Dragoman Things may not have gone as well as they could have, and Amtrak may indeed be too "old" to change (though I would hope not!), but to say that there has been no progress at all just does not sound right.
Things may not have gone as well as they could have, and Amtrak may indeed be too "old" to change (though I would hope not!), but to say that there has been no progress at all just does not sound right.
I don't think they are too old. They've just been through so much that the corporate culture among the "troops" is "survive now" It'll take a quite a change to get them forward thinking, and an even bigger change to get them thinking like owners.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Dragoman "No new corridor development"? Honestly? What about the NEC, which is apparently covering its variable/operating costs, and so contributing to covering other (LD?) costs. And what about the several very successful "403(b)" corridors, such as the 3 in California, the "Cascades" route in the Pacific Northwest. And haven't some of the newer Virginia or North Carolina corridor services actually begun operating at a break-even or better? And these operations can't cost Amtrak much of anything (since the states are contributing to the expenses), but they cause (at a minimum) infrastructure improvements that positively affect Amtrak's LD services. Things may not have gone as well as they could have, and Amtrak may indeed be too "old" to change (though I would hope not!), but to say that there has been no progress at all just does not sound right.
"No new corridor development"? Honestly?
What about the NEC, which is apparently covering its variable/operating costs, and so contributing to covering other (LD?) costs.
And what about the several very successful "403(b)" corridors, such as the 3 in California, the "Cascades" route in the Pacific Northwest. And haven't some of the newer Virginia or North Carolina corridor services actually begun operating at a break-even or better? And these operations can't cost Amtrak much of anything (since the states are contributing to the expenses), but they cause (at a minimum) infrastructure improvements that positively affect Amtrak's LD services.
You are correct about new corridors of late. Should have said "no corridors other than state sponsored routes."
However, in the late 70s and even into the early 80s, when this change was supposed to take root, we almost nothing except new LD routes and once-a-day day trains to hither and yon. (Shenandoah, NCL, Palmetto, Hilltopper, Desert Wind, Pioneer, Lake Shore Ltd. Capitol Limited, Sunset to FL, Crescent Mobile section, etc.) Amtrak did try upgrading Chicago to St. Louis, and NY spend some cash on GCT to Albany, but that was about it for corridors.
I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but Amtrak needs to be put in a position where it can make rational decisions without having to run trains for congressional votes. If that happens, one of the first things to go would be many of the worst LD routes (the Cardinal, for example). Use the equipment freed up to add cars to the LD routes that are usually sold out to improve their operating revenue numbers, and to corridors that can handle Superliners. Gradually phase out LD routes that take more than 12 hours.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Well, funded by fees and the proceeds from the auction they have to sell the stuff they steal from passengers.
http://www.gadling.com/2007/11/18/how-to-buy-goods-confiscated-by-the-tsa/
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Trains are the Future And taxpayers have to foot the massive bills for airport security. Many good points have been made already about the need for a decent rail system in the USA. Trains are efficient, civilized, better for the environment and more fun. Look at any advanced country around the world and you'll find it has a thriving, sensibly subsidised railway.
And taxpayers have to foot the massive bills for airport security.
Many good points have been made already about the need for a decent rail system in the USA. Trains are efficient, civilized, better for the environment and more fun. Look at any advanced country around the world and you'll find it has a thriving, sensibly subsidised railway.
Actually, the TSA's airport security is funded from fees collected from passengers and the carriers.
Amtrak might have a chance to be a "sensibly subsidized" railway if it weren't saddled with so many LD trains. The original idea was for Amtrak to rationalize the LD network and open new corridor services where the day to day cash flow from the corridors could offset the remaining LD services.
The exact opposite happened. Political pressure added LD trains and there no corridor development. Amtrak has been doing what it's been doing for so long, I wonder if they can change.
USA by Rail
Andrew Falconer The more important question That I have been asking for the past year is this. For the Safety of the passengers and to SPEED up service, why are the passenger trains not yet on their own elevated guideways? ... Andrew
The more important question That I have been asking for the past year is this.
For the Safety of the passengers and to SPEED up service, why are the passenger trains not yet on their own elevated guideways?
...
Andrew
Answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
All passenger trains should be looked upon as commuter trains and run as such. Unless you think that certain people in the nation are not worth moving to other parts of the country. It looks like transportation has become an east coast versus west coast and north versus south "don't let those people come here" battle. It is mean spirited in the national media.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Maybe I should book your next flight. Checking today, the earliest you could get a a train with a Superliner roomette was by traveling on the 27th - 2 weeks. $236 one way from Burlington + $354 for the roomette CHI-WAS. So for the two of you, $826 for a 31 hour journey with two train changes.
By air, on the same date, $310 each, so $620 total., for a 7-8 hour trip with 2 changes. Air is cheaper and many people, even train lovers, would prefer to save 24 hours.
While comparing major markets (e.g. New York to Chicago) between air and rail travel, you miss that if you do not live directly in a major air market, air travel is way less convenient - and often pricier due to lack of competition. Recently, my wife and I had to travel one way from eastern Iowa to Richmond, VA. For air travel, the closest airport was Quad City International Airport - for train stations, you could travel out of Burlington, IA or Galesburg, IL. Now, if you could fly straight from Quad City to Richmond, the flight would be pretty fast - however, you can't - you generally have to fly to Atlanta or Chicago for a connection. As a result, when you add in going through security, waiting for connections, etc. some of the speed advantage of flying vanishes - especially when you add in that both Richmond and Quad Cities have a limited number of flights (you might have to leave the airport at 6:00 a.m., for example) - it can easily take 9 hours if there are no delays (flying from St Louis to Richmond, it once took about 15 hours due to weather related delays. Obviously, the train is longer and also has connection issues (you have to take three trains to get from Galesburg to Richmond) - the train takes 2 days, the airplane effectively takes 1 day. However, the alleged convenience of airplanes is much less when you go between smaller markets. We also did not take the fastest available schedule - the fastest schedule would have been a combined bus and rail schedule which was scheduled for about 20 hours.
Now let's look at driving - between Galesburg and Richmond, the drive will take about the same amount of time as the train - the train is scheduled (including layovers in Chicago and Washington) for about 30 hours. The amount of driving time is probably about 16 hours, but when you include stops for meals and gas and breaks, it would have been easily a two day drive (especially since my wife does not drive which would make me the only driver). Of course, the train for long distance travel has an advantage over driving yourself - when you go to sleep, you are still going on a train.
Now, the cost issue was the main thing which led this trip to be by train - the one way airline ticket was so expensive that my wife and I could get sleeping accomodations on the Capitol Limited for much less than taking the airplane - especially when you take into account the sleeping accomodations include meals. I believe that without the sleeper accomdations, for two people you could travel by train for less than the cost of driving that distance (with gas over $4 a gallon at some spots at the time, the gas costs alone would be well over $100). Obviously, with several drivers/passengers, driving looks more economical - we traveled to Iowa wih my parents - with three dirvers and a total of 4 people in the car, driving was more economical - but extremely tiring and I was extremely sore by the time I got to Iowa (especially in my legs)..
Comfort is a big issue as well - Amtrak is way more comfortable (even on the Northeast Regional we took from DC to Richmond) than either flying or driving and you can make a definite case for long distance trains - especially in cases where people may not drive for whatever reason. I would also think that giving the high price of gas now, (its lower than when we traveled last month, but still high) that solo travelers would especially see an advantage. I think that one of the main issues is when you start looking at the smaller markets where the airlines offer fewer flights and you are likely to have to make connections.
You all are missing the point. There is all this talk about Amtrak's subsidy needs and how it does not make a profit. Have any of you seen a dividend check from an interstate highway? How about a regional airport?
The railroads pay property taxes. Interstate Highways and airports take huge chunks of land off the tax rolls. Then the other taxpayers have to pay more to pay for schools and local government!
Why passenger trains? For the same reason we have a Marine Corps, because enough of the American people want them. Pure and simple.
After a trip from WSS WV to Fullerton Ca and flying for business for a number of years I was not flying again. I am full of metal pins and don't like strangers 'inspecting' me.....the trains was pure pleasure.
6000 miles on Amtrak in words and pictures www.currtail.com
CNW 6000 I'm thinking that on the whole AMTRAK should be probably city pairs or region pairs - not cross country trips to make most efficicient use of resources.
I'm thinking that on the whole AMTRAK should be probably city pairs or region pairs - not cross country trips to make most efficicient use of resources.
Finally another convert to the rational approach to what Amtrak (or some other agency) should focus on.
BaltACD Gradualism is the only way large systems ever come into existence. However, when it comes to politics and the taxpayers money....EACH & EVERY taxpayer affected believes in their heart that they must be served first and any plan that doesn't provide service for everyone first is perceived to be a failure. When HSR in Florida was voted into existence in the first go around, it was sold on the basis of serving almost all of the major metropolitan areas in the state. When HSR was defeated in the second go around the argument against it was that it would not be serving all those areas and their taxpayers on day one. The Federal money that Florida Gov. Scott turned down was for a Tampa -Orlando operation, one leg of a potential state wide network. So in this case even the smallest journey cannot begin until the first step is taken, and timid people never take steps to go anywhere.
Gradualism is the only way large systems ever come into existence. However, when it comes to politics and the taxpayers money....EACH & EVERY taxpayer affected believes in their heart that they must be served first and any plan that doesn't provide service for everyone first is perceived to be a failure.
When HSR in Florida was voted into existence in the first go around, it was sold on the basis of serving almost all of the major metropolitan areas in the state. When HSR was defeated in the second go around the argument against it was that it would not be serving all those areas and their taxpayers on day one.
The Federal money that Florida Gov. Scott turned down was for a Tampa -Orlando operation, one leg of a potential state wide network. So in this case even the smallest journey cannot begin until the first step is taken, and timid people never take steps to go anywhere.
If any kind of rail is going to succeed at carrying passengers, in my opinion, an overhaul of the entire network of mass transit system would be needed. Personal cars, busses and short haul aircraft are still going to be perceived as faster and more convenient than getting on a train to somewhere for most folks.
I'm still digging for data on passengers carried by bus/air/rail but I'm thinking that on the whole AMTRAK should be probably city pairs or region pairs - not cross country trips to make most efficicient use of resources.
Dan
Again, note that the PRR electrification program, a super railroad in its day, started with a few short suburban electrifications and upgrades out of Philadelhia
uphogger And here I always thought a journey of a thousand miles begins with a trip to the bathroom.
And here I always thought a journey of a thousand miles begins with a trip to the bathroom.
You should have thought of that before we left.
Unlike your car, the train has a rest room.
[quote user="Phoebe Vet"]
quote]
schlimm CNW 6000: If I'm interpreting your post (and Don's above) a 'spoke & hub' network of bus feeding rail (or light rail feeding rail) feeding airports (for distances greater than 900 miles) kind of system makes sense, right? Or did I miss something? Yes, that seems to be the idea, along with the kind of gradualism that Phoebe Vet mentions. Do it right in a few corridors at a time. As the passenger base builds, so will public support. Right now, very few Americans have had any direct experience with real rail service of the type we are proposing, even in the NEC, which is pretty slow. It is no wonder they are doubtful about the benefits.
CNW 6000: If I'm interpreting your post (and Don's above) a 'spoke & hub' network of bus feeding rail (or light rail feeding rail) feeding airports (for distances greater than 900 miles) kind of system makes sense, right? Or did I miss something?
If I'm interpreting your post (and Don's above) a 'spoke & hub' network of bus feeding rail (or light rail feeding rail) feeding airports (for distances greater than 900 miles) kind of system makes sense, right? Or did I miss something?
Yes, that seems to be the idea, along with the kind of gradualism that Phoebe Vet mentions. Do it right in a few corridors at a time. As the passenger base builds, so will public support. Right now, very few Americans have had any direct experience with real rail service of the type we are proposing, even in the NEC, which is pretty slow. It is no wonder they are doubtful about the benefits.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CNW 6000 Ok, with that description and plan that changes my whole mind on the PAX rail subject. Of course, I'm open to change in that regard whereas some simply aren't. I wonder why 'someone' didn't advocate for a plan and approach like what we're talking about here. If they did...it didn't get much press or was done poorly.
Ok, with that description and plan that changes my whole mind on the PAX rail subject. Of course, I'm open to change in that regard whereas some simply aren't. I wonder why 'someone' didn't advocate for a plan and approach like what we're talking about here. If they did...it didn't get much press or was done poorly.
I don't really know why the proposals made for HSR, etc. weren't/aren't more along these lines. Paul M had a lot of experience with advocacy and has shed some light on the matter.
CNW 6000 If I'm interpreting your post (and Don's above) a 'spoke & hub' network of bus feeding rail (or light rail feeding rail) feeding airports (for distances greater than 900 miles) kind of system makes sense, right? Or did I miss something?
A grand design should be held on the horizon to keep us focused. But construction needs to be a series of small steps toward that long term goal. Just charging headlong toward the grand design makes people say "We can't afford that". McDonalds did not seek financing to open 1,500 restaurants in the first ten years. No one would have financed that. They opened them one at a time, gaining speed as the company grew.
Amtrak should pick a few high density corridors and do them right. Fast, frequent, and on time. In short, make them convenient transportation. Adding one or two corridors at a time will not require eye watering investment. When those corridors intersect, then it is easy enough to have some of the equipment run the entire distance, making a de facto long distance train. Running one train a day through rural USA to connect distant cities will never generate high passenger volume.
schlimm I think a lot of good points are being made, mainly because the discussion is avoiding the "all or none" tone that usually prevails. At the present time, building/expanding short haul (~300 mile) corridors that can operate at a top speed which Don calls HrSR (110 mph) is sensible b/c the costs are not so high and they can be very competitive for most travelers, air and highway. Later, as true HSR (200-225 mph) is implemented, corridors could be longer, but not likely to ever be competitive at distances greater than NY-CHI (~900 miles), if that.
I think a lot of good points are being made, mainly because the discussion is avoiding the "all or none" tone that usually prevails. At the present time, building/expanding short haul (~300 mile) corridors that can operate at a top speed which Don calls HrSR (110 mph) is sensible b/c the costs are not so high and they can be very competitive for most travelers, air and highway. Later, as true HSR (200-225 mph) is implemented, corridors could be longer, but not likely to ever be competitive at distances greater than NY-CHI (~900 miles), if that.
Didn't Trailways go belly-up and isn't Greyhound a shell of its former self? Forty hours on the Southwest Chief can be a problem for someone who doesn't like trains. Yet, there is constant turnover in the passengers between Chicago and L.A. Think airline travel is ideal for long haul trips. I'm keeping my mouth shut for the next year until we get a better idea of high fuel costs relative to airline travel. Will the wheels come off the industry?
Capital transportation decisions cannot be formulated base on TODAY. Those decisions have to be based on projections 20 to 50 years in the future. While we may not know all the technologies that may become available as the years progress we do know that the volumes generated by increasing populations will continue to tax existing facilities beyond what we now know as their practical if not absolute capacity.
How many lanes of Interstate will it take to alleviate congestion and gridlock. How many more airports can be built to server major metropolitan areas and how much more airspace can be created to support flights to serve all the airports.
In a HSR served country all the major metropolitan areas East of the Mississippi are within the practical potential of generating sufficient traffic to support HSR. With truly HSR (150+ MPH sustained speeds), Chicago-New York has the potential to be a 5-6 hour trip, City center to City center, which considering present airport locations would be competitive with the overall air line trip City center to City center, considering the requirements of going from City Center to the outlying air port, through security as we now know it, and the commute from the outlying airport back to City center at destination.
HSR doesn't, from my viewpoint, make much sense with the metropolitan areas traversing the West; with the being said, a network linking the Pacific Coast from San Diego to Seattle or Vancouver, BC may make economic sense.
What will be the answers as we build to 2020 - 2030 - 2040 - 2050. The clock is ticking.
CNW 6000 daveklepper: I am amazed that anyone would compare the NY - Chicago bus experience with the train experience. One is bearable and the other is enjoyable, even for a non-railfan under most conditions traveling coach. You're missing my point entirely: I'm not for or against any particular route. My questions/thoughts are related to whether the proposed expenditures are really worth the opportunity cost of not investing in other projects or modes of transportation that may serve more people (and already do). From the railfan's perspective-sure, another train (to me anyway-no pax trains here!) is fine and dandy. However, outside of commuter lines and the NEC (isn't that basically the same thing-writ large?) are these routes really utilized to the point that the expenses needed to improve service times are justified? To me this comes back to the argument of "If you build it, they will come" which I personally doubt, in the near future anyway. In my travels the options to take passenger trains has been very limited and inconvenient (not to mention really expensive) which is probably a part of why I am asking these questions.
daveklepper: I am amazed that anyone would compare the NY - Chicago bus experience with the train experience. One is bearable and the other is enjoyable, even for a non-railfan under most conditions traveling coach.
I am amazed that anyone would compare the NY - Chicago bus experience with the train experience. One is bearable and the other is enjoyable, even for a non-railfan under most conditions traveling coach.
You're missing my point entirely: I'm not for or against any particular route. My questions/thoughts are related to whether the proposed expenditures are really worth the opportunity cost of not investing in other projects or modes of transportation that may serve more people (and already do).
From the railfan's perspective-sure, another train (to me anyway-no pax trains here!) is fine and dandy. However, outside of commuter lines and the NEC (isn't that basically the same thing-writ large?) are these routes really utilized to the point that the expenses needed to improve service times are justified? To me this comes back to the argument of "If you build it, they will come" which I personally doubt, in the near future anyway.
In my travels the options to take passenger trains has been very limited and inconvenient (not to mention really expensive) which is probably a part of why I am asking these questions.
Its a good question to ask. The answer is, as with most things, "it depend". It depends on what the alternatives are and which option gives the most benefit for the least cost. Not all the benefits show up in the fare box and not all the costs show up on the ledger. It might be better to institute (or continue) rail service in a corridor than to have to build interstate lanes or runways in an urban/suburban area.
I think you'll generally find that some corridor services make sense in this regard, but the long distance, once a day trains are hard to justify except as political expedience and social service.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.