P/O'd

[Anonymous]

In the recent May edition of Trains Magazine, I read an article about Amtrak's budget crisis(pgs: 8&9). Once again, our president/ceo, Mr Gunn has asked congress for the same 1.8 billion dollars like he has done previously, to keep Amtrak running and to TRY to make some much needed improvments. Of course, the republicans and the administration are still toying with the notion that Amtrak must make drastic changes before they consider it. One such person, a republican congressman from Oklahoma, Mr. Istook, said that Mr Gunn's contiuning and repeated mentions of shutting Amtrak down has no creditblity with him and some others. He feels that Amtrak has survived on the 1.2 billion handed each of the two years previous, why does it need more than that. Mr. Gunn has pointed out to these jerks before, in order to repair and restore our infrastructure to operating efficiency, WE NEED MONEY!! It's going to take more than 1.2 billion or even 1.8 billion to do it, I can tell you all that! If Mr. Gunn is ever going to make good on his threats, then now is the time to act! I know, let's start cutting service to Oklahoma, then Texas, then to all those other states where the elected officials don't like us. I think that's a great idea! Imagine the amount of money we can save, not to mention time. If we didn't have to make any stops in Texas, the Sunset Limited will make great from Florida to California. Hell, while we're at it, skip Arizona as well(can't stand Senator MaCain)! Wow, just think, we'll really be streamlining service then! Too bad, we still have to run to Florida...oh well, can't win them all.


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

[dharmon]

I understand your frustration, but before you start cutting service in Texas, Kay Baily Hutchinson R-TX, has been a big supporter of transportation issues including Amtrak.

[mudchicken]

Cut the highway spending bill by a similar percentage. Watch the whiners, truckers, construction lobby, et. al. crawl out of the woodwork or slither onder the door!

[Big_Boy_4005]

Let the current trend in oil prices continue for a while longer, and Amtrak might look like a real bargain. Pretty soon any whining from truckers will be made from the unemployment line!!!

Washington has always been slow on the uptake, and perfers to wallow in it's archaic little world, paying no attention to real American issues. Instead it quietly focuses on how the members can best raise funds for re-election, so that they can stay in office. Of course re-election only contributes further to the stagnation. My suggestion is to vote them ALL out of office DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS alike. It won't be any worse than it is now. We have allowed these idiots to get way too comfortable, and allowed them to abuse us.

[vsmith]

I hate to say it but outside of a few corridors, NE corridor, Southern CA, maybe a few others, but our short minded Government could cut rail travel everywhere else and most people wouldnt even notice it. People just simply do not consider train travel when they go anywhere. they are so conditioned by the notiion that they have to take the plane to get anywhere and they are willing to put up with a three hour delay for a 30 flight that to me I sadly can see a day when cross country rail travel will cease in the US, a nation built on steel rails. Our idiot government travels 1st class or on private jets, by limosuine, by superluxury RV , and generally get treated like royalty. How are they going to even consider rail as a vaible long distance transit mode when they would never use it ? might as well ask them to take Greyhound. The same aurgement applies to Amtrack. To most Americans taking the train is only one step about taking the bus somewhere, "only nobodies travel by bus and we certainly aren't nobodies" thats the mentality of most people. Most Americans simply do not have the patience to travel by train, they are already intolerant with the 6 hours it takes to get cross country. We've been trained to be impatient. "I want it now, daddy, now" to qoute Faruka Salt. If someone invented a teleporter like on Star Truck and advertised saying they will get you from LA to NY in 6 seconds instead of 6 hours but there was a chance of some molecular damage, there would be a line around that guys store that stretched for blocks. such is the world we live in. When Amtack goes away as a long distance carrier with no alternative, it will be a sad day in American history.

[starwardude]

The day they'd cut Amtrak,I'd sue, then move to Canada or Europe, or even Russia.(Besides ,Ive only out of the US.It was on a trip to NiagraFalls, Canada.)Also, I'm 1/4 Russian.

[slotracer]

The long haul passenger train in the US's time passed a half a century ago, why our tax dollars still support this is a mystery and a waste. I know many are so into trains, all they can see is their viewpoint and are angry to see the passenger train fade away, I can understand that, but the relaity is, passsenger travel is too slow, to unpredictable, too inconveneint and in many lanes of service too expense vs Air even with heavy gov't funding to offset the cost. I really don't know why Amtrack and it's wasteful use of tax dollar consumption was not cut off in the early eighties.
We don't subsidize clipper ships to sail the oceans, or farmers to use antique steam powered and in-efficient tractors, sure they are quaint but their time as a main stream service/technology is long past. Amtrack is two, passenger trains belong in museums or short fast haul commuter service or between high population regional cities.

[pmsteamman]

^^^^^^^^ So i suppose we should support the airlines so more wackos can hijack them and more truckers on alreadry congested roadways.

[Modelcar]

....When the system is not safe to operate anymore without maintenance on ROW I hope the first place Gunn shuts down is the NEC...and let that open their eyes quick. Believe it carries more traffic than the airline shuttles in that area. Let the politicians that are blocking the needed funds then get the unleashed heat...!

[Anonymous]

Cut Airline Spending and kill the airlines

DOGGY

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

Let the current trend in oil prices continue for a while longer, and Amtrak might look like a real bargain. Pretty soon any whining from truckers will be made from the unemployment line!!!

Washington has always been slow on the uptake, and perfers to wallow in it's archaic little world, paying no attention to real American issues. Instead it quietly focuses on how the members can best raise funds for re-election, so that they can stay in office. Of course re-election only contributes further to the stagnation. My suggestion is to vote them ALL out of office DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS alike. It won't be any worse than it is now. We have allowed these idiots to get way too comfortable, and allowed them to abuse us.

[bow][bow][bow][bow][bow][bow][bow][bow][bow][bow]
Thank you for the truth, Mr. Big Boy!
Indeed, imagine what Amtrak could do with say, a penny off the tax of every gallon of gas sold in this country. We could have a system that would make Japan and France look up in admiration. You are very correct on the political side of things, IT DOESN'T MATTER WETHER THEY'RE DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, THEY ARE ALL FOR MAKING MONEY FOR THEMSELVES AND COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT THE LITTLE GUYS IN THIS COUNTRY. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ALLOW ALL OF OUR COMPANIES TO MOVE OVERSEAS, THEY'RE MAKING MONEY OFF OF IT.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Our idiot government travels 1st class or on private jets, by limosuine, by superluxury RV , and generally get treated like royalty. How are they going to even consider rail as a vaible long distance transit mode when they would never use it ? might as well ask them to take Greyhound.

There are definite and real reasons why government officials travel on private jets. I'm not talking about the average GS-9 or military member (we have to travel on what they give us, such as the cargo net seats of a C-141 Starlifter), I mean people like the President, Vice-President, top military officers. For reasons of national security, they are not allowed to travel by commercial carrier, whether it be Greyhound, Amtrak, or JetBlue. If they travelled by commercial carrier, with all of the security surrounding them, as well as the communications support, there wouldn't be any room for other passengers. How about this on the news - semi-truck collides with Greyhound Bus, President among those killed? No, sorry, I have to disagree with your opinion. Having been in the military for over 20 years, I know what kind of idiocy it would be to endanger the National Command Authority. Osama would have a great time if he knew dubya was going to be riding on such and such a bus or in such and such a train. It's a sad commentary of our times that we have to worry about travelling.

Whether you like our government or not, at least you have the right to spout off about it. In my opinion, if you didn't vote in the last election, then you got the government you deserve. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

As for asking for more money, I would say, provided that Mr. Gunn can justify those expenses, then give him the money. I don't mean he has to account for every nickel and dime, but he has experts working for him who can predict future costs based on past trends. The carriers do it all the time, especially when they charge such-and-such for fares. If the request is justified, then by all means, pay for the upkeep.

I would hate to see Amtrak go away - the country would be poorer for its demise. I think that the suggestion to cut spending on new highway expansion has merits. I would support that, provided that I knew that I could still get where I wanted to go, whether it was on a 2-lane, 4-lane, or 12-lane road. As long as it's more difficult and more expensive for me to take the train than to drive, I'll drive. The closest Amtrak station is over 100 miles away and it would still cost me a lot more to ride the train than to drive.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by starwardude

The day they'd cut Amtrak,I'd sue, then move to Canada or Europe, or even Russia.(Besides ,Ive only out of the US.It was on a trip to NiagraFalls, Canada.)Also, I'm 1/4 Russian.

Canada's passenger rail service isn't that much better.
In fact Amtrak looks pretty good in comparision to the services VIA offers.

[Big_Boy_4005]

The truth is, that when it comes to Amtrak, I am terribly torn! I love trains, and Amtrak is a sentimental favorite of mine. I am even dedicating my model railroad to it, as I am modeling the route of the Empire Builder as it passes through the Twin Cities, switching from the ex Milwaukee Road main to the BNSF.

The problem is that Amtrak is also a business, and unfortunately not a particularly profitable one. With the exception of a few short distance, high density lines, most of the trains are operational losers. Let's face it, the distances that we have become accustomed to travel have incerased due to the airlines.

Take baseball for example, up until the late 50's, there were no major league teams west of the Mississippi River. They traveled by train, St Louis, Chicago, Cincinatti, Pittsburgh, Philidelphia, New York, and Boston were all the stops for the National League. Easy short hops, and a first class ride, and they were ready to play the next day.
The airlines came along, and the teams spread out, moving west, beyond the reach of the train's schedule.

Few people today would voulenteer to ride a train for two days to reach their destination, especially if they could get on a plane and be there in a few hours. Long distance rail passenger service really only has two possible things that could save it.

The first would be a huge investment in infrastructure, resulting in trains that could travel at least 250 mph. Or the cost of airline travel becomes so high that trains look like a reasonable choice.

Our world is filled with tough decisions. Amtrak is a choice between our heads and our hearts, and no solution will ever please everyone.

I said some pretty har***hings, earlier in this topic, about our elected officials. I still stand by those comments, because I feel that they still apply to subjects far beyond Amtrak, but perhaps they don't have the easiest jobs in the world. Maybe this is why nothing ever seems to get done, everyone is afraid to make difficult choices, so instead they make none.

[jeaton]

I like to do the math. The Amtrak subsidy at $1.8 Billion the the cost per person living in the US is $6.25. So for my family of three that's $18.25 or about one fifth of my monthly cable bill. Family share for some other items? $114 for the airline bailout last year; $520.92 for highway expenses not covered by gas taxes and tolls; $937.50 for whatever in Iraq. A member of congress opposed to Amtrak so there can be another big round of tax cuts? Priceless.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

I like to do the math. The Amtrak subsidy at $1.8 Billion the the cost per person living in the US is $6.25. So for my family of three that's $18.25 or about one fifth of my monthly cable bill. Family share for some other items? $114 for the airline bailout last year; $520.92 for highway expenses not covered by gas taxes and tolls; $937.50 for whatever in Iraq. A member of congress opposed to Amtrak so there can be another big round of tax cuts? Priceless.

Very interesting numbers, I guess the one that bothers me the most of course is the last one. We have created this huge infrastructure in this country, much of which is in need of repair, but we are busy fixing the infrastructure of Iraq. Does anyone else see a problem here, or is it just me?[:(][V][B)][:0][}:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

I like to do the math. The Amtrak subsidy at $1.8 Billion the the cost per person living in the US is $6.25. So for my family of three that's $18.25 or about one fifth of my monthly cable bill. Family share for some other items? $114 for the airline bailout last year; $520.92 for highway expenses not covered by gas taxes and tolls; $937.50 for whatever in Iraq. A member of congress opposed to Amtrak so there can be another big round of tax cuts? Priceless.

Very interesting numbers, I guess the one that bothers me the most of course is the last one. We have created this huge infrastructure in this country, much of which is in need of repair, but we are busy fixing the infrastructure of Iraq. Does anyone else see a problem here, or is it just me?[:(][V][B)][:0][}:)]

I find it strange that the best political thinkers are not politicians at all. I think it's pitiful and enraging that we have jobless and homeless people all over this country and yet Bush and Congress send several billion dollars to Iraq (they should rebuild their own country if they don't want us in there) and comes up with a moronic plan to send a shuttle to Mars. We need to stop being the world's "babysitter" and let the world take care of its problems, and America take care of America's problems.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....When the system is not safe to operate anymore without maintenance on ROW I hope the first place Gunn shuts down is the NEC...and let that open their eyes quick. Believe it carries more traffic than the airline shuttles in that area. Let the politicians that are blocking the needed funds then get the unleashed heat...!

Exactly, shut down the NEC first. If that doesn't open Congress' eyes nothing will.

If the rest of the country can't have passenger train service then none should ! ! !

I do want passenger service. I actually want to see it expanded and improved but with the current president and congress I don't see it happpening.

Time to elect new officials who will do something about the USA and not every other country under the sun but ours.

[CG9602]

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

The long haul passenger train in the US's time passed a half a century ago, why our tax dollars still support this is a mystery and a waste. I know many are so into trains, all they can see is their viewpoint and are angry to see the passenger train fade away, I can understand that, but the relaity is, passsenger travel is too slow, to unpredictable, too inconveneint and in many lanes of service too expense vs Air even with heavy gov't funding to offset the cost.

Where shall I begin with this? Every form of transport is subsidized in one form or another - even if you refuse to characterize the tax-supported Air & Highway Trust Funds as subsidies. Part of the reasins that Air & highways have become more convienient is because the Federal funding that is available to make things seem lower cost or "Free" to the users. The places where Amtrak has a significant presence in the travel market place are also places where Amtrak has a large number of riders - for example, the NEC, and CA. If Amtrak is inconvieniet, it is becuase in that apart of the country Amtrak hasn't recieved adequate funding. what do you expect when the Highway funding gets more money in one single year than Amtrak has had over its entire history? What sort of service do you expect when you place one form of transport on a Starvation diet relative to the others? Too expensive vs air travel? compared to what? Have you ever traveled to places away from the large airports? It is possible to find city pairs where Amtrak offers more competitive prices than the airlines, and vice versa. Amtrak also serves communities where Air travel is very expensive, or otherwise non-existant, or subsidized via the Essential Air Services subsidy. As for being too slow, Amtrak has to rent track space from the Frieght RRs, who are the property owners. They, not Amtrak or the DOT, handle all of their opwn traffic control and track maintenance. Their track maintenance must be paid for out of their own pockets - They don't have Uncle Sam, via a taxpayer-supported Trust Fund of some sort, to offset or compensate their maintenance expenses. Any sort of upgrade must be paid for out of their own pockets. Do you want to see trains with speeds competitive to driving? Do you want to see trains that arrive at convienient times? Do you want to have trains that offer service to areas where the airelines and highways cannot? Do you want toi bew able toi expand the capacity of the transport system without expanding the number of runways or highway lanes? Do you wnat to be able to give people a moderately higher amount of mobility, considering that airport or highway expansion will inevitably encounter resistance from the NIMBYs? Then I would invite you to come up with a way for compensating the frieght RRs so that they can upgrade their tracks, expand track capacity to accomodate the increase in use, and for their trqaffic control systems that the FRA mandates to be in place in order to allow for increased track speeds. Those items will all take money, and money is something that Amtrak has been chronically starved of. Amtrak has never had enough capital to be able to get out of the hole that it is in, thanks to our elected representatives, and the funding structure that keeps the costs associated with driving and flying artificially low.

QUOTE: I really don't know why Amtrack and it's wasteful use of tax dollar consumption was not cut off in the early eighties.

What about the corruption of the highway lobby? the Trucking lobby? What about the bailouts of the airlines? or, the fact that they think nothing about asking for handouts whenever they want another airport, instead of getting their own private investors to buy the land and build it out of their oen funds (such as what the railroads did when they were in the passenger segment of the market) ? What do you think the highway traut fund or theairline trust funds are, if not subsidies? Did you know that half of the highway maintenance funds must come out of property taxes, and that the Highway Trust Fund covers only HALF of the maintenance costs nationwide?

QUOTE: We don't subsidize clipper ships to sail the oceans, or farmers to use antique steam powered and in-efficient tractors, sure they are quaint but their time as a main stream service/technology is long past.

True, we don't subsidize those forms of travel because they dno longer make economic sense. We do subsidize the dredging of harbors and the rivers and lochs and dams that barges run upon, and we do subsidise air and highway travel, to the point that it makes us station soldiers in unstable parts of the world, and prop up undemocratic governemtns. This support of undemocratic governments such as the Saudis,makes us look like hypocrites in the eyes of the world, becuase we come across as saying that we are all in favor of democracy, unless you happen to live in an area where there is oil. Then we'll support whoever will give us oil at the cheapest price, no matter how they treat their citizens.

QUOTE: Amtrack is two,

Two what? Where was One? This sentence makes no sense.

QUOTE: Passenger trains belong in museums or short fast haul commuter service or between high population regional cities.

I disagree. If passenger rail were funded to the degree that it is in other nations, and to the degree that air travel and driving are in this country, then passenger rail would be a viable option for many non-railfans in the travel marketplace. If passenger rail were funded to an adequate extent, then people would see what some rail executives have been saying for the past several years - that Rail Is Real, and a modern way to transport people and things from place to place.

[slotracer]

As can be expected there were several emotional, ill informed replies here, but some reasonably good ones as well.
We subsidize highways and airlines as those are the modes of the present and forseeable future. The nature of the beast is different, as the vast road network is used by multiple frieght carriers and everyone in their cars privately, it has to be funded and paid for by a nuetral...ala gov't agency. I guess the alternative is that there is local rail service to just about everywhere and you walked to the local train station.....that was nice up until the forties, but there now exists a vast roadway network that needs to be maintained and in some cases, expanded or improved.
Beleive it or not, I think it was probably a much better time when people took trains that their companies cared about and promoted, you could relax, take your time and have a nice meal on them even, but the reality is, times have changed, very long ago. You can argue the point all you want, and I understand the love of trains sometimes blinds people to reality, but reality speaks in the fact that very few of John Q publics even consider, let alone travel by rail anymore. If fuel or terrorism or some outside force leverages a change, there may be some resurgence in rail travel, but somewhat temporary and nothing like many train buffs dream about. The average Joe has voted with his bucks and obviously trains has lost out....a long time ago...and it ain't commin back, face it. With all the money Amtrack has been handed over the years, they have plenty of opportunity to improve and try to grow, don't give me the tired old line they never got enough. And for the response about putting more trucks on the road, we were talking about passenger trains, not freight, keep on topic.

The problem is that times and the population have moved on and traveling long distances especially through regions with lower population density does not draw enough ridership to make it worth the subsidies that are basically flushed down the toilet on amtrack. To make a long term sustainable growth of long haul rail pasengers, the service needs to be better and the price needs to be WAY lower than airlines. Even then most folks are going to consider the value of getting from Denver to Chicago in 2-3 hrs by air or sitting looking at cornfields for over a day on the train. To entice the average traveler to go train, you better be able to offer a heck of a price incentive. Forget the business traveler, no one is going to have staff take a 5 day round trip on business, only one of which is in a productive meeting. Sure they can work on a laptop, but they can do that at the office and on the plane and airport and reduce that total trip from 5 days down to 2 or 3. It's over, lets face it, the Government is flushing money supporting an antique almost no one wants anymore.....if they wanted it, you wouldn't have discussions on how badly amtrack is used....a discussion that has been going on for decades.

[Anonymous]

What if the government stopped pork barreling our taxmoney and subsidized a national railroad upgrading? Putting concrete ties and crossing gates in all of the high-density traffic lines, using harder and more flexible steel for rail, improving locomotives, freight cars, Amtrak, and roadbeds? In other words, giving railroads fair competition with airlines and highways? If railroads could recapture the "delivery" market, aka lcl and express service, and could make trains go to speeds in excess of 200 mph safely, our tansportation system would be balanced: trucks and buses for short haul, railroads for oversized, high speed and long haul service, and airlines for trancontinental trips.
Is it ever going to be that way? Not likely. Americans are notorious for throwing away useful, but older ways of getting things done. And railroads have to spend about 2 times more money to keep in the black than other industries do. One thing is for certain: instead of downsizing routes, Amtrack needs to add more routes. In Amtrack's financial uncertainty, that seems crazy, but to compete with airlines Amtrack needs to work with the freight lines to get travel on the rails as fast and as easy as possible. Passenger trains were once profitable, and they can be again ,it would just take so much upgrading and money that no one of power wants to try it. For instance, why doesn't Amtrack have any thru trains in Chicago? there will never be any true transcontinental passenger trains in this country unless Amtrak stops thinking like a freight railroad and acts like a passenger line. Many other things, some already pointed out, need to be established on Amtrak trains. The problem right now is getting the money to do it.

[cpbloom]

Outside of railroad forums like this you'd hardly know Amtrak exists let alone people wanting to catch a train to go anywhere. Even if properly funded, will that increase ridership? I don't think so. Remember the topic titled: "Why do Americans need such big cars???", (that topic had a lot of responses justifying ownership of cars). That sums all this up for me; most people are either going to fly or drive to destinations. I'm definitely a railfan, but I can only back Amtrak so far.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Before I get started here, I'd like to say that I really enjoy reading everything that everyone writes, (even if I don't always agree with it) but it would be much easier to READ if long blocks of text were broken up by some white space.

Think of the enter key by your right pinky. By hitting it twice, you can create a "bra" for your thoughts, ie it LIFTS AND SEPERATES them.[swg]

---

Back to trains.

In order to really understand where this country went wrong with it's railroads we need to understand history. Let's go back to a time when there was no problem, to see if we can figure out how all of this mess began.

I think that it is safe to say that the railroads were in pretty good shape around 1900. The first person to really make a mark on the railroads' "wall of doom" had to be Henry Ford. As his assembly lines cranked out inexpensive personal transportation, that Americans of the day quickly fell in love with, that was STRIKE ONE for the railroads.

By the 30's the automobile was pretty firmly fixed in the hearts and minds of Americans, and the cry went out "we need better roads". Combine that with the depression, and and the Roosevelt administration's desire to put people to work, and highways were born, all in the name of the public good.

Before we get too far ahead, let's go back to 1904, and another historic disaster for the railroads. Yes, those pesky Wright brothers. Just look at the crap they started (sorry Jim). That's STRIKE TWO!!!!

Of course the Wright brothers plane wasn't much in and of itself, but proof that the concept of flight only fueled others to improve upon their invention. Again, by the 30's, this piece of the puzzle was coming into the mainsteram. But at least planes weren't that much faster (YET).

Oh, by the way the railroads tried this new thing in the 30's, I think they called it diesel.

Has anyone noticed anything here???? A pattern perhaps???

CONGRATULATIONS AMERICA!!!!! You have just created the world's first OIL BASED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. No problem, we won't run out, at least not in our lifetime!!!!

Some of the members here will remember gasoline rationing during WW II. It seems that we needed it to fuel our planes and tanks in order to win the war.

When the soldiers returned, they settled down, but not in the cities. There was a new thing called the suburbs, and that was the place to live. Now each day they could get in their car and drive to work in the city. "We need more roads!!!!!"

By the way, they are working on this really fast engine for airplanes, I think they call it a JET.

AHHHH the 50's, the beginning of the end. Yes, trains are just too slow, and they don't go the second that "I" want to leave. That makes them inconvenient too!!! Screw the train, I'll just drive. On second thought, I'm in a hurry, I'll drive to the airport and fly.

The 60's!!! Face it gang, oil is cheap, times are fast, and trains are not cool.

Railroads: Passengers, we don't need no stinkin' passengers. All they do is complain anyway. They don't like to ride anymore, why should we bust our butts over them. Let them drive and fly, we don't make any money on them anyway. Freight is where it's at man!!!!

Amtrak is born!!!! What a mess. Does anyone own the book "Journey to Amtrak"? First published in 1972 by Kalmbach, hard bound, and cover priced at $6.50, it tells the whole story of the time leading up to that fateful day, May 1, 1971. In thinking about it I went downstairs and grabbed my copy, and started to look through it. After turning only a few pages, I saw it. Yes, Trains Magazine's very own Don Phillips was one of the contributors to this book.

By the way, Amtrak was not the name of the "organization". The National Rail Passenger Corporation (NRPC) was originally planning to call it's service Railpax, but changed to Amtrak at the last minute, almost 33 years ago.

The 80's and 90's have seen Amtrak hang on for dear life, always in the shadow of the Congressional budget ax, but survive it has. Call it sickly sentimental, or brilliant foresight in preserving some kind of passenger rail service, every dog has it's day, and Amtrak may live to see it's come.

In this new century, we will have new challenges. I think the cat is out of the bag, that our transportation systems are inefficient, and way too dependent on OIL. The question is can we change our habits before it is too late.

Do you really believe that we are in Iraq to save their people? Or are the people we are tying to save OURSELVES???? This country can't afford to shut down, it must continue at any cost. Are we headed in the right direction???

I never heard STRIKE THREE for the railroads. We are still alive!!!!!

P.S. this is my 1300th post.

[Anonymous]

Very nice history, Big_Boy_4005. Look at our very society-there ain't a day in our lives we don't use oil. And where does all of this oil come from? The overwhelming majority is from the Middle East, which is also-SURPRISE! the place of so much turm"OIL" [:D]
today. SO what does America do to protect our greasy investment? We send countries like Arabia and Arab Imrates several BILLION dollars altogether every year, although some of the countries we support also harbor terrorists. See something about to happen?

(space for Big_Boy_4005)

BOOM! around comes September 11, 2001-nothing else need be said about that horrible day. So, we go to war with Afganistan. But we do not get any oil from Afganistan. Instead, our president has his beady little eyes set on a crude oil paradiase, Iraq. But we can't trade with Iraq because of the likes of evil, sick Mr. Saddam.

(another space for Big_Boy)

What happens next? We invade Iraq on the grounds that they have WMDs. Now we find ourselves today with a mess every bit as volatile as the vast oil supply it contains. There will never be peace in the Mid-East.

So where does that leave us today? A country that depends on Asia (and the Middle East) for our very survival, a defunct passenger train corporation, and gas guzzling semi trucks and SUVs everywhere.

At least there never will be a "strike 3" for the railroads. Once in a book about the classic age of American railroading, I read a wonderful excerpt about steam locomotives and railroads in general:
". One thing I always loved about steam locomotives is that, unlike a motor vehicle that will just sit and stall if given too much to haul, a steam locomotive will spin her drivers underneath her helplessly until she can get the impossible mass moving...Come hell or high water, a steam locomotive will always get the job done, indeed hell and high water is what gives a steamer life."
That was a little off topic, but it is such a wonderful, symbolic quote from the heyday of America's railroads, and nothing "happy" was being posted on this string.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Thank you Cjm, and my tired eyes, and jumpy brain thank you too.[swg]

Acouple of months back there was a topic about nuclear powered trains. While placing a reactor on a train seems a little far flung and impractical, using electricity generated by a nuclear source is something we do today. Cars and airplanes can't do that, but TRAINS CAN AND DO.

If only we could convince our elected officials to direct spending toward the future instead of trying to preserve the past. Stop building new roads, disallow long haul trucking in favor of short haul regional trucking. No jobs lost, just redistributed, resulting in happier truckers and safer roads. Use the savings to electrify all of the railroads.

More priority intermodal service, get UPS, FEDEX and the USPS off the roads and out of the air.

Learn to use Hydrogen in internal combustion engines, the technology has been around since the 80's, but oil is too cheap to explore this alternative. Use more solar, wind and hydro to generate electricity.

If we woke up tomorrow and decided to do all of these fairly simple things, 10 years from now we could tell the Arabs to eat their oil, we don't want it!!!

NOW, WOULDN'T THAT BE FUN???[:D][:D][:D][8D]

[Anonymous]

That would not only be fun, it would be as wonderful as a second, permanent STEAM ERA on American railroads, then rebuilding every abandoned line... WELL, ALMOST.

Now I wish both would happen.[:-,]

[Big_Boy_4005]

I'm not so sure about steam, because that would require fuel on board. Electrification allows for the energy source to be very far away, and there would be less waste dragging the fuel around and, no refueling required, saving time too.

Line rebuilding would be nice, but some of the land would have to be cleared again. That wouldn't be too bad a thing though. It would create construction jobs.[swg]

[Wdlgln005]

In the new May issue of Trains, there's a great article on how you can't get from Michigan to Ontario by train. Customs made the passengers GET OFF and RIDE THE BUS to Sarnia & Back. THE TRAIN & CREW GOES THRU THE NEW TUNNEL! There's a similar disconnect from Detroit to Windsor. Pay $35 cab fare + bridge/tunnel toll & help the cabbie find the station.

GT&CN used to provide this service for years! It's time Customs & homeland security finds a way to provide this service.

Another idea is to take the Lake Shore Limited further east to Rochester, NY then transfer to the Maple Leaf running from New York to Toronto. Somehow the govmt has found a way to take care of these passengers?