Passenger Trains > Don't tell Anderson and his drones

Once Threatened, Europe’s Night Trains Rebound

With growing concern over the environmental impact of flying, sleeper train service, long
considered old-fashioned and nostalgic, is picking up steam...


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/11/travel/europe-overnight-trains.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/19 08:25 by GenePoon.

Do any of these trains have coaches ? 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do any of these trains have coaches ? 
Yes, many do.  And the sleeping accomodations vary, from shared compartments with 4 or 6 people in bunk-style beds to individual rooms for one or two.  Lots of information on various routes and destinations at https://www.seat61.com

Don't expect full service "restaurant cars" on most of these routes. The OBB Nightjet trains, for example, don't have a diner. There are a number of snack items and beverages available for purchase, which can be ordered and delivered to your accommodation. Sleeping car fares include a complimentary light breakfast.

https://www.nightjet.com/en/ausstattung/services.html

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/19 10:46 by Dcmcrider.

Perhaps sleeper service in Europe is doing well but I would guess that Europe’s corridor services likely carry way more people than its overnight trains do. By comparison, US has far less daytime corridor rail service than Europe connecting large cities such as Columbus, Cleveland, Nashville, etc

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/19 12:49 by JPB.

JPB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps sleeper service in Europe is doing well
> but I would guess that Europe’s corridor
> services likely carry way more people than it’s
> overnight trains do. By comparison, US has far
> less daytime corridor rail service than Europe
> connecting large cities such as Columbus,
> Cleveland, Nashville, etc
>
> Posted from iPhone

That's an excellent point.  In the US, a short hop from Columbus to St Louis would probably involve a pair of connecting flights via a hub. Versus a direct rail trip from Vienna to Berlin, or Paris to Geneva.

Other than Southwest, US airlines have retreated to a hub and spoke route structure. That adds time and risk to any trip.

No train here in Columbus since the National Limited was cancelled in 1979!

tmaher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No train here in Columbus since the National
> Limited was cancelled in 1979!

It's a disgrace...Thanks to Gov. Kasich.  The 3C would be running now if he let the project continue....What a dumb ass move on his part.

Kasich did the taxpayers of Ohio a favor. All you have to do is look at Michigan or Illinois to see that.. The stories are posted here about expenditures and no improvements to to show for it...

Dcmcrider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't expect full service "restaurant cars" on
> most of these routes. The OBB Nightjet trains,
> for example, don't have a diner. There are a
> number of snack items and beverages available for
> purchase, which can be ordered and delivered to
> your accommodation. Sleeping car fares include a
> complimentary light breakfast.
>
> https://www.nightjet.com/en/ausstattung/services.h
> tml

Most of these European trains don't need "Restaurant Cars" as the overnight sleeper train service is operating as a "hotel on wheels." The departure times from main terminals are usually after dinner and arrival at main terminals in the morning are before 12 noon. So a "complimentary breakfast" and snacks are all that is needed. If Amtrak restored sleeping car service on trains 65,66,67 from Washington DC to Boston (and vice versa), it would ony need a snack service for the evening departure (around 10 pm) and a complimentary brekfast in the morning before arrival into Boston or Washington DC. Europe has a lot of these types of trains/markets that can be served. And often the sleeper cars are are swapped or switched to other trains in the middle of the night to get better operating efficiencies. Similiar to the NEC, a NYP to Pittsburgh service via Philly would likely work as an overnight sleeper route, or the ole Niagara Rainbow to upstate NY and Montrealer. Unfortunately, Europe can attract riders whereas Amtrak would struggle to fill just two sleepers on these routes - even the NEC.  

PC1974 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kasich did the taxpayers of Ohio a favor. All you
> have to do is look at Michigan or Illinois to see
> that.. The stories are posted here about
> expenditures and no improvements to to show for
> it...

Just plain 79 MPH trans would be fine, like California, Virginia, and North Carolina. It seems reaching over that is what caused problems. 

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JPB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> That's an excellent point.  In the US, a short
> hop from Columbus to St Louis would probably
> involve a pair of connecting flights via a hub.
> Versus a direct rail trip from Vienna to Berlin,
> or Paris to Geneva.
>
> Other than Southwest, US airlines have retreated
> to a hub and spoke route structure. That adds time
> and risk to any trip.

CMH-STL is served nonstop twice daily. The local air market, even though it's served by a lower cost airline today is only about 100 per day each way, dramatically less than the air capacity for June 2019 of  about 280 seats and a net fare of $154. If you go back in time to when TWA still operated their hub in STL (2000 in this case), and massively discounted fares, net fare of $70, still only stimulated the market up to about 200 per day.

Comparing intercity rail in Europe vs. intercity rail in the U.S. is a fools errand in some respects. The housing and residential structure is massively different than it is in the U.S. European cities have remained largely centers of residence in addition to business or manufacturing. That has not happened in the U.S. to any degree. European cities also afford remarkably well developed and generally well running intraurban transit networks that connect the LD rail networks to local. Again, the U.S. largely fails at this because a) we gave of up mass urban transit thanks to the dawn of the car age, b) city growth was outward not upward, c) given a the interoperatibility infrastrcutre that existed has been recovered and used for other redevelopment and couldn't be brought back in most cases without obsurdly high investment costs. As I've said before it can work in certain environments and georgraphies, but not everywhere.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/19 16:57 by jcoons.

jcoons Wrote:

>
> CMH-STL is served nonstop twice daily. The local
> air market, even though it's served by a lower
> cost airline today is only about 100 per day each
> way, dramatically less than the air capacity for
> June 2019 of  and a net fare of $154. If you go
> back in time to when TWA still operated their hub
> in STL (2000 in this case), and massively
> discounted fares, net fare of $70, still only
> stimulated the market up to about 200 per day.
>
> Comparing intercity rail in Europe vs. intercity
> rail in the U.S. is a fools errand in some
> respects. The housing and residential structure is
> massively different than it is in the U.S.
> European cities have remained largely centers of
> residence in addition to business or
> manufacturing. That has not happened in the U.S.
> to any degree. European cities also afford
> remarkably well developed and generally well
> running intraurban transit networks that connect
> the LD rail networks to local. Again, the U.S.
> largely fails at this because a) we gave of up
> mass urban transit thanks to the dawn of the car
> age, b) city growth was outward not upward, c)
> given a the interoperatibility infrastrcutre that
> existed has been recovered and used for other
> redevelopment and couldn't be brought back in most
> cases without obsurdly high investment costs. As
> I've said before it can work in certain
> environments and georgraphies, but not everywhere.



You put that very well.

Looking at it from the supply side, the effectiveness of public transit (including long-ditance trains) is a function of NETWORK DENSITY and FREQUENCY, among other things.

Since the US (overall) and US cities (in general) are relatively low-density (population and employment), any public transport SYSTEM serving a large enough percentage of the population would be prohibitvly expansive/expensive.  And transfers would still be necessary for most origin-destination pairs.  Both grid and hub & radial networks have advantages & disadvantages.

This is why transit "works" in NYC and why trains in the NEC corridor make the most sense.

The European environment is already built, as is ours. All that concrete can't be un-done.  On my trip to Moscow I experienced the type of transit US boosters pine for. The development pattern has, for over 100 years, been dense housing within walking distance of frequent (2 to 3 mim HW)  Metro service and all types of connectinng transit. Lots of commuter trains connecting dense outling "nodes" which also happen to be very defensible & thus survivable. Very expensive, capital and operation costs. Plus lots of cars.  Chinese cities are similar except the density is not as much concentrated around distinct nodes. That type of development not going to happen in the US, we took a different path. Also, US environmental and ADA requirements make some stations/transfer points impossible to build, at any cost.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/19 12:26 by Duna.

Duna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looking at it from the supply side, the
> effectiveness of public transit (including
> long-ditance trains) is a function of NETWORK
> DENSITY and FREQUENCY, among other things.

I would add a fourth critical component which is ELAPSED TIME. This is one of the singe largest hindrances to LD travel in combination with the first three points you’ve also made. This is what challenges LD trains today, and suggests that the concept of “corridor” (sorry, that’s a dirty word in this place) may be generally more sustainable.  

> Since the US (overall) and US cities (in general)
> are relatively low-density (population and
> employment), any public transport SYSTEM serving a
> large enough percentage of the population would be
> prohibitvly expansive/expensive.  And transfers
> would still be necessary for most
> origin-destination pairs.  Both grid and hub &
> radial networks have advantages & disadvantages.

Transfers aren’t necessarily terrible, reference the airline hub and spoke models, or even the multiple stop Southwest model. When adequate volumes of traffic can efficiently flow over one or more transit point, it can be relatively impotent in terms of it’s effect on network attractiveness or volume. But, to your point, as you stretch and attempt to serve a further and further spread network and population density, frequency declines resulting in longer elapsed times, etc. Reinforcing your point. 

> This is why transit "works" in NYC and why trains
> in the NEC corridor make the most sense.
>
> The European environment is already built, as is
> ours. All that concrete can't be un-done.  On my
> trip to Moscow I experienced the type of transit
> US boosters pine for. The development pattern has,
> for over 100 years, been dense housing within
> walking distance of frequent (2 to 3 mim HW) 
> Metro service and all types of connectinng
> transit. Lots of commuter trains connecting dense
> outling "nodes" which also happen to be very
> defensible & thus survivable. Very expensive,
> capital and operation costs. Plus lots of cars. 
> Chinese cities are similar except the density is
> not as much concentrated around distinct nodes.
> That type of development not going to happen in
> the US, we took a different path. Also, US
> environmental and ADA requirements make some
> stations/transfer points impossible to build, at
> any cost.

Excellent points, and I always marvel at the efficiency (and relative beauty) of the Moscow subway system. It will be interesting to see what the long term viability of the current resettlement in to city environs does to infrastructure intense transportation initiatives, or, if those cities without good rail capability adopt other, new technologies instead.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PC1974 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Kasich did the taxpayers of Ohio a favor. All
> you
> > have to do is look at Michigan or Illinois to
> see
> > that.. The stories are posted here about
> > expenditures and no improvements to to show for
> > it...
>
> Just plain 79 MPH trans would be fine, like
> California, Virginia, and North Carolina. It seems
> reaching over that is what caused problems. 

Keep living in the past and watch passenger trains disappear. 79 mph trains average 50-60mph at best over the route length. That will not be satisfactory for today’s consumer, let’s support and plan a rail system for tomorrow not yesterday.

Don't forget about the price of gasoline.  I can get gas today in Louisville, Ky. for $2.389/gal, though it is as high as $2.899 at some stations.  ON the West Coast, it's running about a buck more for a gallon.  Even at that, it's a bargain when compared to the prices in Europe.  Gas in Luxembourg is a bargain at an average price of $5.15 a gallon.  Other countries are in the $6.00 range.  Netherlands average is $6.95 a gallon.  Though not really a part of this discussion, gas is $7.20 a gallon in Norway.  Depending on finances, time, and distance, in this country, we travel by car or air.  With just about everyone owning a car, our local mass transit just serves major routes.  I had to have my car worked on a few months and decided to take the bus to pick it up.  I only had to walk 2 miles to the bus stop.  Places like NYC, DC, and a few other cities have a decent feeder system, at least until you get out into the 'burbs.  

jcoons pretty much nailed it.  Other countries built infrastructure for mass transit and we built highways.

John

We've had discussions on this in the years past, where the "disappearance" of the "obsolete" sleeper trains in Europe and Japan was exploited to brainwash TO members to support HSR. Pity there's a rebound!

Don't think this will influence Anderson and his drones. 
 

another_view Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just plain 79 MPH trans would be fine, like
> > California, Virginia, and North Carolina. It
> seems
> > reaching over that is what caused problems. 
>
> Keep living in the past and watch passenger trains
> disappear. 79 mph trains average 50-60mph at best
> over the route length. That will not be
> satisfactory for today’s consumer, let’s
> support and plan a rail system for tomorrow not
> yesterday.

Trains in California, Virginia, and North Carolina are NOT DISAPPEARING, and in fact growing in consist and in numbers. 

Amtrak's management and performance of the Michigan line continues to be a scandal, and it is the same 3 Detroit frequencies of 5 car trains that you inherited from Penn Central in 1971. 

You are of no competency to determine what is "satisfactory for today’s consumer" and definitely don't know how to run it. 


 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/19 06:11 by joemvcnj.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We've had discussions on this in the years past,
> where the "disappearance" of the "obsolete"
> sleeper trains in Europe and Japan was exploited
> to brainwash TO members to support HSR. Pity
> there's a rebound!
>
> Don't think this will influence Anderson and his
> drones. 

A "sleeper train" here could be the overnight BOS-WAS trains 65/66.
Other good ones were the North Star and Montrealer, but we lost those, the latter to exorbitant crew costs for the short distance between St Albans to Montreal. The Vermonter has yet to rival its ridership and can't serve some of its others markets, such as the weekend ski business to Vermont. 

Long distance train is really another concept. They have sleeping cars, but have other functions as well. 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cchan006 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We've had discussions on this in the years
> past,
> > where the "disappearance" of the "obsolete"
> > sleeper trains in Europe and Japan was
> exploited
> > to brainwash TO members to support HSR. Pity
> > there's a rebound!
> >
> > Don't think this will influence Anderson and
> his
> > drones. 
>
> A "sleeper train" here could be the overnight
> BOS-WAS trains 65/66.
> Other good ones were the North Star and
> Montrealer, but we lost those, the latter to
> exorbitant crew costs for the short distance
> between St Albans to Montreal. The Vermonter has
> yet to rival its ridership and can't serve some of
> its others markets, such as the weekend ski
> business to Vermont. 
>
> Long distance train is really another concept.
> They have sleeping cars, but have other functions
> as well. 

You crack me up, who do you think I am? I just have different views than you and I am just as committed to my view as you are to yours.

Show a bit of respect to differing viewpoints.