oltmanndblownout cylinderhenry6 So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? Or a highway in northsouthnowhere that not only will I never use myself, but is only used seasonally by two trucks. Your arguement cannot hold up! But I do agree, and my major point is, that our transportation system has to be all but reinvented. That doesn't mean that everything has to be thrown out but rather that it all has to be reorganized and reapportioned, totally rethought. OK--and who is going to be doing the decision making? A czar from within some transportation ministry? Or will the taxpayer be consulted in some way? I think my concern here is that much of what we are discussing will not amount to a hill of beans if the whole debate is centered on the 'urban' side of the coin. Those who are in smaller/rural areas/communities also get clobbered with the same tax burden hence---- Some kind of IPO is a possibility here as well. I'd be willing to entertain that as a possibility b/c it is a voluntary procedure. Unlike some 'forced' taxation process that is imposed from on high. I'll put it out there again. I think you can bid out the service provider role, but with a twist. Let it take the form of "How much do I have to pay to provide XYZ service - soup to nuts. You do the branding, sales and marketing. You set the fares. You keep the revenue. You maintain the equipment. You provide the crew and other personnel." The bid price paid just raises the floor so that more-or-less normal market forces will shape the results. The service provider has profit motive pushing him on the cost AND revenue side. We pay less subsidy and get better service. We can think of the bid price as the subsidy that pays for providing "essential" rail service (whatever that may mean....)
blownout cylinderhenry6 So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? Or a highway in northsouthnowhere that not only will I never use myself, but is only used seasonally by two trucks. Your arguement cannot hold up! But I do agree, and my major point is, that our transportation system has to be all but reinvented. That doesn't mean that everything has to be thrown out but rather that it all has to be reorganized and reapportioned, totally rethought. OK--and who is going to be doing the decision making? A czar from within some transportation ministry? Or will the taxpayer be consulted in some way? I think my concern here is that much of what we are discussing will not amount to a hill of beans if the whole debate is centered on the 'urban' side of the coin. Those who are in smaller/rural areas/communities also get clobbered with the same tax burden hence---- Some kind of IPO is a possibility here as well. I'd be willing to entertain that as a possibility b/c it is a voluntary procedure. Unlike some 'forced' taxation process that is imposed from on high.
henry6 So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? Or a highway in northsouthnowhere that not only will I never use myself, but is only used seasonally by two trucks. Your arguement cannot hold up! But I do agree, and my major point is, that our transportation system has to be all but reinvented. That doesn't mean that everything has to be thrown out but rather that it all has to be reorganized and reapportioned, totally rethought.
So, Blownout, why should I pay for an airline flight that I'll never use and only one person a week uses? Or a highway in northsouthnowhere that not only will I never use myself, but is only used seasonally by two trucks. Your arguement cannot hold up! But I do agree, and my major point is, that our transportation system has to be all but reinvented. That doesn't mean that everything has to be thrown out but rather that it all has to be reorganized and reapportioned, totally rethought.
OK--and who is going to be doing the decision making? A czar from within some transportation ministry? Or will the taxpayer be consulted in some way? I think my concern here is that much of what we are discussing will not amount to a hill of beans if the whole debate is centered on the 'urban' side of the coin. Those who are in smaller/rural areas/communities also get clobbered with the same tax burden hence----
Some kind of IPO is a possibility here as well. I'd be willing to entertain that as a possibility b/c it is a voluntary procedure. Unlike some 'forced' taxation process that is imposed from on high.
I think that is more or less the model the British have and German rail system is moving toward: government owned ROW, private or quasi-private providers, who bid on contracts.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmI think that is more or less the model the British have and German rail system is moving toward: government owned ROW, private or quasi-private providers, who bid on contracts.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Enlighten me, please. I thought the DHS and TSA worked for the Department of Justice. Anyhoo, why did the TSA hire ten people, as screeners, at each of our silly "EAS" airports in Montana? Lots of donuts, or "Fry Bread", being eaten at those places!
Bill
P. S.: the fine citizens of "Podunk, KY" are offended by your misspelling and misrepresentation!
BNSFwatcher Enlighten me, please. I thought the DHS and TSA worked for the Department of Justice. Anyhoo, why did the TSA hire ten people, as screeners, at each of our silly "EAS" airports in Montana? Lots of donuts, or "Fry Bread", being eaten at those places! Bill P. S.: the fine citizens of "Podunk, KY" are offended by your misspelling and misrepresentation!
The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice are seperate entities within the Federal Government although there is plenty of cooperation between the two..The word Department in U.S "Fedspeak" means an organization headed by a Cabinet Secretary who reports directly to the Chief Executive...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
passengerfanI for one believe Amtrak needs to be run by the private sector as management and project overseers with the ability to fire any Amtrak employees not doing the jobs they were hired to do or that have become so complacent they are worthless to Amtrak. There are thousands of unemployed Americans that would be anxious to take jobs that pay as well as Amtrak. But all new employees should undergo two months of training by Via Rail Canada before they can become Amtrak onboard personel and keep them away from present Amtrak employees as we do not want to infect the new hires. Al - in - Stockton
Al - in - Stockton
It's been a while since I took Amtrak long distance, 2005; but I was generally impressed with the enthusiasm and helpfulness of most crew. Yes, there were a couple just watching the clock, so to speak; but not enough to make such a blanket condemnation. This issue has popped up before; and seems to recur. Has the situation truly grown worse; or is this a local problem stemming from poor supervision and employee handling?
Sam1Designed to fail? Maybe! A better assessment can be found in the program which was laid on Amtrak's management. Had the architects eliminated the long distance trains, which provide a relatively small share of the revenues whilst eating a disproportionate share of the operating expenses, and concentrated on a few corridors, where passenger trains have a chance for success, the results probably would have been different. With some minor tweaking of the fare and cost structure, Amtrak could cover its operating expenses and contribute a significant amount to the fixed costs on its relatively short corridor routes. Unfortunately, Amtrak is a political animal, which contains the seeds of its inability to be at least a partially commercial success. It has been whipsawed by political forces rather than run as a response to market demand for passenger rail services. Ironically, many of the people in the advocacy groups, who profess to love trains, have contributed to Amtrak's many problems through their 1950s. perspectives. They keep insisting on running trains based on a bygone model that have no chance whatsoever of being viable.
With some minor tweaking of the fare and cost structure, Amtrak could cover its operating expenses and contribute a significant amount to the fixed costs on its relatively short corridor routes.
Unfortunately, Amtrak is a political animal, which contains the seeds of its inability to be at least a partially commercial success. It has been whipsawed by political forces rather than run as a response to market demand for passenger rail services.
Ironically, many of the people in the advocacy groups, who profess to love trains, have contributed to Amtrak's many problems through their 1950s. perspectives. They keep insisting on running trains based on a bygone model that have no chance whatsoever of being viable.
I can agree with you here.
What is disturbing are the proposed orders for Viewliners and baggage cars as I mentioned in a separate thread and the study for a return of the North Coast Hiawatha. If long distance routes are to be considered at all, what priorities and parameters are there? It would seem to me that a more successful and expanded base of regional corridors would need to be developed before long distance services might be added. I have heard the argument that long distance routes open the the way for corridors; but that hasn't happened as far as I recall other than for North Carolina.
I ride Amtrak quite a bit -- four trips, so far, this year. I have traveled most of the routes since its inception. Poor service, surley crews, etc. seems to be confined in the CHI-NYP-WAS "Triangle of Snarl". I'll leave you to figure out why, but the old Pennsylvania RR "School of Snarl" graduates are mostly gone. On a brighter point, the crews in the west seem to be doing a great job. Even those that had to put up with UP's disregard of Amtrak (lots of siding-time = unhappy passengers) seem to be happier. Note the "Sunset's" re-connection with the "Coast Starlight" and its re-connection with the "Empire Builder" in PDX. I did have an interesting journey on the "City of New Orleans" a couple of years ago: the nastiest conductor I ever met (duly reported) on the southbound, along with a great dining car crew (I got the last Filet Mignon!); the greatest crew I ever met, including an engineer, on the northbound (also duly reported -- the engineer actually briefed the First Class passengers in the lounge before departure!). I 'gifted' my nephew a trip to ALB, and a return to NYP on a PV ("NYC 3"), a couple of weeks ago. He is in his mid-forties, and it was his first Amtrak trip. He loved it! The personnel at ALB were most helpful. Apparently, the intra-mural war at ALB has a 'cease-fire'. Good deal! I tried to tell Amtrak this, but I cannot access the "Contact Us" thingie on their web site. Anyhoo....
HarveyK400 What is disturbing are the proposed orders for Viewliners and baggage cars as I mentioned in a separate thread and the study for a return of the North Coast Hiawatha. If long distance routes are to be considered at all, what priorities and parameters are there? It would seem to me that a more successful and expanded base of regional corridors would need to be developed before long distance services might be added. I have heard the argument that long distance routes open the the way for corridors; but that hasn't happened as far as I recall other than for North Carolina.
The Sunset East, the Pioneer and the North Coast Hiawatha studies all were done because Congress required Amtrak to do them not due to any initative on Amtrak's part. I believe all three of them are heavily padded in terms of start up costs, and envision getting up and running on a very leisurely basis. I don't think Amtrak has any intention of pursuing these routes.
The concept that Montana can or would come up with the billion dollars to start up the North Coast Hiawatha is an obvious non-starter. However, if it is going to be done with federal money, how do we explain that to Michigan, California or North Carolina (just to pick three examples)?
Your question regarding priorities is a very basic one but one that is largely unaddressed. Perhaps when we see how the $8 billion for HSR is going to be distributed we may be able to discern what the priorities are.
I only examined the studies from the infrastructure perspective, not equipment or operating cost, but at least for that aspect of the studies, I did not see any padding or gold-plating.
RWM
BNSFwatcherPoor service, surley crews, etc. seems to be confined in the CHI-NYP-WAS "Triangle of Snarl". I'll leave you to figure out why, but the old Pennsylvania RR "School of Snarl" graduates are mostly gone.
oltmanndBNSFwatcherPoor service, surley crews, etc. seems to be confined in the CHI-NYP-WAS "Triangle of Snarl". I'll leave you to figure out why, but the old Pennsylvania RR "School of Snarl" graduates are mostly gone. Culture can outlast individual employees.
Basic psychology with some--there just is a certain percentage of people in any corporate body that are, at base, crabby
--I've got a friend who moved up here to go to school who is a former NYC cabbie. Anytime I've ever gone with him to NY it is interesting to watch how he mutates into this miserable angry person--"Road Rage" type of cabbie. I tend to take the train more instead of his taking me anywhere near a BIG CITY
------there's just this certain thing about BIG CITIES and him----
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
"First, as a former federal official, he is prohibited by law from lobbying his former agency, the FRA. I believe but am not certain that this prohibition will expire before the end of this year".
Hmm. If that is the case, why has he hired a number of FRA folks as "consultants" to look into various departments including the Law Department.
I would not know Joseph Boardman or any of the other members of the Amtrak leadership team if I fell across them. Moreover, I don't have any inside information about the inner workings of Amtrak. Having said that, here is a situation that causes me to wonder about Boardman's leadership.
A proposal to switch the Texas Eagle to a daily Chicago/LAX train, with a connecting train between New Orleans and San Antonio, was floated. Amongst other things the proposed schedule would have had better call times for Houston, Tucson, and Phoenix, which are major population centers, and it would have changed the layover time in San Antonio from most of the night to a hour or two. Supposedly the proposal died because the UP wanted $700 million to upgrade its facilities to hoist the train daily, and Amtrak management did not want to take their numbers to task.
What's preventing Amtrak from improving the thrice a week schedule, i.e. improve the layover and calling times per the preceding paragraph?
Along similar lines, does anyone know whether the UP required a significant infusion of money to upgrade its facilities when the Eagle was switched from a thrice a week train to its current daily schedule between Chicago and San Antonio?
It is no secret that I would discontinue the long distance trains if I were in charge. Having said that, as long as Amtrak is required to run them to keep the political winds at bay, it should run them as well as possible and organize their schedules to serve their major markets at the best possible times.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.