philbert5118 wrote:I think passenger service would be a lot better if the Government was out of it.
If you mean the RR had their own pasenger service then yes it would be alot better
But if you mean Amtrak wasnt operated by the Gov then every train would be late because the only reason their on time is because the Gov gives the host RR tax breaks for on time performance and if the Gov didnt do this their would be no reason to give the train any priority so it would always be late. unless Amtrak paid the host RR for ontime performance
What the best would be is to keep the gov involved and increase taxes to host RR's that have bad on time perofrmance, also give amtrak about 2 trillion so they can by new pasenger cars and remodel the old ones, overhaul the engines(and buy more), get the good food back, get more routes back, increase frequencies, get the soda and snacks back into the supeliner sleepers, and get more workers specificaly room attendents so that the conductor in the coach loading baggage isnt the same person that makes up your bed(not a bad thing their just alway's bussy so they cant really get to know you and do it your way like what time to put the beds down and what time you would want to wake up)
well those are just my thought
If you mean going back to the arrangement prior to May 1, 1971, then passenger service outside of suburban zones would have long since disappeared. Amtrak was a way for the freight railroads to be relieved of their money-losing passenger service obligations. Some roads tolerated their passenger losses up to that point because they viewed passenger trains as a PR tool and the political cost of going through an ICC discontinuance proceeding was deemed to be too high.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: philbert5118 wrote:I think passenger service would be a lot better if the Government was out of it.If you mean going back to the arrangement prior to May 1, 1971, then passenger service outside of suburban zones would have long since disappeared. Amtrak was a way for the freight railroads to be relieved of their money-losing passenger service obligations. Some roads tolerated their passenger losses up to that point because they viewed passenger trains as a PR tool and the political cost of going through an ICC discontinuance proceeding was deemed to be too high.
A few more things to add to my prior posting. A sizable percentage of the passenger trains that were still running prior to Amtrak were definitely nothing to write home about, and this goes beyond Penn Central's long-haul trains. As an example, MP was down to a pair of St. Louis-Kansas City trains in each direction and the St. Louis-Texarkana remnant of the Texas Eagle. All were coach and snack bar only, no sleepers, no full diners, etc.
Also consider that even when the trains had RPO's and closed-pouch mail contracts, the losses may have been tolerable but the trains still ran at a loss. The passenger trains were in effect being cross-subsidized by freight service, a situation that most non-railroaders and some of the state regulators considered to be an acceptable practice.
A re-reading of "Who Shot The Passenger Train", an issue-length article in the April 1959 TRAINS, would be in order. A lot has changed since that time, but a lot of things are still worth considering.
That's easy enough to say, but I am uncomfortable with blanket statements such as this. After all, the government is heavily involved in all forms of transportation. However, the government plays a different role in rail than in the others due to the different management structures of the different systems. Specifically, airports, shipping ports and highways are usually publicly owned and financed, while railroad tracks in most of the country are privately owned and financed. In essence, railroads are competing against the government on infrastructure development. This in turn has left the railroads with insufficient capital for passenger development, hence the government's direct (though paltry) involvement in rail passenger service.
I'm not wedded to Amtrak. I don't really care who is running the trains as long as they are running. However, I have yet to see an alternative plan put forth in sufficient detail to convince me it will work any better than, or even as well as, what we have now. Nevertheless, I am open to any suggestions, so please share your ideas with us.
Mr. Toy wrote: philbert5118 wrote:I think passenger service would be a lot better if the Government was out of it.That's easy enough to say, but I am uncomfortable with blanket statements such as this. After all, the government is heavily involved in all forms of transportation. However, the government plays a different role in rail than in the others due to the different management structures of the different systems. Specifically, airports, shipping ports and highways are usually publicly owned and financed, while railroad tracks in most of the country are privately owned and financed. In essence, railroads are competing against the government on infrastructure development. This in turn has left the railroads with insufficient capital for passenger development, hence the government's direct (though paltry) involvement in rail passenger service. I'm not wedded to Amtrak. I don't really care who is running the trains as long as they are running. However, I have yet to see an alternative plan put forth in sufficient detail to convince me it will work any better than, or even as well as, what we have now. Nevertheless, I am open to any suggestions, so please share your ideas with us.
I have to agree with this person. I am not wedded to Amtrak either. I like to see them out running, but as far as who the president and who offically runs Amtrak. Who really cares as long as Amtrak gets the job done safely. Now as far as like the CSX deal goes. If Amtrak is going to run on CSX mainline even though CSX and other frieght railroads are getting tax cuts that does not pay for the mainline maintence. Amtrak should pay a portion for the amount of use. If say they run 1 train a day on that particualar track and CSX runs 10 freight trains a day. Then Amtrak pays a percentage. Like say 10 % while 90% is paid by CSX. If Amtrak runs 20 trains a day and the freight roads only run 1 or 2 then Amtrak pays the higher percentage. If the government comes in and says you will run Amtrak on time with no Freight Delays, then the railroads will come back and say ok, let me put it to you this way, get Amtrak off of my line. Railroads can not make money if trains are moving. Granted there is a happy mediam for everything. You can make Amtrak and freight roads happy. You just got to find away. If Amtrak had of gotten some of the money that they were supost to get around 9-11 then Amtrak would probably be doing just fine. But, when the airlines came flocking to the goverment for money Amtrak was pushed to the curb. Even airlines that were not involved with 9-11 got money that was rightfly Amtraks.
dbasenberg wrote:If the government wasn't in it, it would not exist
Dakguy201 wrote:CSX has been making noise about public money to upgrade their the mainline between Virginia and Florida. If anything like that is to be done, the trade ought to be guaranteed priority for AMTRAK, with recapture provisions should CSX default on their promises.
Amazing that it is CSX asking for public money when they have been among the worst if not the worst in accommodating Amtrak on their tracks. I've been sidelined four times on CSX tracks for every 1 time I've been sidelined on another lines. This is mainly because either a) CSX had a late freight or b) CSX has track related issues (like the one that contributed to the Auto Train wreck a few years ago).
I think passenger service would be a lot better if rail owners could understand that passenger trains are supposed to get where they are going on time.
Also, the average Amtrak consist is like, 12-15 cars, vs. the freight's 100 - 120. Why make the little bitty train wait just because "you own the tracks"??
A little effeciency based on more logical give and take would do a lot. Then financial viability would also become a possibility.
I think passenger service would be a lot better if rail owners could understand that passenger trains are supposed to get where they are going on time. Also, the average Amtrak consist is like, 12-15 cars, vs. the freight's 100 - 120. Why make the little bitty train wait just because "you own the tracks"??
I think people have been following the NARP party line for too long. Not that there is anything wrong with NARP, but the line of reasoning they have been following for 40 years doesn't seem to influence anyone inside or outside of the railroad industry or government or the general public at large apart from a small group of the already converted.
What is wrong with making the 12-car train wait for the 100-car train? What basis is there for giving the passenger train priority - does it bring in more revenue? Is there an overarching social benefit to making sure .2 percent of intercity passenger travel keeps moving while that 40 percent of the intercity freight traffic gets parked in a siding? Wouldn't the cause of reducing highway congestion be better served by getting a massive number of trucks off the road instead of a small number of cars?
The one thing about the California passenger rail is that they, the government leaders, the voters, decided that it was important enough in the scheme of things that they purchased their own passenger cars and locomotives and spent an even greater amount of money on various track projects. No, they don't have their own dedicated tracks, but they put money into tracks to eliminate choke points and points of contention with freight and apparently they have a good enough working relationship with the UP that I haven't heard of chronic lateness.
Illinois does this on the cheap, using their political muscle to scrounge up scarce equipment out of the Amtrak fleet, and going ahead with their service expansion without having the host railroads fully on board. They run chronically late, and one of the activists who had been behind the plan is quoted in the Chicago Tribune, "just think about how the ridership would increase even more if the trains ran on time." That said activist may have had anything to do with the outcome, by supporting a low-expense plan that could be sold to the voters, but that any reasonable person could have anticipated the outcome, isn't even up for consideration. It is all the fault of the mean-spirited railroad company.
A sense of entitlement that the host railroads should, ought, and must run the passenger trains to your liking won't make them run on time. We have been working from the NARP factoid about a single track having the capacity of 20 lanes of freeway for too long. The 20 lanes of freeway equivalent is for a heavily-signaled double-track subway line with lighweight cars with powerful brakes running on short headways. It is a myth that the typical freight line has excess capacity to support whatever level of passenger traffic someone has in mind.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The problem with delayed trains is the same as with delayed planes and clogged freeways: lack of capacity to keep up with demand. Arguments can be made on both sides as to whether freight or passenger trains deserve priority, but giving one priority over the other doesn't solve the core problem. Industry analysts have said that the railroads don't have sufficient capital to meet capacity demands expected over the next 20 years for freight, let alone passenger traffic. Thus even the extreme of eliminating all passenger traffic will still result in delayed freight.
The best solution I see is for a public-private partnership in infrastructure investment. The federal government and hopefully the states, too, should be willing to put up a percentage of capital on any rail route that serves passenger trains. The goal should be sufficient capacity so that neither freight nor passenger trains are delayed. It would be good for the economy, good for roads (by helping remove truck traffic) and good for the traveling public who will have a wider range of travel options. A win-win-win scenario.
But if we keep defining the problem as "freight vs passenger" everybody loses.
Mr. Toy wrote: The problem with delayed trains is the same as with delayed planes and clogged freeways: lack of capacity to keep up with demand.
The problem with delayed trains is the same as with delayed planes and clogged freeways: lack of capacity to keep up with demand.
Is this really a capacity problem? Are we thinking of sufficient transportation capacity as a "free good"? That we have a right to it? The cost of owning public streets and roads at the time of day that they're not being used is enormous. Railroads and controlled air space, too.
jclass wrote: Mr. Toy wrote:The problem with delayed trains is the same as with delayed planes and clogged freeways: lack of capacity to keep up with demand.Is this really a capacity problem?
Mr. Toy wrote:The problem with delayed trains is the same as with delayed planes and clogged freeways: lack of capacity to keep up with demand.
Are we thinking of sufficient transportation capacity as a "free good"? That we have a right to it?
The cost of owning public streets and roads at the time of day that they're not being used is enormous. Railroads and controlled air space, too.
The driveway in front of my house incurs cost with use, not with brief non-use. Same goes for roads, airports and railroads. Wear and tear is far more costly than "respite periods".
jclass wrote: The cost of owning public streets and roads at the time of day that they're not being used is enormous. Railroads and controlled air space, too.
If I read correctly, you are arguing that roads shouldn't necessarily be designed for peak traffic because there are more hours where they are not filled to capacity than hours where the roads are at or above capacity. That is true, and I am inclined to agree (to a point) when it comes to roads.
However, railroads don't have a "rush hour" because they run 24/7. In most areas of the country, the railroads are just as busy in the middle of the night as they are in the daytime.
I think.....
That air travel would be a lot better if the gov't was out of it
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I think..
That highway travel would be much better if the gov't was out of it.
That transit systems should never be named by acronym.
That high heel shoes are silly.
That Barney is annoying.
That Gwinnett County should have a commuter train.
That Lincoln was a great president.
That warm sunny days are better than cold rainy ones.
That the Phillies will lose their 10,000th game in July this year.
That Amtrak, CSX and BNSF are stupid names for railroads.
That suburban commuter busses should have 2 and 1 seating.
That Bus Rapid Transit is nothing more than a bus pulling a trailer in an HOV lane.
That tossing in a one-line opinion is not a good way to start a discussion. There are no one-line op-ed pieces in any magazine or newspaper I know. Most writers at least make an attempt at providing some supporting facts and analysis. How about it?
Oh, and I think that trolley busses are half-trolley, so the trolley bus thread should have only been half-locked by Bergie......
I belive the railroads need more funding.
Stop putting all this money into interstate highways!
Because, with gas prices higher than drug addicts, people are going to be riding more by rail, then by driving.
So if the government puts more funding into rail, maybe we would have less delays.
Thus, then having even MORE people ride by rail.
Take a Ride on the Scenic Line!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.