What may at first appear to be an easy fix, often is not, once all the factors are taken into consideration.

First, Amtrak is extremely short of cars. If there were cars at the maintenance facility, more than likely they were either bad-ordered (meaning that they cannot be run until a major defect is fixed) or due for scheduled maintenance. Grabbing a car or two from the latter category can throw scheduled maintenance into chaos and ultimately make even fewer cars available, when the maintenance work is not done on time.

Second, the consists of many Amtrak trains have to be balanced against available motive power. Though each train is slightly different, I know that some trains are set up for a maximum of seven cars per engine. Anything over that, and, with a single engine, the train is too heavy to maintain its schedule. The really heavy long-distance trains are allocated two or even three engines when operating on mountain grades.

Station platform length is often a limiting factor. If the platfors are set up for a maximum train length of X cars, if the train has X+2 cars, it has to double-stop that station, consuming additional time and making the train even later. In this case, even having an extra engine does not help much.

Also, it's not a good use of motive power if, for example, you have a train whose optimum consist is one engine and seven cars and you run it with two engines and nine cars. In effect, much of the capacity of the second engine is wasted.


Yes, added frequencies -- additional trains on a different schedule -- would solve some of these problems, but, train frequencies are negotiated between Amtrak and the host railroads. In order to accept additional trains, the host railroad may need some infrastructure improvements, such as additional sidings, which it would expect Amtrak or the state(s) to pay for. (In some cases, states have paid for such infrastructure impvovements.)

And, of course, for additional frequencies, you need additional equipment and staff, which cost more money and which are already in short supply.


What I find so ironic about the original article that started this thread was that the author was unhappy about how crowded his train was -- and therefore doesn't want Amtrak to get any more money -- which might provide more less crowded trains. That's a strange kind of logic.

Even in Europe, which arguably has some of the best passenger train systems in the world, I've been on a train that was standing room only at the time I boarded it -- and I ended up standing most of the way on a two-hour trip. Yes, it was during a peak travel period. Perhaps if I had known a little more about the traffic patters on this route, I might have waited an hour and taken another, less crowded train. But, all-in-all I was happy to get to my destination when I did.


Yes, having a passenger train service own its own infrastructure gives it more control over the operation of its passenger trains. But, again, that's expensive. And, cases where there is an existing under-utilized freight line that the passenger system can buy and upgrade with minimal investment are rare.

The best examples of passenger train system operated infrastructure are the high-speed passenger trains in Europe and elsewhere. Here, the infrastructure -- with the exception of existing segments out of and into cities -- has been purpose-built for high-speed passenger operation. And, with the exception of work trains, no other equipment is permitted onto the dedicated high-speed lines.

Much of what is mentioned in the U.S. in the way of potential high-speed lines really isn't. In most of the world, the standard for "high-speed" passenger operations is 150 mph and above. For example, the proposed Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR, initial segment proposed from Washington, D.C., to Charlotte, N.C.) is likely to have a top speed of 110-125 miles per hour -- and to have some freight trains using the line during off-peak hours. While these speeds are better than the current 79 mph top speeds, and there will likely be far less freight-train interference, that's still not using the real potential of high-speed rail.

The difference, of course, is cost. High-speed rail is expensive and someone has to be willing to pay the cost. In many European countries, the governments have been willing to make these investments -- and even to build new tunnels with costs in the billion dollar range.


Finally' it's worth noting that through the U.S. Interstate highway system was inspired in part by the German Autobahn network, the Eisenhower administration (which started the Interstate network) found it to be "too expensive" to build the Interstates to the German standards. Therefore, the U.S. highways have lower speed limits and have to be continually repaired and rebuilt years earlier than is the case in Germany. In the end, you still pay the price, but now you are paying it for additional maintenance, rather than making the initial investment in higher construction standards.

-- Ernest