Replace the LD network with all the new CAF bags - give the customers what Anderson wants them to have - nothing!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Reading between the lines. It appears that the east coast LD trains would get the axe quickly. V -1 sleepers to superliner trains, Amfleet-1s replaced not AM-2swhich have 40 - 50% more mileage, V-2 diners stored, no indication of V-2 bag dorms assigned to east.
Of course Amtrak just says this is just one consideration. Wanna bet? Probably will take congressional action.
Noticed that there was not any mention of mileage of each type equipment unless it was missed?
Also look at states that did not vote r.
Sunnyland What an airline man knows about trains is not much and he has proven it. Would they have put a railroad head in charge of planes? I don't think so.
What an airline man knows about trains is not much and he has proven it. Would they have put a railroad head in charge of planes? I don't think so.
http://ir.united.com/corporate-governance/company-leadership#oscar-munoz
EdnorKoch brothers
Those poor guys get blamed for everything and all they really wanted to do was have their opinion be heard....lol. Thats what you get when you believe the First Amendment applies to everyone in the country vs a select few the politicians want to hear from.
Sunnyland I hate to see all of this happening to Amtrak, it is like they are setting it up to fail. It has been running for almost 50 years and even though it may be flawed, it still serves people who have no other alternate to travel or choose to ride a train like me. I don't like the idea of corridors and having to get off one train and on another after a night in a hotel to continue my trip. Makes no sense, but not much that "propeller head" and his crew are doing does. What an airline man knows about trains is not much and he has proven it. Would they have put a railroad head in charge of planes? I don't think so.
I hate to see all of this happening to Amtrak, it is like they are setting it up to fail. It has been running for almost 50 years and even though it may be flawed, it still serves people who have no other alternate to travel or choose to ride a train like me. I don't like the idea of corridors and having to get off one train and on another after a night in a hotel to continue my trip. Makes no sense, but not much that "propeller head" and his crew are doing does. What an airline man knows about trains is not much and he has proven it. Would they have put a railroad head in charge of planes? I don't think so.
I agree. It's also the same tactic conservative lobbying groups have used for years to kill Amtrak (Koch brothers? Heritage Foundation?). Now, there are some of those folks on the board.
Carl FowlerThe Timetable, particularly the system version, served a very important purpose. It made clear to potential riders where and when the trains go. Most people do not routinely ride the train and have no idea that it serves Cleveland, but not Columbus—etc This may seem easy enough online, but if you ask for Vermonter route points to connect to the west in many cases the web response is no service because of missed connections. With a map and timetable a rider could have learned that while the Vermonter misconnected to the Lakeshore always at Springfield, the Ethan Allen from Rutland makes the connection at Albany and/or Schenectady. It’s not that bad a drive from most Vermont points to Rutland (or even Albany or Springfiel), but how would a pote new rider learn that in the absense of a Timetable? And obviously Amtrak views no computer folks as unworthy of finding information except perhaps by phone after a very long wait for a now all too often unskilled agent, who may not even really be an Amtrak employee soon. I could live, painfully, with the loss of the National printed version, but now even the online copy is gone. And Amtrak’s frequent schedule changes claim is nonsense. This was just one of many petty cost saving measures which has hurt ridership. It‘s difficult even to locate a proper system map in the Amtrak app and even in the full web version real effort is required. Timetables showed all possibilities in a clear fashion. The new era, as with so many things Anderson and Gardner, is deliberately obtuse and confusing.
This may seem easy enough online, but if you ask for Vermonter route points to connect to the west in many cases the web response is no service because of missed connections. With a map and timetable a rider could have learned that while the Vermonter misconnected to the Lakeshore always at Springfield, the Ethan Allen from Rutland makes the connection at Albany and/or Schenectady. It’s not that bad a drive from most Vermont points to Rutland (or even Albany or Springfiel), but how would a pote new rider learn that in the absense of a Timetable? And obviously Amtrak views no computer folks as unworthy of finding information except perhaps by phone after a very long wait for a now all too often unskilled agent, who may not even really be an Amtrak employee soon.
I could live, painfully, with the loss of the National printed version, but now even the online copy is gone. And Amtrak’s frequent schedule changes claim is nonsense. This was just one of many petty cost saving measures which has hurt ridership.
It‘s difficult even to locate a proper system map in the Amtrak app and even in the full web version real effort is required. Timetables showed all possibilities in a clear fashion. The new era, as with so many things Anderson and Gardner, is deliberately obtuse and confusing.
It is more difficult to kill the product if potential customers know of it's existance and how to use it. Anderson's purpose IS NOT to 'save Amtrak'.
The Timetable, particularly the system version, served a very important purpose. It made clear to potential riders where and when the trains go. Most people do not routinely ride the train and have no idea that it serves Cleveland, but not Columbus—etc
^^^^^ If the move to corridors is approved by Congress, it will end in fiasco fairly quickly because Amtrak is one of the worst rail project managers on the surface of the earth. When they attempt to negotiate rail corridors with the Class I railroads, Amtrak will get fleeced like it has in the past. It's a big reason the Class I's love to deal with Amtrak over other negotiating bodies. It's pretty much name your price without Amtrak management ever questioning the price as well as Amtrak will carry 100% liability for any wrecks or accidents, don't expect that to ever change under Amtraks supervision.
It will be entertaining to watch though AND watch Congress get increasingly ticked off at the money sunk into corridors that are 110 mph or less. They will be money pits, most of the new corridors designated.
Remember the reason Anderson was brought to Amtrak - to kill it. Nothing more and nothing less.
He is using the same tactics to discourage customers that the Class 1 carriers did with their own services that was done to force the formation of Amtrak 48 years ago.
Airlines haven't issued printed timetables for years. Amtrak is just following an established practice in the transportation business. Besides, outside of the enthusiast community, how much real demand is there for a national timetable?
“According to Amtrak’s Marketing Department, we no longer produce a system > timetable. Because our schedules for individual routes now change so > frequently, it was not practical and too expensive to constantly have to > update and reissue the large system timetable each time there was a change. > The schedules and other information formerly included in our system > timetable are available in the individual route schedules and other > resources on Amtrak.com <http://amtrak.com/>.”
Carl FowlerThe long-distance trains are the sole reason Amtrak still exists as a national service. They are well-used--not "empty trains to nowhere".
True, not empty, but hardly filled. In 2017, Amtrak's systemwide load factor was 51%. In the Dec. 2018 a holiday-busy period, it was 51%. The breakdown was NEC 60% (Acela 64%), ridership 3.217 million, with adjusted operating earnings $155.7 million; State-supported 40%, ridership 3.860 million with a loss of $54.8 million; Long Distance 56%, ridership 1.193 million, with a loss of $141.1 million.
May I share some thoughts on the Anderson/Gardner/Coscia "plan" for Amtrak's Reauthorization?
As the RPA President Jim Matthews has already stated, what Amtrak is offering in terms of a restructured network with more frequent corridor trains at "better" times (at least as quoted in the WSJ) is a false choice--a national network or enhanced corridors.
Perhaps one of the best ways to attack this is to point out the demise of the National Network destroys Amtrak as a hub/spoke carrier. Whether Amtrak likes it or not its long-distance riders need trains that will serve multiple markets and that means more than just in a tightly closed mileage-based corridor. For example, before Amtrak began to so closely restrict coach bookings on the CZ, there was a proven local trip market for 100+ riders per day from Denver to Glenwood Springs. But that would hardly support a multi-frequency corridor. How many riders would also want to go Denver to Provo, or Glenwood Springs to Reno? Or more dramatically Glenwood Springs to Cleveland?
It is the very existence of the interconnected national network that makes such trips possible. The Anderson/Gardner model would preclude far more trip options than it would serve. If "New Corridor" trains from Glenwood to Denver, Denver to Omaha and Omaha, to Chicago required constant changes and more likely overnights in hotels enroute, such a network would immediately fail if, for example, a rider from Hastings, NB had to overnight in Omaha to proceed to Chicago.
This is simply a formula for failure and Anderson knows it. Crucial to the viability of the airlines' use of hubs is the ease of direct and reasonably close connections and in general the avoidance of the need for more than one change. Chicago (and to a lesser degree Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland and New York/Washington) play this role for Amtrak as well.
It is also vital to note that none of Anderson's new corridors could run without full state support/subsidy arrangements. This will be particularly unlikely if, as with Denver-Omaha-Chicago multi-state compacts will be required. Anderson knows this as well. This may be too complex an analysis for a WSJ reporter, but the Congressional transport staffs should be easily able to comprehend it. And there will be no chance these corridors could be fully Federally funded without a similar relief for all the other currently operated under 750 miles state supported routes.
We as passenger rail advocates must frame the discussion focused on the need to retain the nationally funded interstate network and to budget/appropriate money for the new equipment it needs. These trains may only carry 15% of total ridership, but in terms of passenger miles they generate vastly more business--indeed in passenger trip route mile terms well over 45%--and this must be emphasized.
We must come out very strongly against this even as a trial balloon. Amtrak can not be allowed to define the debate as being about how much to cut the already skeletal national network in favor of new corridors that will likely never run. The long-distance trains are the sole reason Amtrak still exists as a national service. They are well-used--not "empty trains to nowhere". We need to be sure this is the key Congressional message.
Carl Fowler Rail Passengers Association Vice Chair (Opinions expressed are my own)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.