H.R. 6003, The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act

[Chessie Hokie]

Here is a summary of legislation introduced by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last Friday on the NARP website:

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/main...#When:17:30:00Z

A few of the many intriguing points:

• Amtrak self-sufficiency requirement repealed.
  
• Amtrak within 9 months of enactment, is to issue plan for the restoration of service between New Orleans and Sanford, Florida including projected timeline, costs of restoring and proposals for legislation needed. $1 Million authorized for preparation of plan.
  
• Amtrak with other bodies including unions and rail passenger advocacy groups to develop new metrics and minimum standards to measure train performance.
  
• New Contracts with host railroads to incorporate metrics and minimum standards where practical.
  
• DOT-IG to evaluate performance of intercity rail services 6 months after establishment of metric and minimum standards. Using those standards, IG to identify in a report to Congress, the five worst performing Amtrak routes. At the same time IG to establish criteria for evaluating routes not currently being served by Amtrak and to compare proposals by Amtrak and other proposed service providers on how to serve the underperforming and unserved routes. The IG would then recommend 1 route currently not being served and 2 of the 5 worst performing routes to Congress for action. DOT Secretary prohibited from implementing recommendation until authorized by Congress.
  
• Establishes a committee to design, develop specifications for and to procure standardized next generation corridor equipment. May establish a pool of equipment for corridor use.
  
• Comptroller General of the United States to study and compare passenger rail systems in United States with Canada, Germany, France, Great Britain, China, Spain & Japan.
  

Lots more where that came from, kids!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Wow. I hope this passes. I assume this is the House's variation of S. 297?

 

[Rail Freak]

Here is a summary of legislation introduced by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last Friday on the NARP website:
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/main...#When:17:30:00Z

A few of the many intriguing points:

• Amtrak self-sufficiency requirement repealed.
  
• Amtrak within 9 months of enactment, is to issue plan for the restoration of service between New Orleans and Sanford, Florida including projected timeline, costs of restoring and proposals for legislation needed. $1 Million authorized for preparation of plan.
  
• Amtrak with other bodies including unions and rail passenger advocacy groups to develop new metrics and minimum standards to measure train performance.
  
• New Contracts with host railroads to incorporate metrics and minimum standards where practical.
  
• DOT-IG to evaluate performance of intercity rail services 6 months after establishment of metric and minimum standards. Using those standards, IG to identify in a report to Congress, the five worst performing Amtrak routes. At the same time IG to establish criteria for evaluating routes not currently being served by Amtrak and to compare proposals by Amtrak and other proposed service providers on how to serve the underperforming and unserved routes. The IG would then recommend 1 route currently not being served and 2 of the 5 worst performing routes to Congress for action. DOT Secretary prohibited from implementing recommendation until authorized by Congress.
  
• Establishes a committee to design, develop specifications for and to procure standardized next generation corridor equipment. May establish a pool of equipment for corridor use.
  
• Comptroller General of the United States to study and compare passenger rail systems in United States with Canada, Germany, France, Great Britain, China, Spain & Japan.
  

Lots more where that came from, kids!

WOW, didn't know it would be so SIMPLE!!!!

 

[Chessie Hokie]

Wow. I hope this passes. I assume this is the House's variation of S. 297?

I think it is actually S. 294, but yes, that is what this is intended to be. Thus, whatever finally emerges from the House will have to go into committee to be merged with the Senate bill into something acceptable to both bodies. Seems I have heard that Sen Lautenberg, sponsor of S. 294, has some major problems with the House legislation.

Anyway, there is a long way to go on this. Oberstar was very positive about the chances of it passing in the House. I'm hopeful.

 

[George Harris]

Comptroller General of the United States to study and compare passenger rail systems in United States with Canada, Germany, France, Great Britain, China, Spain & Japan.

If they do this honestly, they would find in most performance areas other than average train speed we are already better.

 

[transit54]

Comptroller General of the United States to study and compare passenger rail systems in United States with Canada, Germany, France, Great Britain, China, Spain & Japan.

If they do this honestly, they would find in most performance areas other than average train speed we are already better.

Such as? Certainly not in ridership, I can say that for sure. I doubt we'd be better at a lot of the conventional economic measurements of performance, such as RASM*, CASM**, frequency of service and the like. I do believe that we have some superior aspects of our passenger rail system in the US, but I'll admit they are few and far between. I'd probably exclude Canada and China from my statements, as well as Britain potentially. But the others are light years ahead of where we are.

A few years ago, I read a fascinating book that did a similar comparison, called "New Departures: Rethinking passenger rail in the 21st century." It was one of the most insightful comparisons I've ever seen done between the US/Canadian passenger rail systems and those of Europe and Japan. I highly recommend it.

*Revenue per available seat mile

**Cost per available seat mile

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I disagree, in a lot of areas we are quite superior. Safety, for one thing! We have the safest passenger trains in the world. Also, I think we have vastly superior scenery for most of our long distance routes! In terms of passenger service, though, I'd say we have a lot to learn from Europe. I really don't want to see much change in the long distance services.

Here is what I'd like to see:

An overall equipment system containing:

• More Acela trainsets, with Acela service operating to Harrisburg, Albany, Springfield, Richmond, and Pittsburgh.

• A total single level sleeper service with enough cars to operate 1 deluxe sleeper (all bedroom) on each LSL-route and Silver route, 2 current Viewliners on each single level route, 1 or 2 slumber coach on each route, and atleast 2 sectional sleepers on each, with coach cars only used for non-overnight travelers.

• A total Superliner amount to allow 2 full sleepers, 1 deluxe sleeper, and 1 slumbercoach type sleeper (figuring that out would be interesting), plus several sectional sleepers for each overnight Superliner train.

• A new 150 mph capable diesel equivalent to the Acela to provide high speed express service on all 3 hour plus corridor trains.

• Electrification from Washington to Richmond, Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, New York Penn to Albany (or maybe Schenectady), and New Haven to Springfield.

• Completion of grade separation.

• Full continuous tension catenary.

• A new diesel locomotive capable of atleast 125 mph for certain trains.

• New Superliner cars of all kinds, with at-least one frequency of each train getting Coast Starlight-esque first class accommodations.

• New Coach, Diner, Lounge (of a sightseer type) and baggage cars to match the new single level sleepers.

Train Routes:

• National Limited brought back.

• Desert Wind restored.

• North Coast Hiawatha restored.

• Pioneer restored.

• General limited/local train from NY to Chicago via Pittsburgh

• Broadway Limited brought back as a nearly non-stop all-sleeper train from NY to Chicago. Limited stops in Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh.

• Floridian restored.

• Gulf Coast Limited restored.

• Montrealer restored.

• Silver Palm restored with sleepers in addition to, not replacing, the Palmetto.

• International restored with two frequencies, both day and overnight.

• Twilight Shoreliner restored with sleepers.

• Federal Express overnight train departing Richmond at 6:30, stopping only in Washington, Philly, New York, and Boston.

• Empire Builder, Lake Shore Limited, Southwest Chief, California Zephyr and Coast Starlight gaining at least another frequency

• Cardinal goes daily.

• Sunset Limited restored to Florida and made daily

• Hub created in New Orleans with service to Detroit, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Las Vegas, and Denver.

• Hub created in St. Louis with service to Florida (provided by Floridian), Los Angeles, Denver, Las Vegas, Portland, Seattle, and Toronto.

• Hub created in Denver with service to Los Angeles, New Orleans, and Seattle.

• Additional frequency over Silver Meteor route, in addition to Silver Palm which will do its pre-truncation route.

• Dedicated high-speed rail in California with 200mph speeds as the goal.

• 3 daily high-speed (125-150) frequencies added over Pierre Marquette, Blue Water, Wolverine, Illini/Saluki, Hiawatha, Lincoln Service, Anne Rutledge, Illonois Zephyr, and Heartland Flyer routes.

• High speed and regular corridor service between Chicago and Twin Cities.

• Panama Limited brought back, with City Of New Orleans resuming its rightful place using high-speed equipment as an all daylight train.

 

[WICT106]

I would like to see a network along the lines of what Green Maned Lion proposes, with services so that the routes would have service at least twice per day each direction. I would also like to see money with which to upgrade the tracks in several areas of the country, so as to remove or ameliorate the bottlenecks that prevent higher speeds. I would also like to see more money with which to compensate those landlords that require it in order to passenger services to FRA Class 5 (90 mph speed limit) or Class 6 (110 ? mph speed limit). I would also like to see execution and installation of the MWRRI.

As long as I am on a tear, I would also like to see service restored to Madison, WI -- perhaps by re-routing the Empire Builder -- as well as restart of the Duluth, MN - Chicago North Star / Arrowhead. A guy can dream, can't he ?

 

[edding]

As long as we're totally day-dreaming, is there a reason why we can't add direct service to Phoenix,AZ -- it is after all the 5th largest city in the country. And while we're at it let's add service between Toledo & Detroit and international service to Toronto and then on to NYC through both/separately Detroit & Sarnia.

Ed

 

[DaveKCMO]

why can't hiawatha trains alternately terminate in madison and greenbay/sheboygan?

 

[Neil_M]

I disagree, in a lot of areas we are quite superior. Safety, for one thing! We have the safest passenger trains in the world. Also, I think we have vastly superior scenery for most of our long distance routes!

On what basis do you make that rather flimsy claim? How many accidents do you have at grade crossings each year? Each one of those has a potential for a major league rail pile up and unless you have barriers on both sides of the road and/or a longer time between train approaching and the barriers going down then it presents a very real chance of an accident.

How much track is not fitted with any form of in cab signalling or even signals?

Why do I see piles of damaged wagons from yet another freight train pile up?

130 wagon trains with a single pipe brake system? Not the best approach.....

Given the relatively small number of trains run each day on the Amtrak system and the low average speed compared to places like Germany, France and Switzerland or even the UK, its probably not surprising there are less severe accidents in the USA, but that requires investment and improvement, not just luck...

 

[WICT106]

why can't hiawatha trains alternately terminate in madison and greenbay/sheboygan?

I do not know about either Green Bay or Sheboygan, but the track for Madison and the surrounding area is FRA Class 2 or worse. In other words, the track in the Madison area, as it is right now, would not permit speeds in excess of 25 - 30 mph. Amtrak refuses to operate on track of such quality, and I cannot say that I blame them.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I disagree, in a lot of areas we are quite superior. Safety, for one thing! We have the safest passenger trains in the world. Also, I think we have vastly superior scenery for most of our long distance routes!

On what basis do you make that rather flimsy claim? How many accidents do you have at grade crossings each year? Each one of those has a potential for a major league rail pile up and unless you have barriers on both sides of the road and/or a longer time between train approaching and the barriers going down then it presents a very real chance of an accident.

How much track is not fitted with any form of in cab signalling or even signals?

Why do I see piles of damaged wagons from yet another freight train pile up?

130 wagon trains with a single pipe brake system? Not the best approach.....

Given the relatively small number of trains run each day on the Amtrak system and the low average speed compared to places like Germany, France and Switzerland or even the UK, its probably not surprising there are less severe accidents in the USA, but that requires investment and improvement, not just luck...

Not quite. Our trains are safer because they are more solidly built. We have very strict standards for passenger car safety. On the other hand, in europe, most of those trains are light as heck and crumple like tin cans in accidents.

 

[Neil_M]

Not quite. Our trains are safer because they are more solidly built. We have very strict standards for passenger car safety. On the other hand, in europe, most of those trains are light as heck and crumple like tin cans in accidents.

Not quite. Try looking at the history of the British Rail Mk3 coach. Only around 35 tons, but been involved in some big accidents, yet the vehicle kept its shape and didn't crumple like a tin can.

Rail safety isn't just about building heavy vehicles, its keeping road vehicles off the track and other trains out of the way of your train.

Regardless of how well and heavy you think your passenger car is, if its involved in a head on with another train at 90mph then the end result is still a pile of mangled scrap.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I wasn't referring to British rail.

 

[Neil_M]

I wasn't referring to British rail.

That's in 'Europe' as well.....

And the vehicle to which I refer is one of the "light as heck" ones that crumples like a "tin can" but actually doesn't.....

 

[Kramerica]

why can't hiawatha trains alternately terminate in madison and greenbay/sheboygan?

I think that may be what the "plan" is, based on the Midwest Regional Rail System Report:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/stat...railmidwest.pdf

Go to page 10 and you'll see a proposed frequency table. There are 17 daily trips from Chicago to Milwaukee. Then it also lists 10 from Milwaukee to Madison and 7 from Milwaukee to Green Bay. It doesn't explicitly say it, but I am assuming those would be continuous trains.

If even half that plan was implemented, that would be phenominal.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Mostly in reaction to Green Maned Lion's list:

I certainly think that more Acela trainsets and adding two business class cars to each existing Acela trainset probably makes sense, and I certainly want sleepers on the Twilight Shoreliner.

After the CSX vs MA liability disagreement gets worked out, I think a long term goal ought to be high speed commuter rail between Boston and Springfield; I think the trip could be done in under an hour if it's possible to build 200 MPH track for enough of the route. (I don't know if the geography actually makes enough 200 MPH track practical.) If that happens, some Amtrak service between Boston and New Haven ought to be rerouted via Springfield.

Where existing freight railroad rights of way are wide enough and straight enough, I'd like to see Amtrak buy part of the total width of the right of way, and build a dedicated passenger track, ideally spending the money on a concrete base for all that new track, and generally planning the spacing with the idea that someday 200 MPH trains will run on that track, without having to completely rebuild that track from scratch. Perhaps part of this program should involve grade separations from roads, too. Something will still have to be done to allow the existing freight track to cross the passenger track, probably as a level crossing of the tracks, so that the freight railroads can get to their existing spurs. Perhaps at major spurs, the passenger track can pass above the freight track with a 3% grade.

I think this should be done along all of Amtrak's existing long distance routes. It'll probably be a lot cheaper than building the Interstate Highway system was. (And remember that the Interstate Highway system is completely grade separated from the local roads, which makes me not understand how grade separating the railroads could be too expensive to be feasible.)

The goal should be to get an average of at least 150 MPH along the western long distance routes, and perhaps we should see if we can beat the French in this area (in which case we'd probably need to average more like 177 MPH). At that speed, having passing tracks every 25 miles or so might be adequate if there is only one passenger train every four hours in each direction, especially as a starting point to keep initial costs down a bit. However, if there's space, it would be best if Amtrak's share of the right of way is wide enough for eventual expansion to two or more tracks. (Though I'm not sure if Amtrak would ever need more than two tracks in places where there is never commuter rail.)

And in some places, creating a completely new right of way may be more practical than trying to get Amtrak to own part of the existing right of way.

I'm not sure if faster diesels really make sense. The really fast trains in any given country (I'm thinking of the Acela and TGV) seem to be electric. Maybe we should just be focusing on the electric trains.

Why isn't the Cardinal daily now? The lack of Diner-Lite and Viewliner cars? (It seems like the mothballed P40s and Amfleet Is could easily fill in the rest of a Cardinal consist.)

I'm not sure I'm convinced slumbercoaches make sense. The main argument for them is that they're cheaper than roomettes. But if Amtrak actually owned an adequate supply of sleeping cars similar to the current designs, it might become possible for Amtrak to sell roomettes at lower prices than they do now, especially to travlers who can be flexible about their travel dates.

I would like a train that departs Boston no earlier than 6 PM and arrives in Chicago Union Station reliably at the time 49 is alleged by the Amtrak System Timetable to arrive at its final destination now, without needing to change trains in Albany, and possibly without physically joining it to the cars that come from NYP. This train should use equipment that doesn't freeze up in the winter when it goes to Boston.

Of course, I also want a similar train that arrives at that time in Seattle instead of Chicago. I think part of what I really want here is for Chicago to be a hub that sorts sleepers in the middle of the night, so that a particular car can be designated as going from a particular right coast route to a particular left coast route, and each right coast route can have a single westbound overnight train, with that train having a sleeper for each west coast route. Or perhaps the sleeper sorting hub should be somewhat south of Chicago.

I think the tracks the Downeaster uses should be electrified, and the North South Rail Link built through Boston, so that the Acela trainsets can also run to Maine.

Amtrak should also maybe think about better airport connections. Can tracks be built directly to all of the airport terminals to get rid of the stupid shuttles? Does it make sense to build a couple pieces of track so that Amtrak can easily stop at the Philadephia airport without ever having to back up? Does it make sense to electrify the LIRR tracks that go to JFK and LGA so that NEC trains that currently run between DC and NYP could continue to JFK and LGA before terminating? Can the tunnel used by the MBTA SL1 bus be converted to heavy rail with track going directly to the Logan Airport terminals so that Amtrak can take people directly to Logan? Can the tracks to Manchester, NH be electrified and a spur built that goes right to the Manchester airport terminal?

However, in the short term, it sounds like if Congress can pass just the small set of improvements they're proposing now, that will be better than no Amtrak funding bill being passed by Congress.

 

[AlanB]

Why isn't the Cardinal daily now? The lack of Diner-Lite and Viewliner cars? (It seems like the mothballed P40s and Amfleet Is could easily fill in the rest of a Cardinal consist.)

I wouldn't want to overnight in an Amfleet II coach, much less an Amfleet I coach. For a trip of 6 to 7 hours an Amfleet I coach can be rather trying, I sure wouldn't want to spend 28+ hours in one. And they've already got enough P42's to run daily, without needing to pull a few P40's out of mothballs.

Does it make sense to electrify the LIRR tracks that go to JFK and LGA so that NEC trains that currently run between DC and NYP could continue to JFK and LGA before terminating?

There are no LIRR tracks that go to either LGA or JFK. The closest the LIRR ever gets to LGA is probably the Woodside stop and that's still at least a mile away or more. The closest the LIRR gets to JFK is Jamaica, again probably a mile or more away. Now technically it might be possible to reconfigure the AirTrain tracks to connect with the LIRR tracks, but then I'm not sure that conventional trains can handle some of the grades on the AirTrain line.

I suppose that the LIRR given funding could also reactivate it's line to Rockaway off the main line to Jamaica, but that still leaves it short of the airport and would conflict with the A train once you get down to Howard Beach.

 

[Steve4031]

The elimination of the self-sufficient operation is an indicator that they are serious about improving things.

 

[Neil_M]

The "Fantasy Island" wishlists are all very well, and some ideas mentioned do make sense, but whatever happens with the political side of things, its all years off yet, even if you ordered some off the shelf trainsets tomorrow, its still going to be a year or so, or more, till you get them in service.

Amtrak needs to focus on getting right the things it does now, so that in the future people are tempted to come back. Getting toilets to work, air conditioning to cool, diner cars to serve food, getting the train to arrive on time, and doing a host of little things to prove to the passengers its a good idea to use the train is not as glamourous as some fancy new high speed train full of whistles and bells, but for the next few years thats what needs to happen to keep the customer happy. Not everyone on a train is a railfan. People just want to go from A to B at a good price, in some sort of comfort and arrive in 1 piece.

One bad experience will put them off, and make them tell their friends and family how bad it was.

 

[frj1983]

why can't hiawatha trains alternately terminate in madison and greenbay/sheboygan?

I do not know about either Green Bay or Sheboygan, but the track for Madison and the surrounding area is FRA Class 2 or worse. In other words, the track in the Madison area, as it is right now, would not permit speeds in excess of 25 - 30 mph. Amtrak refuses to operate on track of such quality, and I cannot say that I blame them.

Since my hometown is Sheboygan,

The trackage north from Milwaukee on UP is all Single Track with very few passing sidings. While the trackage is in excellent shape, most trains are long, slow, coal drags...so more trackage would be needed. North of Sheboygan the trackage is in really poor shape and I'm not totally sure, but I believe there is a section of it which is either gone or no longer used. The better direction would be to go through the Fox River Valley area...Oshkosh, Appleton and thence to Green Bay!

 

[Larry H.]

Senators and Congressmen should be required to ride at least an overnight or preferably the whole western routes to actually see what the passengers do. It might make some real changes. We recently went round trip to California and on the way out the Sleepers Bathrooms didn't work for two days of the trip. On the Southwest Chief we had the same problem. One of the attendants said the issue was that it took two functioning vacuum pumps to make them work in high altitude and only money for one was spent. They have know this forever and still they run this way. Having the congressmen see there fellow passengers remains every day in the toilet might get at least those fixed.

The overall trip was good, but many features are suffering. Poorer food quality and more rushed and surly dinner crews as a result. The dinners should seat people like guest instead of cattle. You do as they say or your out! My mom who is 85 had eye surgery and is not comfortable with sun in her face. When we were seated at breakfast on the sunny side I ask the Lady in charge to be seated out of the sun and her reply was that "we could close the curtain". We enjoy the scenery and riding with the drape closed ruins that experience. The other side was empty and she quickly sat people there. There is no reason for the price you pay you should be treated in that manner. I think I will start a new thread about the dinner situation..

We had a customer service manager riding the Coast Starlight and talked at length about what we thought of the trains and conditions. He was receptive to many things but still had the attitude that cutting back the lounges and diners make good economic sense and that the Cross County Cafe cars were doing better revenue wise. Every one I meet on that train want the lounge back including the conductors and crew. It may happen they say, we will see.

 

[DaveKCMO]

why can't hiawatha trains alternately terminate in madison and greenbay/sheboygan?

I do not know about either Green Bay or Sheboygan, but the track for Madison and the surrounding area is FRA Class 2 or worse. In other words, the track in the Madison area, as it is right now, would not permit speeds in excess of 25 - 30 mph. Amtrak refuses to operate on track of such quality, and I cannot say that I blame them.

Since my hometown is Sheboygan,

The trackage north from Milwaukee on UP is all Single Track with very few passing sidings. While the trackage is in excellent shape, most trains are long, slow, coal drags...so more trackage would be needed. North of Sheboygan the trackage is in really poor shape and I'm not totally sure, but I believe there is a section of it which is either gone or no longer used. The better direction would be to go through the Fox River Valley area...Oshkosh, Appleton and thence to Green Bay!

is anyone actively pursuing such a thing? the grassroots group we have in kansas has been really effective at getting lawmakers' attention by getting official support from cities on or near the proposed route. seems like a no-brainer since there is so much frequency already!

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Amtrak needs to focus on getting right the things it does now, so that in the future people are tempted to come back. Getting toilets to work, air conditioning to cool, diner cars to serve food, getting the train to arrive on time, and doing a host of little things to prove to the passengers its a good idea to use the train is not as glamourous as some fancy new high speed train full of whistles and bells, but for the next few years thats what needs to happen to keep the customer happy. Not everyone on a train is a railfan. People just want to go from A to B at a good price, in some sort of comfort and arrive in 1 piece.One bad experience will put them off, and make them tell their friends and family how bad it was.

Getting the trains to run on time probably requires dedicated passenger track at some speed. And if you're going to do that at all, it's probably most cost effective to know where you're going to want to end up so that you can save money in the long run by doing some of the things for faster speeds with the earlier construction.

(The track doesn't quite have to be dedicated to Amtrak. Amtrak handles dispatching on the NEC tracks in Massachusetts that are shared with the MBTA Commuter Rail system, and I don't think that causes problems. On the other hand, the situation Amtrak experiences through western Connecticut on Metro North owned and dispatched tracks is less than ideal, but I think some of the problem there is that the Metro North tracks are running pretty close to their maximum capacity, and there's no obvious easy place to put more tracks for most of the length of that route.)

The only problems I have personally seen with toilets on Amtrak is inadequate cleaning during corridor runs. And Amtrak is apparently making some progress in that direction, though the Regional trains may not yet be getting cleaned en route. (I was in one of the restrooms on train 449 in coach last week on Friday sometime after Pittsfield, the second to last stop, and the only issue was that the trash can was nearly full. But the coach was slightly less than half full; it may get worse when the coach is full. Amtrak probably ought to have someone board at some intermediate stop to empty out those trash cans if that's not the responsibility of any of the crew on that train.)

I haven't personally seen air conditioning problems, and the diner-lite cars I've experienced have managed to serve edible food without any real difficulty.

I do wish Amtrak would build a bunch of single level dining cars that have real kitchens, but that's not something they're likely to be able to have in service everywhere six months from now.