Amtrak - Using too much money?

[kenneo]

In my post above, when I was talking Land Grants, I made a bad boo-boo. I wi***o correct it here.

The books I refered to are:
1) "Union Pacific" by Maury Klein published by Doubleday
2) "Empire Express" by David Howard Bain published by Penguin Books.

"Union Pacific is the book I was refering to in my post, and it is basicly a history of the UP from 1862-1893.

"Empire Express" is the story of both the UP and the CP from 1845-1873.

Sorry about the inaccuracy.

[kenneo]

In my post above, when I was talking Land Grants, I made a bad boo-boo. I wi***o correct it here.

The books I refered to are:
1) "Union Pacific" by Maury Klein published by Doubleday
2) "Empire Express" by David Howard Bain published by Penguin Books.

"Union Pacific is the book I was refering to in my post, and it is basicly a history of the UP from 1862-1893.

"Empire Express" is the story of both the UP and the CP from 1845-1873.

Sorry about the inaccuracy.

[kevarc]

It is time for Amtrak long distance trains to become a fallen flag. Let it handle the regional type transportation needs. Where I live, Lafayette, LA, we get one train - the Sunset Limited. The bigger question is, when and if it will show up. It is pathetic. Yes, I know the the UP\BNSF dispatchers screw it to death. But why should they not, it is not a big money maker for them. I looked into using Amtrak to go from here to see my parents in Pittsburgh, it cost more than if I rented a van and drove it. That is not counting the time I would have to layover in New Orleans and either Washington or Chicago. What a waste.

[kevarc]

It is time for Amtrak long distance trains to become a fallen flag. Let it handle the regional type transportation needs. Where I live, Lafayette, LA, we get one train - the Sunset Limited. The bigger question is, when and if it will show up. It is pathetic. Yes, I know the the UP\BNSF dispatchers screw it to death. But why should they not, it is not a big money maker for them. I looked into using Amtrak to go from here to see my parents in Pittsburgh, it cost more than if I rented a van and drove it. That is not counting the time I would have to layover in New Orleans and either Washington or Chicago. What a waste.

[oltmannd]

Willy-

I think you are getting at is "should Amtrak stop their capital spending in order to keep operating"? Capital spending is money spend for major maintenance or improvments. Examples would be complete rebuilding of a locomotive, electifying from New Haven to Boston, upgrading track for higher speeds and installing a new signal system. Sometimes, Congress specifies that certain money can only be used for certain purposes. Electrifying from NH to Boston was one of these cases. Amtrak was not allowed to spend that money for anything else. Sometimes, Amtrak raises their own money for capital improvments by borrowing money from banks. Most new locomotives and cars are purchased this way.

What you suggest that Amtrak do, using "capital" money for operations, was exactly what they were doing when Geo. Warrington was Pres. They would take something they own, like Penn Station in NY, and mortgage it. Sort of like selling it to a bank and then slowing buying it back from them. This way they got a large lump of money to keep the trains operating today, but would make their costs higher in the future as they had to pay the mortgage. They also stopped repairing any cars that were damaged in wrecks. This is basically what got Geo. Warrington in trouble and led to him leaving and David Gunn taking over.

Amtrak's problem now is that they owe a lot of banks a lot of money, need a lot of money to rebuild the line from New York to Washington DC, which was last rebuilt 70 years ago, and they have a lot of employees to pay (and they have to keep paying them for years even if they stop running trains because of certain laws protecting those jobs). It seems that this year, Congress will actually give Amtrak enough money to run all of the existing trains/routes as well as start to do some major capital projects. Many people and groups have a bunch of different ideas on how Amtrak could be made more efficient and/or useful but none of these ideas have had enough support from Conrgress to be made law.

-Don

[oltmannd]

Willy-

I think you are getting at is "should Amtrak stop their capital spending in order to keep operating"? Capital spending is money spend for major maintenance or improvments. Examples would be complete rebuilding of a locomotive, electifying from New Haven to Boston, upgrading track for higher speeds and installing a new signal system. Sometimes, Congress specifies that certain money can only be used for certain purposes. Electrifying from NH to Boston was one of these cases. Amtrak was not allowed to spend that money for anything else. Sometimes, Amtrak raises their own money for capital improvments by borrowing money from banks. Most new locomotives and cars are purchased this way.

What you suggest that Amtrak do, using "capital" money for operations, was exactly what they were doing when Geo. Warrington was Pres. They would take something they own, like Penn Station in NY, and mortgage it. Sort of like selling it to a bank and then slowing buying it back from them. This way they got a large lump of money to keep the trains operating today, but would make their costs higher in the future as they had to pay the mortgage. They also stopped repairing any cars that were damaged in wrecks. This is basically what got Geo. Warrington in trouble and led to him leaving and David Gunn taking over.

Amtrak's problem now is that they owe a lot of banks a lot of money, need a lot of money to rebuild the line from New York to Washington DC, which was last rebuilt 70 years ago, and they have a lot of employees to pay (and they have to keep paying them for years even if they stop running trains because of certain laws protecting those jobs). It seems that this year, Congress will actually give Amtrak enough money to run all of the existing trains/routes as well as start to do some major capital projects. Many people and groups have a bunch of different ideas on how Amtrak could be made more efficient and/or useful but none of these ideas have had enough support from Conrgress to be made law.

-Don

[mudchicken]

train210:

If you multiply by 2.5, you would start getting closer towards paying the equitable costs of maintaining the infrastructure that your trucks run on at an acceptable maintenance level. What you have now is still heavilly subsidized. The toll roads tend to mortgage the future against the present and most don't make it on their estimated rates..

[mudchicken]

train210:

If you multiply by 2.5, you would start getting closer towards paying the equitable costs of maintaining the infrastructure that your trucks run on at an acceptable maintenance level. What you have now is still heavilly subsidized. The toll roads tend to mortgage the future against the present and most don't make it on their estimated rates..

[Anonymous]

I've thought a lot about this over the years. I've worked in the rail industry, and talked to a lot of good people (one of the CFOs of the SIRR comes to mind), and most of us have seen it simply as a mismatch of priorities.

But why? Is it just politics? Sure, that explains a lot, but it's been going on for years. Sure, Amtrak was designed to fail, and despite the worst intentions of many politicians, it has succeeded in limping along.

Part of it is that everybody has visions of running trains, being the legacy-builders of a working high-speed interstate railroad, that they see their visions as truth.

Amtrak is in a no-win situation, not because it has failed, but because it has succeeded enough to attract attention of pipe-dreamers who get easily distracted, and beancounters who see the dollars without the impending chaos. Nobody will want Amtrak fiscally or politically.

So if Amtrak shuts down, what's going to happen? What's the worst situation? First, there would be schedule chaos to affected regional commuters, then the govt. would quickly create emergency laws to get something running, deferring the inevitable fiscal biting-of-the-bullet.

I know some people probably thought Warrington was an idiot, but if you were a bureaucrat what would you do? Answer: spend money on show projects, increase overhead arbitrarily (either by mistake or design) and decrease expenditures on revenue-resources (shrink your market by driving away certain types of customers while courting influential businessmen), promising fiscal independence while simultaneously (through simple negligence or nefarious planning) push for insolvency.

What's this do? This forces the government to make a decision if the system totally snaps. Not just a shutdown, but a 30-day gridlock. The so-called "big-business" Republicans pu***he rail system in big-government solution-socialist waters where they can safely abandon it to the Democrats, who make a mess of the union fall-out as usual and miss the point entirely.

David Gunn is the best thing to happen to Amtrak, if Amtrak is to survive. But for Amtrak to survive, it must finally either be "yes" or "no." The question must not be, "Does America want Amtrak?" but "Does America want railroads?" The freights have used Amtrak as a political fall-guy for years. Ambiguity for Amtrak benefits the freights in terms of operations ratios, but may have a long-term impact on freight revenue.

I can't prove it, but I'd be interested to see if there is a correlative loss between Amtrak support and ridership, and freight market carloads. I think there is a link between freight declines and public awareness of railroads. The public drives on highways and sees the ultility of trucks as naturally inevitable to their daily lives. Not so for the railroads.

The Class 1's have substantial business through shortlines and this is no accident. Most shortlines actually have a community-driven interest, if not outright promotional interest in the public and passengers. It helps create a broad base of cheap labor (railfans turned pro) who can get their 15 minutes of yee-hahs running cuts of cars to Mom and Pop industrials.

That's where I started. We took our jobs very seriously, didn't have a "rail history" to tell us what we couldn't accomplish, and had an impeccable safety record. If somebody wanted to be Joe Christmastree and wear all the safety orange he could get, we didn't laugh. We were constantly running the nuances of safe handling in training classes. We ALL knew how to safely get on and off a moving car (still not prohibited where I worked) because the engineer and conductor both had good experience walking the ground. We started with trackwork physics and promoted up into train handling. T & E cross-trained with MOWs. BTW, we handled chlorine tank cars in a highly-populated area. In over ten years, no major accidents EVER. If blue flags were down we put them up and notified the acting plant authority. If chocks were out, we chocked them.

The railroad I worked for was formed as a shortline before Conrail, and outlasted it. In my brief time at Conrail, I got good comments both on my spotting and organization. Can't say the same for run-by-the seat of your pants regional I also worked for, whose idea of restricted speed was 40 mph on dark territory, no blue flag 500 feet from maintenance, no MOW protection (the road forman rammed a line of highrails with an Alco Century) and all this with a union contract. Thankfully, the boss died after I left, maybe the place is run a little better now.

My advice is this:

The craft-specific contract exemptions are crap, and are used by management to break the unions. Make exemptions specific to region, all exemptions negotiatied on a bi-annual basis with the trainmaster. This takes power away from the upper-management for personal decisions, but allows a certain amount of discretionary budgeting to each trainmaster. Rotate ALL upper-managment into one month of field training and "life on the road." For labor, give stock options which aren't jury-rigged against them. The railroads should also take an interest in people's prior jobs and make use of dual-purpose abilities.

Everybody should know that by now that rail crews are devoted to their jobs. Gunn is a breath of fresh air to mealy-mouthed excuse-makers. But just as Warrington didn't know how to solve Amtrak's problems, neither does Gunn. And he can't. It depends upon everybody out on the track, and everybody cutting the BS in their attitudes.

If my experience in railroading has taught me anything, it's this: you very quickly learn who your friends and enemies are. If anything the railroads could do, it would be to get rid of the buttholes. They force good people out by working them with no rest. The hard-nosed ones who manage to stay because of the money, I say how much is an extra two hours of sleep worth? Sometimes, it's priceless. Let's get some rest policies in place.

I bet if Gunn started organizing his divisions by using the freight railroads as names for Amtrak trains, you'd see some interesting stuff. "The CSX Silver Palm is late again, the BNSF Surfliner is held up by slow freight, etc." Passenger asks: "Who's responsible?" Conductor says: "Sorry, ma'am we just run the trains, it's BNSF responsible for your quick arrival."

More to say later, but . . . The railroads only win from cast-offs given by the truckers, anyway. My 2+ cents.

[Anonymous]

I've thought a lot about this over the years. I've worked in the rail industry, and talked to a lot of good people (one of the CFOs of the SIRR comes to mind), and most of us have seen it simply as a mismatch of priorities.

But why? Is it just politics? Sure, that explains a lot, but it's been going on for years. Sure, Amtrak was designed to fail, and despite the worst intentions of many politicians, it has succeeded in limping along.

Part of it is that everybody has visions of running trains, being the legacy-builders of a working high-speed interstate railroad, that they see their visions as truth.

Amtrak is in a no-win situation, not because it has failed, but because it has succeeded enough to attract attention of pipe-dreamers who get easily distracted, and beancounters who see the dollars without the impending chaos. Nobody will want Amtrak fiscally or politically.

So if Amtrak shuts down, what's going to happen? What's the worst situation? First, there would be schedule chaos to affected regional commuters, then the govt. would quickly create emergency laws to get something running, deferring the inevitable fiscal biting-of-the-bullet.

I know some people probably thought Warrington was an idiot, but if you were a bureaucrat what would you do? Answer: spend money on show projects, increase overhead arbitrarily (either by mistake or design) and decrease expenditures on revenue-resources (shrink your market by driving away certain types of customers while courting influential businessmen), promising fiscal independence while simultaneously (through simple negligence or nefarious planning) push for insolvency.

What's this do? This forces the government to make a decision if the system totally snaps. Not just a shutdown, but a 30-day gridlock. The so-called "big-business" Republicans pu***he rail system in big-government solution-socialist waters where they can safely abandon it to the Democrats, who make a mess of the union fall-out as usual and miss the point entirely.

David Gunn is the best thing to happen to Amtrak, if Amtrak is to survive. But for Amtrak to survive, it must finally either be "yes" or "no." The question must not be, "Does America want Amtrak?" but "Does America want railroads?" The freights have used Amtrak as a political fall-guy for years. Ambiguity for Amtrak benefits the freights in terms of operations ratios, but may have a long-term impact on freight revenue.

I can't prove it, but I'd be interested to see if there is a correlative loss between Amtrak support and ridership, and freight market carloads. I think there is a link between freight declines and public awareness of railroads. The public drives on highways and sees the ultility of trucks as naturally inevitable to their daily lives. Not so for the railroads.

The Class 1's have substantial business through shortlines and this is no accident. Most shortlines actually have a community-driven interest, if not outright promotional interest in the public and passengers. It helps create a broad base of cheap labor (railfans turned pro) who can get their 15 minutes of yee-hahs running cuts of cars to Mom and Pop industrials.

That's where I started. We took our jobs very seriously, didn't have a "rail history" to tell us what we couldn't accomplish, and had an impeccable safety record. If somebody wanted to be Joe Christmastree and wear all the safety orange he could get, we didn't laugh. We were constantly running the nuances of safe handling in training classes. We ALL knew how to safely get on and off a moving car (still not prohibited where I worked) because the engineer and conductor both had good experience walking the ground. We started with trackwork physics and promoted up into train handling. T & E cross-trained with MOWs. BTW, we handled chlorine tank cars in a highly-populated area. In over ten years, no major accidents EVER. If blue flags were down we put them up and notified the acting plant authority. If chocks were out, we chocked them.

The railroad I worked for was formed as a shortline before Conrail, and outlasted it. In my brief time at Conrail, I got good comments both on my spotting and organization. Can't say the same for run-by-the seat of your pants regional I also worked for, whose idea of restricted speed was 40 mph on dark territory, no blue flag 500 feet from maintenance, no MOW protection (the road forman rammed a line of highrails with an Alco Century) and all this with a union contract. Thankfully, the boss died after I left, maybe the place is run a little better now.

My advice is this:

The craft-specific contract exemptions are crap, and are used by management to break the unions. Make exemptions specific to region, all exemptions negotiatied on a bi-annual basis with the trainmaster. This takes power away from the upper-management for personal decisions, but allows a certain amount of discretionary budgeting to each trainmaster. Rotate ALL upper-managment into one month of field training and "life on the road." For labor, give stock options which aren't jury-rigged against them. The railroads should also take an interest in people's prior jobs and make use of dual-purpose abilities.

Everybody should know that by now that rail crews are devoted to their jobs. Gunn is a breath of fresh air to mealy-mouthed excuse-makers. But just as Warrington didn't know how to solve Amtrak's problems, neither does Gunn. And he can't. It depends upon everybody out on the track, and everybody cutting the BS in their attitudes.

If my experience in railroading has taught me anything, it's this: you very quickly learn who your friends and enemies are. If anything the railroads could do, it would be to get rid of the buttholes. They force good people out by working them with no rest. The hard-nosed ones who manage to stay because of the money, I say how much is an extra two hours of sleep worth? Sometimes, it's priceless. Let's get some rest policies in place.

I bet if Gunn started organizing his divisions by using the freight railroads as names for Amtrak trains, you'd see some interesting stuff. "The CSX Silver Palm is late again, the BNSF Surfliner is held up by slow freight, etc." Passenger asks: "Who's responsible?" Conductor says: "Sorry, ma'am we just run the trains, it's BNSF responsible for your quick arrival."

More to say later, but . . . The railroads only win from cast-offs given by the truckers, anyway. My 2+ cents.

[Wdlgln005]

Time to bump the gas tax?

In other forums, I've seen the need expressed for more money to be spent on transportation infrastructure. There seems to be building pressure to increase funding beyond present levels. They claim that it's been 20 years or more (since Ron Regan was president) that the fed gas tax went up a nickel to fund all the federal projects needed, plus the need to get people working & spending money. I think it was 10 years ago NARP wanted an Ampenny to get cent for Amtrak capital & give them 1 billion to spend. Now if all this money could be spent to put an overpass at nearly every grade crossing lol [:D] [:p]
be safe use the brakes on your car!

[Wdlgln005]

Time to bump the gas tax?

In other forums, I've seen the need expressed for more money to be spent on transportation infrastructure. There seems to be building pressure to increase funding beyond present levels. They claim that it's been 20 years or more (since Ron Regan was president) that the fed gas tax went up a nickel to fund all the federal projects needed, plus the need to get people working & spending money. I think it was 10 years ago NARP wanted an Ampenny to get cent for Amtrak capital & give them 1 billion to spend. Now if all this money could be spent to put an overpass at nearly every grade crossing lol [:D] [:p]
be safe use the brakes on your car!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: [i]
Trucks use our public roads, yet pay little, if any, of the cost of repair, even though the road surface is degraded faster because of the increase in truck traffic. Most of the current roads and highways we have were not designes to carry the weight of todays 18 wheelers, and the road surface suffers. You, the taxpayer, repair the damage, so you can use the road too, yet trucks pay nothing towards this maintaince.

Umm, not true. I'm shipping manager for a manufacturing company and have a small fleet of trucks that run the Southeast and along the Eastern Seaboard. My tax burden for each vehicle I operate is $6000 a year in fuel taxes, road use permits, and license fees. I pay 24.4 cents Federal tax on each gallon of diesel I buy plus 7.5 cents + 3% of total sale state tax. If my driver has to use a toll road, I pay a much higher toll than an automobile does. For example, if the toll for a car is $3.00, the toll for my truck is $20-$25. I really don't see where I'm getting a free ride.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: [i]
Trucks use our public roads, yet pay little, if any, of the cost of repair, even though the road surface is degraded faster because of the increase in truck traffic. Most of the current roads and highways we have were not designes to carry the weight of todays 18 wheelers, and the road surface suffers. You, the taxpayer, repair the damage, so you can use the road too, yet trucks pay nothing towards this maintaince.

Umm, not true. I'm shipping manager for a manufacturing company and have a small fleet of trucks that run the Southeast and along the Eastern Seaboard. My tax burden for each vehicle I operate is $6000 a year in fuel taxes, road use permits, and license fees. I pay 24.4 cents Federal tax on each gallon of diesel I buy plus 7.5 cents + 3% of total sale state tax. If my driver has to use a toll road, I pay a much higher toll than an automobile does. For example, if the toll for a car is $3.00, the toll for my truck is $20-$25. I really don't see where I'm getting a free ride.

[Anonymous]

Maintaining the system will always cost money, more than Amtrak seems to have. Many expenditures are safety related, even when it doesn't look like it.
As stated earlier, we have seen all the arguments. Mr. Gunn has a tough job trying to make Amtrak work better. We need to support him if we are truely supporters of this mode of transportion - whether or not we like passenger trains. An effort to cut Amtrak is an effort that may expand to the cutting of funding to other things 'rail'. And yes, it seems to be a quest of one or two members of Congress to get Amtrak while ignoring their own electorate.

I for one admit being biased, I use many types of passenger services, including Amtrak. I don't drive so I support all 'public' transit. I wish more of us did.

----
Always think safety!

[Anonymous]

Maintaining the system will always cost money, more than Amtrak seems to have. Many expenditures are safety related, even when it doesn't look like it.
As stated earlier, we have seen all the arguments. Mr. Gunn has a tough job trying to make Amtrak work better. We need to support him if we are truely supporters of this mode of transportion - whether or not we like passenger trains. An effort to cut Amtrak is an effort that may expand to the cutting of funding to other things 'rail'. And yes, it seems to be a quest of one or two members of Congress to get Amtrak while ignoring their own electorate.

I for one admit being biased, I use many types of passenger services, including Amtrak. I don't drive so I support all 'public' transit. I wish more of us did.

----
Always think safety!

[kenneo]

Mudchicken

You are correct about the head-end revenue. The thought has crossed my mind that if Amtrak could contract with FedEx and UPS to operate an REA type service, the return on - especially long distance trains - investment would come much much closer to break-even than now.

Land Grants - I wasn't going to mention cost recovery by the government, but the Feds have received $9 for every $1 spent between the first land-grants and when the law was repealed after WW2. It depended on the language of each grant, but many roads had to haul all government freight and passengers for free as repayment. Where the government did have to pay, it was usually a very healthy cut in the going rate.

The reason, as you pointed out, for the land grant was to provide economic incentive to populate "the interior". There were economic reasons, population reasons, military reasons (the Act was passed in the Civil War Era), national security reasons, foreign affairs reasons. AND, at 800%+, not a bad ROI.

Yes, Master Willy asked some very good questions. Here is hoping he keeps on.

[kenneo]

Mudchicken

You are correct about the head-end revenue. The thought has crossed my mind that if Amtrak could contract with FedEx and UPS to operate an REA type service, the return on - especially long distance trains - investment would come much much closer to break-even than now.

Land Grants - I wasn't going to mention cost recovery by the government, but the Feds have received $9 for every $1 spent between the first land-grants and when the law was repealed after WW2. It depended on the language of each grant, but many roads had to haul all government freight and passengers for free as repayment. Where the government did have to pay, it was usually a very healthy cut in the going rate.

The reason, as you pointed out, for the land grant was to provide economic incentive to populate "the interior". There were economic reasons, population reasons, military reasons (the Act was passed in the Civil War Era), national security reasons, foreign affairs reasons. AND, at 800%+, not a bad ROI.

Yes, Master Willy asked some very good questions. Here is hoping he keeps on.

[Willy2]

These are good fundemental awnsers also! It took me a while to get them all straight but once I did I found them very helpful and informative! I hope, like the rest of you, that Amtrak will last for many years to come.

Willy

[Willy2]

These are good fundemental awnsers also! It took me a while to get them all straight but once I did I found them very helpful and informative! I hope, like the rest of you, that Amtrak will last for many years to come.

Willy

[Anonymous]

A lot of these writers are correct, the government funds or contributes to all forms of transportation. I think the secret to Amtrak's success will be to aggressively solicit funds from the one source that can guarantee its financial future...... the general public. Amtrak needs to stop pleading its case in congress and start pleading its case in public forums. Also, all of thes so-called railfans who want Amtrak to stay around longer should spend less time waving at Amtrak trains and spend more time riding them instead. In addition I thank all of the kind dispatchers who give Amtrak trains top priority on the rails, and a reminder to those who do not that u r no different from the pilot robbing Amtrak of passengers or the trucker robbing CSX OF FREIGHT REVENUE.

[Anonymous]

A lot of these writers are correct, the government funds or contributes to all forms of transportation. I think the secret to Amtrak's success will be to aggressively solicit funds from the one source that can guarantee its financial future...... the general public. Amtrak needs to stop pleading its case in congress and start pleading its case in public forums. Also, all of thes so-called railfans who want Amtrak to stay around longer should spend less time waving at Amtrak trains and spend more time riding them instead. In addition I thank all of the kind dispatchers who give Amtrak trains top priority on the rails, and a reminder to those who do not that u r no different from the pilot robbing Amtrak of passengers or the trucker robbing CSX OF FREIGHT REVENUE.

[Anonymous]

My wife and I have ridden Amtrak quite a bit and really like it. For short to medium-length trips it is faster and a lot more convenient than flying (for us) given the current necessity to be at the airport two-hours before a flight. For the stations we use (we are less than 5 miles away an Amtrak station), you can park at the station for free, even for a two week trip (try that at the airport!!), you park perhaps fifty feet from the tracks, so you're not trudging the better part of a mile through parking garages and huge airport facilities, dragging your baggage the whole way, and you don't have to go through security facilities so stringent that they want to take the fillings out of your teeth. Then once you're on the train, you get into a seat that's big and comfortable, lots of legroom, you can get up and walk around, go get something to eat, operate your laptop, take a nap, or whatever, and just in general have a very pleasant trip. From what I read, I believe it's true that basically all passenger service worldwide is subsidized, and for anyone in authority in Washington to try to sell a self-sufficient Amtrak, well I guess that requires smoking some wacky-weed. Also, from what I read, it is not necessarily long distance trains that are a drain on the system. Even if they're not profitable, though, they do provide a very significant level of service to an awful lot of cities and even small towns that have basically nothing else. Most of our Amtrak travel has been in Florida, but we've gone as far as New Orleans and Charleston, S.C. We've made a lot of friends on our little trips, and I truly do hope that Amtrak survives. I think it's a very useful and necessary national resource and public transportation service that needs to continue. In fact, I would hope to see the physical infrastructure be significantly improved. But like everything else we discuss, be it road improvements and repairs, or the rail system, (or Social Security, or pension funds, or Medicare, or -fill in your own blank-), it's going to be expensive, and where is that money going to come from? I have no answer there.
The last few times we've gone from the Orlando area to Miami we've taken Amtrak, and it beats the stuffing out of driving to Miami. We get down to Miami, rent a car, and continue on our way fresh and rested. It's great.

[Anonymous]

My wife and I have ridden Amtrak quite a bit and really like it. For short to medium-length trips it is faster and a lot more convenient than flying (for us) given the current necessity to be at the airport two-hours before a flight. For the stations we use (we are less than 5 miles away an Amtrak station), you can park at the station for free, even for a two week trip (try that at the airport!!), you park perhaps fifty feet from the tracks, so you're not trudging the better part of a mile through parking garages and huge airport facilities, dragging your baggage the whole way, and you don't have to go through security facilities so stringent that they want to take the fillings out of your teeth. Then once you're on the train, you get into a seat that's big and comfortable, lots of legroom, you can get up and walk around, go get something to eat, operate your laptop, take a nap, or whatever, and just in general have a very pleasant trip. From what I read, I believe it's true that basically all passenger service worldwide is subsidized, and for anyone in authority in Washington to try to sell a self-sufficient Amtrak, well I guess that requires smoking some wacky-weed. Also, from what I read, it is not necessarily long distance trains that are a drain on the system. Even if they're not profitable, though, they do provide a very significant level of service to an awful lot of cities and even small towns that have basically nothing else. Most of our Amtrak travel has been in Florida, but we've gone as far as New Orleans and Charleston, S.C. We've made a lot of friends on our little trips, and I truly do hope that Amtrak survives. I think it's a very useful and necessary national resource and public transportation service that needs to continue. In fact, I would hope to see the physical infrastructure be significantly improved. But like everything else we discuss, be it road improvements and repairs, or the rail system, (or Social Security, or pension funds, or Medicare, or -fill in your own blank-), it's going to be expensive, and where is that money going to come from? I have no answer there.
The last few times we've gone from the Orlando area to Miami we've taken Amtrak, and it beats the stuffing out of driving to Miami. We get down to Miami, rent a car, and continue on our way fresh and rested. It's great.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I doubt if Amtrak will shut down, but some cost cutting will be necessary due to budget constraints.I don't know when the last time passenger rail service ever made money, possibly during World War II? There are some passenger services that are absolutely necessary especially on the East and the West Coasts. But, some long distance trains may have to be cut back because most of them are major money losers.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I doubt if Amtrak will shut down, but some cost cutting will be necessary due to budget constraints.I don't know when the last time passenger rail service ever made money, possibly during World War II? There are some passenger services that are absolutely necessary especially on the East and the West Coasts. But, some long distance trains may have to be cut back because most of them are major money losers.

[mudchicken]

Passenger trains once did make money. Starting about 1930 with the rise of the automible and "good highways", people left all forms of "public" transportation for the auto. The railroads could still fill trains and with revenue head-end traffic, could make ends meet for most runs into the middle 1950's -- until the 707 and DC8. And that was it for the freight railroads with people moving.

Land Grants - This is the single most contentious public issue ever for railroads. There are two good books out on building the transcontinental railroad - the one by Ambrose detailing the UP from inception to about 1890 gives a very accurate but ugly inside view of the corruption that pervaded Western Roads management, the forced bankruptcies designed to have the share holder and supplier fund the building and the owner to never have to pay them. The echo's of those days loudly reverberate still today in the publics attitude toward railroads and the problems in funding Amtrak.

[mudchicken]

Passenger trains once did make money. Starting about 1930 with the rise of the automible and "good highways", people left all forms of "public" transportation for the auto. The railroads could still fill trains and with revenue head-end traffic, could make ends meet for most runs into the middle 1950's -- until the 707 and DC8. And that was it for the freight railroads with people moving.

Land Grants - This is the single most contentious public issue ever for railroads. There are two good books out on building the transcontinental railroad - the one by Ambrose detailing the UP from inception to about 1890 gives a very accurate but ugly inside view of the corruption that pervaded Western Roads management, the forced bankruptcies designed to have the share holder and supplier fund the building and the owner to never have to pay them. The echo's of those days loudly reverberate still today in the publics attitude toward railroads and the problems in funding Amtrak.