From: cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:02:25 -0400, Michael Finfer
 wrote:

>On 4/8/2015 11:49 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 11:07:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately, railroads are an incredibly capital-intensive business,
>>> so you need a pretty significant investment in track to make _any_
>>> difference in speed or capacity, though 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 
re-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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> But this attitude is nothing new.  Back in the 1950s, some railroad
managers were convinced their passenger trains lost money, even when in fact
they were profitable, including with overhead.  (Ref "Twilight of the Psgr
Train" by Fraily).
>>
>> Not helping the situation was the ICC, forcing the railroads to carry
extremely expensive trains no one rode, for years.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> (However, I don't understand the screwup with the PATCO rebuild order,
which is YEARS late, by an experienced builder.  And it's a rebuild of a rapid
transit car of 45 y/o technology, not even a new design, though I think
they're doing it all with 
computers.)
>>
>>
>>
>
>One of the issues here is that SEPTA chose a PTC system that is
>incompatible with the one CSX will be using.  I am still shaking my head
>over that.  Interoperability was supposed to be one of the key features
>of operating a national system.

The PTC system is probably the one that Amtrak uses so SEPTA didn't
have much choice.  Also SEPTA long term probably will go high level
platform which is incompatible with wide freight.

Clark Morris
>
>At least separating the freights onto their own single track railroad
>will benefit the passenger operation.
>
>Michael Finfer
>Bridgewater, NJ

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)