tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211746567698803313.post5055386860042170542..comments2024-02-13T12:31:49.367-05:00Comments on Blerf Blog: Phew....It's not just me.Donhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01833854698762392444noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211746567698803313.post-44580638840728613442013-08-11T14:06:25.415-04:002013-08-11T14:06:25.415-04:00Paul - I hope you are right! It's a pretty ex...Paul - I hope you are right! It's a pretty exciting development.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01833854698762392444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211746567698803313.post-55448375193063592752013-08-11T09:27:03.897-04:002013-08-11T09:27:03.897-04:00I believe the logic with AAF is two-fold:
1. Yes,...I believe the logic with AAF is two-fold:<br /><br />1. Yes, it's 1.5B in capital costs for the rail infrastructure, but there's also a substantial amount of money coming in from the real estate projects that wouldn't be possible without it. The train just needs to pay for its operational costs and contribute towards the Orlando extension. The Miami station will bring in huge amounts of additional income which isn't included in that $150M.<br /><br />2. The eventual aim is to build out new track to Tampa (expensive, and I suspect not high on the agenda), and also run trains to Jacksonville (relatively cheap, perhaps $200-300M in track upgrades, plus $100M in new rolling stock.) Of the two, the Jacksonville extension is particularly promising, with the FEC going through such tourist traps as St Augustine and the Kennedy Space Center. In any case, network effects should also help here, improving income exponentially. (The Tampa connection I don't get, but supposedly even Mica wanted the Federal HSR line built between Tampa and Orlando, having seen the figures, and local businesses including Disney actually lobbied Scott at the last minute promising to pay for any losses the line made. So while I don't get it, supposedly there's evidence it's economically sound.)<br /><br />I'm fairly hopeful about it. As you imply, they have to answer to their shareholders for this. They're experienced railroaders who have a reputation for making their business profitable by trying new things. So the chances are they have done their homework. But I guess we'll see...<br />Paul Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491945764434582008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211746567698803313.post-88204812235441100552013-08-09T09:12:21.634-04:002013-08-09T09:12:21.634-04:00I won't argue that it's not Amtrak's f...I won't argue that it's not Amtrak's fault that they are what they are, but there's nothing to stop them from trying to be something better - except the inertia of their own corporate culture. They have often liked playing the "victim" role when they'd have been better off trying to be the "hero".<br /><br />Acela is a good example. Yes, the existing rules and regs and legislation caused them to be what they are. But, Amtrak behaved as a powerless follower instead of standing up and making noise for a more common sense trainset. There are signs that they are trying harder to be leaders now, and it has lead toward the current push toward relaxing collision standards.<br /><br />As for AAF. I don't get it. FEC is most certainly not stupid, but they have stated that it will cost $1.5B in capital and the GROSS revenue will be $150M a year. I don't see how those numbers work. There must be something else driving it - or additional value somewhere to pay off the $1.5B and have anything left for shareholders.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01833854698762392444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3211746567698803313.post-12690300822617840982013-08-07T11:38:35.147-04:002013-08-07T11:38:35.147-04:00Some good comments and I'm surprised and sadde...Some good comments and I'm surprised and saddened by your description of the politics within Amtrak - I was aware that they're hamstrung by a hostile and micromanaging congress but the problems with the organization are new to me.<br /><br />I will say this: The clunkiness of the Acela is more because of the FRA/NTSB and the absurd crashworthiness standards they've set, and to be fair to Amtrak they're finally fighting back against this nonsense. At the same time, the crashworthiness standards are in no small part due to the success of a freight railroad industry that just doesn't care about passenger travel and the safety precautions needed to make it work. Supposedly the FRA are giving a little and have signalled they want some kind of procedure allowing proven foreign lighter-weight designs to be allowed on US rails, but much as this is an improvement, I'm struggling to see how the US is supposed to advance if it has to choose between the latest designs - made out of cast iron, concrete, and the finest superglue (I kid, but only slightly) - or cheap, efficient, and 40 years old but proven British Rail Class 43s.<br /><br />I'd also hesitate in suggesting that Amtrak is a barrier to getting the private sector involved in "HSR" (however it's measured, to be honest though anything that's significantly faster than a car is better than Amtrak's 45mph long distance trains.) From what I can see, the FEC's All Aboard Florida is a direct response to the success of the Acela (and Eurostar I guess.) It's obvious that linking small numbers of large cities that already have high intercity air service usage figures, charging fares that compete with airlines rather than buses, is a cash cow, especially if most of the rail infrastructure you need is already there and already making money, and the Acela has made that clear. My guess is that AAF will actually lead to a flood of interest from the relatively conservative Class 1s if it's a success.<br /><br />Whatever the case, I don't think Amtrak is _the_ problem. It's a large corporation whose history and dependence on government has resulted in a significant amount of dysfunction, and if it totally messes up it makes the case for passenger rail look bad. But it's done its job, it's kept the system up and running for 40+ years, and it's proven that - with the right trains and infrastructure - passenger rail can pay for itself. Or at least it's made a strong enough case that private entities are starting to take notice.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />Paul Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491945764434582008noreply@blogger.com