Brightline reported close to bankruptcy

[Sorcerer]

Brightline is a shining example compared to the shambles that CHSR (California High Speed Rail) has been.

Putting the whole thing in a viaduct means it won't be constantly crashing into Americans who are not able to wait at level crossings, but also means it's incredibly expensive and has a projected completion date decades again. From what I've heard the California red tape is really bad as well.

It's a common problem across much of the Anglosphere as a matter of fact. Our institutions just can't seem to get new railways built efficiently. California High Speed Rail is very much America's HS2 whereas Brightline is probably more akin to the original private railway companies, only now private enterprise isn't capitalising on a new revolutionary form of transport but rather an expensive one that now also has to go up against roads and airlines, and in this particular case in a state ran by politicians who aren't renowned for pro-rail policies.

 

[Krokodil]

Alligators got into their headquarters?

Alligators are no match for Florida Man.

 

[eldomtom2]

Brightline is a shining example compared to the shambles that CHSR (California High Speed Rail) has been.

Putting the whole thing in a viaduct means it won't be constantly crashing into Americans who are not able to wait at level crossings, but also means it's incredibly expensive and has a projected completion date decades again. From what I've heard the California red tape is really bad as well.

Most of CAHSR is not on viaduct. Just as bad as government red tape, and probably a bigger cause of delays now that the entire route has been environmentally cleared, is negotiations with third parties like utilities and freight railroads, who have tended to drag their feet severely and insist CAHSR take the option that leads to no changes to their property no matter how much more it will cost.

 

[doc7austin]

So I am not aware of any major train operator in the world, that operates regular passenger intercity service, which can survive without government subsidies.
Journey Beyond Rail doesn't count as I don't consider them running regular services. It's a tourist train.
JR East - they are getting subsidised by their huge portfolio of real estate in prime location.

 

[eldomtom2]

JR East - they are getting subsidised by their huge portfolio of real estate in prime location.

Most Shinkansen services are operationally profitable.

 

[FormerBritInMe]

As a Brit the whole concept of checked baggage on a train does baffle me. I have never not brought my bags into the train with me, and I've travelled everywhere from Wick to Istanbul (not in the same journey).

As an American, the concept of a long distance train without checked baggage baffles me. You can check a bag to travel by air from London to Paris, but cannot check one on Eurostar?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 17:28 ==

So I am not aware of any major train operator in the world, that operates regular passenger intercity service, which can survive without government subsidies.
Journey Beyond Rail doesn't count as I don't consider them running regular services. It's a tourist train.
JR East - they are getting subsidised by their huge portfolio of real estate in prime location.

Even Brightline was expected to make much of its money through real estate development around its stations.

 

[Sorcerer]

So I am not aware of any major train operator in the world, that operates regular passenger intercity service, which can survive without government subsidies.
Journey Beyond Rail doesn't count as I don't consider them running regular services. It's a tourist train.
JR East - they are getting subsidised by their huge portfolio of real estate in prime location.

Intercity passenger rail tends to be among the most profitable/lucrative rail services thanks to their high volume of passengers paying premiums on high-yield routes (usually between major city centres), especially high-speed rail services like the Shinkansen. However it's important to separate this from the operating cost of actually running the railway infrastructure and labour costs which rarely makes a return by itself, hence why they tend to rely on subsidies or diversify into a property model like JR East as you mentioned, and most successfully the Hong Kong MTR. Brightline was supposed to follow the Rail Plus Property model but it couldn't quite pull it off on this occasion.

 

[FormerBritInMe]

Intercity passenger rail tends to be among the most profitable/lucrative rail services thanks to their high volume of passengers paying premiums on high-yield routes (usually between major city centres), especially high-speed rail services like the Shinkansen. However it's important to separate this from the operating cost of actually running the railway infrastructure and labour costs which rarely makes a return by itself, hence why they tend to rely on subsidies or diversify into a property model like JR East as you mentioned, and most successfully the Hong Kong MTR. Brightline was supposed to follow the Rail Plus Property model but it couldn't quite pull it off on this occasion.

In the US the Acela and the Auto Train are reportedly "profitable" in that they cover their direct costs, although that does not factor in the cost of the infrastructure.

 

[The Pelican]

Many Intercity rail lines- both historic and high speed- should be profitable including infrastructure maitenence- but they might not be profitable enough to pay for improvements.

 

[Herriot2021]

Many Intercity rail lines- both historic and high speed- should be profitable including infrastructure maitenence- but they might not be profitable enough to pay for improvements.

I'll be curious to see how a post-bankrupcy Brightline fits into this trend. If they restructure some of their debt, and creditors take a hair cut, maybe they can make a go of it as a commercial venture.

 

[Krokodil]

As an American, the concept of a long distance train without checked baggage baffles me.

A few hundred miles isn't really "long distance" when you're going at a decent speed.

You can check a bag to travel by air from London to Paris, but cannot check one on Eurostar?

The only people who would check a bag on a London-Paris flight are those connecting into long-haul. It is actually possible to book extra or oversized luggage onto Eurostars for £30 but virtually no one bothers with that - I'd bet that almost everyone who uses the service is using it for a bicycle. Why would you, when you can take large items onto the train and simply walk off at the other end without waiting to collect them?

In the US the Acela and the Auto Train are reportedly "profitable" in that they cover their direct costs, although that does not factor in the cost of the infrastructure.

I wonder how profitable I95 is? I very much doubt that the sections of toll road on it, nor the gas tax that is theoretically hypothecated for interstate highways come close to covering its maintenance.

 

[StephenHunter]

Baggage checking was a thing on trains in the past and indeed ships; often for stuff too large to be easily carried in a passenger carriage, like trunks. Wheeled luggage wasn't around until the 1960s.

The Motor Luggage Vans existed for precisely that reason.

 

[AdamWW]

As an American, the concept of a long distance train without checked baggage baffles me. You can check a bag to travel by air from London to Paris, but cannot check one on Eurostar?

I see that a different way. it's not that you can check a bag in for a flight, it's that you have to unless it's small enough and has the right things in it. Just taking everything with me onto the train seems a lot more convenient (at least as long as there's enough luggage space). I can see the need for it when in a sleeper compartment on a North American train though.

The only people who would check a bag on a London-Paris flight are those connecting into long-haul.

I do not see why that would be. Particularly with airlines often charging for cabin bags.
I'd have thought quantity of luggage would be more related to length of stay than distance travelled.
Never mind people wanting to transport something not allowed in the cabin.

 

[Sorcerer]

In the US the Acela and the Auto Train are reportedly "profitable" in that they cover their direct costs, although that does not factor in the cost of the infrastructure.

When it comes to operating a passenger service by itself I think the only major costs are things like staffing and maintenance. Rolling stock tends to pay for itself within a short time frame if it's a high-yield intercity service, which on the Acela between the Eastern Seaboard major cities very well could be. The infrastructure itself is the real expense for railways, and often times their real benefit comes in the form of improved connectivity between major economic and industrial centres rather than profit. Good for society, not so much for shareholders who need a return on their investment.

 

[Austriantrain]

Many Intercity rail lines- both historic and high speed- should be profitable including infrastructure maitenence- but they might not be profitable enough to pay for improvements.

For high-Speed trains that discounts the initial, enormous investment. There is no doubt that the initial French LGV paid their cost and probably also could pay (via track-access charges) their further improvement, but I have my doubts that the newer once, some of them like LGV Rhin-Rhone not very intensively used manage that, at least not in a relevant timeframe. Put in a long tunnel, like Bologna - Firenze, and it becomes even more difficult. And than you have many HSL, probably most recent Spanish ones, which will probably never achieve it.

Also, at least in Europe, it is a matter of country specific policy. France puts their access-charges sky-high to recoup investment, others prefer to keep them lower to encourage higher usage.

 

[erikvd28]

A little off topic but it seems CAHSR is finally getting ready for some track laying:

I still wonder how far they are compared to HS2