What is a passenger train?

[Anonymous]

Well, Bruce, that brings up a point. As far as the shipper is concerned, we want the most reliable service at the lowest cost. My company had a rail siding until about 1982, when Conrail pulled up the switch. Sure, we hadn't used rail in years, but that was because they didn't want to serve us. We ship products worldwide, all of it now goes on standard 53'trailers for domestics, or 40'containers for overseas shipments. Trucking companies have all of our business. Why?, because they are not perfect, but they are a whole lot better than the railroads when it comes to having a box we need for shipment at our dock. I'm all for the railroads, but in my job, I see the other side of the coin too. The big railroads only seem to be concerned with the utilities for the unit coal trains, and the automakers for that traffic. The 2-5 boxcars a day customer seems to have been forgotten. Sure, I'd LOVE to use the rail, but when it becomes a hassle, rather than an option, I'll just call J.B. Hunt, or Schnieder. Less headaches, and more satisfied customers.
Too bad, I'd really like to help turn the tide away from trucks, but I'm not going to cut my own throat in the process.
Todd C.

[Modelcar]

...And now Amtrak seems to be giving up on the express business. They are putting up express cars for sale and walking away from that operation.

QM

[cabforward]

o.k., you're right, 100%.. but it doesn't prove a plate of beans.. r.rs. (assuming they're all freight), could not care less about pass. systems, whether it's amtrak or whomever.. sure, they get their nickel under contract, but it's not worth it: amtrak has to have priority; that can humble freight operations when amtrak eqpt. fails or whatever.. when freight operations have problems and stalls amtrak, guess who screams bloody murder, the next day??

if we're taling about cross-country trans., lots of people assert a need for pass. trains in this country; none of them are r.r. execs.; few of them ride to work in beamers, porsches, etc.; and fewer still have much influence with politicians.. so, who's on the side of restoring the 20th cent ltd? everyone who subscribes to trains? every member of a railfan club? every modeler; everyone whoever rode in a long-haul pass. train? everyone who works on the r.r. now, plus everyone who is retired from the r.r.? you could add in everyone who's sat at a crossing waiting for amtrak to pass by; everyone whoever designed an amtrak set; cleaned them; maintained them.. all those signatures still wouldn't get you a seat at a hearing to spend the money needed to put the project on the fast track..

many say, yeah, but trains are coming back.. headline: the train hasn't left the station yet; it can't get the clearance.. many say, yeah but this is our history, we must preserve it.. have you sampled a hundred random persons to ask them if pass. trains must be preserved, for history's sake? ask to take their picture, they will have the weirdest expressions you'll see outside of a drug episode..
many say, yeah, but other countries do it, why can't we? the reason is: we are not other countries; we have deemed our priorities to be comfort, privacy, solitude and arriving when we want to, in that order.. our trains are not known for these qualities and foreign travelers don't care for them (ridden on a european train lately? on-time? yes; friendly? to a fault; crowded? youbetcha!; quiet? sure, bring 2 pairs of earplugs!)..

many say, yeah, but i love riding trains and my friends love them; we feel this idea should be given a fair chance before being turned down.. o.k., how many fair chances should i put you down for? amtrak took the plunge 30 years ago.. adults born on the first day of amtrak service are now bouncing grandkids on their knees.. i didn't say amtrak had the perfect chance to get the job done.. whoever failed and admitted they had the perfect chance? amtrak had a fair chance, and that's all they deserve; 30 year's of fair chances..

many say, yeah, but this is too important.. we must keep this going, it's done so much for us.. here's a headline: so did the canal barges on the erie canal; so did the c-47 airplane; so did high-button shoes, so what?

i do not include local or regional mass transit in this discussion.. mass transit, though not profitable, must be supported and improved for the commuters' needs..

why must pass. trains go into the history books? for the same reason the pony express and stagecoach lines did; because advances in technology and the preferences of the shipping and traveling public deem it necessary; because life is change and what looks good today is in the past tense tommorrow; because the oceans roll in at high tide and roll out at low tide, go figure!!

[GerFust]

Sorry, need more information to agree or not. Back in the old days there was a variety of engine/coach combinations that would seem to be less overhead for motive power, such as Rail Diesel Cars, etc. The current configuration is longer, less frequent trains pulled by dedicated engines. Could smaller units (RDC, etc.) be more viable than the current configuration (coaches, sleepers pulled by engines) used today?

[Anonymous]

Passenger trains will make a comeback when crude oil runs out, air travel cost becomes prohibitive and gasoline/diesel fuel cost more $100 a gallon (if you can still get it) and locomotives are atomic powered (or whatever). Since the highways will no longer be needed, they can become grade for light rail lines. In the mean time hauling the mail will have to do.
Mark me off as disagree.

[dknelson]

Even in the glory years of the great passenger trains, roughly 1900 to 1950 (and some would argue the glory years were over by 1925) most railroads made their real "passenger" profits from the headend cars -- mail and express. Some would operate trains that were nearly all mail or nearly all express and would tack a coach on the back -- if someone wanted to ride along the ticket income was pure gravy anyway. The point is that back then the infrastructure for mail and express was typically in proximity to the passenger depots anyway. I have no problem with Amtrak making some mail/express money.
Dave Nelson

[Anonymous]

What does Amtrak, and the frieght rails have in common? Besides the obvious, they both haul frieght. A passenger train is meant to haul passengers, not frieght. Of course this was done to help Amtrak make money. Are they doing this? Maybe on a few trains. Not many though, I'm sure. If Amtrak wants to make money, hauling frieght then they need to run an all express train. They have the infrastructure to do that. Maybe they could call it the Railway Express Agency. We all know what happened to them. Its time for our leaders to relize this. Run a top notch passenger service, with good service, and be on time. Passengers will ride. Maybe not in the numbers the government will like, but it will build a good base. Then move on to high speed rail, something over 150 mph. On its own dedicated right of way. People will not tolerate being late, or hit and miss with service. The frieght rails lost money years ago, because of bad service. When you say the car will be at certain place at a certain time. You have to have it there. SERVICE. A frieght customer doesn't care if it takes three days to go from point A to point B, as long as its there when you say it will be, when you sold the service. The freight railroads have to perform better, for Amtrak. When they do that, the passenger carrier will want to move off the freight rails tracks, and onto their own. Remember its all SERVICE, its a service industry. Agree or disagree? BPtrainwreck