Maybe Amtrak *should* retrench

[wallyworld]

I agree with you folks on all your well taken points. If any of you have traveled to Europe, you know this is all very feasible. For those of you who have not been there, the level of intermodal flexibility, speed and access is astonshing. In comparison to level of travel alternatives available there, we have a third world system based on economics that are over fifty years old that arrived with the advent of the interstate. I know it's a minor quibble-but please dump Amtrak as a name. It's an outdated and transparent madison avenue tact to make a federal controlled operation look as though it's a free standing corporation and has as much contemporary appeal as orange shag carpeting and avacodo appliances. I am a repeat offender when it comes to posting my rants concerning the railroads lack of prefrontal awareness when it comes to their relationship with the public and the lack of tooting of thy own horns. This is a symbiotic relationship joined at the hip that flys so remote in recognition that its possible the mars explorer will stumble across it. Unless the railroads get rid of their 19th century public relationship, and realize the benefits of participating
in upgrading rail awareness, this retrenching of Amtrek as as much chance as a flying brick.. They myoptically focus on a shrinking core of bulk items and their achilles hill is intermodal.traffic which is dependant on trade policies. Should the current backlash of jobs going overseas, poor enforcement, etc should be pulled upward in a change in course of the political wind, the current lack of capital and capacity will also reverse once again to retrenchment and abandonment. Where is the need in the market that will grow instead of shrink? Public transport. Where is the entrepreneurial innovation to negotiate with the federal government and enter a much changed market that has growing recognition?
They don't have a seat at the public table let alone a place to sit on the sidelines. I predict in the future most railroads will degenerate into short haul automated conveyor belts as the few just in time specialty manufacturing firms and coal eventually is phased out through technological advances. The writing is on the wall. George Hilton in studying economics of the Interurban era came to the conclusion that the industry expired as management could or would not foresee change. And so it goews.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...Well said Balt, but how are we in this country going to find financing to create a system to fit the 21th century....? Not with the Washington thinking we have now. What you are bringing on as an idea will require max financing and we can't even pay to keep Amtrak running now....I wish your system could be brought into reality.

Financing is always a problem in any undertaking. This country is headed for a TRANSPORTATION CRISIS. The only reason the airline system is operating anywhere near 'On Time' is because of the drastic traffic downturn after Sept. 11 (And for the 4 Day Airline Shut Down - the airlines received $15 BILLION from the giverment) When airline traffic returns to pre-9/11 volumes the airline system is seriously overloaded. The Interstate system (at least East of the Mississippi) is approaching virtual gridlock.. I frequently travel I-75, I-77 and I-95 between Florida and Northern destinations, traffic volumes are such that 'Cruise Control' can be use infrequently on all these routes. The 'Right Sizing' of the freight railroads have eliminated any real possibility for them handling more traffic than the already handle....they are at virtual maximum capacity with their present physical plant.

Without massive investment in all the forms of tranporation the United States economic engine will grind into gridlock, presuming that it doesn't get Out Sourced to India or Pakistan first..

Now is the time for anyone who has an interest in the Future of the country to start banging the drums to get more Governmental Investment into all forms of Transportation...those that have the ability to be expanded....among those forms of transportation that can be most economically expanded is RAIL....both Passenger and Freight.

The men who conceived and built the railroads in the 19th Centruy had a vision far, far beyond, not only the bottom line, but a vision far beyond their time. It is time for our society to begin laying the framework for the Transportation needs of the 22nd Century.

[Modelcar]

...Well said Balt, but how are we in this country going to find financing to create a system to fit the 21th century....? Not with the Washington thinking we have now. What you are bringing on as an idea will require max financing and we can't even pay to keep Amtrak running now....I wish your system could be brought into reality.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

I make a fair number of highway trips east of the Mississippi. Sustained speeds of 70? I wish. If one is not concerned about running 10 to 15 over the speed limit WHEN TRAFFIC PERMITS, you might actually average up to 60. And that doesn't count rest stops.

Having been a child of the 50's family vacations....vacations without the Interstate system...If you were able to drive over 300 miles in a 10 hour days.....YOU WERE FLYING. Passenger trains of the 50's couldn't win against that level of competition. Amtrak, that doesn't have schedules as convient or as fast as those of the 50's is marketing the wrong product to the wrong audience at the wrong time.

[jeaton]

I make a fair number of highway trips east of the Mississippi. Sustained speeds of 70? I wish. If one is not concerned about running 10 to 15 over the speed limit WHEN TRAFFIC PERMITS, you might actually average up to 60. And that doesn't count rest stops.

[BaltACD]

Amtrak's true problem is that it is trying to sell 1940's transportation in the 21st Century.

If one remembers, or studies history, the railroads subsequent to WW II invested heavily into Streamlined equipment and all the other 'new' technology of the era in an attempt to build services to compete with the pre-Interstate road structure and the Dc-3/4 level of air transportation. With most of the rail routes limited to 79 MPH and highway speeds in the 40/50 MPH range, they did not win that competition.

In the 21st Century we have a 41,000+ Interstate Highway system that permits sustained legal speeds of 70 MPH in most areas (and who drives the speed limit), air transportation that cruises at 500/600 MPH which permits regional trips to a flight duration of 1 to 2 hours + check in and baggage retrieval time. Amtrak is still operating 79 MPH on the same circuitous routes that the predecessor railroad operated back in the 40's, but Amtrak doesn't have the company President applying the operational pressure, daily, to keep the passenger trains the TOP PRIORITY of the operating railroad, such as occured in the 1940's.

I am not against passenger railroading, however, passenger railroading must be brought into the 21st Centrury. That means HIGH SPEED, new alignment passenger operations. When the freight railroads alignments were laid out in the middle 1800's, earth moving equipment consisted of men, picks, shovels, burros and black powder. The engineers that laid out the routes wanted the least grade possible with the least amount of earth moving....if the route that fit those criteria was miles longer and had a high level of curvature - that was the price of doing business in the 19th Century. If this country is to have effective rail passenger transportation, then a complete NEW, HIGH SPEED, system must be constructed on new alignments using the engineering technology of the 21st Century.

Continuation of Amtrak selling a 1940's product in the 21st Century is an excercise in futility.

[jeaton]

WW-You're right. Those kinds of things should come from the Department of Transportation. But, as a somewhat more famous person put it, if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, then the current administration considers it way too complicated.
Jay

[Modelcar]

....I'm sure the steam engine would attract lots of railfan and other's attention but we don't have the physical plant in place anymore to service steam engines over the "road". Coal, water...and service for the mechanicals of it, etc....and of course they require more bodies to keep them running...and that equals expense.

[wallyworld]

I already pay this bill through gasoline taxes or state and federal taxes as well as subsidizing the relatively recent bailout of the airlines as well as funding Amtrak. We all do for every hour of everyday. All transportation in this country is in fact either directly or indirectly subsidized by us, the taxpayer. I don’t have a problem with paying for the privileges that most consider a right but I do have a problem with both the lack of a coordinated transportation policy based on demons ratable facts rather than it being a matter of pork barrel amendments and the efforts of lobbyists. I agree that smaller communities would benefit with rail service. I think your point is well taken as demonstrated by the complaints of western and even some Midwestern states that the more densely populated areas of the country get all the tax dollars ( read east coast ) where there is a multitude of alternative means of getting from point A to point B where smaller communities have no airline service. I think our Senate along with the GAO should provide us with a surface transportation study as a basis for discussion rather than priorities being cherry picked by political interest. Good luck, right?

[jeaton]

I find it amazing that many who are opposed to the continuation of the long distant trains so often base their arguement on the truth that such trains are not competitive with airline service. Even the strongest supporters of Amtrak or any rail passenger service will concede to that point.. The person who chooses the train over the plane for a long trip between the largest cities is the person who just wants the train experience.

On the other hand, it might be argued that rail service is competitive with air between many of the smaller communities served by rail. Still, this is not the big market for rail service. How about the private automobile on the public highway?

If you think you pay too much tax for the government support of rail passenger service, just wait until you get the tax bill for a strictly "take the plane or the car" structure.

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

I've got an idea:

Amtrak restores one steam locomotive. Amtrak never says where it is. It journeys around the country randomly. If you are lucky, it will show up on your train. All the more incentive for everyone to ride Amtrak.

I know you guys are going to hate that idea, but oh well.

See you around the forums,
Daniel

Oh my word -- that would at least get the railfans watching, if not riding! Maybe they wouldn't even have to restore an engine (that's bucks!) -- how about leasing either UP's 844 or SP's 4449[:D]? Or if they wanted to be distinctive, I expect that you could get the N&S 611 rolling again with relatively little effort -- she hasn't been tied up all that long[:)].

[wallyworld]

I have ridden long distance intercity trains for both business and for pleasure. I have retained memories of every ride and memeorable conversations while I could'nt tell you who I sat next to on my last flight. That be as it may, the market niche that Amtrak should target are short distance intercity trains, not long distance tourist oriented runs. These long runs promote an image of enjoyment at a leisurely pace which they do provide and I enjoy.. However, when it comes to promoting the advantages of rail travel, you might as well paint a covered wagon on the coaches. Most senate debates on Amtrak funding focuses on these slow paced often delayed "excursions." I bought my mother a ticket from Washington to Chicago. She fell asleep for several hours and when she woke up she was amazed at the smoothness of the ride. She opened the window to find the train had never left the station. The government is the least effective operator of trains let alone marketing agent. If my tax dollars are to be spent paying the railroads a fee to use their tracks to have a federal agency run trains based on politics, I would rather take a plane. Let the railroads do what they do best..run trains. God help anyone who delays the train instead of sitting dead on innumerable sidings waiting for a more valuable train of freight to pass. Let any profit go to increasing capacity through a demonstrated need that benefits the public. Get the road names out there where their visibility rises beyond non existance. My son asked me yesterday; Whats a CXS? Good question.I should know that answer but for the life of me I could'nt remember what it stood for so I used BNSF as an example. My son in his innocence said" Dad, that doesn't make sense." Out of the mouth of babes.

[Anonymous]

I've got an idea:

Amtrak restores one steam locomotive. Amtrak never says where it is. It journeys around the country randomly. If you are lucky, it will show up on your train. All the more incentive for everyone to ride Amtrak.

I know you guys are going to hate that idea, but oh well.

See you around the forums,
Daniel

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
Long story short, the weather was bad. They drove to the Milwaukee station in time for the first departure of the day, and had an all-around successful trip to Chicago and back on Amtrak. Amtrak came through for him. None of the people involved in the trip are 'train riders'. Another professor we were eating with who is from Milwaukee wondered if Amtrak runs more than one train a day to Chicago. The consensus from the conversation was, 'Driving into Chicago is a real hassle; maybe Amtrak is *the* way to go there.

I always like hearing those stories, people often don't look at rail as an option when they are in charge of moving a group around.

Most times it's probably cheaper than chartering a bus......and much better than everyone going in their own cars.

[Anonymous]

Dear Tom,
If you remember the reason why Amtrak was formed in the first place, then you will also understand why some of your ideas are flawed, as is Mr Bush's ideas for Amtrak. There is a case to be made however, where you live. The run from Milwaukee to Chicago is roughly 84 miles. That's a commuter rail run in some parts of the country. The Long Island Railroad's run from Penn Station in Manhattan, New York City to Montauk Point, Suffolk, New York is roughly 150 miles. That short run between your two cities could best be served by the regional commuter rail agency METRA, with state funding divided up between Wisconsin and Illinois. This will actually let Amtrak expand service to the twin cities, just like it was back in the 40's through the 60's when you had multiple train services from three competing rail companies. There are plenty of places where Amtrak should have through ticketting services with the commuter rail companies, especially since much of the routes share the tracks and some of the stations. Just a thought.


Glenn
A R E A L RAILROADER...A TRUE AMERICAN!!!

[jeaton]

As Dave notes, when you start cutting, revenue is lost from multiple train riders. Another problem is that for any train cut, in the short term, the revenue lost is greater than the cost savings. This is due mostly to labor guarantees. Amtrak can not be faulted for allowing the unions to have these guarantees, as they were the result of a Federal mandate put into one of the past authorization bills.. Amtrak is now free to try to negotiate them out, but given that the Amtrak jobs are at risk depending on the action of the Federal Government, fat chance that the unions would even allow severance pay provisions on the table.

Hope you advised the other professor that there are a "few" (is it six or seven?) more than one a day.

[Modelcar]

....Perhaps Amtrak will once again get a boost from the impending "high" priced gasoline we're getting into again....and this time the oil companies seem like they want to keep the new higher floor for the price norm. Vacation time of increased driving normally starts well into Spring but we all know it's early for the higher prices to be looming now.....

[daveklepper]

Retrenchment is not cost effective. There are economies of scale. One route feeds another. Loose much more than what is there, connectivity becomes impossible. The City of New Orleans has a terrific U of I to Chicago business but it can't make a Champaign - Chicago train viable. But with people riding through from Memphis and New Orleans and connecting for Milwaukee and the Twin Cities and Detroit and Grand Rapids and Omaha and Denver and---the train doesn't loose so much money and might even break even on over-the-road costs. Dave

[Anonymous]

Maybe Amtrak should consolidate its current resources (people, equipment and dollars) into the few routes where it can really have an impact, and 'pour the coal to 'er' there; make it a banner service.

I had lunch with an accounting professor today from Sheboygan (50 miles north of Milwaukee) who last week with another professor took several college students to an accounting meeting in central Chicago. He was planning to have everyone travel in two cars, but snow and ice was in the forecast, so he was concerned about not getting to the meeting in good order. He hit on the idea of checking into Amtrak.

Long story short, the weather was bad. They drove to the Milwaukee station in time for the first departure of the day, and had an all-around successful trip to Chicago and back on Amtrak. Amtrak came through for him. None of the people involved in the trip are 'train riders'. Another professor we were eating with who is from Milwaukee wondered if Amtrak runs more than one train a day to Chicago. The consensus from the conversation was, 'Driving into Chicago is a real hassle; maybe Amtrak is *the* way to go there.