The 20th century and Broadway.

[Anonymous]

It is a bad choice in my eyes to cut any passenger service let alone Chicago-New York as Amtrak is with the Three Rivers. They should re mane this service in its final months the Broadway Limited. Also, they should re name the Lake Shoreliner the 21st Century Limited. Also, can they only name trainscertain names such as the renaming of the Silver Palm the Palmetto, Why its still goes for right now the same places the Palm did but did they remane it due to no longer having a sleeper or dining car?

[CG9602]

I don't know about re-naming thetrains to the fine names of years past. Those trains were top-of-the-line trains, and I could understand someon like American Orient Express giving a train the name of 20the Century Ltd. Amtrak, however, cannot offer that level of luxery service at common carrier prices, so it may be better to not give people the expectation of that level of service.

[rjemery]

I agree with CG9602. For the most part, Amtrak's trains are glorified freight trains. They run at freight train speed over freight rails. Most cars and accommodations therein are in a constant state of disrepair.

The General was an all coach train that preceeded the Broadway Limited by one hour. The Three Rivers today could not match The General then, let alone the Broadway Limited.

The only other Amtrak exception to the rule is The Southwest Chief, which runs mostly over ex-Santa Fe rail that can accommodate 100 mph traffic from Illinois to the Rockies.

--
RJ Emery

[Modelcar]

...Perhaps everyone must be aware Amtrak runs equipment that is the only units it has to run the service with.....All this is contingent to the amount of operating funds available to run such service and until that changes it will deteriorate further or be eliminated....Much of Amtrak scheduling and speed of operation is mostly controlled by the host railroad....All just part of the structure now of our passenger railroad service....

[jeaton]

I don't know if this is the case with the 20th Century or the Broadway, but I think some of the railroads retained the rights to the names they used for their trains.

Ask a non railfan under 40 what those names mean and you will probably get a blank stare.

I suspect that Dave Gunn would be embarrassed by the idea of hanging the names of these former "high" first class trains on the service now being provided.

[jchnhtfd]

My recollection is that Amtrak was finally allowed to use the name 'Southwest Chief' by Santa Fe only after Amtrak was able to show that the level of service was at least close to equivalent; Santa Fe still owns, so far as I know, the names 'Super Chief' and 'Chief'. As for the Twentieth Century and the Broadway... there's nothing even approaching them today, my friends... I've ridden them and, although age hazes memory rather badly, there is nothing -- anywhere -- even remotely like them.

Maybe the Queen Mary 2...

[Modelcar]

....But probably some of Japan and European services come close in a different modern way....

[BaltACD]

Amtrak at best is delivering a 1940's product in the 21st Century. Amtrak at its worst isn't worth talking about.

While the US needs rail passenger transportation, it doesn't need the archaic product that Amtrak is selling.

It is time to begin constructing an 21st Century rail passenger network that fits the needs to todays world. Not the world that was ended by World War II. The fact that Amtrak uses any of the Names of the trains of yesteryear does a disservice to those grand and gloried names.

Amtrak is dead, long live rail passenger transportation.

[Modelcar]

....If some way could be found to fund a 21th century rail passenger system that would be great for our nation...especially in the high population areas. I wonder if we'll ever find a way politically and economically to be able to do it or if we in America will let the rail passenger system die over the next decade or two...I believe a 21th Century sytem in the right places would be usefull and patronized.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure many Class 1's own the rights to famous passenger train names.

[Anonymous]

This is the whole problem with the product offered. Years ago there would be the "flagship" train. Take the PRR for instance. First there'd be the Broadway. All PULLMAN, extra fare, fastest and most convenient schedule, special cuisine, master drawing rooms with showers, and a barber shop. Then there'd be the second best like the General. All PULLMAN, different schedule, no extra fare. Then there'd be the all-coach flagship, like the "Trailblazer." Fast schedule, good coaches, great dinig car, a lounge, and an observation lounge. Then there'd be the secondary trains. Mixed consists of coach and PULLMAN with slow schedules. Now that was a product. If Amtrak had a 1940s product then we wouldn't be having this discussion. For you kids out there too young to remember, Amtrak, started in the Nixon era, was to get rid of passenger trains in 3 years or so, gracefully, and get the railroads out from under the passenger train yoke. But the joke was on them. People actually showed up at the depot to ride. For a while there was a time of optimism that the thing would turn out OK. But after cuts at the end of '79, the whole thing started to come unravelled.
As for advertising they started right off the bat with the "Tracks are Back" campaign. Then there was "All ABoard Amtrak," followed by "Everyone is getting Into Training." But if we have eastward train departures out of Chicago geared to the arrival of mostly late west coast connections and run at the speed of sludge for an iffy late afternoon arrival in the east, then there really is no product at all. I remember once when I was the flagman on no. 9 out of Chicago in 1974. The dining car steward discovered at almost departure time that ketchup had not been loaded. We held no 9 17 minutes for ketchup.The worst thing to happen was the divorce between the freight railroads and their most identifiable herald, the passenger train. Wouldn't a simple subsidy have worked?
Mitch

[Modelcar]

....Right now looking back it makes a bunch of sense.....But 33 years ago things looked a bit different. But for now the idea sounds like it may have been a workable idea for a reasonable amount of money....

[Modelcar]

...PS: One thing that would have to have been done in my comment of last post....A built in incentive for the railroad to do their best and not want to slide and fall back all the way on the subsidy

[Anonymous]

Back in te old Amtrak Purchase of Service contract days there were incentives paid for clean trains, on time settings in the depot etc. But I think those amounts were equal to giving Donald Trump a clean, crisp One dollar bill. The notion of just paying a subsidy to the railroads and giving them back their trains was being advanced as early as 1974.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

If Amtrak got railroad men in their main office and not bankers and other peoples who are not railroad men. Get Brush out of office, sale the Northeast Corridor which I love. The Northeast can make money

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SILVERCHAMPION

If Amtrak got railroad men in their main office and not bankers and other peoples who are not railroad men. Get Brush out of office, sale the Northeast Corridor which I love. The Northeast can make money

Kery has not shown enthusiastic support for Amtrak either. Did he mention support for Amtrak during his campaign tour by rail??

Some of the critics that have posted here do make sense, however, I've ridden Amtrak and have liked the service inspite of mistakes here and there. As I've stated before, I absolutely hate having to drive from Florida to northern central Georgia. I wi***he Floridian were still running, though rerouted through Atlanta instead of the original circuititous route.

Greyhound you say? I used to drive charter buses! I'll drive them, but I prefer not to ride them!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...Perhaps everyone must be aware Amtrak runs equipment that is the only units it has to run the service with.....

I definitely agree!!!

Maybe, just maybe, if Amtrak started slowly adding some nicer amenities to their long distance service they would then be able to attract more long distance passengers. This would add road revenues which could then be partially reinvested to further improve the service.

They can't have it all at once. But they can take a lesson from model railroaders: an hour at a time will build it over a long enough time span!

The last time I rode long distance (Metropark in New Jersey to Williamsburg, Virginia) the trip took thirteen minutes less than the time it takes to drive the same trip. The cost was 100% more than by auto. Just my humble thoughts.