Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
Amtrak to end food service losses
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="V.Payne"]</p> <p><em>"Had the approximately $19 billion lost on the long distance trains been spent on corridors, where trains make economic sense, I along with others might have better passenger rail service along the I-35 and other potential corridors."</em></p> <p>Assuming the money was available upfront from Congress...big assumption...why don't you consider as well the operational effects of investing some of it three decades ago to get the Eastern LD trains up to 16 cars of matched, easily maintained, equipment? This is the same argument, invest in capital to decrease operational costs.</p> <p>Maybe the 1950's dinners could have been replaced two decades ago at a minimum and enough positive net revenue sleepers be out on the line to offset the high costs of running any size train, corridor or otherwise.</p> <p>On the infrastructure side how many years... decades... was the northern end of the NEC operated with diesels before funding electrification, why do you think the I-35 corridor would be different? From 1916 to 1991's ISTEA, or some would say till the present day, the concept was that only roadways deserved/warranted to have capital invested, and everything else was begrudgingly given at less than the needed levels because it was privately held, or once taxed to death and the competion subsidized, "didn't make money", like the half done NEC upgrades.</p> <p>The reality is so much of the system has been limping along with higher than they should be operational cost simply because enough rolling stock is not available to generate revenue to offset the fixed costs of a train start. This directly affects the operational point of the food service.</p> <p>The main thing standing in the way of changing this politically are unsupported ideas about fuel taxes. My point has been to figure out what the level is of the Interstate highway cross-subsidy on a per mile basis and apply it equally to corridor or long distance type operations, buying capital or operations at the efficient point for the existing geography. [/quote]</p> <p><em>Might</em> is the past tense of may. It is <span>used in auxiliary function to express permission, liberty, probability, possibility in the past. A possibility in the past is just that: a possibility.</span></p> <p><span>My reference to long distance trains in this post was only included in response to a poorly veiled swipe made by another participant. </span></p> <p><span>If we want to have a discussion of the merits of long distance vs short corridor trains, which don't really belong in a discussion of food service losses, except to the extent that most of them, according to Amtrak's senior management, attach to the long distance trains, we should open another thread.</span></p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy