Why should the President consider Amtrak vital to National Security?

[daveklepper]

It is not nonsense. America imports too much of its fuel to really consider itself prepared for a national emergency.

And even more than the airlines, which are definitely subsidized, so is the private automotible. And even more than the automobile, very highly subsidized, is long distance trucking.

Amtrak is subsidized about in the middle on a per/passenger-mile basis, but the subsidies would be less if the capital investment would be made to bring it to a good state of repair, and that is really all the investment I am asking for.

[Modelcar]

...Study the data and You probably will eventually understand that commercial air travel in this country is most certainly subsidized.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I should mention so people know where I am coming from when I suggest that it be made up into large "120 car troop trains" and not smaller ones. Consider the fact that the class 1s are near capacity. It is easier on them and cheaper to run 1 or 2 huge passenger trains than runs dozens which chew up capacity (cheaper in that not needed to build extra track either on mainline or staging yard leads). I suspect that's why VIA runs the trains coupled together between Toronto and Kingston so they reduced the already conjested CN Kingston Subdivision.

Well, I have to admit it -- keeping Amtrak on standby to run 120 car distriubted power passenger trains filled with troops to ocean ports of embarkation -- just in case of the occurance that the US Air Force is out of fuel and can not operate its transports -- is the best argument I've heard in favor of Amtrak in 33 years.

Seriously, I like trains too. I'd like to see some real justification for operating a passenger service west of Minneapolis to the Pacific. In all these years, I've never seen such a justification. Even if the airplanes are subsidized, which I ain't convinced of yet, it just doesn't make sense to then have two competing subsidized services. That would be really throwing away money.

Amtrak may make sense in the Northeast and in California. But I don't see much need for it elsewhere. Trying to grab dollars because of a nonsense national security claim will make other people, besides my ownself, think you are not to be taken seriously.

[Junctionfan]

I should mention so people know where I am coming from when I suggest that it be made up into large "120 car troop trains" and not smaller ones. Consider the fact that the class 1s are near capacity. It is easier on them and cheaper to run 1 or 2 huge passenger trains than runs dozens which chew up capacity (cheaper in that not needed to build extra track either on mainline or staging yard leads). I suspect that's why VIA runs the trains coupled together between Toronto and Kingston so they reduced the already conjested CN Kingston Subdivision.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

We're like Pavlov's Dog, we salivate at the sound of the words.

"The Contract with America," "Partial Birth Abortion," "The Marriage Tax," "The Death Tax," and of course "The War on Terror" were all developed using focus groups with everyone hooked up to a dial which they turned one way or the other based on their reflex response to phrases. Frank Luntz is the master of finding words people salivate to. Any phrase that sparks critical thinking is immediately discarded.

[daveklepper]

It simply takes a whale of a lot more fuel to move a division with its equipment to a port by the present bus plane and truck technique than putting the whole works on a train, equipment and personel. The scenereo that I have been called a no-brainer for suggesting is a possible wartime situation where overseas oil is cut off. Not that I really ever expect it to happen, BUT BEING PREPAIRED FOR IT TO HAPPEN IS PART OF PREVENTING IT FROM EVER HAPPENING! So having the equipment IN USE BY AMTRAK can mean that it is ready for more important uses in an emergency. That is why President Bush should consider a strong Amtrak as a componant of National Defense!

[Junctionfan]

Bigot eh? (ignoring it as it is off topic)

I explained one time on a thread that VIA lashes two trains into 1. The two go from Toronto to Kingston and than split up into the two trains; one going to Montreal and the other going to Ottawa. The train I was on looked something like this 1 P-42, 4 LRCs, 1 P-42, 4 LRCs. If they are to move 120 cars, you could break it up in sections like VIA does and then separate the sections to be moved into different platforms / tracks. That was the original theory; for airport or military amphibious landing craft zone-depends on the situation.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

You could literally move an entire division on a train. 6000 troops in a division (or is it 10000?) say 6,000. At least 50 per car=120 cars at the most. Lash up 4 or 5 P-42s and away you go. You can't do that on 1 747 and a convoy screws up traffic on the road.

This is a joke, right?

After you load 6,000 troops in a 120 car passenger train, where would you take them? The train's gotta go someplace.

To a port of embarkation and a waiting troopship?

Obviously you need to go to a port..........Kind of a no brainer.

It's a no brainer to think that our money should be confiscated so the Army can have a back up plan to use 120 car passenger trains to move troops to sea ports. Why on Earth would they send soldiers to an ocean terminal?

You know what I think this was-- I think this was a serious comment by a left wing bigot who really believes that we conservatives will simply, without thought, fork over money at the mention of the words "national security". We're like Pavlov's Dog, we salivate at the sound of the words.

If Amtrak could just be linked to national security he could have all the money to play train with that he wanted. And President Bush will go along with it because, in the bigot's opinion, he's as dumb as we are.

Why we don't want to spend money like "he knows we should". That proves we're dumb and just don't understand the need to play trains.

[Modelcar]

...I served in the Korean War and was transported from the east to Seattle, Wash. by troop train....and 16 months later I was brought back across the country from Seattle to Ft. Meade, Md....You guessed it, by troop train....and enjoyed every minute of it....after we recovered from sickness the first night on the train probably the different food as we had just gotten off the General Howsie troop ship {after 17 days on it}, shortly before we embarked to the train....for the long trip towards home across the country. I made sure I had a lower berth {with a window}, so I could enjoy the scenes at night.....

[Modelcar]

....Kevin, are you saying automobiles do not pass passenger trains in Canada.....? Surely some do. I agree it shouldn't be that way but...It probably happens many places around the world.

[Anonymous]

AMTRAK is a passenger moving business. My experience with Army logistics involved a lot of planning moving troops and equipment to ports.

Most Army posts do have rail connections, for moving heavy freight. The way it works is that the Army will plan to move a unit- be it an Infantry brigade or a missile battalion- in two parts. The equipment always moves first, and always moves to a port for shipping. (The exception is when Army units go to the National Training Center in California, or the site at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Then the equipment is almost always kept on the same train.)

Moving people is done by the fastest, most convenient way. No one wants to deploy troops who will sit around without equipment at the other end. It's better to keep them at their home station for as long as possible to let them clear up family problems and get mentally ready to do their job.

When the balloon goes up, troops do a duffle bag drag to a chartered bus, which will take them to the nearest military air base. Sometimes that's right across the post; sometimes it's to a civilian airport capable of handling big transports.

BTW, a typical Army division (which is pretty hard to define) will range anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 soldiers. Unlike WWII, most Army divisions are "mechanized"- which means that your typical Infantryman will be working out of a Bradley fighting vehicle, rather than walking into battle. (This is not true of "airborne" paratrooper units or "air assault" units- once they fall out of the airplane, their feet provide their mobility.)

AMTRAK works best at moving passengers short distances at high speeds. Railroads work best at moving bulk freight. For moving people as fast as possible, in coherent unit groups, for long distances over 300 miles, nothing beats an airplane. Cost and efficiency, while important, don't neccessarily play a role- but time and troop readiness are everything.

Erik

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I doubt if Amtrak could be considered vital to National security in the same way the railroads were considered vital to national security in WW II. During WW II the railroads had far more capacity to handle passengers than Amtrak seems to have today. Back in the WW II era the demand for passenger rail service was there, however, this is not to imply Amtrak can't handle its current demand plus some extra.

While the Armed forces shipped troops around the country by train during WW II starting with the Korean Conflict, and ever since, the Armed Forces have mostly shipped troops aroud the country for short distances by bus, and long distance by air.

If Amtrak or the freight railroads were to have some national security passenger rail role they would need reserve equipment and reserve personnel to staff the equipment. how long would it take to get the personnel or the equipment up to speed?

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....And of course most of us agree there is no real substitute for moving heavy equipment around in this country then by rail.....I didn't hear anyone debating against that...Not even an issue...just assuming it's there and ready to do just that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to beat you up. As far as substitute methods of transportation in times of crisis, I'm all for passenger trains. In fact I'm all for passenger trains as primary modes of transportation. I'm not sure a serious argument can be made for passenger trains for long haul as a means of transportation in the US for contingency purposes. As it is, Amtrak long haul makes the transportation a part of the vacation...just like a cruise liner.....as long as you don't need to get there in a hurry. Short haul (NEC, Caltrans, VRE) has their place regardless of situations. Taking the military logistics value out and just moving civilians, some things to consider....

1) Using the protracted WWII example, the government discouraged non-essential travel (auto, rail, etc) to minimize the use of resources dedicated to other than war effort (insert any crisis here), just as they did in the period post 9/11/01. It would be better to keep them off the rails...and as far as that goes, roads and airlines too.

2) Given the capacity of freight roads, single line mains, the need to move materials, and the inherent problems Amtrak has with long haul schedules as it is....it might be better to not create routing conflicts that don't directly support the effort.

3) Technology has lessened to a degree the need for business travel. Things can be done now that do not require face to face meetings (which can be done via tele-conferencing in many cases) and in the event of a crisis, business will adapt to what it needs to do to operate. So do you really need it?

4) If you are talking about moving large quantities of evacuees from somewhere, sure Amtrak could have value. But at that point, so do gondolas and white FEMA boxcars with shackles.

Having a healthy, diverse and redundant infrastructure is always a benefit to the overall common good, but in some instances, the inflexibility of railroads can be a liability vice and benefit. If the argument is that more money (subsidies, trust, etc) should be made available to the RRs as a whole to maintain a healthy, efficient infrastructure as support national defense or readiness, I would whole heatedly agree. But trying to justify Amtrak long haul trains I think is a stretch....Does the government need to subsidize intercity bus service under the guise of national defense also? The counter would be that they already do by funding interstates...I would say that by helping the railroads infrastructure, they are making a strategic investment, much more so than by trying to justify Amtrak as having intrinsic strategic value.

[Junctionfan]

Amtrak sure is nothing like VIA.

[Anonymous]

I was jsut down in the states.

You know there is somehting wrong when a CAR passes a PASSENGER train.

'nuff said.

[Modelcar]

....Won't be needed until we find some more WMD someplace.

[ajmiller]

Maybe, just maybe, we can convince the President that he needs a secret rail-based mobile command center in the event of "nucular" combat. We could equip the train with stealth technology and vertical takeoff and landing. It would be called--AirTrak One--but only when he's on board. Surely he'd see the wisdom of such a plan and feel compelled to fully fund Amtrak.



[swg]

[Modelcar]

...In this past year or so I personally saw several trains completely loaded with military equipment.

[Sterling1]

I just wish and wonder that the railroads could be used in some meaningful way to transport military stuff, though I do remember that many of the tank divisions went by rail to go to the nearest port.

[Modelcar]

....And of course most of us agree there is no real substitute for moving heavy equipment around in this country then by rail.....I didn't hear anyone debating against that...Not even an issue...just assuming it's there and ready to do just that.

[Modelcar]

...Maintaining a stable country which includes the economic structure during a time of conflict requires all modes of transportation we can muster....In my thoughts, I've not been preaching using Amtrak to move troops here and there...although it is possible to do....but to service the remaining folks to try to keep some semblance on normalcy present by using all kinds of transportation....Some of which may not be available at times if we have interruptions in this country.

[gabe]

I don't see the issue so much as Amtrak providing a tactical military advantage like most have argued. It is as Greyhound said, where are the trains going to go; one would hope that there will not be a front where Amtrak can take troops to in the near future. Nonetheless, I don't think you are "kidding" and your argument has some merit.

(1) National security is not just about taking troops to the front; it is about maintaining a stable economy. Osama bin Laden claims his entire strategy against the United States is attacking its economy.

The difference between a first-world nation and a third-world nation is infrastructure. Accordingly, I think Amtrak provides an invaluable alternative for long and medium distance transportation/infrastructure in the event airline transportation is compromised.

(2) Troop movements are not entirely concerned with taking troops to the front. Taking scores of troops from home towns to basic training bases might be more reasonable. That having been said, the abilities of MAC are formidable.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

In 1919 a junior officer named Eisenhower led an Army convoy from Annapolis Md. to San Francisco. It took 3 months. Eisenhower learned highways are vital to national defense.

Meanwhile in Germany, ex-corporal Hitler was fuming that the Army in WWI couldn’t maneuver any distance from the railroads because they could only be supplied by train.

The Autobahn and the Interstate were intended to transform military logistics.

Today, only the Army’s 2 airborne divisions can deploy quickly, the 8 heavier divisions need months to deploy.

In the cold war when NATO war gamed against a Soviet invasion of Western Europe we lost because we couldn’t resupply our troops. After the cold war our military was sized to fight two wars at once but we could never really do this because airlift didn’t have the capacity for one war. In both Iraq wars the 5 month build up of forces was needed because of the slow speed and limited sea lift capacity.

The military doesn’t have the logistics to fight preemptive war and war against mobile terrorists organizations. But I don’t think the scenarios so far; troop trains, grounded civil aviation, gridlocked Interstates make the case that Amtrak is the answer.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....In this "non-argument" situation....I am one that is thinking in a calamity of sort in this country people other than military personal have to move about.....and if civilian aircraft are not flying for a period of time....and the panic clogs the Interstates....How does it happen...? How do ordinary folks move about....Well one solution is a viable rail transportation system....What's so wrong about that.....It does not specifically have to be Amtrak, but I'm simply saying a viable rail passenger transportation system.

In that type of scenario, 1) railroads aren't going to be helping much anyway, and 2) if it is truly that bad, as Tom alludes to, folks will travel in boxcars if they had to.

The entering argument is approaching Amtrak funding as a function of national defense. From that point of view..national defense..there is basically nothing Amtrak has to offer the modern military in terms of logistics. Freight roads already do a significant amount of military movement. If all the oxygen is removed from the skies, preventing aircraft from achieving combustion in thier engines, yes then maybe, Amtrak would be pressed into service to move troops. Other than that, airlift is going to be the primary means of moving personnel and light material, both INCONUS and OCONUS. Our major bases are co-located with airfields for that very purpose. Heavy equipment will be moved by rail or whatever means possible from it's home base to an APOD (AIrborne Point of Departure) or SPOD (Seaborne Point of Departure). From there it will be transloaded and shipped. The personnel will board aircraft and head out overseas, if they stop at all and marry up with their equipment or use prepositioned equipment.

I am not saying it has to be an either or, but if you say Amtrak is vital to national defense, a military logistician is going to ask where it fits in, and for personnel movement it does not. The best thing it could do, is cancel movements to allow heavy equipment to proceed without delay. Europe is a different playground or perhaps if we were to fight Mexico or Canada. The arguments here seemed to be based on a WWII example that doesn't exist anymore or presumptions made by folks with no military logistics experience.

An efficient rail network to support the operations it does now is vital, trying to fund Amtrak to meet a need that does not exist is not. I'm not saying that Amtrak should go away, far from it. But from a point of national defense...national defense......not railfan hopes...Amtrak's funding would be better served going to more logistics aircraft or Military Sealift Command ships...

[rrnut282]

Are you saying have a passenger train 120 cars long? If so, wouldn't the HEP cables melt from the load they would have to carry? Also there would be some logistical problems in boarding a train that stretches 1.8 miles give or take. I hope you were thinking several more-manageable-sized trains.

One other problem with this scenario is CRAF: Civilian Reserve Air Force. Several major and minor airlines have pledged to make their wide-body aircraft available to the military with the proper notice to handle any large troop movements anywhere in the world. IIRC 7 out of 10 of the soldiers that went to Desert Storm travelled on a commercial aircraft flying for CRAF. I believe they also included straight freighter aircraft as well, although most of the commercial aircraft cannot handle most military 'outsized' cargos like tanks. Those can only go in C5 or C17's. The ability to draw from this "reserve" wipes out any advantage rail might have had. Sorry.

To clarify a prior post, the interstate highway system is/was sold to congress as a vital part of national defence. One of the design requirements for any interstate highway is that 1 in every 5 miles be straight so it could be converted to a runway in a national emergency.

[passengerfan]

The railroads may move the equipment such as tanks and other armored equipment to the ports but planes today will move the troops. Am I missing something here or not but I don't see where Amtrak fits into the picture at all. All of the provisions needed by the troops will also travel to the front by ship. Hasn't Operation Iraqi freedom taught anyone the new facts of life less passenger rail in wartime.

[Modelcar]

And if the airlines aren't flying in hours the interstates would be a parking lot especially around Metropolitan areas and any high population areas. Think back to the pandemonium in NYC in the past year or so when we had the black out....A disruption just causes the total city to shut down....We need plan B.

[Anonymous]

Let's see...make the Chairman of Amtrak a Cabinet level position; add thousands of new bureaucrats, er, civil servants to Amtrak rolls; keep telling anyone who'll listen that Amtrak is vital to US security and finally, cleave to the ancient philosophy best portrayed by Mel Brooks in "Blazing Saddles"..."Harump, harump.Gentlemen, we must protect our phoney-baloney jobs!"

[Anonymous]

Which bring us to one of the reasons why the interstate highway system was built.... Yes, defense..... Yet, there aren't many military bases serviced directly by the interstate highway system...... So much for that myth.....