Amtrak or Mixed Freight

[Anonymous]

I just read about Amtrak dropping the Kentucky Cardinal. How would Amtrak even consider operating a train on such slow track? There are places were that train could be put to better use. Who in their right mind would board a train that would take over 11 hours to cover 312 miles. An average speed of 28 mph!!! If Amtrak wanted to operate express over the line why not buy the line and raise speeds? I believe that there is a market for Louisville, to Chicago, but not at that speed. There was talk several years ago of running trains from Cincinnati to Cleveland, Ohio. That train would have made more sense. What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Please don't say anything bad about Amtrak or well make you ride it. We have ways!

[Anonymous]

I have rode several of Amtraks trains since 1971. With the exception of the northeast corridor, trains do not post a very good on time performance. Of course unless its padded. Seems to me, back when Amtrak took over, trains ran more on time. Equipment wasn't the greatest, but it was on time or close to it. Its sounds great to ride in modern equipment, at 28 mph.

The only reason Louisville service was started, was for express service. Who wants to get up and leave your city in the wee hours of the morning, for an 11 hour ride to Chicago? The trip shouldn't take over 5 hours. There was no survey taken, to see who would use the service. Amtrak admits that the train only averages 45 passengers. Not enough to pay for the fuel.

When is congress going to get there head out of their backside. Or are they buffaloed once again, by Amtrak management.

[Anonymous]

I took a train trip once. Found the service to be excellent. Train was right on time. Employee's were very friendly. Train rode very smooth. Everybody seemed happy.... Wait a minute, I'm sorry, that train trip was in England.
UUMMM, Trains magazine said Amtrac was good, so it must be good.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

There is a lot of slow track in America. For example, the track through Ennis, Texas has just been jumped up to 30 mph on the UP mainline from Dallas and Houston. No wonder Amtrak does not operate a train between the two largest cities without a direct link....

Amtrak also sets its times for Chicago, too. Chicago is the hub, most of the trains arrive in the morning to early afternoon, and leave in the late afternoon to evening hours.

Because of this, Amtrak has trains arriving and leaving Minneapolis, Omaha, Kansas City, and San Antonio either in the early mornings or late evenings....

The solution is to convert quickly to fast high speed trains. Then instead of having one train a day serving these cities in each direction, we could end up with several trains a day. You might ask how? The distance from Dallas to Chicago is around 900 miles. When a train averages 40 mph it takes over 22 hours to travel the distance, therefore, the one train a day.... Now if the train averaged 150 mph it would take 6 hours to travel the distance, meaning there could be 3 trains a day, at least....

You are right. The ONE MAIN reason why Amtrak does not get more ridership is the very poor times the trains arrive in many major cities..... Most of us want to leave around 9 am to reach their destination before dinner, say 6 pm....

[Anonymous]

The problem is, Amtrak has to ride over rails owned by someone else and must abide by their rules. For the love of mike, don't ask for more government involvment or we will lose passenger rail forever {unless they mandated every railroad company must run passenger service with tax breaks}. My son is a soldier presently stationed at the Pentagon and I ride Amtrak from Chicago to D.C. twice a year and since I am retired, I really don't care how long it takes.

[Anonymous]

Oh, you live in Chicago where the trains arrive and depart at a decent time of day. Chicago also has a lot of trains going to it.

On the other hand, the people of Texas, the second largest state per population, DOES NOT have a daily train between the two largest cities in America without a direct rail link.

While the Texas Eagle arrives in the Dallas area in the mid-afternoon, this train does not arrive until the wee hours of the morning/NIGHT in San Antonio.

And if one wanted to make the connection to Houston, one must sit outside the depot and wait several hours for the connection.... And it is the same going the opposite direction.... And this can be done only three times a week!

Thank God the Texas state DOT has come up with the Trans Texas Corridors. Already, several contractors have made bids. I suggest you read how badly our railroads really are. and read this link.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/ttc/ttc_home/htm

Keep in mind the feds spend $33 billion on highways, $12 billion on airports, and $7 billion on intracity rail/bus systems each year. Why can't the feds find $ 7 billion to spend on intercity rail each year? Every other form of transportation is subsidized.....

Seven billion dollars a year, a drop in the bucket when compared to the two and a half trillion dollar annual budget, would build a lot of brand new passenger only high speed rail over a period of years.

The state of Florida quotes in its high speed rail project the cost of double track high speed rail at $9 million a mile. When compared to the cost of building 4 lane interstate highways, high speed rail is much cheaper.

Slightly more than 4,000 miles of new high speed rail could connect New York City to Chicago, Chicago to Dallas/Houston, Dallas.Houston to Atlanta/Jacksonville, and Miami thru Atlanta/Jacksonville to Washington, DC., not to mention LA to San Francisco.

Another 4,000 miles of high speed rail could link Chicago to Atlanta/Jacksonville, Chicago to Minneapolis, Chicago to Denver, and a short cut Cleveland to Washington DC. as well, not to mention an Empire corridor of New York City to Toronto, and New York City to Montreal.

4,000 miles at $ 9 million a mile is $36 billion.
8,000 miles at $ 9 million a mile is $72 billion.

With the feds spending $7 billion a year, we could have a high speed rail system the envy of the world in ten years. Ten years.

Which is a little more than what the feds spend on highways in two years. And get this, after this system is in place, there won't be any need to build more......


Now how would you like to go from Chicago to Washington DC in 5 hours..... by train.....not on a slow overnight trip in a coach seat or in an expensive sleeper.....

[Anonymous]

You got me pal. What you say makes a lot of sense but when has sense meant anything in D.C.
I agree with you particularly after 9/11, if such a system that you have suggested, were put in place, I'm sure the ridership would follow.
I just spent three years in Europe and the only planes I took were from here and back, the trains were much more convienent, fast and comfortable.
I hope somebody in power is thinking along your lines. Thanks for setting me square.
Pop

[mudchicken]

Several Points missed here:

(1) Most folks don't ride the train for the whole length, just get from their small town to a larger town that actually has air service (Louisville or Indy)

(2) Railroad (LIRC)that AMTRAK runs over was up- grading the plant as part of the Amtrak deal. You can only run 49 MPH in dark TWC territory only (signal system long since removed by PC/CR)....

(3)LCL freight would pay the way for the train to operate (not passenger revenue)....Everybody keeps forgetting that Amtrak started when the US Mail (USPS) pulled all the mail contracts off the trains and put the mail on the taxpayer supported trucking companies contract mail haulers (who never have managed along with the other truckers to pay even for 50% of the damage to roadways that they cause)....now the mail takes forever to get from "A" to "B", our roads and bridges are shot and the trains are gone (this is beyond dumb, but the USPS still is raising its rates...)

If USPS business were still on the train, there still would be trains between Cincy and The Mistake On The Lake and plenty of others....

[Anonymous]

I would like to respond to the person who wrote a reply on 4-7-03. You say I missed a couple of points. You said people don't take the train all the way. That they ride to the nearest large airport. The only stop from Louisville to Indianapolis, is Jeffersonville, Ind. A short drive to Louisville airport. Yes, it is dark territory, and your right speed is 49 mph. But, even if the train traveled at 45 mph the train could make Chicago in under 8 hours.
Walking would be just about as fast. USPS stopped using trains in the late sixties. Railroads were discontinuing passenger trains before the post office ended rail service. USPS didn't help the railroad passenger train, but there demise was started long before the USPS ended service.
America better start something real soon. People had better get off their duff and write to there senator. Its time to get high speed rail going.
I'm not against the Iraqi War, but if we can come up 100 billion dollars, to support that, we should be able to come up with 80 billion to build a High Speed Rail Network. It would be the envy of everyone.

BPtrainwreck

[mudchicken]

Reality Check:

(1) USPS stopped using trains in the late sixties. Amtrak happened in 1971. Linkage?
(US mail delivery times, Denver to NYC for example, now take an extra 2 days)
(2) As long as the trucking/automobile/rubber tired industry holds sway, forget high speed rail.
(3) With many state DOT's without a single qualified railroader on staff, HSR is doomed. (Railroad engineering is not even taught to today's civil engineers, most are clueless when it comes to railroad basics)...and then there are the politicians that never get it in the first place. Go back and read John Kneiling, et. al.(true then and painfully more-so now...)
(4) The LCL freight on the Kentucky Cardinal was paying a major part of that train's operating expenses. You can't fix 50 years of neglect overnight, so you start applying REVENUE towards improvements and the LIRC puts $$$ towards removing slow orders and upgrading tracks. (You ought to see what comes out of those cars....It's why railroads fought them for so long on Amtrak ( It's the same revenue they lost in the late sixties to gypsy/taxpayer supported/truckers)

-mudchicken

It might be the envy of everybody, but reality says not likely to happen.

[Anonymous]

Yes,Amtrak do'es use other RR.s tracks[except in the East],so it will never be the road we'ed like it to be.Make sure you have alot of travel time,kick back,relax & enjoy....