenger service have been bought out by the States concerned. The ones with peak time only service tend to be smaller-scale operations on the tracks of the freight companies, and I suspect they have to pay a large fee for each journey (unlike Network Rail which charges a large fixed fee and a marginal fee for extra journeys) or the track owner wants them out of the way when they want to run freight. Either would make it difficult to run journeys outside peak times, even though in all other ways it makes perfect sense.

I haven't rode on the LIRR, although I visited New York last year. I did ride Metro North as well as use Penn station a couple times and very much got the impression rail service was thriving, at least in regards to passenger numbers.

Metro North offers reverse commute and the plan is to improve the LIRR infrastructure to expand their reverse commute options too.

One thing I will say is that, although commuter rail can be very inefficient in that trains are stored around all day to make one round trip, at least service is adapted to those peak flows. On my old commute into Derby from an outlying town EMT would chuck a single 153 at us on the 7.30am train and it would be overcrowded to the point no-one could board at least two stops prior to Derby...

Or better time the long-distance routes so that unpopular city pairs are served by day but the more popular pairs by night. Interestingly Chicago - New York would take 12 hours by car but 20 hours by train. If rail timings could be made to run at 12h-odd timings then I imagine that a fairly affluent clientele of young pro-environment professionals would be tempted by the offer.

Hmm, yeah I can see a place for that, especially if they get some auto racks so people can bring their cars. In fact, Amtrak should totally expand their autotrain offerings, that would be a massive selling point vs the airlines which I'm sure people would be willing to pay a premium for.

I think they could make a success of an overnight downtown LA to downtown San Francisco sleeper train, as there are already sleeper buses on the route.

 

[ac6000cw]

Or better time the long-distance routes so that unpopular city pairs are served by day but the more popular pairs by night. Interestingly Chicago - New York would take 12 hours by car but 20 hours by train. If rail timings could be made to run at 12h-odd timings then I imagine that a fairly affluent clientele of young pro-environment professionals would be tempted by the offer.

Well, the fastest ever New York - Chicago schedules were about 16 hours, back in the days when the PRR and NYCRR were arch-rivals for the traffic and ran their premier Broadway Limited and 20th Century Limited all-Pullman sleeper trains over their respective routes. It's 960 miles via the ex-NYCRR 'water level' route, the shorter (907 mile) but slower ex-PRR route no longer exists in it's entirety - the current Amtrak 'Lake Shore Limited' runs via the ex-NYCRR route.

So to get a 12 hour schedule via the ex-NYCRR route, which means an 80 mph average end-to-end speed, you'd have to spend many billions on serious speed upgrades or a new route...no one is going to do that for a handful (at best) of sleeper trains.

(The highway route between the two cities is shorter basically because it can climb mountains easily, unlike railways).

 

[ac6000cw]

In fact, Amtrak should totally expand their autotrain offerings, that would be a massive selling point vs the airlines which I'm sure people would be willing to pay a premium for.

The current (solitary) Autotrain route appeals to/serves quite a specific market - the 'snowbird' one, where (generally retired) people from the Northeast USA head south to Florida to escape the harsh winter weather for a while. If you are staying for long enough it's probably cheaper to pay Amtrak to transport your own vehicle than rent one in Florida (especially as wintertime is peak season in Florida), if you'd rather not drive all the way there and back.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

The most sensible thing to do in my opinion is to build high speed rail on distances of maximum 1000 km, like they are doing in California, Nevada and Texas. Because high speed rail is better for the environment and removes the hassle of airport checks, it can make travel between short distance cities more attractive, and can hopefully make short flights in the USA a thing of the past.

In Florida, there is Brightline, a new intercity diesel high speed train service currently running from Miami to West Palm beach (to be extended to Orlando by 2022). It seems that some Americans living there are loving the new train, as the line welcomed it's one millionth rider in August 2019!

For ultra long distances like Los Angeles to New York, the ideal option would the Maglev that is capable of reaching 700-800 km/h. Something like the Japanese L0 series Shinkansen (yep, the one that reached a speed record of 603 km/h) would do well, only problem is that being 100 km/h slower than the plane, it may take longer to travel between the two cities at the opposite ends of the country.

As for cities, light rail works in my opinion in cities of about 200,000 to 1 million. For a city like Los Angeles, which has a metro population of 18 million, I'm afraid there will be need to invest more onto subways / metros. Yes, light rail has the advantage of being cheap. But for such a large city, the current light rail lines could eventually become over capacity to the point that it puts pressure on the system, and the only way of solving the issue would be to convert it into a proper metro line. Indeed, why don't they expand the B line to somewhere like Whittier or Yorba Linda (which have NO trains at all), and the D line to somewhere like El Monte or Walnut?

Finally, the USA should also electrify all of it's current non-electrified commuter and intercity rail systems. Good to see they're doing it with Caltrain in California, and hopefully more will be electrified.

But in general, it's good to see the USA finally investing on some trains, but more needs to be done to make it effective!

 

[Jozhua]

The most sensible thing to do in my opinion is to build high speed rail on distances of maximum 1000 km, like they are doing in California, Nevada and Texas. Because high speed rail is better for the environment and removes the hassle of airport checks, it can make travel between short distance cities more attractive, and can hopefully make short flights in the USA a thing of the past.

In Florida, there is Brightline, a new intercity diesel high speed train service currently running from Miami to West Palm beach (to be extended to Orlando by 2022). It seems that some Americans living there are loving the new train, as the line welcomed it's one millionth rider in August 2019!

For ultra long distances like Los Angeles to New York, the ideal option would the Maglev that is capable of reaching 700-800 km/h. Something like the Japanese L0 series Shinkansen (yep, the one that reached a speed record of 603 km/h) would do well, only problem is that being 100 km/h slower than the plane, it may take longer to travel between the two cities at the opposite ends of the country.

As for cities, light rail works in my opinion in cities of about 200,000 to 1 million. For a city like Los Angeles, which has a metro population of 18 million, I'm afraid there will be need to invest more onto subways / metros. Yes, light rail has the advantage of being cheap. But for such a large city, the current light rail lines could eventually become over capacity to the point that it puts pressure on the system, and the only way of solving the issue would be to convert it into a proper metro line. Indeed, why don't they expand the B line to somewhere like Whittier or Yorba Linda (which have NO trains at all), and the D line to somewhere like El Monte or Walnut?

Finally, the USA should also electrify all of it's current non-electrified commuter and intercity rail systems. Good to see they're doing it with Caltrain in California, and hopefully more will be electrified.

But in general, it's good to see the USA finally investing on some trains, but more needs to be done to make it effective!

Yeah, I think the current high speed projects seem to be in relatively suitable areas. Unfortunately though, some of them seem to terminate far out of town. Having a downtown station that interchanges with local public transport and a out of town park and ride are important. Even if the last crawl into downtown takes a little bit longer, sharing with local traffic.

The reason LA is going with light rail, is ridership still remains fairly low and right now they just need more coverage. Once they're in a position where ridership warrants a subway line, I think they'll be able to get it. That said, you never know in California...

There is a channel called RM transit which advocates for the Vancouver Skytrain elevated track style. Apparently sticking the rails on stilts above a road is suprisingly cost effective, although it may make the nearby environment less pleasant. LA is in a good position though to do a down-the-middle style along the freeway routes, like the Chicago Blue Line.

For commuter rail, I think running an all day, frequent service (GO Transit Style), should be the first step. GO currently runs with a pretty standard Diesel loco + bombardier bi levels + cab car, but with frequent service and easy interchanges with their intercity bus routes. Then going for the GO RER style project, once ridership requires it.

Totally agree though, they need to do some decent investment at the same time as building some of these bigger projects, or the lack of a solid network will bring it all down.

Transit over there doesn't have the same advantage European countries do of a generally quite high number of car-less individuals. I know the average age for passing a drivers test in the UK is 26, and a growing number of apartments exclude parking.

However, I think cars as a service provides a fantastic opportunity to allow public transport to compete again, as it competes journey to journey, not as an overall transportation solution.