Is it time to invest in companies who make railroad passenger equipment?

[BenBurch]

Looks to me like the airline sector is basically OVER.

Except for crossing oceans, in a few years there will be NO air travel; Oil prices will prohibit this except for the rich.

Which means, I think, that we will see huge growth in the railroad sector at all levels, and possibly even entirely new rail lines built for passenger use.

For example, an LA to LV maglev line has recently been authorized.

And on ALL existing Amtrak lines, passenger traffic is at or near capacity, and they just do not have enough equipment to add the extra coaches and extra movements they would need to carry demand at peak times.

What do you all think?

 

[bobrayner]

Looks to me like the airline sector is basically OVER.

Except for crossing oceans, in a few years there will be NO air travel; Oil prices will prohibit this except for the rich.

Then why do the makers of airliners have huge order-books? The airlines reckon they'll need thousands more airliners in future.

Boeing have a backlog of 3645 airliners.

Airbus have a backlog of 3655 airliners.

Most of these orders are for short-haul aircraft.

Which means, I think, that we will see huge growth in the railroad sector at all levels, and possibly even entirely new rail lines built for passenger use.

New railways are already being built in some places. Construction never stopped; it just slowed down.

For example, an LA to LV maglev line has recently been authorized.

A practical (ie. affordable, reliable) maglev system has supposedly been Just Around The Corner for decades.

Also, incompatibility with existing infrastructure means that key advantages of existing railways are lost. Good luck building completely new routes and termini in congested cities!

And on ALL existing Amtrak lines, passenger traffic is at or near capacity, and they just do not have enough equipment to add the extra coaches and extra movements they would need to carry demand at peak times.

What do you all think?

I think that makers of rolling-stock have traditionally been rather fragmented (though there's been some consolidation lately) and many have had trouble getting into the 21st century. ;-)

Some will have rich times ahead, but some will not - good luck picking the one that'll catch the next big wave of orders.

The UK has already had a surge of orders over the last few years - enough to shrink the average age of rolling-stock by 7 years between 2000 and 2006.

 

[balrog666]

Looks to me like the airline sector is basically OVER.

Except for crossing oceans, in a few years there will be NO air travel; Oil prices will prohibit this except for the rich.

Which means, I think, that we will see huge growth in the railroad sector at all levels, and possibly even entirely new rail lines built for passenger use.

For example, an LA to LV maglev line has recently been authorized.

And on ALL existing Amtrak lines, passenger traffic is at or near capacity, and they just do not have enough equipment to add the extra coaches and extra movements they would need to carry demand at peak times.

What do you all think?

Not gonna happen.

Railroad usage is already over capacity just for freight. "Someone" is going to have to finance the laying of another 50000 miles of brand new high-speed track before anything happens with passenger rail. So, BOHICA.

 

[bobrayner]

Some might be interested in this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/06/25/highspeed.rail/

 

[Roboramma]

China certainly sees the need to expand it's rail network - shanghai's already got a small test maglev line in the city, and there has been talk building one to nearby cities.

Then there's the huge high-speed rail project that will link Shanghai and Beijing:
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/beijing/

The new high-speed line will be designed for 300km/h (186mph) operation and reduce the journey time between Beijing and Shanghai from 14 hours to just five. An estimated 220,000 passengers per day will use the trains.

 

[Roboramma]

Not gonna happen.

Railroad usage is already over capacity just for freight. "Someone" is going to have to finance the laying of another 50000 miles of brand new high-speed track before anything happens with passenger rail. So, BOHICA.

Why do all 50,000 miles have to be laid at once?
It's it's economical to open up a passenger rail from two, not too far apart cities, then it'll be done.
If passenger travel is high enough in demand, it could be more economical than freight, and cars could be converted.
And as they make money on passenger travel, the railway companies will have the funds to open up more passenger routes.

 

[BenBurch]

If we divert the money from interstate roads projects to rail projects, 50,000 miles can be done in a decade or less. If you look at the VAST network of interurban electric "light" railways that existed in the USA before 1920, growing from almost nothing in 1890, and which disappeared with the coming of the automobile, you can see how to proceed.

Because we don't really have a choice.

BTW - expect those back-orders of aircraft to dry up somewhat and for almost all existing aircraft to be grounded in favor of the most fuel-efficient new ones that can be bought.

 

[dudalb]

If we divert the money from interstate roads projects to rail projects, 50,000 miles can be done in a decade or less. If you look at the VAST network of interurban electric "light" railways that existed in the USA before 1920, growing from almost nothing in 1890, and which disappeared with the coming of the automobile, you can see how to proceed.

Because we don't really have a choice.

BTW - expect those back-orders of aircraft to dry up somewhat and for almost all existing aircraft to be grounded in favor of the most fuel-efficient new ones that can be bought.

God, you really WANT America to go back to about 1890, don't you, because somehow you think that will make a "better, more just" society.

 

[bobrayner]

I doubt http://www.railway-technology.com/ is the best source.
How about Railway Gazette?

If we divert the money from interstate roads projects to rail projects, 50,000 miles can be done in a decade or less. If you look at the VAST network of interurban electric "light" railways that existed in the USA before 1920, growing from almost nothing in 1890, and which disappeared with the coming of the automobile, you can see how to proceed.

Because we don't really have a choice.

I'm not sure that a transport system predating car ownership is the best template for 21st century transport planning.

Still, modal shift would be a Good Thing. (The EU supports various projects on this basis)

BTW - expect those back-orders of aircraft to dry up somewhat and for almost all existing aircraft to be grounded in favor of the most fuel-efficient new ones that can be bought.

Are you sure? Why would orders dry up if airlines are going to replace old aircraft with new ones?

The order books have got bigger recently, not smaller.

 

[balrog666]

Why do all 50,000 miles have to be laid at once?
It's it's economical to open up a passenger rail from two, not too far apart cities, then it'll be done.

They don't have to be laid all at once, but you cannot start a service without rail rights. Which you don't have without building a line.

And you overlook the fact that there is not a single private railroad company in the entire US even involved in passenger service and there hasn't been one for thirty-five years.

So, if you want to expand taxpayer-subsidized AMTRAK, which loses about $100 for every non-commuter passenger, you must first get the President to propose, and the Congress to pass, a trillion dollar Railroads Improvement Act to rebuild the railroads so we can subsidize them even further.

If passenger travel is high enough in demand, it could be more economical than freight, and cars could be converted.
And as they make money on passenger travel, the railway companies will have the funds to open up more passenger routes.

It's not. There is no real demand and passenger service hasn't made a profit in the US in over 50 years.

You overlook the fact, that, by law, freight service has priority right-of-way on their own rails and that would be all long distance tracks. So, for passengers, it's very slow, inconvenient, and a complete waste of time and dollars. Again, it's back to that trillion dollar taxpayer proposal or it's nothing.

So ... not gonna happen.

 

[balrog666]

Why do all 50,000 miles have to be laid at once?
It's it's economical to open up a passenger rail from two, not too far apart cities, then it'll be done.
If passenger travel is high enough in demand, it could be more economical than freight, and cars could be converted.
And as they make money on passenger travel, the railway companies will have the funds to open up more passenger routes.

If we divert the money from interstate roads projects to rail projects, 50,000 miles can be done in a decade or less. If you look at the VAST network of interurban electric "light" railways that existed in the USA before 1920, growing from almost nothing in 1890, and which disappeared with the coming of the automobile, you can see how to proceed.

Because we don't really have a choice.

BTW - expect those back-orders of aircraft to dry up somewhat and for almost all existing aircraft to be grounded in favor of the most fuel-efficient new ones that can be bought.

You overlook one more fact, and that is that railroads go from where you aren't (rural/industrial freight depots) to where you don't want to go (urban or semi-urban freight depots).

So, if you want nice new service to go from new passenger terminals to someplace useful, like other passenger terminals with parking and storage and urban access, you have to relocate and rebuild every single rail depot in the USA, add support buildings, parking, and man the staffing requirements, and, even before that, get new rail rights-of-way to build the brand new rail lines that aren't there now.


Not gonna happen.

 

[Francesca R]

Looks to me like the airline sector is basically OVER.

[ . . . ]

What do you all think?

With respect, I think that is ridiculous. Aeroplanes will more likely fly on other stuff. Who knows?

 

[a_unique_person]

With respect, I think that is ridiculous. Aeroplanes will more likely fly on other stuff. Who knows?

Pixie Dust?

 

[Francesca R]

Pixie Dust?

There is rather more groundwork done that that so far. Alternative energy exusts in the future, but not, IMO, in pixieland.

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11565685

 

[a_unique_person]

There is rather more groundwork done that that so far. Alternative energy exusts in the future, but not, IMO, in pixieland.

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11565685

I'm all in favour of alternative energy, but that's not going to support a growing air sector that relies on a high density energy source.

 

[a_unique_person]

Then why do the makers of airliners have huge order-books? The airlines reckon they'll need thousands more airliners in future.

Boeing have a backlog of 3645 airliners.

Airbus have a backlog of 3655 airliners.

Most of these orders are for short-haul aircraft.

They are not backlogs, they are planned turnover and planned growth based on the previously expected cost of energy.

 

[coalesce]

Just using Metro-North as an example (the commuter rail service between NYC and upstate New York, which I ride for 140 miles every day), there has been a steady increase in passengers in the last two years. The company is presently laying more track to accommodate the increase demand and it is exceedingly reliable (unlike the Long Island Rail Road). The PATH train, which connects New York City to New Jersey, has also seen a 4% increase in their passengers in the last couple of months, as gas has exceeded $4 per gallon here in New York and more people are choosing the train over their cars. I can certainly see a greater investment in capital for existing rail networks, but I don't think that rails are going to replace airplane travel any time soon, if at all, mainly because of the time factor. People want to get from New York to Miami in 2.5 hours, not in the 8-or-so hours it would take a high-speed rail train to travel the same distance.

Michael

ETA:

I suck in math, so my "8-or-so hours" figure was meant to cover my prodigious posterior.

 

[bobrayner]

They are not backlogs, they are planned turnover and planned growth based on the previously expected cost of energy.

Presumably you're thinking of a "previously expected cost of energy" that's much lower?

Why, then, are airlines been racing to buy more fuel-efficient designs? Why have manufacturers (like Airbus and Boeing) been under such intense pressure to make innovations in fuel-efficiency over the last few years?

Airlines, and airliner-makers, aren't ignoring the fuel price trends. They're adapting.

 

[Doubt]

Well, thanks to working in the heat treatment of metals, I can say that you would not need to invest in passenger equipment specifically. Keep in mind that all rolling stock is similar.

If there was a shift to more rail traffic I would look at cargo instead of people. Fewer trucks and more box cars. Although there are already plenty of hybrid truck trailer/rail cars in existence now too.

My recent trip to India was to start up equipment used to make bearings for railroad cars. The bearings are the same regardless of what rides on top of the wheels.

Since the rise of aviation, passenger trains have not done well in the US. IMHO, this is not likely to change in the near future. The usefulness of rail traffic compared to aircraft depends on a lot more than fuel cost. Population densities are one factor. Travel time also is a cost for those on business trips. Then you have investments in large, not very flexible infrastructure to consider. And as somebody already mentioned, the legal right of way for the railroads is not cheap to get.

 

[BenBurch]

God, you really WANT America to go back to about 1890, don't you, because somehow you think that will make a "better, more just" society.

Wow, please stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

First, I used that as an example of just how fast a network can grow given need. ALL of that network of hundreds of interurban lines was established with private capital in ~ 30 years.

Second, EVEN if we went with that model again, the Interurban has never died and in places really modern interurban cars are in use today, for example the Chicago, South Shore and South Bend line.

Third there even were HIGH SPEED Interurban lines; The Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee Railroad had the Electroliners which could navigate city street grade level trackage with the typical impossible radius curves but which could hit 80 mph on the graded main line up to Milwaukee. You could do better today I am sure.

Finally, I will thank you very much not to impose your straw man ideas of what Progressives think on what I am saying now and in the future. Remember that Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive, for example, and understand that the concept is that we can IMPROVE the world we live in.

I do not want this because its "more fair" or "more democratic" or "more green" but because it is possible to run with fixed-plant power such as that you can get burning coal or burning garbage or burning oil shale directly or from nuclear, wind, tidal, hydroelectric and solar power stations - Liquid fuels are going to be a huge industrial problem and perhaps we need to think about how to travel from one place to another without them, eh?

If we keep on as we have been keeping on, I know how we will travel in 100 years;