The unsung success story of rail transport in the United States

A common lament among Americans who have traveled to places like Europe or Japan is that the United States does not have a rail system on par with what exists in those parts of the world. But they're missing part of the story. The United States actually has one of the best rail systems in the world... for moving freight.

Often there is the perception that the U.S. lags behind other countries when it comes to rail, but in many cases that is not true. The country has, arguably, the best freight rail system in the world, which is owned, operated, and financed by private companies. Passenger service in specific corridors is comparable with the European counterparts: for example, in the Northeast. On long-distance routes and in less densely populated areas, however, there are often empty seats on Amtrak trains.

The primary difference between Europe and North America could be summarized like this: In America there is a freight rail system with some passenger, while in Europe there is a passenger rail system with some freight—the emphasis is different.

A further difference is that the rail network is private in the U.S. and operated to yield a profit, while in most other countries the rail infrastructure is owned by the government (similar to the freeway system in the U.S.) and heavily subsidized.

A given rail network can either move passengers well or move freight well, but it doesn't do a good job moving both well. This is why Amtrak's cross-country lines are so slow and erratic: they are running on systems designed to move freight, not people.

Running passenger and freight trains on the same lines is possible but poses many challenges, as the characteristics of the two train types are very different; freight trains tend to be long, heavy, and comparatively slow, while passenger trains are short, fast, and comparatively light. If there are not too many trains on a line, this mixed traffic can be managed, but if there are a lot of trains, then separate infrastructure is the way forward.

When journey times are less than four hours, people usually prefer to travel by train instead of alternative options, such as air or road. For many corridors in the U.S. it would be necessary to upgrade existing lines or to build new infrastructure to achieve competitive journey times.

This is why suggestions that involve increased passenger service on existing Class I freight railroad networks (i.e. those operated by Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, CSX and KCS), such as increasing frequency of Amtrak services or implementing new commuter rail service, are typically non-starters. They are in the business of moving freight, not people, and their networks and capacities are designed to move the former at the expense of the latter.

As the article notes, rail is an extremely efficient mode of transportation, for people as well as freight; a freight railroad can, on average, move a ton of freight for the equivalent of almost 480 miles per gallon of fuel, which is a level of efficiency that semi trucks can't touch. The US rail system excels at moving freight and should be recognized as such.

Passenger rail could be similarly effective and efficient, especially in the too-far-to-drive, too-short-to-fly "sweet spot." But it will require completely new -and costly - infrastructure to do so. Kinda like what some folks are trying to do here in Texas.

Why passenger trains suck in America

It's a question I often come across in my line of work: why does America's passenger rail system suck so much? Other countries have sleek, comfortable high-speed trains that get people from one city to another quickly ad reliably. The USA, on the other hand, has Amtrak: the money-hemorrhaging government enterprise that is infrequent, slow and unreliable.

The general suckiness of inter-city passenger rail in the United States is the result of many factors, including geography, urban density, the primacy of freight movement, and political inertia. But don't take my word for it: spend a few minutes watching this excellent, if not somewhat wonky, video on the subject.

(h/t: Atlantic Citylab)

High speed rail between Houston and Dallas: what you need to know

Last Monday, former Harris County Judge and current President of Texas Central Railway Robert Eckels came to the Houston-Galveston Area Council to make a lunchtime presentation (video here) of his company's plans for a bullet train that, as early as 2021, would make the trip from Houston to Dallas in 90 minutes or less. Here are some of the highlights from his presentation:

• This train is intended to be privately-financed and operated. Texas Central will work with government agencies such as the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration, and is in fact working with them on environmental studies right now, but the train itself will not be operated nor subsidized by the government.

• Texas Central Railway is supported by Central Japan Railway and plans to deploy the N700 Series Shinkansen between Houston and Dallas. 

• This train's speed could top out at 205 miles per hour on the Houston-Dallas run, due to relatively flat topography and overwhelmingly rural development between the two cities. 

• The train's city-to-city travel time of 90 minutes is competitive with flying, when time getting through security and boarding the aircraft is taken into account.

• Seven different alignments are under consideration, but all try to use existing rights-of-way (along I-45 or existing Union Pacific or BNSF trackage) to keep land acquisition costs as low as possible. 

• The train will be fully-grade separated, as all bullet trains are in Japan. 

• Train departures will be as frequent as every half-hour, which matches frequencies currently offered by Southwest Airlines between Hobby Airport and Love Field. 

• Ticket prices are expected to be slightly less than the current commercial airfare between Houston and Dallas, but a fare structure is nowhere near finalized.

• Station locations in Houston and Dallas are still under study but downtown termini appear to be preferred; getting into downtown Dallas from the south is going to be easier than getting into downtown Houston from the north due to the way the two cities have developed. 

• As of right now, there are no plans for any intermediate stops between Houston and Dallas. This is probably not something that folks from Bryan/College Station or The Woodlands want to hear, and there may be opportunities to provide those stations in the future, but initially this is envisioned to be a non-stop service. 

• Likewise, these trains will not stop at any airports, because it is not economic to do so at this time. Right-of-way for a future extension from Dallas to DFW airport and Fort Worth will be preserved, however.

• The vociferous opposition from Southwest Airlines that killed a similar plan for high speed rail in Texas in the 1990s has not materialized. This is because Southwest's business model has changed significantly in the last 20 years. This is due to factors such as the expiration of Wright Amendment restrictions on service to and from Love Field in Dallas, the fact that Southwest is now a truly "national" airline, and increases in jet fuel costs that make the short-haul flights that Southwest used to rely on, such as Hobby-to-Love, less profitable. 

• The price tag for the train's construction is a nice, round $10 billion.

Eckels noted that the challenges to building this bullet train are financial, rather than environmental or technical in nature, but that private funding sources are being sought and that if things "pencil in," then this project will become a reality. He says he's "cautiously optimistic;" I'm somewhat less optimistic, if for no other reason than rounding up $10 billion in private capital is a significant hurdle to clear. I'm also worried that actually getting the trains into the centers of both Houston and Dallas will be a lot harder than Texas Central anticipates.

On the other hand, it's clear that Texas Central is not some wild-eyed, pie-in-the-sky operation. Eckels leads an experienced and politically-savvy team, their backing from Central Japan Railway is real, and their plans are being taken very seriously by federal, state and local authorities. It's all about being able to ensure that their investors make a profit, and to that end Texas Central is not looking just at fares but also development opportunities around stations for maximum value capture.

I've ridden the Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka, and I would take that over a cramped seat on a 737 or a boring car ride on I-45 any day. So while I have my doubts, I'm nevertheless rooting for Eckels and Texas Central to succeed.

The KCS Southern Belle

I happened to be downtown Monday and noticed a unique train parked at the Amtrak Station on Washington:

This is the Kansas City Southern's special excursion train, the Southern Belle. It is powered by three EMD F9 locomotives, which were manufactured in the 1950s. The locomotives pull a series of vintage passenger cars.

I'm not really sure what the Southern Belle was doing in town; the train was unmanned and not under power when I took these pictures, and there was no signage or literature to indicate if the train was here for a special event.

In any case, I thought it was pretty cool. But then again, I'm a hopeless traingeek...

UP 844 pulls into town

Kirby and I saw it in action in Denver earlier this year, but last weekend I got to see it up close and personal: Union Pacific 844, the "Living Legend" and the only steam locomotive never to have been retired by a major US railroad.

Union Pacific brought it down to Houston for the weekend as part of events marking their 150th anniversary.  The event was held at the Amtrak station near downtown. You can't appreciate just how massive UP 844 is unless you actually see it for yourself.

As big and fat as I am, I am dwarfed by the massive driving wheels of UP 844. There's just something impressive about the size and complexity of steam locomotives that diesels, for all their power, simplicity and efficiency, cannot replicate. This is not to say that I favor steam locomotives over diesel locomotives; railroads made the transition from the former to the latter for obvious economic reasons.

This is what the cab of Union Pacific 844 looks like. All those knobs and valves! Today's locomotive engineers, with their fully-computerized cabs, have it easy. Even though UP 844 is a steam locomotive, it does not burn coal, but rather #5 fuel oil, which is normally used for maritime purposes.

Even Abraham Lincoln made an appearance at the festivities. His presence is historically accurate; 150 years ago Lincoln signed into law the Pacific Railroad Acts that would incorporate Union Pacific into existence.

Anyway, I was impressed. Kudos to Union Pacific for keeping UP 844 up and running to remind us of what used to be.

A railroad tunnel through the Andes

This would be very cool, should it actually come to pass:

South American engineers are trying to tackle one of the continent's greatest natural challenges: the towering Andes mountain chain that creates a costly physical barrier for nations ever-more-dependent on trade with Asia.

Instead of pushing cargo over a 10,500-foot (3,200-meter) pass that is often blocked by snow for weeks, they plan to build the longest tunnels in the Americas right through the mountains. That would make billions of dollars worth of Chinese electronics, Chilean wine, Argentine food and Brazilian cars cheaper and more competitive.

The proposed $3.5 billion private railway known as the Aconcagua Bi-Oceanic Corridor would link train and trucking hubs on both sides with a 127-mile-long (205-kilometer) railway, including twin 32-mile (52-kilometer) tunnels. Construction would take 10 years, but once completed, it could save millions of dollars and carve days off shipping times.

The existing crossing, which includes a two-mile-long tunnel between the two countries, connects Argentina's National Route 7, which stretches all the way from Buenos Aires, with Chile Highway 60, which continues on to the Pacific seaport of Valparaíso. The highway at this crossing is a narrow two-lane road which negotiates multiple switchbacks (especially on the Chilean side) and is clogged with truck traffic when it's not closed due to snowfall. There used to be a railroad linking the two countries at this location as well, but it has been out of use since the early 1980s. The result is a bottleneck hampering trade between Chile, Argentina and Brazil, which are three of South America's four largest economies:

Currently, much of the processed soy oils, wine and meat Argentina sends to China, as well as Asian electronics destined for Brazil, must first sail around the tip of South America, adding nearly 3,000 nautical miles and another week to the trip. Shipping by rail between Atlantic and Pacific ports would unite the most productive regions of Chile and its South American neighbors, making trade more competitive for all involved.

The shipping cost would drop from $210 to $177 a ton for cargo that now moves between Cordoba, Argentina, and Manzanillo, Mexico, the closest major port with direct rail links to the eastern United States.

"This project is just what's needed," said Mauricio Claveri, an economist with the Abeceb.com consulting firm in Buenos Aires. He called it a strategic necessity for the Mercosur nations of Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil and Venezuela to develop more efficient trade links with China, Japan and Southeast Asia.

The plan is for this project to be privately built and operated by a multinational consortium, which would then recoup their investment through usage fees. The Chilean and Argentinian governments would provide loan guarantees, but public money would not be used to build this railroad. Bidding on this project has yet to occur.

The train engines, which would be powered by electricity rather than coal or diesel to reduce the environmental impact, are to link a transportation hub in Lujan de Cuyo on the Argentine side with Los Andes, Chile. The tunnels will descend from Punta de Vacas, Argentina, at 7,851 feet (2,393 meters) above sea level, to Saladillo, Chile, at 5,039 feet (1,536 meters), both below the steeper slopes and higher altitudes that get paralyzing snow each winter.

The initial phase would open a single tunnel and cost $3.5 billion with a capacity of 24 million tons of cargo a year. Depending on demand, the capacity could grow to 77 million tons and the total price tag to $5.9 billion by adding a second tunnel and additional rail lines on either side. As many as four mechanical excavators will be used to carve through the mountains.

I suppose the railroad could also carry passenger traffic in addition to cargo if the demand were there, but that's obviously never going to be its primary purpose. The tunnels would be among the longest in the world, just a few miles shorter than the Gotthard Base Tunnel set to open in the Swiss Alps later this decade. They would nevertheless be an incredible engineering feat for Latin America, not to mention a huge boon to its economy.

There are, to be sure, several hurdles this project must clear. In addition to the technical challenges of tunneling 32 miles through the Andes, there is the question that invariably arises when infrastructure projects of this magnitude are proposed to be constructed entirely with private funds: will it really be profitable, or will the Chilean and Argentinian governments be forced to come to the project's rescue at any point? And then there are the usual risks associated with doing business in Latin America: political unrest, economic instability, and corruption.

Nevertheless, and in spite of its cost and the obstacles it faces, this seems to me like a reasonable, feasible and beneficial project and I'm hoping to see it happen. Time will tell.

"Quiet Zones" aren't always quiet

As reported by Michelle Leigh Smith in this week's issue of Southwest News (zoom into "Westbury's New Quiet Zone Isn't So Quiet;" the story continues on the last page:

The quiet zone along the Union Pacific railroad tracks in Westbury is not so quiet.

Train horns blast throughout the day, warning workers to move back from the tracks along old US Highway 90, near the ranch style homes and bungalows of old Westbury. The newly designated Quiet Zone that the City of Houston's Katherine Parker, Senior Project Manager in Traffic Operations, Public Works led through a multi-year process now faces a hitch or two as Union Pacific double tracks its line and construction crews work with safety issues and a busy train schedule.

"I have two small kids, age 3 and 8 months, and the train whistle wakes them up during their naptime and at night," says Westbury mom Jaimee Mathis. "It's frustrating - the horn blasts vary but it seems lately, it's been more frequent. This morning, there were several at 5:30 a.m. I've heard it four times since then and it's not yet 10 a.m. We are really close, at Chimney Rock and Airport, we are right there. It's supposed to be a quiet zone."

Union Pacific is double-tracking about eleven miles of their railroad running parallel to US 90A (part of what is officially known as the Glidden Subdivision) between southwest Houston and Sugar Land. This is one of the busiest stretches of railway in the Union Pacific network, since it is part of the "Sunset Line" which connects the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles on the West Coast to the ports of Houston and New Orleans on the Gulf Coast. In addition to Union Pacific trains, this section of railroad carries BNSF, Kansas City Southern, Ferromex and Amtrak traffic. UP says that the $46 million project "will help get trains through the area" and likens double-tracking to "adding a lane to a highway - it helps everyone get to their destination faster."

Indeed, nobody is arguing that this isn't a worthwhile project. What the neighbors are concerned about is the Quiet Zone. Don't locomotive operators have to respect it regardless of the presence of construction workers in the area? Not necessarily:

"Quiet Zones aren't bullet proof," says Jack Hanagriff, HPD's law enforcement liaison with the Federal Railroad Administration. "Quiet Zones only restrict routine horn use at designated public crossings. They do not stop horn use for safety. If there are people on the ground, a hazard on the track, a car crossing or anytime they pass another train, they will use the horn."

"We're just going to have to be patient while the maintenance takes place," Hanagriff says. "Typically the first 30 days are crazy, but you have to think about it, they are heavily regulated to use the horn and they are hammered on to use it - it's their main safety mechanism. It will settle down once the construction goes away."

In other words, there's not much residents can do other than complain to Union Pacific in hopes that they address the situation and, otherwise, endure the noise until the double-tracking project is complete. As somebody who lives behind the UP Terminal Subdivision, which feeds into the Glidden and isn't always "quiet" despite being a designated Quiet Zone, I can certainly sympathize. But on the other hand, I recognize that Union Pacific is not going to create a safety hazard or otherwise run afoul of FRA regulations by not using horns to warn construction crews of oncoming trains.

Hopefully the double-tracking work will proceed quickly and peace will soon return to the residents of Westbury.

And now for a quick history lesson: the section of railroad in question is one of the oldest in Texas. It was originally laid by the Buffalo Bayou, Brazos and Colorado Railway in the early 1850s. It then became part of part of Galveston, Harrisburg, & San Antonio Railroad, and was later absorbed into the Southern Pacific system. Union Pacific assumed ownership of the line when they acquired SP in 1996.

More traingeekery: Union Pacific 844

Kirby and I just happened to be in Denver a few weeks ago when UP 844 - the only steam locomotive never to be retired by a major North American railroad - passed through town on its way from Omaha to Cheyenne. We positioned ourselves at a crossing and caught it in action:

I was filming with the iPhone in one hand and and trying to take pictures with my Nikon in the other, hence the poor panning and crookedness at the end, but I think the video nevertheless gets the point across: seeing the "Living Legend" in action is a sight to behold.

Shortly afterward, we caught up with UP 844 once again at a railyard northeast of downtown Denver, where it was stopped for the night, to take some more pictures:

Truly a magnificent beast. (I'm talking about the beast in the background, of course!)

Turning Kirby into a traingeek

Yesterday, Kirby and I waited alongside the Union Pacific Terminal Subdivision which runs between Bellaire and West U. for the Amtrak Sunset Limited to pass by. I did this partly to show Kirby (who, like any seven-year-old, is really in to trains) what an actual passenger train looks like, and partly to see how videos taken on my iPhone would appear on YouTube:

I used the "train status" feature on Amtrak's website to determine when the train was expected at the station in downtown Houston, and we went out to the tracks about a half-hour beforehand. The "dining car" I pointed out to Kirby was actually the train's observation car; there were quite a few people sitting in there but the windows were so dark that they didn't show up on the video (which actually turned out nicely, if I do say so myself).

Riding the Sunset Limited

As I noted in the previous post, my original plan after participating in Mardi Gras in New Orleans was to fly directly to Dubai to assist in some business development work being undertaken by my company's office there. However, after the Dubai office suddenly canceled my trip, I found myself needing to find my own way back to Houston. Should I fly Southwest (which is how I got to New Orleans), take a bus, rent a car, or take the train?

Given that it was the cheapest means of getting home ($49 for a ticket to Houston), the New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal was close to my hotel, and I wanted to try something different (I hadn't ridden on an inter-city Amtrak train since I was a young child), I decided to ride the Amtrak Sunset Limited back home. So I purchased a ticket online, took short taxi ride to the UPT and waited for the train's 11:55 am departure.

The entire train-riding process, from standing in the ticket line to check in, to standing in the boarding line to get one's seat assignment, to the trip itself, is glacially slow. The scheduled trip from New Orleans to Houston on Amtrak is about nine hours and twenty minutes long, compared to only about six hours by car or one hour, gate-to-gate, by plane. It's not a mode of travel that's going to appeal to anybody who's in a hurry.

There were, however, advantages to traveling by train. There was no security checkpoint where people were required to wait in line, take their shoes off, take their laptop out of their case, walk through an x-ray scanner that allows TSA agents to see people naked, etc. On the train itself, there were no pre-trip safety demonstrations, no seat belts that had to be worn, no restrictions on when people could get up and move around the train. The seats were large with plenty of legroom and they reclined much further than any seat available on a plane (outside of, perhaps, first class). The tray tables were large enough to comfortably fit a regular-sized laptop and electric outlets for charging phones and laptops were available (no in-train WiFi yet, although other Amtrak trains are beginning to offer this service).

The Sunset Limited features a lounge car where drinks and snacks are available, as well as a full-service dining car, where I ate lunch. The service was excellent, the food was decent and the prices were reasonable.

The scenery was nice, but not spectacular: industrial plants and massive railyards in urban areas, rice and sugarcane fields through most of Louisiana and cypress swamps along the Sabine Rver that separates Texas from Louisiana. The most compelling view came shortly after the train departed New Orleans, as it crossed high above the Mississippi River on the Huey P. Long Bridge west of town. From this vantage point 135 feet above the river much of the New Orleans metropolitan area, as well as the maritime goings-on the river itself, could be viewed.

The train traveled at various speeds throughout the journey, stopping a few times to let freight traffic clear. On one stretch of BNSF trackage between Lafayette and Lake Charles the train slowed to a crawl - perhaps ten or fifteen miles per hour, and when the train arrived in Lake Charles well behind schedule. I began to worry that the train wouldn't make it into Houston until well past its scheduled arrival time. But when the train transitioned from BNSF trackage to UP trackage in Lake Charles, it began traveling significantly faster; between Lake Charles and the outskirts of Houston the Sunset Limited was traveling at its top speed of 79 mph for most of its route. The lost time was more than made up and the train arrived in Houston at about 8:30 pm - well ahead of its scheduled arrival time of 9:13. Since the Sunset Limited is at the mercy of the freight operations of the BNSF and UP tracks along which it runs, it's obvious that a significant amount of padding its built into its timetable.

The coach cars where I sat were about half-full (I can't speak to the capacity of the sleeper cars), and the passengers were a mix of sightseers, vacationers and lower-income people who perhaps chose to ride the train rather than take a bus between New Orleans and Houston because of the comfort the train afforded relative to a bus (and it's worth noting that, due to traffic conditions and the number of stops they make, a Greyhound bus ride between New Orleans and Houston takes anywhere from seven to nine hours - not a significant time savings advantage, especially since bus and train fares were about the same).

In the dining car I met a gentleman from Portland, Oregon who had also come to New Orleans for Mardi Gras and was heading back home. He was taking the Sunset Limited all the way to its final terminus in Los Angeles, where he would then board the Coast Starlight to Portland. He apparently took the train whenever he traveled (was he afraid of flying? I didn't ask) and his trip home would take approximately four days. I'm guessing he was self-employed or independently wealthy or something, because I don't see how people with regular jobs would be able to have that much free time to spend on the journey itself.

The Amtrak station in Houston is located on Washington Avenue, just on the other side of I-45 from downtown. It is not well-served by public transportation (the nearest bus stop was several hundred feet away and, although the train passes directly underneath the UH-Downtown METRORail station, there is no way to get there from the Amtrak station) but there was a taxi queue. Most passengers getting off at Houston had friends or relatives come pick them up (Lori and Kirby came to get me).

The massive government subsidies that Amtrak requires in order to operate aside, I found it to be a viable form of inter-city transportation. That being said, I can completely understand why more people don't ride the Sunset Limited: the infrequent services (it only makes three trips a week per direction), the slow pace of the trip, and its unreliable adherence to its timetable (although there's something to be said for getting to Houston ahead of schedule!) make it unattractive to business travelers or people who are otherwise in a hurry. Such is the nature of a passenger rail service that operates on tracks intended primarily for freight usage. For that reason, I'll probably be sticking to Southwest for most of my trips to New Orleans.

However, I did find the trip to be relaxing and enjoyable, and I'm glad I decided to ride the train in this particular instance. If conditions permit, I might just ride the Sunset Limited again someday.

Traingeek update

Following up on that Trinity Railway Express locomotive I spotted in Houston last week: I received an e-mail from Sal DeAngelo, Chief Mechanical Officer for the TRE, explaining that said locomotive was just passing through town:

What you have photographed is one of our units that has undergone a complete overhaul returning from Norfolk-Southern Railway’s Juniata Shops in Altoona, Pennsylvania, being shipped via interchange in New Orleans to our authority here in D/FW.

("Interchange" is just a fancy word meaning "where Norfolk Southern's trackage meets BNSF's trackage.")

Very soon, TRE-120 will be carrying passengers between Dallas, Fort Worth and all points in between.

Meanwhile, plans for commuter rail in Houston remain just that: plans.

Traingeek time!

Noticed at the BNSF railyard near the University of Houston while driving home this afternoon:
The locomotive painted like the Texas flag is a rare sight in Houston because it belongs to the Trinity Railway Express, which is a commuter rail line that runs between Dallas and Fort Worth. It is numbered TRE 120. According to the TRE's rolling stock datasheet, it is an F-59 PH locomotive purchased from Toronto's GO Transit in 2009.

Judging by what is clearly a shiny new paint job, I'm guessing that it's merely passing through town on its way from the refurbishment shop to TRE's yard. I sent an e-mail inquiry to TRE asking if this is the case and I'll update if I get a response.

I'm sure I'm the only person in the world that actually notices or cares about this. But I'm a transit geek so that's how I roll!

(Update here.)