In the latter days of passenger rail the railroads seemed to be actually trying to drive passengers away so that they could justify ending the service. In the 1960s, the comedy team of Frank Kalil and Jay Taylor were performing a routine called "Railroad Public Relations Man" in which a reporter was interviewing the public relations director for a fictitious railroad. The PR man was telling of his many innovations, like hiring baggage beaters, trucking dirt into the stations, and a new passenger class that rode on cab stools on flat cars. That was years before Amtrak.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
jeaton aegrotatio: schlimm: I'm not sure if I follow or agree with their contention, but it is an interesting one I've never heard before. BTW, not sure what you meant, but Santa Fe passenger service ended when Amtrak started in 1971. It did not opt out. I'm sorry, I am not sure which railroad held out as long as possible, I know that at least one did, and it was for the sake of argument to my point that nationalization of passenger rail, or so-called "railpax," was not necessarily required to save that mode of passenger transportation. I'm sorry, but I think you are basing your view on a myth perpetrated by rail fans just wishing for "the good old days". If you want a definitive look at rail passenger service in the last years before Amtrak, including information on the losses sustain by the railroads, I recommend Fred Frailey's "Twilight of the Geat Trains". Much of the book includes the extensive effort by many of the railroads to maintain good service on some trains with market potential, but in spite of all, passenger service deficits continued to mount.
aegrotatio: schlimm: I'm not sure if I follow or agree with their contention, but it is an interesting one I've never heard before. BTW, not sure what you meant, but Santa Fe passenger service ended when Amtrak started in 1971. It did not opt out. I'm sorry, I am not sure which railroad held out as long as possible, I know that at least one did, and it was for the sake of argument to my point that nationalization of passenger rail, or so-called "railpax," was not necessarily required to save that mode of passenger transportation.
schlimm: I'm not sure if I follow or agree with their contention, but it is an interesting one I've never heard before. BTW, not sure what you meant, but Santa Fe passenger service ended when Amtrak started in 1971. It did not opt out.
I'm not sure if I follow or agree with their contention, but it is an interesting one I've never heard before.
BTW, not sure what you meant, but Santa Fe passenger service ended when Amtrak started in 1971. It did not opt out.
I'm sorry, I am not sure which railroad held out as long as possible, I know that at least one did, and it was for the sake of argument to my point that nationalization of passenger rail, or so-called "railpax," was not necessarily required to save that mode of passenger transportation.
I'm sorry, but I think you are basing your view on a myth perpetrated by rail fans just wishing for "the good old days". If you want a definitive look at rail passenger service in the last years before Amtrak, including information on the losses sustain by the railroads, I recommend Fred Frailey's "Twilight of the Geat Trains". Much of the book includes the extensive effort by many of the railroads to maintain good service on some trains with market potential, but in spite of all, passenger service deficits continued to mount.
As I see it, anyone who believes that there currently is a market for even half the passenger trains that were operated fifty years ago is unaware of the losses that the roads suffered even when the US Mail was carried by the railroads.
My wife and I are thankful for the trains that Amtrak is able to operate. At times, I have wished that Amtrak still operated overnight service between Los Angeles and Sacramento and service through Salt Lake City (or Ogden) to Los Angeles and Portland/Seattle. But, we have worked our trips around what service there is.
Johnny
Different times. Different business models and pholosophies. Different times. Different needs for both public and providers. Different times. Different social structures and needs. Different times. Different ways of looking at pollution, fuel sources and consumption, land use. Different times. Different thinking towards planning and use. Different times are different things and different times.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
"Deggesty": I applaud your comment, congruent with my own, that we at least are "thankful for the trains that Amtrak is able to operate." Nonetheless, I too wish there was a more reasonable way to get from LA to SLC (and return) without the onerous midnight arrival in SAC, trudging to and from a motel, then reboarding another train and on to SLC the next day. Seems to me there ought to be a way (and a revenue market) to have the two train schedules mesh, w/o such an unnecessary (and expensive) layover.
petitnj When will Amtrak determine that it is a transportation system and not just a scenic railroad. Take for example, :Amtrak Extends Pacific Surfliner Service Suspension Between San Diego and San Juan Capistrano" Where passengers in San Diego are told " No alternate transportation is available" Of course alternate transportation is available:Greyhound to LA and then cab to LA Union Station. They have passengers and obviously Greyhound has seats. Since this is such a frequent problem, make arrangements. Amtrak should recognize that people ride the train to get from A to B. Not just to experience the thrill of slow railroading. Get them from A to B! There will be challenges but Amtrak should recognize it sells transportation and start transporting. By the way our experience was: left San Diego on Greyhound at 3 PM, arrive in LA search for our baggage at the LA bus station, cab to LA Union Station, wait for departure of the Sunset, nice boarding and departure, wake up in Yuma, Arizona. That is 175 miles in about 15 hours for a break neck speed of 12 mph from San Diego. We found the frazzled Greyhound staff very helpful and willing to help (and get us there).
When will Amtrak determine that it is a transportation system and not just a scenic railroad. Take for example, :Amtrak Extends Pacific Surfliner Service Suspension Between San Diego and San Juan Capistrano"
Where passengers in San Diego are told " No alternate transportation is available" Of course alternate transportation is available:Greyhound to LA and then cab to LA Union Station. They have passengers and obviously Greyhound has seats. Since this is such a frequent problem, make arrangements.
Amtrak should recognize that people ride the train to get from A to B. Not just to experience the thrill of slow railroading. Get them from A to B! There will be challenges but Amtrak should recognize it sells transportation and start transporting.
By the way our experience was: left San Diego on Greyhound at 3 PM, arrive in LA search for our baggage at the LA bus station, cab to LA Union Station, wait for departure of the Sunset, nice boarding and departure, wake up in Yuma, Arizona. That is 175 miles in about 15 hours for a break neck speed of 12 mph from San Diego. We found the frazzled Greyhound staff very helpful and willing to help (and get us there).
There are really several "Amtraks".
There is the useful transportation company. That would include the NEC operations and any other corridor that people regularly depend on for decent time keeping. A businessman who needs to get to New York for a 10AM meeting cannot generally wait until the afternoon or even the next day. I would suspect the San Deigans would fit this category.
Another "Amtrak" is the social service Amtrak. It provides service from A to B, but you go when the train runs - day of week, time of day, whatever. The schedule is really just "advice". This would be most of the LD trains.
A third "Amtrak" is the "gee I hope we still have a job tomorrow - don't rock the boat!" Amtrak that the employees know. Doing "extra" things - particularly if they cost money that's not in the budget is a sure way to get an operating dept guy in trouble. (the revenue is not likely in the same budget. It probably resides in marketing's budget)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The real crux of Sante Fe vs Amtrak is that Sante Fe did not like the lessening of the level of quality in the service Amtrak was proposing and asked Amtrak not to use the Chief or any Sante Fe's former names on whatever Amtrak was running between Chicago and the West Coast.
The points of being a service not just running trains is very pointed. I wonder how much service could be provided on the Harrisburg - Pittsburg route. According to media reports 332 passengers were on the Pennsylvanian that had to be bused around the Rockville bridge derailment. Does that indicate it close to a sold out train? Now what if there was 3 - 4 round trips a day?
We decided to do just that last summer, My wife daughter and I decided to try amtrak for Vacation instead of flying, we rode the empire builder from St Paul to Essex and back with 7 days in glacier hiking, rented a car right at the Issac Waton and loved every minute of it. Despite being a bit late on the way out, I stepped off the train relaxed and ready to go, not frazzled after a day of airports and airplane. We will be taking the train on vacation a lot more often. Unfortunately the tracks were all removed to the Keweenaw Peninsula of Michigan Years ago, so it's at least a 6 hour trip to get to Amtrak.
henry6 The real crux of Sante Fe vs Amtrak is that Sante Fe did not like the lessening of the level of quality in the service Amtrak was proposing and asked Amtrak not to use the Chief or any Sante Fe's former names on whatever Amtrak was running between Chicago and the West Coast.
We rode the Southwest Chief in the spring of 2008, and were pleased with the service. I honestly do not recall anything that was above what we expected on the other long distance trains we rode that trip (CZ, Coast Starlight, Capitol Limited).
At the inception of Amtrak Sante Fe balked. After a decade or two, with some Amtrak improvements, with heritage Sante Fe brass departed, with public memory of real first class quality passenger service a memory in itself, "Chief" could become a train name once again.
As someone who uses Amtrak for something like 98pc of all his work and personal travel needs, the primary problem with Amtrak is that it has a government agency mentality rather than a railroad mentality. It does things based on policy and doctrine and not because they necessarily make sense. You are absolutely correct that Amtrak could be wildly successful at this moment in time because of high gas prices and the inhumane treatment passengers receive in the airline sector, but it needs a dynamic visionary and railroader the likes of Claytor or Gunn to view things with a railroad mentality and allow it to be all it can be, and not simply a nice government agency that runs trains in exchange for an annual appropriation. To an earlier point about "no alternate transportation provided"... I detest that phrase because it shows how far Amtrak has fallen in terms of service standards. Back when the Pennsy, the Reading, or the Santa Fe ran service "seek alternate means" was not in their vocabulary because they took pride in the operation and saw it as their responsibility to ensure passengers got to their destination. That pride and passion in the operation is sorely lacking today.
Unfortunately too much of Amtrak leads to experiences like that of this pleasant young man on the thread, My Personal Story:
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/185483/2028179.aspx#2028179
He enjoyed it anyway, but I suspect most folks would never return.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
henry6 petitnj: ...... The question is, why can't we specify that all transit systems be integrated. Federal funds would not go to a light rail that didn't interface with local and intercity bus, Amtrak, commuter lines, and airlines? .... Ditto!
petitnj: ...... The question is, why can't we specify that all transit systems be integrated. Federal funds would not go to a light rail that didn't interface with local and intercity bus, Amtrak, commuter lines, and airlines? ....
......
The question is, why can't we specify that all transit systems be integrated. Federal funds would not go to a light rail that didn't interface with local and intercity bus, Amtrak, commuter lines, and airlines?
....
Ditto!
During the 1920s, if I remember correctly, the PRR, as well as the Southern Pacific, amongst others, attempted to operate buses and trucks to complement their rail services. The PRR attempted to operate an air service, and the SP attempted to get into the pipeline business. Unfortunately, the ICC, for good reasons, prohibited them from doing so.
There is some intergration of public transport in the United States. In Fort Worth, for example, Greyhound, Amtrak, and the Trinity Railway Express all call at the Intermodal Transportation Center in Fort Worth. Here it is also possible to rent a car. Also, several cities have implemented rail service to their airports (Washington, D.C., Cleveland, San Francisco, NYC) or they are developing the capabilities to do so (Dallas, Fort Worth, Miami).
schlimm Unfortunately too much of Amtrak leads to experiences like that of this pleasant young man on the thread, My Personal Story: http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/185483/2028179.aspx#2028179 He enjoyed it anyway, but I suspect most folks would never return.
Not many of the passengers with whom we have talked enjoy travel by train as much as my wife and I do (we met, in April of 1971, on a train that we were both riding because it would soon be abolished). We do whatever we can to encourage others, especially those taking their first trip by train, to ride again and again.
Deggesty schlimm: Unfortunately too much of Amtrak leads to experiences like that of this pleasant young man on the thread, My Personal Story: http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/185483/2028179.aspx#2028179 He enjoyed it anyway, but I suspect most folks would never return. In our travels by Amtrak, we have come across one person who, while taking her first trip on Amtrak, vowed never again to travel by train. We were on the Texas Eagle, going from Chicago to Los Angeles, and I expected that when we woke the second morning we would be west of San Antonio. We were still in San Antonio because the Sunset Limited had hit a car somewhere in Louisiana, and was delayed four hours. A young lady on the Sunset who was on her way to Phoenix (change in Maricopa) was so upset over an event utterly beyond Amtrak's control that she vowed never again to ride Amtrak. She could not listen to reason. Not many of the passengers with whom we have talked enjoy travel by train as much as my wife and I do (we met, in April of 1971, on a train that we were both riding because it would soon be abolished). We do whatever we can to encourage others, especially those taking their first trip by train, to ride again and again.
schlimm: Unfortunately too much of Amtrak leads to experiences like that of this pleasant young man on the thread, My Personal Story: http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/185483/2028179.aspx#2028179 He enjoyed it anyway, but I suspect most folks would never return.
As to the upset young lady not listening to reason, any mode of transportation can throw a monkey wrench into our best laid travel plans. We can all get upset about being inconvenienced, and just because this person vowed never again to ride Amtrak in the heat of the moment doesn't mean she changed her mind after the upset wore off some time later on.
Besides, if the person trying to reason with the young lady was anything like most of us on this forum ("Buck up, young woman and cut out yer complainin'! Someone just died in a collision that wasn't Amtrak's fault, and you are worried about a missed connection?"), it may not have been the right thing to say to a person at the time. Yes, to be upset in that situation is not listening to reason, and it was self-centered under the circumstances to think of one's own convenience. But each one of us as been upset about one thing or another at one time or another, and sometimes you just have to let that person cool down rather than to attempt to reason with them.
I say this because as members of the train advocacy community, we are in effect Amtrak's volunteer marketing department, and what as train enthusiasts we say to people who (don't yet) share our passion, can have an effect. In the end, yes, we should offer encouragement to people to try Amtrak, we should share what is special about the train riding experience, and we should educate people on what to expect regarding Amtrak timekeeping, what circumstances are outside Amtrak's control, and how to "roll with the punches" of Amtrak timekeeping as that young man reported on the other thread.
But if someone choses to ride again and again depends on whether they appreciate the experience and develop a passion for trains, but if a person doesn't develop an enthusiasm for trains, we should not fault them for it, and I think we do fault people for not sharing our feelings about trains, which hurts the goals of train advocacy.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sam1 There is some intergration of public transport in the United States. In Fort Worth, for example, Greyhound, Amtrak, and the Trinity Railway Express all call at the Intermodal Transportation Center in Fort Worth. Here it is also possible to rent a car. Also, several cities have implemented rail service to their airports (Washington, D.C., Cleveland, San Francisco, NYC) or they are developing the capabilities to do so (Dallas, Fort Worth, Miami).
A TRAXX line to the airport is in the works; I am not sure when it will come into being.
When boarding Amtrak, it is now necessary to walk around the end of the train and board on the far side from the station--and to detrain, it is necessary to get off on the far side from the station and walk around the end of the train.
There are at least three ways to view riding Amtrak. (Incidently I am reinbterpreting the headline to mean "tourist service" rather than "scenic". A lot of Amtrak is scenic as long as its what you want to look at.)
First is wanting to get from where you are to someplace else, quickly, comfortabley, and efficiently. There are some routes Amtrak does this well, others, there are problems. This service is why Amtrak exists but often people are used to quick hop air travel, indepndent automobile travel, or "the way things used to be". These three things are not what Amtrak is.
Second being a tourist ride where getting there is at least half the fun...you want to see rather than fly over or peep over the steering wheel to you left or right. A lot of people like to do this but don't feel they have the time, or at least are lead to believe they don't. But a business ride from NYC to ALbany along the Hudson always gets raves for the scenery even if on business for instance.
Third is as a railfan. YOur riding because you like trains, so you like the surroundings and the equipment and the speed or lack of speed because you see other trains and equipment. You may not like it because the crew doesn't appreciate railfans or it isn't like riding in the streamlier era or the heavy Pullman era or you've got to do the rirst or last 50 miles in the blanket of night.
All three reasons offer good reasons to ride trains and many reasons for complaints if one must.
So if Amtrak is fundamentally a "national heritage" experience and not fundamentally about quick comfortable efficient transportation, or at least quicker and more efficient than alternatives, how does it justify the level of subsidy it receives?
Seriously, Canada runs the one transcontinental train, which I understand is pricey in its fares but delivers a quality national heritage experience, and then they concentrate on the the Toronto-Montreal corridor, where I understand they do a fine job on the quick, comfortable, and efficient part.
henry6 There are at least three ways to view riding Amtrak. (Incidently I am reinbterpreting the headline to mean "tourist service" rather than "scenic". A lot of Amtrak is scenic as long as its what you want to look at.) First is wanting to get from where you are to someplace else, quickly, comfortabley, and efficiently. There are some routes Amtrak does this well, others, there are problems. This service is why Amtrak exists but often people are used to quick hop air travel, indepndent automobile travel, or "the way things used to be". These three things are not what Amtrak is. Second being a tourist ride where getting there is at least half the fun...you want to see rather than fly over or peep over the steering wheel to you left or right. A lot of people like to do this but don't feel they have the time, or at least are lead to believe they don't. But a business ride from NYC to ALbany along the Hudson always gets raves for the scenery even if on business for instance. Third is as a railfan. YOur riding because you like trains, so you like the surroundings and the equipment and the speed or lack of speed because you see other trains and equipment. You may not like it because the crew doesn't appreciate railfans or it isn't like riding in the streamlier era or the heavy Pullman era or you've got to do the rirst or last 50 miles in the blanket of night. All three reasons offer good reasons to ride trains and many reasons for complaints if one must.
Two years ago this spring, we rode the Cardinal from Washington to Chicago, and I found greater pleasure as we crossed northern Virginia than I had found as we traveled from Vancouver to Jasper to Toronto to Montréal to Moncton, in a drawing room except from Toronto to Montréal, on the same trip. I cannot explain that. We appreciate the Canadian, but somehow it just did not come up to the Cardinal on that trip. Last May, we rode the Cardinal from Chcago to Washington, but the crossing of Virginia was not the same as it was the year before.
What a great conversation that all of you contribute to! Thanks. I contend that Amtrak cannot afford to be a railroad for those who want to watch the scenery go by. I advocate for Amtrak every day and teach a college transportation class that takes Amtrak to Chicago for a few days.
Given all the arguments presented, how could we change transportation policy to integrate all of this? My suggestion is that all transportation systems submit a Transportation Impact Statement. This TIS would explain how this next expenditure would improve accessibility, convenience, efficiency and cost savings for the traveling public.
Your ideas?
It can be done. First get a national transportation policy to include all forms of transportation. Then define passenger transportation and needs. Then search for regions where passenger rail would help move people around within it. Then look for overlapping regional needs and interregional needs. Don't build systems just to run trains but devleop system where rails (with attendent marketing, scheduling, equipment, and frequency) can do the job. Oh, do it without politics, without special interests, and without emotions to the past..
petitnj Given all the arguments presented, how could we change transportation policy to integrate all of this? My suggestion is that all transportation systems submit a Transportation Impact Statement. This TIS would explain how this next expenditure would improve accessibility, convenience, efficiency and cost savings for the traveling public. Your ideas?
Two quick thoughts on this:
Would a "TIS" be much different than what's in the cost/benefit analysis?
Could it be done in parallel with other analysis? The lead time on rail projects is already stupidly long.
petitnj I contend that Amtrak cannot afford to be a railroad for those who want to watch the scenery go by.
I contend that Amtrak cannot afford to be a railroad for those who want to watch the scenery go by.
For people who want to do that, private cruise trains would be the answer. But there is no justification for that as a public policy. The studies are out there. It is a case of having the political will to have a gradual plan for real rail services, as doltmann, henry, Paul M. and others have said, starting in the corridors where it is competitive and a need exists.
schlimm For people who want to do that, private cruise trains would be the answer. But there is no justification for that as a public policy.
For people who want to do that, private cruise trains would be the answer. But there is no justification for that as a public policy.
And why not? Agreed, Amtrak is not really in the position to do so today, but it certainly would be a extension of 'service' not unlike commuter and long distance bus companies offering special charter service.
The idea is to provide services, not run trains. Marketing is a big part of it. Find the service and level of service that's needed, provide it, set the price to provide the service at a level the customers will pay and still get a return, be consistant, do it with integrity. If it is running two car trains every 15 minutes each way or a special charter or "scenic" train and it meets the criteria above, so be it.
But, as for riding trains to see the scenery, why not? You can't see it flying above the clouds or flying down the interstate behind the wheel of your SUV at 80+ and still be paying attention to traffic and conditions around you. So, any train ride would give you a chance to "see" the scenery no matter what the route. And if the scenery is along the Hudson; through the Berkshires, the Rockies, or the Selkirks; over the Contental Divide; on either shore of the Mississippi, skimming over desert sands, all the better. As long as the train is delivering the service it is designed to do.
One observation I've made over the years is that the advocacy community has a strong bias to the long-distance trains, which have the least justification for their continued existence. Also see the thread regarding favorite pre-Amtrak trains, which leans heavily to the long-distance trains and only a handful of short-haul trains.
A better comparison might be to the Australian rather than the European passenger network. Passenger services are mostly suburban and short-to-medium haul intercity operations with the "Ghan" and the "Indian-Pacific" being the only long-distance trains as most North Americans would think of them. Those trains are promoted as land-cruise operations with no real pretense of providing a real transportation service.
Maybe long distance trains are marketed wrong! How 'bout saying , "ride this train and see the scenery whatever it is" and not as the train between two points. Again, marketing and service. Yeah, the Corridor is marketing for a fast ride between Boston and D.C. for instance. But those western trains could rely more on the tourist trade. But what also has to be considered is the ability to serve certain remote communities where there is no other service except a highway and there are few who don't drive, at least not hundreds or thousands of miles. Again, regionalizing rail services might be a better answer than Chicago to the Pacific as one train service. Market, service, market, service, market, service. Don't just run trains.
Market service? Sure, let a land cruise company do that. But based on HX, there doesn't seem to be much of a market.
Serve places with no service but roads? Let those towns and states pay for it (subsidize) the same way they pay to try to attract airlines to serve smaller towns. That plus the equivalent of the FAA subsidies to airlines to serve small towns out west.
I guess the point some of us (doltmann, the Pauls, Phoebe Vet and others) who are pro-passenger rail are making is this. Given limited resources, Amtrak needs to use them for transportation services in corridors, not subsidized scenic cruises.
I agree with you, but it will never happen. I have worked for the government and I understand the mentality of the politicians at the top. Political party in control is irrelevant.
Take the money available and allocate it in the manner that will serve the greatest number of voters. That mentality results in a bare minimum widely scattered service that is of little use to anyone but lots of people can be told they got a piece of it.
Amtrak should pick a medium to high density corridor and do it right. After it is up and running and showing it's value, then pick another corridor and do that one right. And so on.
One train a day is not useful transportation.
Agreed. Part of the problem is getting anything passed in the Senate that is based on the rational idea of serving population-dense corridors. Because of the way it was set up, you have low population, low-density states like WY, MT, ID, ND, SD, etc. that have as many votes as states like PA, OH, IL, NY, VA, etc. The result is continuing to run the ridiculous long distance trains of days gone by.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.