CSX opposes high-speed rail on its tracks

A lot of interesting discussion here. One of the major factors that distorts the question of costs of rail passenger service is that private US railroads have to pay property taxes, while quasi-public railroads in other countries do not.

How much "profit" does our Interstate highway system produce? How is environmental impact factored in? Do we not "subsidize" many forms of transportation in one way or another?

CSXT would need to replace rails, crossties, and ballasts to bring their tracks up to the standards of High-Speed Trains.

I am with CSX on this one. Heavy freight and high speed passenger are really different technologies, except for the rail. 60 mph freights and 100+ mph passenger trains are not a good combination. For excellent acceleration and ultra high speeds, you would have to electrify, as that is the only way to get the power density. There are MANY other differences. For example, the DOT strength requirements include one million pounds of buff, and that is what freight has. The European high speed passenger equipment isn't even close to this. (From my memory, it is about 650,000 lb.) To go to 1M lb requires a lot of extra weight, and that in turn requires a lot of extra power. The only reason that high speed trains have been successful in Europe is that no capital city is more than 300 miles from any other, and high speed ground is marginally  viable at this distance. In Europe, vacant land is scarce so there are fewer airports. Oh, and in Europe many of most transportation systems are not profitable and are supported by taxes, just like we do in the USA with air travel! In the USA, "we will build it and they will come" is probably not going to work. In this country, people like their cars.......

david1 posted:

Originally Posted by clem k:

Originally Posted by david1:

As I have stated before Amtrak should stand on their own without our tax dollars. Time for them to make a profit or go to the dust bin of history. 

The freight railroads should not get subsidies either, nor should the marine operations or the airports or the highways  

Your right, no business should get subsidies. 

The things is, many for profit businesses do. If the trucking industry had to pay the true cost of them operating on the roads, they would not be that profitable, the road use taxes they pay and the tax on diesel fuel covers only a percent of the damage 80,000 pounds of trucks put on the roads, for example, that cost is picked up by motor vehicle fuel taxes paid for by cars (who cause a tiny fraction of all wear and tear), and by state taxes as well. Airports charge airlines a fraction of the cost of running the airport in the form of gate fees, and running the FAA is paid for by government revenue, as are regulatory bodies like the NHTSA, and the TSA. The argument is that trucking and the airlines generate economic activity that helps pay for their costs, and there is some logic to that..but the same is true of things like Amtrak as well, at least on lines like the Northeast corridor. There are plenty of examples of this, the automative plants down in the Tennessee valley region are subsidized by federally generated electric power, that charge only their cost of production, so they are paying 50% or less than what a commercial plant would charge, and the argument is the TVA and Washington state power creates jobs and economic activity.

When it comes to Amtrak, the subsidy is a lot more public, many of those if you told them that trucking and the airline industry or the many auto plants down in the TVA region are being subsidized by the government, they would say the government doesn't pay anything, those are private industries making a profit and paying their way, because their subsidies are hidden. Parts of Amtrak are creating economic benefits, they help prevent crowding of airports in the busy corridors, they get you center city to center city, unlike many airports where they are difficult to get to, and they often provide service to places that otherwise would have no transit options, airports being far away..not to mention that trains pull traffic off of roads that are already congested, and ever look at how much it costs per mile to widen highways? 

At one point, the NY Central back in the 50's was reputedly making more money from passenger operations than freight operations and I believe the Pennsylvania may have been. In part, passenger operations became less profitable because other forms of transportation were being heavily subsidized and pushed, think about the cost of the interstate system and how much highways cost to maintain and build, when the railroads were paying all the costs of running their rail network. Think of the heavy subsidization of the airline industry, the building of airports, the infrastructure to brings roads to them and such (the Van Wyck in NYC was built basically to attack the east river bridges to Kennedy airport), the government agencies that run the airports, the direct and indirect subsidization of jet fuel (government policies to keep it cheap), and railroads were trying to compete against transport that was being heavily subsidized. 

The answer on high speed rail, true high speed rail, would likely be separate right of way, and it makes sense only where it is truly going to be utilized. Northeast Corridor, the corridor between San Diego and San Francisco, Maybe Chicago to NYC if fast enough, but there has to be the traffic, and it can't be based in "me too", where every little whistle stop wants it, where rural area politicians clambor for it, it has to be economically justified (not profitable, just justified). If we subsidize the automobile, trucks and planes, why not trains as well?

The CSX, Amtrak, and the VRE use the Old RF&P line, they are currently adding a third track and replacing the existing rail also, From DC to Richmond for the purpose of using  the tracks for higher speed traffic for freight and passenger service, they will eventually remove all grade crossing in the near future. They have been working on this for the past year. They already moved the pipelines along side and placed them further away and deeper. They are in the process of laying track now. I hope I live long enough to see it done. Amtrak and the VRE run at 70 to 90MPH now on some sections. E ticket ride sometimes. CSX are deepening the tunnels in the area for stack trains.  Amtrak uses this line heavily because it is an extension of the High speed corridor to the south, When there is a need they seem to find a way.

colorado hirailer posted:

What about the TGV line in France?  I saw it and a train from a distance, but the only

rail line I crossed there looked like abandoned meter guage in the Dordogne...

It is probably fenced off, as are not the Japanese lines, and etc. etc.

Even without beds on the tracks, people can't hear trains at today's speeds...

gotta be fenced.....

I have ridden on TGV (pronounced Tay-Jeh-vay) trains many times in France, Germany and Switzerland, as I used to be in Europe a lot and worked for the French company, Alstom, that builds trains.  Those trains are very nimble and the rail work, tracks and ballast everywhere is absolutely impeccable. The trains don't clang back and forth on the rails at all.  There is also usually nothing anywhere in sight, like grade crossings or congested areas, and the whole setup in populated areas is segregated from local activity.  We went from Zurich to Lyon one time in our own private cars.  Train was going so fast, the cars on the distant autobahn looked like they were driving in reverse. There was waitress service and not one drink spilled a drop from train motion the entire ride. Smooth as silk. Compare that to my ride from NYC to Virginia. Like night and day. 

Where freight trains are prohibited, and the entire line is literally realigned every night, that is the kind of ride that is possible. The relatively light weight of the trainsets, with shared bogies (trucks), traction motors distributed throughout the trainset, and different motor suspension systems, that is the result. The entire line is inaccessible to pedestrians and there are no road crossings. And the government picks up most of the tab.

There is no question that in some US north-south corridors, high speed rail can compete. The entire Northeast Corridor is a no brainer, and the NEC is profitable for Amtrak due to ridership, principally because 40+% of the riders in the NEC are commuters. The west coast corridor is similar. The central corridor, not so much. The reason is that for the ridership density, there has to be at least two "thriving metropolitan areas". So who wants to travel from Chicago to St. Louis.......? The probable answer is "insufficient people....."

The TGV and its various iterations are France and Germany's equivalent to our aerospace industry.

Ace posted:

A lot of interesting discussion here. One of the major factors that distorts the question of costs of rail passenger service is that private US railroads have to pay property taxes, while quasi-public railroads in other countries do not.

How much "profit" does our Interstate highway system produce? How is environmental impact factored in? Do we not "subsidize" many forms of transportation in one way or another?

I don't think anyone has done a profit or loss on the interstate highway system as such, whether the cost to build and maintain it is outstripped by the economic activity it generates. I am sure there are sections of interstate that were built that were done for political reasons, rather than economic ones, and there are many highways that end up generating a ROI to put it in beancounter terms. On the other hand, where interstates are used for commuting and have traffic problems,studies have shown the cost of lost time in commuting is huge, for example. People complain about the cost of mass transit, the government subsidies, yet if you look at the cost in places without mass transit, of traffic nightmares, the cost of expanding roads, it becomes an interesting comparison.

And yes, we subsidize transportation we consider critical, in many ways, whether it is roads, bridges and tunnels, or airports, or trucking, or shipping from ports, there are a lot of subsidies. Usually when people complain about, for example, subsidies to Amtrak, it is because they are visible, it is like a lot of subsidies the government provides, if they are visible they are targets, when they are hidden , like it doesn't exist

Hudson5432 posted:

Where freight trains are prohibited, and the entire line is literally realigned every night, that is the kind of ride that is possible. The relatively light weight of the trainsets, with shared bogies (trucks), traction motors distributed throughout the trainset, and different motor suspension systems, that is the result. The entire line is inaccessible to pedestrians and there are no road crossings. And the government picks up most of the tab.

There is no question that in some US north-south corridors, high speed rail can compete. The entire Northeast Corridor is a no brainer, and the NEC is profitable for Amtrak due to ridership, principally because 40+% of the riders in the NEC are commuters. The west coast corridor is similar. The central corridor, not so much. The reason is that for the ridership density, there has to be at least two "thriving metropolitan areas". So who wants to travel from Chicago to St. Louis.......? The probable answer is "insufficient people....."

The TGV and its various iterations are France and Germany's equivalent to our aerospace industry.

Nice post. Europe is different than the US, for one thing they made a conscious decision not to base transportation as much on the private car, gas taxes and the cost of owning a car meant they were not prime transportation, so rails were therefore critical and they invested in that, there has been a very different experience here in the US where post WWII cars became predominant (and for longer distance travel, the airline industry). China has invested in high speed rail because it makes sense to with the way cities are growing and so forth. 

Part of the problem with passenger rail in the US is that we haven't really made an effort to rationalize it. While long distance train travel is a lot of fun, romantic  even, we are supporting train service to all these places where ridership is low. It would make sense to rationalize things like high speed rail, to places that have the traffic flow. If high speed rail was fast enough, it could make Chicago to NY practical, if the trains went center city to center city. One of the problems is that often high speed rail is being proposed as a means to generate traffic, rather than existing, so we hear planners in a state arguing for a rail link from here to there, arguing "if we had that, we would be able to attract business", which is obviously fraught. The other problem is communities that likely would lose rail travel, towns and cities, would fight it tooth and nail, even though there is not a lot of traffic in/out of those places, and politicians listen to that. 

One of the more funny things I see is towns and cities complaining about subsidies for mass transit, that it would be better to move jobs and companies to their towns and cities, because then we wouldn't need these subsidies..which of course leaves out that those towns and cities would rely on people driving, and then end up car choked if the jobs moved there, some of our 'planning' is based on wishful thinking rather than reality,  happens with those pushing rail travel and those pushing the car or moving jobs to their region. To do a true evaluation of high speed rail and rail projects also requires looking at the costs of other forms of transportation, looking at the big picture, looking at the subsidies other forms of travel get, and then deciding what makes sense, but I am not holding my breath, there are just too many reasons, political and otherwise, that don't want a true accounting. 

CSX shouldn't worry.  I sat at lunch yesterday watching the North East Corridor in NJ.

Two Acela trains passed during the 45 minutes I was there. They weren't even doing 40 MPH.

Yes, we do subsidize Amtrak,

BUT

The amount of subsidy to Amtrak is, from my memory, less than 2% of the total pie. Amtrak even has trouble finding the funds to replace ageing equipment, and it is probably a near miracle that they have been able to maintain the NEC for the speeds at which they operate. They deserve more, in view of the reduction in congestion in the Corridor that would occur if they did not exist.

Just as important, and possibly more important, is the continuing success of transit systems. Our largest cities could not exist in their present form without them.

CSX is anti passenger. They barely tolerate Amtrak. They feel that passenger trains lose money and freight trains make money. They also have zero interest in special excursions like steam excursions unlike their competitor which is hosting more 611 excursions this year. C&O 614 is still stuffed and mounted in Virginia. Ward's comment sounds like he wants CSX to simply be a corporation that exists to make a profit and nothing more.

John Pignatelli JR. posted:

The CSX, Amtrak, and the VRE use the Old RF&P line, they are currently adding a third track and replacing the existing rail also, From DC to Richmond for the purpose of using  the tracks for higher speed traffic for freight and passenger service, they will eventually remove all grade crossing in the near future. They have been working on this for the past year. They already moved the pipelines along side and placed them further away and deeper. They are in the process of laying track now. I hope I live long enough to see it done. Amtrak and the VRE run at 70 to 90MPH now on some sections. E ticket ride sometimes. CSX are deepening the tunnels in the area for stack trains.  Amtrak uses this line heavily because it is an extension of the High speed corridor to the south, When there is a need they seem to find a way.

What about the street running in Ashland, VA? What are they going to do about that? It wouldn't be very safe to have 150 mph trains there.

Funny you should mention that. There were plans to bypass Ashland (a great railfanning spot) but the town nixed them.  Maybe they don't want to be taken off the map? 

I am sure they have speed limits on cases like Ashland and other locations like that, I notice when the VRE is in a built up area the trains do not run very fast, maybe 35 or 45 MPH, but when they get past Springfield they start picking up the pace, between Fredericksburg and Quantico I would say they were hitting 80 to 90 if not more. BTW CSX trains are hitting 75 plus on that area also. There are not very many grade crossings also in that area.

Speed is governed by location, and that is anywhere it could be unsafe to go fast. Philly was a good example of going fast on a curved track.. 

In comparing European rail to US rail relating to shared trackage, has anyone compared the length and frequency of freight trains between the two? Here in the Shenandoah valley on the B line between DC and points west, the NS runs between 14 to 18 trains a day and they are all what seems at least a mile long with no coal traffic. Seems the length of freight consists might be longer here.

Robert K posted:

Ward's comment sounds like he wants CSX to simply be a corporation that exists to make a profit and nothing more.

Imagine that!

I frankly am tired of the facile argument that because we waste money subsidizing A, B and C that we should also waste more money subsidizing D. How about leveling the playing field by removing all subsidies and letting the users of all of the various transportation systems pay their actual costs? 

The huge debt that the country, states and some localities are saddled with is the direct result of this kind of shifting and hiding the true cost of things.

If taxes were raised to cover the actual cost of the bloated government leviathan there would be an uprising among the people ( at least the ones who pay taxes).

Instead, politicians of every stripe and at every level of government continue to "borrow and spend" to circumvent the the popular opposition to "tax and spend" policies.

The only reason Amtrak still exists is that it serves the political, business and media elites in the New York - DC Corridor.  Nobody gives a rat's backside about the habitually late and poorly patronized long distance loser that makes a 2 AM stop in Podunk to pick up and discharge 0 passengers nightly.

Robert K posted:

CSX is anti passenger. They barely tolerate Amtrak. They feel that passenger trains lose money and freight trains make money. They also have zero interest in special excursions like steam excursions unlike their competitor which is hosting more 611 excursions this year. C&O 614 is still stuffed and mounted in Virginia. Ward's comment sounds like he wants CSX to simply be a corporation that exists to make a profit and nothing more.

Robert, you come off as someone who seems to think that railroads should exist for the purpose of pleasing railfans, with all your complaining about CP and CSX being "anti-steam".  Here's some reality for you- the railroads don't owe you or any other railfan a thing.  They do, however, owe their stockholders a profit.  Whether you like it or not, THAT is the reason they're in business- to make money.  I like steam and neat paint schemes as much as the next guy, but I also realize that those things have nothing to do with running a business.  And frankly, the "you owe me" attitude is one reason that many railroads and railroaders take a negative view of railfans.

Sorry to hijack the thread...

Data from 2003...may be outdated but here it is.   I have no dog in this fight.   

http://www.demographia.com/db-htld-rail.htm

Profitable Japanese Systems

There are two places in the world where rail’s success is not accompanied by excess costs and is felt throughout the urban area: Tokyo (Tokyo-Yokohama) and Osaka (Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto).

Violating the old transit myth that there are no profitable systems, data from the Union of International Public Transport (the international equivalent of the American Public Transportation Association) indicate both systems earn annual profits of approximately 30 percent over operating and capital expense.

In both urban areas, most service is provided by historic private suburban rail (commuter rail) companies that operate their own lines and share tracks with municipally owned subway systems. In addition, privatized units of Japanese National Railways (JNR) provide a large share of the travel. The municipally owned urban bus, rail, and monorail systems receive small subsidies, sometimes only for capital.

True HSR has NO BUSINESS on a freight railroad. All of those fine operations overseas which make Amtrak look like a joke run on THEIR OWN track. By the same token, America's freight rail system is the finest in the world. While CSX's public relations philosophy is not particularly pro railfan, CSX is a generous company, particularly in regards to helping environmental projects. of course, if you know of a preservation worthy CSX locomotive, get your pictures while you can because it will be scrapped with the rest. With NS and UP, there's a chance that unit might get preserved. that said, there are no bad guys here, just different priorities. CSX has helped a lot of communities. 

I saw a CSX freight go by on the way home tonight heading north through DC on its way north. They must have opened a line north around the wreck. It was the only train at 4:30pm besides an Amtrak train.

Nick Chillianis posted:

I frankly am tired of the facile argument that because we waste money subsidizing A, B and C that we should also waste more money subsidizing D. How about leveling the playing field by removing all subsidies and letting the users of all of the various transportation systems pay their actual costs? 

It is interesting people want to end all subsidies except THEIR subsidy!

http://www.gobrightline.com/buzz

I am interested to see how this passenger rail project goes.  The stations and track upgrades are already under construction.