Future of the American Passenger Train

[Anonymous]

By all means keep the passenger railroad - but it needs to be rebuilt. Has anyone here ever rode on a passenger train in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Japan or Canada? If you have not then you must because you will see and experience first hand how well governments can "run" the railroad. In life you get what you pay for and in the case of the United States , we have put in just enough money so the train does not run out of gas. There is enormous potential here. The interstate highway system is done, the skies are overcrowded. Amtrak needs to be and should be rebuilt and retooled. We need a leader to throw down the gauntlet to build the best passenger railroad system in the world. If the United States can put a man on the moon, we can build the best passenger train system. Everybody wins. The man who invented the MAG-LEV(magneticlevitation) technology was an American. The Reagan administration said that it was too expensive to develope. The Europeans took it and ran! Our passenger trains are a national disgrace. The potential for greatness is here. Beautiful terminals are located all across the United States. As passenger trains go - so goes the country. Rebuild!!

[Anonymous]

By all means keep the passenger railroad - but it needs to be rebuilt. Has anyone here ever rode on a passenger train in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Japan or Canada? If you have not then you must because you will see and experience first hand how well governments can "run" the railroad. In life you get what you pay for and in the case of the United States , we have put in just enough money so the train does not run out of gas. There is enormous potential here. The interstate highway system is done, the skies are overcrowded. Amtrak needs to be and should be rebuilt and retooled. We need a leader to throw down the gauntlet to build the best passenger railroad system in the world. If the United States can put a man on the moon, we can build the best passenger train system. Everybody wins. The man who invented the MAG-LEV(magneticlevitation) technology was an American. The Reagan administration said that it was too expensive to develope. The Europeans took it and ran! Our passenger trains are a national disgrace. The potential for greatness is here. Beautiful terminals are located all across the United States. As passenger trains go - so goes the country. Rebuild!!

[Anonymous]

[#ditto] AND HOW!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

[#ditto] AND HOW!!!!!!!!!!

[Train 284]

We need Amtrak!

[Train 284]

We need Amtrak!

[Anonymous]

I dont want to know[:(!]

[Anonymous]

I dont want to know[:(!]

[jlampke]

I too, would really like to see more people take the train. For short trips, say less than 200 miles or so, there isn't really any time advantage between flying and taking the train anymore. I say that because nowaydays, thanks largely to Muslim Terrorists, you are usually required to be at the airport at least an hour prior to your flight due to all the security requirements. Then there is the time in the air (usually not particularly comfortable unless you can afford 1st class), then you stand around waiting for your bags another 15 or more minutes. In my experience, you can show up at the train station 10 minutes before the train leaves and you're gold. Compared to highway travel, especially over Holidays, expensive fuel and traffic congestion aren't any problem when you take the train. Rail travel does have it's advantages. When you drive, you can't really enjoy the scenery. Trains travel through areas of the country that most people never see. A friend of mine took a trip recently from WA to OR. Due to the long lines, security (take off your shoes, unbuckle your belt, etc.) he hates flying anymore. It's a constant reminder of how 9-11 has changed life in America. He was planning on having his wife drive up, about a 5 hour drive, pick him up and take him back to OR. I asked him why he didn't just take the train. He said he just didn't think about it. I believe that is a small part of the problem. A lot of people just don't even consider rail travel anymore. (On my suggestion, he took the train.)

Back in the '50's & '60's, people were saying that international travel by ship was a thing of the past. Too slow. Too expensive. The great ships were laid up. None were being built for a time. Then something changed. A show called the "Love Boat" came out, in which people travelled for the fun of the trip. Ocean cruises saw a resurgence in popularity, passenger ships started being built again. Today it's a huge industry.

I don't know all the facts. I do believe Americans would return to the rails if it were attractively packaged. The highways and skyways can not compete with the rails when it comes to comfort, relaxation and scenery. You can't see a darn thing from 35,000 feet through that little 10" X 12" window, and the seats are cramped. I myself hate to fly anymore. Everytime I go into an airport and have to deal with all the security measures, it reminds me of 9-11 and the religious nut-cases that brought that upon us. Flying will never be as it was before.
When you drive, you have to watch the road. Traffic on the highways continues to get worse. Fuel prices continue to rise.

So what's the answer? A new TV show called the "Love Train" to romanticize rail travel?
(Just joking boys!) True, even with all the frustration, hassle, and discomfort, when all you want is to get from point A to point B, air travel will never be beat for long distance.
The railroads can't and shouldn't waste their time and resources trying to compete with the airlines. Emphasis needs to be on the advantages of rail travel. Comfort, leisure, leg room, scenery. Especially short distance. I think that if trains got the right exposure, such as celebs airing shows on trains, and if rail travel were made fun for the whole family, headphones at all the seats, video games for the kids, etc., rail travel could find it's niche in 21st century America. Right or wrong, I belive it's all in the packaging.

[jlampke]

I too, would really like to see more people take the train. For short trips, say less than 200 miles or so, there isn't really any time advantage between flying and taking the train anymore. I say that because nowaydays, thanks largely to Muslim Terrorists, you are usually required to be at the airport at least an hour prior to your flight due to all the security requirements. Then there is the time in the air (usually not particularly comfortable unless you can afford 1st class), then you stand around waiting for your bags another 15 or more minutes. In my experience, you can show up at the train station 10 minutes before the train leaves and you're gold. Compared to highway travel, especially over Holidays, expensive fuel and traffic congestion aren't any problem when you take the train. Rail travel does have it's advantages. When you drive, you can't really enjoy the scenery. Trains travel through areas of the country that most people never see. A friend of mine took a trip recently from WA to OR. Due to the long lines, security (take off your shoes, unbuckle your belt, etc.) he hates flying anymore. It's a constant reminder of how 9-11 has changed life in America. He was planning on having his wife drive up, about a 5 hour drive, pick him up and take him back to OR. I asked him why he didn't just take the train. He said he just didn't think about it. I believe that is a small part of the problem. A lot of people just don't even consider rail travel anymore. (On my suggestion, he took the train.)

Back in the '50's & '60's, people were saying that international travel by ship was a thing of the past. Too slow. Too expensive. The great ships were laid up. None were being built for a time. Then something changed. A show called the "Love Boat" came out, in which people travelled for the fun of the trip. Ocean cruises saw a resurgence in popularity, passenger ships started being built again. Today it's a huge industry.

I don't know all the facts. I do believe Americans would return to the rails if it were attractively packaged. The highways and skyways can not compete with the rails when it comes to comfort, relaxation and scenery. You can't see a darn thing from 35,000 feet through that little 10" X 12" window, and the seats are cramped. I myself hate to fly anymore. Everytime I go into an airport and have to deal with all the security measures, it reminds me of 9-11 and the religious nut-cases that brought that upon us. Flying will never be as it was before.
When you drive, you have to watch the road. Traffic on the highways continues to get worse. Fuel prices continue to rise.

So what's the answer? A new TV show called the "Love Train" to romanticize rail travel?
(Just joking boys!) True, even with all the frustration, hassle, and discomfort, when all you want is to get from point A to point B, air travel will never be beat for long distance.
The railroads can't and shouldn't waste their time and resources trying to compete with the airlines. Emphasis needs to be on the advantages of rail travel. Comfort, leisure, leg room, scenery. Especially short distance. I think that if trains got the right exposure, such as celebs airing shows on trains, and if rail travel were made fun for the whole family, headphones at all the seats, video games for the kids, etc., rail travel could find it's niche in 21st century America. Right or wrong, I belive it's all in the packaging.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I would love to see passenger train service expanded in this country.
Realisticly, I doubt it will ever happen.
Amrtak sorely needs more equipment to cover it's existing schedules.
Every car damaged in a mishap already robs another train of equipment.
A major car order is needed, and paid for to keep service credible.
Congress and the freight railroads would love to see these pests go away, rather than try to keep them on schedule and weave through traffic on mains they have to share outside the NEC.
With air travel becoming nitemarish, Amtrak needs an ally with some real clout to get what they need.

Jimmy

[Anonymous]

Personally, I would love to see passenger train service expanded in this country.
Realisticly, I doubt it will ever happen.
Amrtak sorely needs more equipment to cover it's existing schedules.
Every car damaged in a mishap already robs another train of equipment.
A major car order is needed, and paid for to keep service credible.
Congress and the freight railroads would love to see these pests go away, rather than try to keep them on schedule and weave through traffic on mains they have to share outside the NEC.
With air travel becoming nitemarish, Amtrak needs an ally with some real clout to get what they need.

Jimmy

[Anonymous]

I think that the Northeast Corridor such be by itself and not apart of Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

I think that the Northeast Corridor such be by itself and not apart of Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

I am a real free market "Libertarian", as apposed to a corporate welfare conservative. Yes Amtrack was and is railroad welfare, as the interstate highway system is road welfare for auto transportation, trucks and busses, and the massive airline and avaition subsidies are welfare for air travel. All should priviate and pay for the construction, maintenance and operating costs for their respective modes. All interstate highways should be sold as turnpikes, the air traffic control system and airports sold and the airlines billed for the services. Then we would have a truly competitive market system. I am sure rail passenger service would make a come back to a point haven't seen since the 1930s and 40s. Rail is the most efficient anc cost effective means of both goods and people. Let the market decide with a level playing field.

[Anonymous]

I am a real free market "Libertarian", as apposed to a corporate welfare conservative. Yes Amtrack was and is railroad welfare, as the interstate highway system is road welfare for auto transportation, trucks and busses, and the massive airline and avaition subsidies are welfare for air travel. All should priviate and pay for the construction, maintenance and operating costs for their respective modes. All interstate highways should be sold as turnpikes, the air traffic control system and airports sold and the airlines billed for the services. Then we would have a truly competitive market system. I am sure rail passenger service would make a come back to a point haven't seen since the 1930s and 40s. Rail is the most efficient anc cost effective means of both goods and people. Let the market decide with a level playing field.

[passengerfan]

Amtraks major problem is a lack of equipment not a lack of passengers. Time and time again i have tried to make reservations weeks in advance of a trip and been told their is no space available. Sleeping car space seems to sell out first especially in the Superliner equipped trains. Coach space for long distance is not all that enjoyable, I can take a plane and have two, three or four hours in a cramped seat and be their. Thanks for nothing Amtrak I have tried the last four times I wanted to travel to Seattle and back from Sacramento to reserve sleeping car space for the wife and I and even three months in advance is not enough time to get guarnteed sleeping car reservations. The major problem I see with Amtrak is the lack of equipment and or reservation agents that are deliberately telling people trains are sold out months in advance. It certainly is not cheap to travel by amtrak first class so why are the trains sold out months in advance? Is it B S or are the agents just to lazy to book reservations.
If the trains are sold out that far in advance then the problem is Amtrak should be running twenty car Superliner trains twelve hours apart to meet the demand for space. This is one longtime rail passenger who has reached a point where the next time I attempt to reserve space three months in advance for space and am told the space is sold out will be my last time on Amtrak. I will fly first class and pay less and have more time at my destination rather than make the trip part of the vacation. I spent two hours online with Amtrak last night trying for resrvations for July and was repeatedly told their was no space available. Is it a plot by the government to discourage Amtrak passengers or amtrak itself. Yes I am Handicapped and am booking the most expensive Superliner space available so whats the problem. Isn't this a violation of the American's with Diasbility Act? Airlines are not comfortable for any trip longer than three hours without a break for thoise restricted to wheel chairs. So what is amtraks problem. I am seriously considering bringing suit against Amtrak for violation of the ADA act.

[passengerfan]

Amtraks major problem is a lack of equipment not a lack of passengers. Time and time again i have tried to make reservations weeks in advance of a trip and been told their is no space available. Sleeping car space seems to sell out first especially in the Superliner equipped trains. Coach space for long distance is not all that enjoyable, I can take a plane and have two, three or four hours in a cramped seat and be their. Thanks for nothing Amtrak I have tried the last four times I wanted to travel to Seattle and back from Sacramento to reserve sleeping car space for the wife and I and even three months in advance is not enough time to get guarnteed sleeping car reservations. The major problem I see with Amtrak is the lack of equipment and or reservation agents that are deliberately telling people trains are sold out months in advance. It certainly is not cheap to travel by amtrak first class so why are the trains sold out months in advance? Is it B S or are the agents just to lazy to book reservations.
If the trains are sold out that far in advance then the problem is Amtrak should be running twenty car Superliner trains twelve hours apart to meet the demand for space. This is one longtime rail passenger who has reached a point where the next time I attempt to reserve space three months in advance for space and am told the space is sold out will be my last time on Amtrak. I will fly first class and pay less and have more time at my destination rather than make the trip part of the vacation. I spent two hours online with Amtrak last night trying for resrvations for July and was repeatedly told their was no space available. Is it a plot by the government to discourage Amtrak passengers or amtrak itself. Yes I am Handicapped and am booking the most expensive Superliner space available so whats the problem. Isn't this a violation of the American's with Diasbility Act? Airlines are not comfortable for any trip longer than three hours without a break for thoise restricted to wheel chairs. So what is amtraks problem. I am seriously considering bringing suit against Amtrak for violation of the ADA act.

[VerMontanan]

Amtrak has recently posted the ridership statistics for FY2004 at its website. What follows is a station-by-station breakdown of each station on the four long distance trains operating west from Chicago. Ridership is not broken down by train, so in the case where more than one train serves a station, the figures are all inclusive. Still, since most of the stops on these routes are served by only the one long distance train per day, the figures are a good representation of what's used where.

Amtrak carried a record number of riders in 2004, with most trains showing ridership increases. The single most-ridden train in FY 2004 was the Empire Builder, with just over 451,000 patrons.

**


Empire Builder:

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Glenview 32,708 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Milwaukee 438,891 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Columbus 12,638
Portage 5,176
Wisconsin Dells 10,480
Tomah 7,794
La Crosse 24,638
Winona 17,808
Red Wing 9,584
St. Paul 172,177
St. Cloud 9,775
Staples 4,776
Detroit Lakes 2,901
Fargo 15,456
Grand Forks 14,638
Devils Lake 4,834
Rugby 5,533
Minot 29,511
Stanley 2,688
Williston 16,659
Wolf Point 7,663
Glasgow 6,126
Malta 3,004
Havre 14,251
Shelby 14,493
Cut Bank 2,573
Browning (seasonal) 1,961
East Glacier (seasonal) 10,081
Essex 3,531
West Glacier 4,011
Whitefish 56,279
Libby 5,071
Sandpoint 4,932
Spokane 37,082
Ephrata 2,483
Wenatchee 12,838
Everett 35,760 (also served by Cascades trains)
Edmonds 25,710 (also served by Cascades trains)
Seattle 590,041 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Pasco 17,875
Wishram 1,056
Bingen-White Salmon 1,381
Vancouver, WA 71,474 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Portland, OR 468,016 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
******************************************************************************

California Zephyr:

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Naperville 30,845 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Princeton 16,648 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg 63,826 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Burlington 6,532
Mount Pleasant 12,010
Ottumwa 9,208
Osceola 14,044
Creston 3,894
Omaha 23,007
Lincoln 9,228
Hastings 3,190
Holdege 1,457
McCook 3,423
Fort Morgan 2,767
Denver 123,750
Fraser-Winter Park 9,367
Granby 2,580
Glenwood Springs 30,068
Grand Junction 20,088
Green River 1,174
Helper 1,390
Provo 2,861
Salt Lake City 29,489
Elko 3,041
Winnemucca 2,062
Sparks 24,664 (also served by Reno Fun Train)
Reno 57,079 (also served by Reno Fun Train)
Truckee 6,958
Colfax 2,992
Roseville 55,076 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains)
Sacramento 871,398 (also served by Capitol Corridor, Coast Starlight and special trains)
Davis 305,205 (also served by Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight trains)
Martinez 288,076 (also served by Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin and Coast Starlight trains)
Emeryville 471,311 (also served by Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, Coast Starlight and special trains)
******************************************************************************

Southwest Chief:

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Naperville 30,845 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Mendota 11,997 (also served by Illinois Zephyr)
Princeton 16,648 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg 63,826 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Fort Madison 8,667
La Plata 7,336
Kansas City 109,597 (also served by Mules and Ann Rutledge)
Lawrence 2,999
Topeka 5,964
Newton 11,005
Hutchinson 3,149
Dodge City 3,282
Garden City 5,150
Lamar 1,834
La Junta 6,782
Trinidad 3,687
Raton 18,996
Las Vegas 2,717
Lamy 13,264
Albuquerque 58,614
Gallup 8,443
Winslow 2,889
Flagstaff 35,826
Williams Junction 7,454
Kingman 2,950
Needles 12,247
Barstow 2,900
Victorville 3,560
San Bernardino 11,660
Riverside 4,997
Fullerton 375,888 (also served by Pacific Surfliners)
Los Angeles 1,285,922 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
******************************************************************************

Texas Eagle (Chicago-San Antonio) and Sunset Limied (San Antonio-Los Angeles):

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Joliet 22.466 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Pontiac 7,462 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Normal-Bloomington 82,905 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Lincoln 13,871 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Springfield 98,623 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Alton 30,221 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
St. Louis 160,093 (also served by Ann Rutledge, State House, and Mules)
Poplar Bluff 2,687
Walnut Ridge 2,429
Little Rock 13,438
Malvern 1,573
Arkadelphia 843
Texarkana 5,531
Marshall 5,076
Longview 23,692
Mineola 3,923
Dallas 33,409
Fort Worth 73,080 (also served by Heartland Flyer)
Cleburne 1,614
McGregor 2,444
Temple 10,431
Taylor 3,248
Austin 20,934
San Marcos 2,847
San Antonio 46,759
Del Rio 1,140
Sanderson 148
Alpine 1,665
El Paso 9,222
Deming 704
Lordsburg 304
Benson 1,492
Tucson 15,989
Maricopa 7,828
Yuma 1,996
Palm Springs 1,649
Ontario 3,277
Pomona 786
Los Angeles 1,285,922 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)

[VerMontanan]

Amtrak has recently posted the ridership statistics for FY2004 at its website. What follows is a station-by-station breakdown of each station on the four long distance trains operating west from Chicago. Ridership is not broken down by train, so in the case where more than one train serves a station, the figures are all inclusive. Still, since most of the stops on these routes are served by only the one long distance train per day, the figures are a good representation of what's used where.

Amtrak carried a record number of riders in 2004, with most trains showing ridership increases. The single most-ridden train in FY 2004 was the Empire Builder, with just over 451,000 patrons.

**


Empire Builder:

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Glenview 32,708 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Milwaukee 438,891 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Columbus 12,638
Portage 5,176
Wisconsin Dells 10,480
Tomah 7,794
La Crosse 24,638
Winona 17,808
Red Wing 9,584
St. Paul 172,177
St. Cloud 9,775
Staples 4,776
Detroit Lakes 2,901
Fargo 15,456
Grand Forks 14,638
Devils Lake 4,834
Rugby 5,533
Minot 29,511
Stanley 2,688
Williston 16,659
Wolf Point 7,663
Glasgow 6,126
Malta 3,004
Havre 14,251
Shelby 14,493
Cut Bank 2,573
Browning (seasonal) 1,961
East Glacier (seasonal) 10,081
Essex 3,531
West Glacier 4,011
Whitefish 56,279
Libby 5,071
Sandpoint 4,932
Spokane 37,082
Ephrata 2,483
Wenatchee 12,838
Everett 35,760 (also served by Cascades trains)
Edmonds 25,710 (also served by Cascades trains)
Seattle 590,041 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Pasco 17,875
Wishram 1,056
Bingen-White Salmon 1,381
Vancouver, WA 71,474 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Portland, OR 468,016 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
******************************************************************************

California Zephyr:

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Naperville 30,845 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Princeton 16,648 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg 63,826 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Burlington 6,532
Mount Pleasant 12,010
Ottumwa 9,208
Osceola 14,044
Creston 3,894
Omaha 23,007
Lincoln 9,228
Hastings 3,190
Holdege 1,457
McCook 3,423
Fort Morgan 2,767
Denver 123,750
Fraser-Winter Park 9,367
Granby 2,580
Glenwood Springs 30,068
Grand Junction 20,088
Green River 1,174
Helper 1,390
Provo 2,861
Salt Lake City 29,489
Elko 3,041
Winnemucca 2,062
Sparks 24,664 (also served by Reno Fun Train)
Reno 57,079 (also served by Reno Fun Train)
Truckee 6,958
Colfax 2,992
Roseville 55,076 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains)
Sacramento 871,398 (also served by Capitol Corridor, Coast Starlight and special trains)
Davis 305,205 (also served by Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight trains)
Martinez 288,076 (also served by Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin and Coast Starlight trains)
Emeryville 471,311 (also served by Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, Coast Starlight and special trains)
******************************************************************************

Southwest Chief:

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Naperville 30,845 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Mendota 11,997 (also served by Illinois Zephyr)
Princeton 16,648 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg 63,826 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Fort Madison 8,667
La Plata 7,336
Kansas City 109,597 (also served by Mules and Ann Rutledge)
Lawrence 2,999
Topeka 5,964
Newton 11,005
Hutchinson 3,149
Dodge City 3,282
Garden City 5,150
Lamar 1,834
La Junta 6,782
Trinidad 3,687
Raton 18,996
Las Vegas 2,717
Lamy 13,264
Albuquerque 58,614
Gallup 8,443
Winslow 2,889
Flagstaff 35,826
Williams Junction 7,454
Kingman 2,950
Needles 12,247
Barstow 2,900
Victorville 3,560
San Bernardino 11,660
Riverside 4,997
Fullerton 375,888 (also served by Pacific Surfliners)
Los Angeles 1,285,922 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
******************************************************************************

Texas Eagle (Chicago-San Antonio) and Sunset Limied (San Antonio-Los Angeles):

Chicago 2,346,748 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)
Joliet 22.466 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Pontiac 7,462 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Normal-Bloomington 82,905 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Lincoln 13,871 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Springfield 98,623 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Alton 30,221 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
St. Louis 160,093 (also served by Ann Rutledge, State House, and Mules)
Poplar Bluff 2,687
Walnut Ridge 2,429
Little Rock 13,438
Malvern 1,573
Arkadelphia 843
Texarkana 5,531
Marshall 5,076
Longview 23,692
Mineola 3,923
Dallas 33,409
Fort Worth 73,080 (also served by Heartland Flyer)
Cleburne 1,614
McGregor 2,444
Temple 10,431
Taylor 3,248
Austin 20,934
San Marcos 2,847
San Antonio 46,759
Del Rio 1,140
Sanderson 148
Alpine 1,665
El Paso 9,222
Deming 704
Lordsburg 304
Benson 1,492
Tucson 15,989
Maricopa 7,828
Yuma 1,996
Palm Springs 1,649
Ontario 3,277
Pomona 786
Los Angeles 1,285,922 (served by numerous other Amtrak trains)

[VerMontanan]

I do not believe there's been a newspaper that's been more pro-Amtrak than Montana's own Great Falls Tribune over the years. And true to form, here's an editorial from today's (February 6) edition explaining the fallacy of the current administration's recent announcement that the FY2006 budget would contain no funding for Amtrak.

--Mark Meyer

Plan to end Amtrak subsidy must be blocked

Coming off the high of George W. Bush's visit to northcentral Montana this past week, we return to the reality that while the president is popular here, he also advocates some things that would be harmful to this region.

On the very day of the visit, for example, came the news that his spending plan, which he'll submit to Congress Monday, contains nothing for Amtrak, the interstate passenger rail service. Not a penny.

Without a federal subsidy ($1.2 billion in the current year), the national passenger rail monopoly would fail, and quickly. That would open highly profitable intercity routes on the coasts to new operators, and almost certainly leave the rest of us without passenger rail service.

It's a lot of money, to be sure, but before you're dazzled by all those zeroes, note that it's just one-twentieth of what the United States has spent this year alone so Iraqis could vote.

Voting in Iraq isn't a bad thing, but neither is making sure public transportation exists to carry the 130,993 passengers who used Amtrak across Montana last year.

With a bankrupt Amtrak, it is widely believed the busy commuter routes would re-emerge under new ownership, and that the less concentrated cross-country routes — including the Empire Builder in Montana — would be abandoned.

The president's antipathy to Amtrak is not new. He typically budgets less than the operation needs, and then Congress increases it.

Last budget cycle, President Bush proposed shunting the costs off to the states on the theory that if they want it so much, they can pay for it. That didn't fly either.

In this year's budget, he's whacked Amtrak subsidies entirely.

What Amtrak has going for it politically is that it serves 46 states. That means 92 of the 100 senators and a similar proportion of representatives have lots of constituents who love Amtrak.

How much? A national survey a couple of years ago found that 71 percent of Americans believed federal subsidies of Amtrak were about right or not enough — compared with just 17 percent who opposed the subsidies. The rest in those surveyed didn't know or were undecided.

In terms of overall transportation funding, the $30 billion spent on Amtrak over the past 30 years barely merits a decimal point in the almost $2 trillion spent on highways and airports in the same period.

For that, a lower-cost alternative to air travel — seen as desirable in the aftermath of 9/11 — has been maintained within reasonable reach of most Americans.

In Montana, the Empire Builder spans 739 miles, from North Dakota to Idaho across the state's Hi-Line.

"We just plain need the doggoned thing," said Jerry Smith, a Galata farmer/rancher who heads the "Save Amtrak" group.

"We have people in all communities that do use it for medical purposes, besides just visiting," he said. "There really is no substitute for the Builder on the Highway 2 corridor. It's either travel by train or get someone to take you by car."

That alone is reason to keep the trains running. It's worth pointing out further that the passenger train is an important component of the transportation mix in most other nations, and every one of those nations subsidizes the service.

Removing the subsidy entirely, as the president proposes, would be sacrificing an essential service — and one that is potentially important to national security — on the altar of free enterprise.

Passenger rail service in America should be strengthened, not weakened. We trust that Montana's congressional delegates will continue to be resolute in their support of Amtrak. It wouldn't hurt to let them know what you think (see above).


Originally published February 6, 2005

[VerMontanan]

I do not believe there's been a newspaper that's been more pro-Amtrak than Montana's own Great Falls Tribune over the years. And true to form, here's an editorial from today's (February 6) edition explaining the fallacy of the current administration's recent announcement that the FY2006 budget would contain no funding for Amtrak.

--Mark Meyer

Plan to end Amtrak subsidy must be blocked

Coming off the high of George W. Bush's visit to northcentral Montana this past week, we return to the reality that while the president is popular here, he also advocates some things that would be harmful to this region.

On the very day of the visit, for example, came the news that his spending plan, which he'll submit to Congress Monday, contains nothing for Amtrak, the interstate passenger rail service. Not a penny.

Without a federal subsidy ($1.2 billion in the current year), the national passenger rail monopoly would fail, and quickly. That would open highly profitable intercity routes on the coasts to new operators, and almost certainly leave the rest of us without passenger rail service.

It's a lot of money, to be sure, but before you're dazzled by all those zeroes, note that it's just one-twentieth of what the United States has spent this year alone so Iraqis could vote.

Voting in Iraq isn't a bad thing, but neither is making sure public transportation exists to carry the 130,993 passengers who used Amtrak across Montana last year.

With a bankrupt Amtrak, it is widely believed the busy commuter routes would re-emerge under new ownership, and that the less concentrated cross-country routes — including the Empire Builder in Montana — would be abandoned.

The president's antipathy to Amtrak is not new. He typically budgets less than the operation needs, and then Congress increases it.

Last budget cycle, President Bush proposed shunting the costs off to the states on the theory that if they want it so much, they can pay for it. That didn't fly either.

In this year's budget, he's whacked Amtrak subsidies entirely.

What Amtrak has going for it politically is that it serves 46 states. That means 92 of the 100 senators and a similar proportion of representatives have lots of constituents who love Amtrak.

How much? A national survey a couple of years ago found that 71 percent of Americans believed federal subsidies of Amtrak were about right or not enough — compared with just 17 percent who opposed the subsidies. The rest in those surveyed didn't know or were undecided.

In terms of overall transportation funding, the $30 billion spent on Amtrak over the past 30 years barely merits a decimal point in the almost $2 trillion spent on highways and airports in the same period.

For that, a lower-cost alternative to air travel — seen as desirable in the aftermath of 9/11 — has been maintained within reasonable reach of most Americans.

In Montana, the Empire Builder spans 739 miles, from North Dakota to Idaho across the state's Hi-Line.

"We just plain need the doggoned thing," said Jerry Smith, a Galata farmer/rancher who heads the "Save Amtrak" group.

"We have people in all communities that do use it for medical purposes, besides just visiting," he said. "There really is no substitute for the Builder on the Highway 2 corridor. It's either travel by train or get someone to take you by car."

That alone is reason to keep the trains running. It's worth pointing out further that the passenger train is an important component of the transportation mix in most other nations, and every one of those nations subsidizes the service.

Removing the subsidy entirely, as the president proposes, would be sacrificing an essential service — and one that is potentially important to national security — on the altar of free enterprise.

Passenger rail service in America should be strengthened, not weakened. We trust that Montana's congressional delegates will continue to be resolute in their support of Amtrak. It wouldn't hurt to let them know what you think (see above).


Originally published February 6, 2005

[VerMontanan]

One Montana State Senator, Glenn Roush of Cut Bank, is being pro-active in countering the Bush Adminstration's proposal to eliminate all intercity rail passenger service in the United States by introducing this resoluation before the Montana Legislature:

2005 Montana Legislature

UNAPPROVED DRAFT BILL -- Subject to Change Without Notice!

About Bill -- Links

JOINT RESOLUTION NO.

INTRODUCED BY

(Primary Sponsor)

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA URGING SUPPORT FOR AND CONTINUED FUNDING OF AMTRAK PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE THROUGH MONTANA.



WHEREAS, Amtrak is energy-efficient and environmentally beneficial, consuming about half as much energy per passenger-mile as airlines and causing less air pollution; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak provides mobility to citizens of many smaller communities that are poorly served by air and bus service, as well as to senior citizens, persons with disabilities, students, and persons with medical conditions that prevent them from flying; and

WHEREAS, communities served by Amtrak in Montana are not provided with any other mode of public transportation, and residents of these communities are required to travel up to 200 miles to the nearest airport; and

WHEREAS, 129,044 passengers rode Amtrak across Montana in fiscal year 2004, up from 122,053 in fiscal year 2003; and

WHEREAS, Montana's tourism industry benefits from rail passenger service through the state; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak spent $57,495 for goods and services in Montana in fiscal year 2004, up from $19,800 in fiscal year 2003; and

WHEREAS, during fiscal year 2004, Amtrak employed 57 Montanans, who earned a total of $3,293,052 in wages; and

WHEREAS, according to a February 6, 2005, editorial in the Great Falls Tribune, a recent national survey found that 71% of Americans believe federal subsidies of Amtrak are about right or not enough; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak is vital to the economy of Montana's northern tier, as indicated by a recent study by R.L. Banks & Associates that concluded that Amtrak's Empire Builder contributes nearly $14 million annually in economic benefits to the State of Montana.



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

That the 59th Montana Legislature urge Montana's Congressional Delegation to support continued Amtrak passenger rail service through Montana.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature urge the President and the United States Congress to include funding for Amtrak in any spending plan that is adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of State send copies of this resolution to Montana's Congressional Delegation.

- END -

[VerMontanan]

One Montana State Senator, Glenn Roush of Cut Bank, is being pro-active in countering the Bush Adminstration's proposal to eliminate all intercity rail passenger service in the United States by introducing this resoluation before the Montana Legislature:

2005 Montana Legislature

UNAPPROVED DRAFT BILL -- Subject to Change Without Notice!

About Bill -- Links

JOINT RESOLUTION NO.

INTRODUCED BY

(Primary Sponsor)

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA URGING SUPPORT FOR AND CONTINUED FUNDING OF AMTRAK PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE THROUGH MONTANA.



WHEREAS, Amtrak is energy-efficient and environmentally beneficial, consuming about half as much energy per passenger-mile as airlines and causing less air pollution; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak provides mobility to citizens of many smaller communities that are poorly served by air and bus service, as well as to senior citizens, persons with disabilities, students, and persons with medical conditions that prevent them from flying; and

WHEREAS, communities served by Amtrak in Montana are not provided with any other mode of public transportation, and residents of these communities are required to travel up to 200 miles to the nearest airport; and

WHEREAS, 129,044 passengers rode Amtrak across Montana in fiscal year 2004, up from 122,053 in fiscal year 2003; and

WHEREAS, Montana's tourism industry benefits from rail passenger service through the state; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak spent $57,495 for goods and services in Montana in fiscal year 2004, up from $19,800 in fiscal year 2003; and

WHEREAS, during fiscal year 2004, Amtrak employed 57 Montanans, who earned a total of $3,293,052 in wages; and

WHEREAS, according to a February 6, 2005, editorial in the Great Falls Tribune, a recent national survey found that 71% of Americans believe federal subsidies of Amtrak are about right or not enough; and

WHEREAS, Amtrak is vital to the economy of Montana's northern tier, as indicated by a recent study by R.L. Banks & Associates that concluded that Amtrak's Empire Builder contributes nearly $14 million annually in economic benefits to the State of Montana.



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

That the 59th Montana Legislature urge Montana's Congressional Delegation to support continued Amtrak passenger rail service through Montana.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature urge the President and the United States Congress to include funding for Amtrak in any spending plan that is adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of State send copies of this resolution to Montana's Congressional Delegation.

- END -

[Anonymous]

Sad to say that looking back over 30 years, there is precious little new equipment (except for the cascades and acela trains) developed. The "future" seems to be stuck in 1974. Much as I like Amtrak and do ride at least once or twice a year. The only future we will see is a few commuter lines in the northeast, northwest, califirnia, and the chicago area. I have been contacting my congressmen for twenty years and I am tired of the whole thing. I can still drive for the next thirty five years (I'm 43) and there is air service. The tax policies of this government (the US not the current administration) are too far skewed for passenger rail as we knew it to exist.

[Anonymous]

Sad to say that looking back over 30 years, there is precious little new equipment (except for the cascades and acela trains) developed. The "future" seems to be stuck in 1974. Much as I like Amtrak and do ride at least once or twice a year. The only future we will see is a few commuter lines in the northeast, northwest, califirnia, and the chicago area. I have been contacting my congressmen for twenty years and I am tired of the whole thing. I can still drive for the next thirty five years (I'm 43) and there is air service. The tax policies of this government (the US not the current administration) are too far skewed for passenger rail as we knew it to exist.

[siberianmo]

Hello all,

Well, here it is February 2005, and I thought I'd keep this conversation going .... an interesting one indeed.

Several years ago I terminated my affiliation with a group of people who meet in our state capital (Jefferson City, Missouri) for quarterly meetings with government - Amtrak - chambers of commerce - tourism organizations and passenger rail enthusiasts (represented by a group, rather than individual). This organization was put together as a semi-governmental body with the purpose of putting together reasonable solutions to the operating, administrative and budgetary problems encountered by Amtrak and therefore, the traveling public.

For now, I would rather not get into the particulars insofar as the major players were - for many of them probably are still at it. So please let me continue with this caveat: What I have to say represents my thoughts based on my involvements and observations at four years of meetings - that's about 16 in total.

In Missouri, Amtrak has two intra-state trains totally subsidized by our taxpayers. These trains cross the state daily from St. Louis to Kansas City/Kansas City to St. Louis. There are two others that operate on subsidies from an adjacent state and of coure, the federal government, providing daily service between Kansas City - St. Louis and Chicago/Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City. Additionally, four Amtrak trains traverse our landscape as long distance trains - the Texas Eagle (north & south) and the Southwest Chief (east & west). No state subsidies are provided for these long distance trains.

About 12 years ago, Amtak threatened to do one of two things impacting our intra-state trains: (1) Cut back service by one-half or (2) eliminate service entirely. These threats were made as a result of insufficient funds to meet the operating costs projected for the ensuing fiscal year. I became very invoved with an effort to let Amtrak know that many of us simply would not put up with the cessation of passenger train service without a fight. As a result, many of us were able to put together effective petition lists demanding help from our state and federal governments. At the time, I was with our local police department and wound up getting over 1,000 signatures to help with our cause. (Hmmm, I always wondered about that connection!) To make a long story short - we won - more or less. The trains are still operating within our state.

Many of the people who sat at that large rectangular table during our quarterly meetings had not ridden a passenger train in decades - if ever. Others simply were there representing their particular communities along the intra-state route in question - the Chamber of Commerce people along with the Tourism folks and either the Mayors from the towns/cities or their representatives. The decisions we came up with ran the spectrum from more bicycles on the train to cleaner station restrooms to better on time performance to more advertising to ...... I'm sure you get my point.

At no time during my four years of attendance and interaction do I recall any serious discussion of getting on board with a high speed rail corridor and of course, a demand for a state and national transportation plan that would take us into the future. Nah, we were more concerned with the comparative minutia and mundane than the actual future of passenger rail service. So, I simply stopped going.

Now, a little about me: I love passenger trains and I ride 'em whenever possible, even if it is only a day trip to and from Jeffereson City or Kansas City. My wife and I have ridden Via Rail trains for nearly 15 years and will continue to do so. To compare what is offered north of our border to what we have with Amtrak is to say that the old Marx electric trains are an equivalent to the Lionel trains of the day. Just no comparison. But is that to say that there are no problems in Canuckistan? (Sorry, that just slipped out! We are a Canadian-American family, so perhaps I can get by with it this time!) Of course there are. Whenever government gets involved, you wind up having to pander to those who have no clue regarding the difference between a truck (railroad) and a truck (highway)! When legislators take to the floor and pontificate for hours on end about this or that, you can be sure they are buying time for their interns to come up with something profound that they can use to wrap up the discussion on which they really have very little or any knowledge of! Sorry for those of you who may be more politically inclined than I, but again, I refer to MY thoughts and observations.

So, what's the future for the American Passenger train? Grim is the word that comes to mind. The reasons are all well documented in the four pages I have read on this discussion forum. Much of what has been said I fully agree with and others somewhat, with yet a slim few falling outside of my ability to reason. I do think that Amtrak will wind up as a regional entity and I believe that long distance travel will be dramatically changed from the way it is today. It appears to me that more of a point to point day trip system will be put into place. For example, take a trip from Chicago to Seattle. With a morning departure in Chicago the train would stop at whatever point is reasonable for a day trip - perhaps 12 hours. Passengers would have to stay in hotels for the night, then board either the same or a different one for the continuation along the way. Now, before you jump all over me about what a stupid and ridiculous idea this is - please think about it first. I am not saying that this idea is a good one or the best one or one that every one will accept, but I do see it as an alternative to where we are headed a present time.

I have heard this notion discussion before - it is not entirely from my aging gray matter. In fact, there are some north of our border who have openly kicked around the idea as well. Why? Because long distance trains just cost too much money in equipment and personnel compared to what is recouped at the cash box. It is that simple. These trains have to be staffed with sleeping cars and attendants - full service diners - along with all the supplies and provisions required. Dropping those cars and employees spells savings in dollars - real and projected; operational and maintenance.

What I want to happen is not what I think will happen. My love for the passenger train will stay with me for the remainder of my life. There is one thing that no one, including government, can take from me. When those passenger trains become a distant memory, at least I will have the memories!

Happy railroading!

Siberianmo

[siberianmo]

Hello all,

Well, here it is February 2005, and I thought I'd keep this conversation going .... an interesting one indeed.

Several years ago I terminated my affiliation with a group of people who meet in our state capital (Jefferson City, Missouri) for quarterly meetings with government - Amtrak - chambers of commerce - tourism organizations and passenger rail enthusiasts (represented by a group, rather than individual). This organization was put together as a semi-governmental body with the purpose of putting together reasonable solutions to the operating, administrative and budgetary problems encountered by Amtrak and therefore, the traveling public.

For now, I would rather not get into the particulars insofar as the major players were - for many of them probably are still at it. So please let me continue with this caveat: What I have to say represents my thoughts based on my involvements and observations at four years of meetings - that's about 16 in total.

In Missouri, Amtrak has two intra-state trains totally subsidized by our taxpayers. These trains cross the state daily from St. Louis to Kansas City/Kansas City to St. Louis. There are two others that operate on subsidies from an adjacent state and of coure, the federal government, providing daily service between Kansas City - St. Louis and Chicago/Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City. Additionally, four Amtrak trains traverse our landscape as long distance trains - the Texas Eagle (north & south) and the Southwest Chief (east & west). No state subsidies are provided for these long distance trains.

About 12 years ago, Amtak threatened to do one of two things impacting our intra-state trains: (1) Cut back service by one-half or (2) eliminate service entirely. These threats were made as a result of insufficient funds to meet the operating costs projected for the ensuing fiscal year. I became very invoved with an effort to let Amtrak know that many of us simply would not put up with the cessation of passenger train service without a fight. As a result, many of us were able to put together effective petition lists demanding help from our state and federal governments. At the time, I was with our local police department and wound up getting over 1,000 signatures to help with our cause. (Hmmm, I always wondered about that connection!) To make a long story short - we won - more or less. The trains are still operating within our state.

Many of the people who sat at that large rectangular table during our quarterly meetings had not ridden a passenger train in decades - if ever. Others simply were there representing their particular communities along the intra-state route in question - the Chamber of Commerce people along with the Tourism folks and either the Mayors from the towns/cities or their representatives. The decisions we came up with ran the spectrum from more bicycles on the train to cleaner station restrooms to better on time performance to more advertising to ...... I'm sure you get my point.

At no time during my four years of attendance and interaction do I recall any serious discussion of getting on board with a high speed rail corridor and of course, a demand for a state and national transportation plan that would take us into the future. Nah, we were more concerned with the comparative minutia and mundane than the actual future of passenger rail service. So, I simply stopped going.

Now, a little about me: I love passenger trains and I ride 'em whenever possible, even if it is only a day trip to and from Jeffereson City or Kansas City. My wife and I have ridden Via Rail trains for nearly 15 years and will continue to do so. To compare what is offered north of our border to what we have with Amtrak is to say that the old Marx electric trains are an equivalent to the Lionel trains of the day. Just no comparison. But is that to say that there are no problems in Canuckistan? (Sorry, that just slipped out! We are a Canadian-American family, so perhaps I can get by with it this time!) Of course there are. Whenever government gets involved, you wind up having to pander to those who have no clue regarding the difference between a truck (railroad) and a truck (highway)! When legislators take to the floor and pontificate for hours on end about this or that, you can be sure they are buying time for their interns to come up with something profound that they can use to wrap up the discussion on which they really have very little or any knowledge of! Sorry for those of you who may be more politically inclined than I, but again, I refer to MY thoughts and observations.

So, what's the future for the American Passenger train? Grim is the word that comes to mind. The reasons are all well documented in the four pages I have read on this discussion forum. Much of what has been said I fully agree with and others somewhat, with yet a slim few falling outside of my ability to reason. I do think that Amtrak will wind up as a regional entity and I believe that long distance travel will be dramatically changed from the way it is today. It appears to me that more of a point to point day trip system will be put into place. For example, take a trip from Chicago to Seattle. With a morning departure in Chicago the train would stop at whatever point is reasonable for a day trip - perhaps 12 hours. Passengers would have to stay in hotels for the night, then board either the same or a different one for the continuation along the way. Now, before you jump all over me about what a stupid and ridiculous idea this is - please think about it first. I am not saying that this idea is a good one or the best one or one that every one will accept, but I do see it as an alternative to where we are headed a present time.

I have heard this notion discussion before - it is not entirely from my aging gray matter. In fact, there are some north of our border who have openly kicked around the idea as well. Why? Because long distance trains just cost too much money in equipment and personnel compared to what is recouped at the cash box. It is that simple. These trains have to be staffed with sleeping cars and attendants - full service diners - along with all the supplies and provisions required. Dropping those cars and employees spells savings in dollars - real and projected; operational and maintenance.

What I want to happen is not what I think will happen. My love for the passenger train will stay with me for the remainder of my life. There is one thing that no one, including government, can take from me. When those passenger trains become a distant memory, at least I will have the memories!

Happy railroading!

Siberianmo

[ValorStorm]

"13,000+ people boarding a year in Montana? Where did you get those figures?"

I got them from YOU, In your first posting. Be more clear next time. In fact, I'm tired. You win.

[ValorStorm]

"13,000+ people boarding a year in Montana? Where did you get those figures?"

I got them from YOU, In your first posting. Be more clear next time. In fact, I'm tired. You win.

[VerMontanan]

In spite of "Valorstorm" claiming that (in his post in this thread on November 13, which he has since deleted from the forum) that Amtrak doesn't provide a necessary service in Montana, the exact opposite is show in a study done in 2003 by the Montana Department of Transportation, still available on line at:

http://www.mdt.state.mt.us/tranplan/docs/empire_builder.pdf

Some 70+ pages in length, the report analyzes the many contributions the operation of the Empire Builder makes to Montana, and includes input (just about all of it positive) from Montanans as to why this train provides a valued and needed service.

Another good source of information about the success that is the Empire Builder is available from the Midwest High Speed Rail Report from August 2004, available (at least at this time) on line at:

http://www.midwesthsr.org/pdfs/MRR12n3.pdf

The article on the Empire Builder begins on page 3, and is titled: "Amtrak's Empire Builder: A Multi-tasking Mobility Machine that Baffles the Experts."

The article begins: Physicists argue that the bumblebee cannot fly because its body is too heavy and its wings too small. But the bumblebee does not know this, so it flies anyway. Beware of the "experts." Wherever they look, they find another bumblebee. Take the so-called "passenger train experts." They claim Amtrak's Chicago-Seattle Empire Builder shouldn't work: its route is too long, its speed too slow and its territory too thinly settled to attract today's travelers. The Empire Builder doesn't know this, and so it's the best performing train west of the Alleganys.

This article highlights many characteristics of the Empire Builder, including ridership. Some of the interesting facts here are contrary to the erroneous claim of Valorstorm who said, "Montana passengers had little to do with the EB's popularity. It was all about Chicago, Seattle, and just three major population centers in-between," when it shows that only 9 percent of passengers ride between end points, with the average trip length on the train being 845 miles, only about a third of the total route. Beyond that, and keeping with the original title of this thread (Future of the American Passenger Train), both of these links are valuable in showing why the long distance passenger train can be and is a vital transportation resource in the United States. What is important is not to dwell on the specific success of this one train, but to show how the benefits it provides can be applied in similar situations on new routes across the country.

[VerMontanan]

In spite of "Valorstorm" claiming that (in his post in this thread on November 13, which he has since deleted from the forum) that Amtrak doesn't provide a necessary service in Montana, the exact opposite is show in a study done in 2003 by the Montana Department of Transportation, still available on line at:

http://www.mdt.state.mt.us/tranplan/docs/empire_builder.pdf

Some 70+ pages in length, the report analyzes the many contributions the operation of the Empire Builder makes to Montana, and includes input (just about all of it positive) from Montanans as to why this train provides a valued and needed service.

Another good source of information about the success that is the Empire Builder is available from the Midwest High Speed Rail Report from August 2004, available (at least at this time) on line at:

http://www.midwesthsr.org/pdfs/MRR12n3.pdf

The article on the Empire Builder begins on page 3, and is titled: "Amtrak's Empire Builder: A Multi-tasking Mobility Machine that Baffles the Experts."

The article begins: Physicists argue that the bumblebee cannot fly because its body is too heavy and its wings too small. But the bumblebee does not know this, so it flies anyway. Beware of the "experts." Wherever they look, they find another bumblebee. Take the so-called "passenger train experts." They claim Amtrak's Chicago-Seattle Empire Builder shouldn't work: its route is too long, its speed too slow and its territory too thinly settled to attract today's travelers. The Empire Builder doesn't know this, and so it's the best performing train west of the Alleganys.

This article highlights many characteristics of the Empire Builder, including ridership. Some of the interesting facts here are contrary to the erroneous claim of Valorstorm who said, "Montana passengers had little to do with the EB's popularity. It was all about Chicago, Seattle, and just three major population centers in-between," when it shows that only 9 percent of passengers ride between end points, with the average trip length on the train being 845 miles, only about a third of the total route. Beyond that, and keeping with the original title of this thread (Future of the American Passenger Train), both of these links are valuable in showing why the long distance passenger train can be and is a vital transportation resource in the United States. What is important is not to dwell on the specific success of this one train, but to show how the benefits it provides can be applied in similar situations on new routes across the country.

[VerMontanan]

"Valorstorm" writes:

"And then, "If Amtrak should run on the MRL route because of the higher population, then using that logic, the Empire Builder should be the least-patronized route of any Amtrak train, rather than the most patronized." VerMontanan, who is obviously educated, utilizes here the "historical/critical" method (in reverse), and to questionable advantage. Here, VerMontanan's conclusions amount to measuring the present-day according as conditions were generations ago. It's true that the Empire Builder was and is a "most patronized" train. But until the advent of the heavily trafficked US-2, it was THE most patronized MODE. Fast-forward to now, all of the old parameters are useless. One thing has NOT changed however: Montana passengers had little to do with the EB's popularity. It was all about Chicago, Seattle, and just three major population centers in-between."

***
Actually, the assertion that Montana passengers have little to do with the Empire Builder's popularity is completely false. Here is the ridership for the Empire Builder and other western trains in 2003:

Empire Builder:

Chicago, 2,179,155 (also served by numerous other trains)
Glenview, 24,456 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Milwaukee, 405,151 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Columbus, 11,951
Portage, 4,901
Wisconsin Dells, 10,321
Tomah, 6,536
La Crosse, 20,124
Winona, 15,591
Red Wing, 8,490
St. Paul, 116,967
St. Cloud, 10,676
Staples, 4,690
Detroit Lakes, 2,795
Fargo, 13,869
Grand Forks, 13,024
Devils Lake, 4,726
Rugby, 4,940
Minot, 27,493
Stanley, 2,678
Williston, 16,196
Wolf Point, 6,817
Glasgow, 4,994
Malta, 2,666
Havre, 13,453
Shelby, 13,749
Cut Bank, 2,865
Browning (seasonal), 1,809
East Glacier (seasonal), 9,990
Essex, 3,126
West Glacier, 4,350
Whitefish, 53,311
Libby, 4,923
Sandpoint, 4,403
Spokane, 34,867
Pasco, 14,766
Wishram, 799
Bingen, 1,086
Vancouver, WA, 67,958 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Portland, 472,500 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Ephrata, 2,106
Wenatchee, 12,113
Everett, 34,444 (also served by Cascades trains)
Edmonds, 25,853 (also served by Cascades trains)
Seattle, 591,657 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
(Ridership at Everett, Edmonds, Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland also includes that of special trains, notably the Seahawks specials and Leavenworth Snow Train).

California Zephyr:

Chicago, 2,179,255 (also served by numerous other trains)
Naperville, 28,872 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Princeton, 14,539 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg, 58,129 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Burlington, 5,576
Mount Pleasant, 10,075
Ottumwa, 9,179
Osceola, 11,490
Creston, 3,592
Omaha, 22,092
Lincoln, 8,128
Hastings, 2,960
Holdrege, 1,461
McCook, 2,443
Fort Morgan, 2,358
Denver, 117,495
Winter Park, 10,459
Granby, 3,452
Glenwood Springs, 29,454
Grand Junction, 19,514
Green River, 1,310
Helper, 1,507
Provo, 2,911
Salt Lake City, 25,886
Elko, 2,890
Winnemucca, 1,722
Sparks, 27,687
Reno, 55,323
Truckee, 6,072
Colfax, 3,125
Roseville, 51,613 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains)
Sacramento, 850,390 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains and Coast Starlight)
Davis, 23,831 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains and Coast Starlight)
Martinez, 291,413 (also served by Coast Starlight, Capitol Corridor, and San Joaquin)
Emeryville, 486,700 (also served by Coast Starlight, Capitol Corridor, San Joauqin)
(Ridership at stations between Sparks and Emeryville also include that of special trains, notably the Reno Fun Train).

Southwest Chief:

Chicago, 2,179,255 (also served by numerous other trains)
Naperville, 28,872 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Mendota, mysteriously omitted from Amtrak website
Princeton, 14,539 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg, 58,129 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Fort Madison, 7,530
La Plata, 6,247
Kansas City, 111,143 (also served by Mules)
Lawrence, 2,253
Topeka, 5,043
Newton, 9,149
Hutchinson, 2,722
Dodge City, 2,576
Garden City, 4,803
Lamar, 1,531
La Junta, 6,945
Trinidad, 3,536
Raton, 19,255
Las Vegas, 2,726
Lamy, 12,050
Albuquerque, 50,534
Gallup, 6,454
Winslow, 2,108
Flagstaff, 35,340
Williams Jct., 7,558
Kingman, 2,442
Needles, 12,180
Barstow, 2,621
Victorville, 2,881
San Bernardino, 11,455
Riverside, 4,432
Fullerton, 330,314 (also served by Pacific Surfliners)
Los Angeles, 1,245,160 (also served by Pacific Surfliners, Sunset Limited, Coast Starlight)
(Los Angeles ridership also includes special trains)

Texas Eagle:

Chicago, 2,179,255 (also served by numerous other trains)
Joliet, 21,268 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Pontiac, 8,092 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Normal-Bloomington, 74,399 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Lincoln, 12,655 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Springfield, 92,379 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Alton, 26,995 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
St. Louis, 147,545 (also served by Ann Rutledge, State House, and Mules)
Poplar Bluff, 2,246
Walnut Ridge, 2,188
Little Rock, 11,700
Malvern, 1,269
Arkadelphia, 911
Texarkana, 4,721
Marshall 3,696
Longview, 20,720
Mineola, 2,308
Dallas, 31,981
Fort Worth, 64,247 (also served by Heartland Flyer)
Cleburne, 1,531
McGregor, 1,776
Temple, 8,006
Taylor, 2,590
Austin, 18,646
San Marcos, 2,646
San Antonio, 44,682 (also served by Sunset Limited)

Ridership on Sunset Limited west of San Antonio:

Del Rio, 1,135
Sanderson, 194
Alpine, 1,796
El Paso, 10,165
Deming, 862
Lordsburg, 426
Tucson, 15,960
Maricopa, 8,288
Yuma, 2,033
Palm Springs, 1,948
Ontario, 3,226
Pomona, 856
Los Angeles, 1,245,160 (also served by Pacific Surfliners, Southwest Chief, Coast Starlight)
(Los Angeles ridership also includes special trains)

Other than the origin and termination cities (Chicago, Seattle, Portland), only St. Paul boards more passengers than does Whitefish, which is in Montana. (Milwaukee, WI and Vancouver, WA board more passengers than do Whitefish, but they are also served by more frequent short-distance trains which make up the vast majority of their boardings). Not only does Whitefish board more passengers than cities like Albuquerque, Dallas, and Salt Lake City, but Shelby (population 3,000) boards more passengers than do the capital cities of Lincoln, Nebraska and Topeka, Kansas combined. Lincoln and Topeka have a combined population that is greater than Billings, Bozeman, Helena, and Missoula combined. So I just need proof that these cities in Montana, that like Topeka and Lincoln have access to Interstate highways and bus transportation, but unlike Topeka and Lincoln do have relatively good air service, would therefore provide significantly greater ridership than along the Empire Builder route.

With regard to "all the parameters being useless" as to why the Empire Builder is a success, this is not true. However, it is partially true in the case of rail passenger service through Southern Montana. Since 1947, when the Empire Builder became the first post-World War II western streamliner, its route has always the best-patronized route for travel between the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. Even the in the mid-1960s, when US highway 2 was in about as good of shape as it is now, Great Northern fielded two bona fide streamliners, the Empire Builder and Western Star, whereas the Northern Pacific(through Southern Montana), while running a fine service in the North Coast Limited, never measured up to GN with its secondary train, the Mainstreeter. The Mainstreeter ran without food service over the western part of its route from time to time, and even without a sleeping accommodation for a time in 1967 and 1968. In 1967 until the BN merger in 1970, NP petitioned to discontinue the Mainstreeter on numerous occasions. While GN did cutback its service over time (but never to the extent of NP) on other routes, neither the Empire Builder or Western Star were posted for discontinuance as GN trains. Because of this, GN was generally considered the more pro-passenger railroad of the two. In 1971, when Amtrak was created and there was to be only one Chicago-to-Seattle passenger train, the Empire Builder route was chosen not only because of lack of transportation alternatives along the route, but because of higher existing ridership. The route through Southern Montana, however, has changed. Unlike the current Empire Builder route, placing a passenger train into service in Southern Montana would cost a lot of money. There are numerous places where stations would have to be created, and the track upgraded. A rerouted train through Southern Montana would easily take 4 to 6 hours longer between Fargo and Sandpoint than the current route mostly because of reduced track speeds and coal traffic along the mostly non-CTC equipped route across North Dakota. The Empire Builder as it is scheduled today, is delicately scheduled to (westbound) make many connections with eastern trains in Chicago and arrive in Portland in time to connect with the Coast Starlight for California. Turnaround time for equipment in Portland and Seattle is only about 6.5 hours (the shortest of any long distance Amtrak train). Eastbound, the schedule allows a connection from the northbound Coast Starlight in Portland and arrival in Chicago in time for eastern and southern connections. Any rerouted train that would take 8 hours longer (4 hours westbound and 4 eastbound) would either have to eliminate vital connections at one end of the run or the other, or an entire sixth set of equipment would have to be put into service to allow this. As anyone knows who might follow Amtrak and the myriad problems it always faces knows, that lack of any extra equipment is a reality. The lack of any extra money for station and track improvements is also a reality. The fact is that even if rerouting the Empire Builder through Southern Montana was an idea with merit (which it isn't), it simply wouldn't be possible given the current financial situation at Amtrak today.

"Valorstorm" continues:
"It was patently irresponsible to assert "that the reason...the Empire Builder exists and is used is because of the lack of alternative transportation across Northern Montana." If public service across the highline were the reason for the Empire Builder, it wouldn't be there. And if Amtrak moved south, it would be replaced in the north right now by the more affordable Rimrock Stage Lines. The reason other transportation alternatives aren't there is because Amtrak IS there. And did VerMontanan REALLY mean to say that Amtrak is providing "these communities (their) ONLY form of transportation?"
**
This proves that not only is "Valorstorm" ignorant about the utility of the Empire Builder, he is likewise so about transportation in Montana and the U.S. in general. To think that a bus company (or airline, for that matter), would step in and provide service if the Empire Builder was discontinued ignores the reality of the demise of intercity bus travel everywhere. Comparing a Russell's Guide (the bus equivalent to the Official Guide of the Railways) between the years 1970 and the present tells the story. The book is about one-fourth the thickness. Routes are mostly confined to Interstate highways, and many stops are eliminated. There is currently only one bus per day traversing the states of North Dakota and South Dakota on an east-west route. In Wisconsin, except on highway 2, there is no bus service north of Eau Claire and west of Rhinelander. In Nebraska, with one exception, there is no bus service at all except along I-80. That Rimrock or any bus company would start service along US 2 in Montana, a two-lane road known for bad weather in the wake of the Empire Builder being discontinued, is laughable at best.

"Valorstorm" continues:
"Amtrak IS well-patronized in Montana, COMPARATIVELY. I'm one of the patrons. Get it? HOW MANY PASSENGERS ARE BOARDING IN WHITEFISH AND SHELBY AND HAVRE WHO ARE DRIVING FROM MISSOULA AND HELENA AND BILLINGS? When I'm at the Whitefish depot it's mostly people from Missoula, St. Ignacious, and out-of-state tourists visiting Big Mountain. So it might BE "provable that Amtrak service through Southern Montana would have higher ridership!" The REAL "slap in the face" is that only 13,000+ "people a year...board and detrain" in Montana. Do THAT math. And how many are Montanans?"

**
13,000+ people boarding a year in Montana? Where did you get those figures? Actually, according to Amtrak, ridership in Montana in 2003 was 122,053, and rose to 129,034 in FY2004 (out of 451,000 total, over one-fourth of all ridership, hence again disproving your earlier assertion that, "one thing has NOT changed however: Montana passengers had little to do with the EB's popularity. It was all about Chicago, Seattle, and just three major population centers in-between"). The real "slap in the face" comes from people like you that are so misinformed that you have to make up figures to support your stance. Too bad. And, I don't see the logic in berating people taking Amtrak to Big Mountain or Glacier Park for that matter. After all, doesn't this benefit Montana? I think access to Yellowstone Park or the Big Sky ski resort is a good reason to support Amtrak service through Southern Montana, but using your logic, it's not relevant because....well for whatever reason the Big Mountain people don't count, evidently. And you ask how many people boarding the Empire Builder are from Missoula, Helena, and Billings? Well, I don't know, how many, and this time, don't just make up a number, please! All I can tell you it's not significant, relative to the total number of people using the train. How do I know? Well, I've actually sold tickets along the Empire Builder route in the past, but I also know many of the Amtrak employees and have discussed this. Probably the greatest number (though still small) of patrons from Southern Montana board at Whitefish. But Shelby gets a great deal of business from Alberta (drawing from Lethbridge and Calgary, major cities which have bus service to Shelby) and Great Falls (Montana's third-largest city). Havre receives a lot of Great Falls traffic, too. Wolf Point and Williston, ND might benefit from Glendive patrons, but Glendive, and Miles City for that matter, are hardly major cities, even by Montana standards. As for the contention that people from Billings (Montana's largest city) are greatly augmenting ridership: it just doesn't add up because the closest stop, Malta, some 200 miles distant, is one of the least-patronized stops in the state. By the way, you need a new keyboard. The one you have doesn't know how to spell St. Ignatius, and it seems to use a lot of capitalization. If this was not a problem with your keyboard, I would suggest using more facts to bolster your argument rather than thinking this can be accomplished though the "caps lock" feature.

"Valorstorm" continues:
This particular Montanan has been vilified before, always deservedly; never in a TRAINs forum! WOW! The use of "dramatically misinformed statements" to accuse others of same? That usually elicits a "Nyaaa-nyaaa-nya-nyaaa-nyaaa." But VerMontanan is so obviously erudite, that his/her behavior, at this time of year? I find it "troubling."

**
One can only be truly vilified when another has proven incorrect. Given your numerous misstatements in this post, the many in the previous post, and the accusatory tone of this last paragraph, I let others that may be reading this to decide for themselves.

[VerMontanan]

"Valorstorm" writes:

"And then, "If Amtrak should run on the MRL route because of the higher population, then using that logic, the Empire Builder should be the least-patronized route of any Amtrak train, rather than the most patronized." VerMontanan, who is obviously educated, utilizes here the "historical/critical" method (in reverse), and to questionable advantage. Here, VerMontanan's conclusions amount to measuring the present-day according as conditions were generations ago. It's true that the Empire Builder was and is a "most patronized" train. But until the advent of the heavily trafficked US-2, it was THE most patronized MODE. Fast-forward to now, all of the old parameters are useless. One thing has NOT changed however: Montana passengers had little to do with the EB's popularity. It was all about Chicago, Seattle, and just three major population centers in-between."

***
Actually, the assertion that Montana passengers have little to do with the Empire Builder's popularity is completely false. Here is the ridership for the Empire Builder and other western trains in 2003:

Empire Builder:

Chicago, 2,179,155 (also served by numerous other trains)
Glenview, 24,456 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Milwaukee, 405,151 (also served by Hiawatha Service trains)
Columbus, 11,951
Portage, 4,901
Wisconsin Dells, 10,321
Tomah, 6,536
La Crosse, 20,124
Winona, 15,591
Red Wing, 8,490
St. Paul, 116,967
St. Cloud, 10,676
Staples, 4,690
Detroit Lakes, 2,795
Fargo, 13,869
Grand Forks, 13,024
Devils Lake, 4,726
Rugby, 4,940
Minot, 27,493
Stanley, 2,678
Williston, 16,196
Wolf Point, 6,817
Glasgow, 4,994
Malta, 2,666
Havre, 13,453
Shelby, 13,749
Cut Bank, 2,865
Browning (seasonal), 1,809
East Glacier (seasonal), 9,990
Essex, 3,126
West Glacier, 4,350
Whitefish, 53,311
Libby, 4,923
Sandpoint, 4,403
Spokane, 34,867
Pasco, 14,766
Wishram, 799
Bingen, 1,086
Vancouver, WA, 67,958 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Portland, 472,500 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
Ephrata, 2,106
Wenatchee, 12,113
Everett, 34,444 (also served by Cascades trains)
Edmonds, 25,853 (also served by Cascades trains)
Seattle, 591,657 (also served by Cascades trains and Coast Starlight)
(Ridership at Everett, Edmonds, Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland also includes that of special trains, notably the Seahawks specials and Leavenworth Snow Train).

California Zephyr:

Chicago, 2,179,255 (also served by numerous other trains)
Naperville, 28,872 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Princeton, 14,539 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg, 58,129 (also served by Southwest Chief and Illinois Zephyr)
Burlington, 5,576
Mount Pleasant, 10,075
Ottumwa, 9,179
Osceola, 11,490
Creston, 3,592
Omaha, 22,092
Lincoln, 8,128
Hastings, 2,960
Holdrege, 1,461
McCook, 2,443
Fort Morgan, 2,358
Denver, 117,495
Winter Park, 10,459
Granby, 3,452
Glenwood Springs, 29,454
Grand Junction, 19,514
Green River, 1,310
Helper, 1,507
Provo, 2,911
Salt Lake City, 25,886
Elko, 2,890
Winnemucca, 1,722
Sparks, 27,687
Reno, 55,323
Truckee, 6,072
Colfax, 3,125
Roseville, 51,613 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains)
Sacramento, 850,390 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains and Coast Starlight)
Davis, 23,831 (also served by Capitol Corridor trains and Coast Starlight)
Martinez, 291,413 (also served by Coast Starlight, Capitol Corridor, and San Joaquin)
Emeryville, 486,700 (also served by Coast Starlight, Capitol Corridor, San Joauqin)
(Ridership at stations between Sparks and Emeryville also include that of special trains, notably the Reno Fun Train).

Southwest Chief:

Chicago, 2,179,255 (also served by numerous other trains)
Naperville, 28,872 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Mendota, mysteriously omitted from Amtrak website
Princeton, 14,539 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Galesburg, 58,129 (also served by California Zephyr and Illinois Zephyr)
Fort Madison, 7,530
La Plata, 6,247
Kansas City, 111,143 (also served by Mules)
Lawrence, 2,253
Topeka, 5,043
Newton, 9,149
Hutchinson, 2,722
Dodge City, 2,576
Garden City, 4,803
Lamar, 1,531
La Junta, 6,945
Trinidad, 3,536
Raton, 19,255
Las Vegas, 2,726
Lamy, 12,050
Albuquerque, 50,534
Gallup, 6,454
Winslow, 2,108
Flagstaff, 35,340
Williams Jct., 7,558
Kingman, 2,442
Needles, 12,180
Barstow, 2,621
Victorville, 2,881
San Bernardino, 11,455
Riverside, 4,432
Fullerton, 330,314 (also served by Pacific Surfliners)
Los Angeles, 1,245,160 (also served by Pacific Surfliners, Sunset Limited, Coast Starlight)
(Los Angeles ridership also includes special trains)

Texas Eagle:

Chicago, 2,179,255 (also served by numerous other trains)
Joliet, 21,268 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Pontiac, 8,092 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Normal-Bloomington, 74,399 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Lincoln, 12,655 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Springfield, 92,379 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
Alton, 26,995 (also served by Ann Rutledge and State House)
St. Louis, 147,545 (also served by Ann Rutledge, State House, and Mules)
Poplar Bluff, 2,246
Walnut Ridge, 2,188
Little Rock, 11,700
Malvern, 1,269
Arkadelphia, 911
Texarkana, 4,721
Marshall 3,696
Longview, 20,720
Mineola, 2,308
Dallas, 31,981
Fort Worth, 64,247 (also served by Heartland Flyer)
Cleburne, 1,531
McGregor, 1,776
Temple, 8,006
Taylor, 2,590
Austin, 18,646
San Marcos, 2,646
San Antonio, 44,682 (also served by Sunset Limited)

Ridership on Sunset Limited west of San Antonio:

Del Rio, 1,135
Sanderson, 194
Alpine, 1,796
El Paso, 10,165
Deming, 862
Lordsburg, 426
Tucson, 15,960
Maricopa, 8,288
Yuma, 2,033
Palm Springs, 1,948
Ontario, 3,226
Pomona, 856
Los Angeles, 1,245,160 (also served by Pacific Surfliners, Southwest Chief, Coast Starlight)
(Los Angeles ridership also includes special trains)

Other than the origin and termination cities (Chicago, Seattle, Portland), only St. Paul boards more passengers than does Whitefish, which is in Montana. (Milwaukee, WI and Vancouver, WA board more passengers than do Whitefish, but they are also served by more frequent short-distance trains which make up the vast majority of their boardings). Not only does Whitefish board more passengers than cities like Albuquerque, Dallas, and Salt Lake City, but Shelby (population 3,000) boards more passengers than do the capital cities of Lincoln, Nebraska and Topeka, Kansas combined. Lincoln and Topeka have a combined population that is greater than Billings, Bozeman, Helena, and Missoula combined. So I just need proof that these cities in Montana, that like Topeka and Lincoln have access to Interstate highways and bus transportation, but unlike Topeka and Lincoln do have relatively good air service, would therefore provide significantly greater ridership than along the Empire Builder route.

With regard to "all the parameters being useless" as to why the Empire Builder is a success, this is not true. However, it is partially true in the case of rail passenger service through Southern Montana. Since 1947, when the Empire Builder became the first post-World War II western streamliner, its route has always the best-patronized route for travel between the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. Even the in the mid-1960s, when US highway 2 was in about as good of shape as it is now, Great Northern fielded two bona fide streamliners, the Empire Builder and Western Star, whereas the Northern Pacific(through Southern Montana), while running a fine service in the North Coast Limited, never measured up to GN with its secondary train, the Mainstreeter. The Mainstreeter ran without food service over the western part of its route from time to time, and even without a sleeping accommodation for a time in 1967 and 1968. In 1967 until the BN merger in 1970, NP petitioned to discontinue the Mainstreeter on numerous occasions. While GN did cutback its service over time (but never to the extent of NP) on other routes, neither the Empire Builder or Western Star were posted for discontinuance as GN trains. Because of this, GN was generally considered the more pro-passenger railroad of the two. In 1971, when Amtrak was created and there was to be only one Chicago-to-Seattle passenger train, the Empire Builder route was chosen not only because of lack of transportation alternatives along the route, but because of higher existing ridership. The route through Southern Montana, however, has changed. Unlike the current Empire Builder route, placing a passenger train into service in Southern Montana would cost a lot of money. There are numerous places where stations would have to be created, and the track upgraded. A rerouted train through Southern Montana would easily take 4 to 6 hours longer between Fargo and Sandpoint than the current route mostly because of reduced track speeds and coal traffic along the mostly non-CTC equipped route across North Dakota. The Empire Builder as it is scheduled today, is delicately scheduled to (westbound) make many connections with eastern trains in Chicago and arrive in Portland in time to connect with the Coast Starlight for California. Turnaround time for equipment in Portland and Seattle is only about 6.5 hours (the shortest of any long distance Amtrak train). Eastbound, the schedule allows a connection from the northbound Coast Starlight in Portland and arrival in Chicago in time for eastern and southern connections. Any rerouted train that would take 8 hours longer (4 hours westbound and 4 eastbound) would either have to eliminate vital connections at one end of the run or the other, or an entire sixth set of equipment would have to be put into service to allow this. As anyone knows who might follow Amtrak and the myriad problems it always faces knows, that lack of any extra equipment is a reality. The lack of any extra money for station and track improvements is also a reality. The fact is that even if rerouting the Empire Builder through Southern Montana was an idea with merit (which it isn't), it simply wouldn't be possible given the current financial situation at Amtrak today.

"Valorstorm" continues:
"It was patently irresponsible to assert "that the reason...the Empire Builder exists and is used is because of the lack of alternative transportation across Northern Montana." If public service across the highline were the reason for the Empire Builder, it wouldn't be there. And if Amtrak moved south, it would be replaced in the north right now by the more affordable Rimrock Stage Lines. The reason other transportation alternatives aren't there is because Amtrak IS there. And did VerMontanan REALLY mean to say that Amtrak is providing "these communities (their) ONLY form of transportation?"
**
This proves that not only is "Valorstorm" ignorant about the utility of the Empire Builder, he is likewise so about transportation in Montana and the U.S. in general. To think that a bus company (or airline, for that matter), would step in and provide service if the Empire Builder was discontinued ignores the reality of the demise of intercity bus travel everywhere. Comparing a Russell's Guide (the bus equivalent to the Official Guide of the Railways) between the years 1970 and the present tells the story. The book is about one-fourth the thickness. Routes are mostly confined to Interstate highways, and many stops are eliminated. There is currently only one bus per day traversing the states of North Dakota and South Dakota on an east-west route. In Wisconsin, except on highway 2, there is no bus service north of Eau Claire and west of Rhinelander. In Nebraska, with one exception, there is no bus service at all except along I-80. That Rimrock or any bus company would start service along US 2 in Montana, a two-lane road known for bad weather in the wake of the Empire Builder being discontinued, is laughable at best.

"Valorstorm" continues:
"Amtrak IS well-patronized in Montana, COMPARATIVELY. I'm one of the patrons. Get it? HOW MANY PASSENGERS ARE BOARDING IN WHITEFISH AND SHELBY AND HAVRE WHO ARE DRIVING FROM MISSOULA AND HELENA AND BILLINGS? When I'm at the Whitefish depot it's mostly people from Missoula, St. Ignacious, and out-of-state tourists visiting Big Mountain. So it might BE "provable that Amtrak service through Southern Montana would have higher ridership!" The REAL "slap in the face" is that only 13,000+ "people a year...board and detrain" in Montana. Do THAT math. And how many are Montanans?"

**
13,000+ people boarding a year in Montana? Where did you get those figures? Actually, according to Amtrak, ridership in Montana in 2003 was 122,053, and rose to 129,034 in FY2004 (out of 451,000 total, over one-fourth of all ridership, hence again disproving your earlier assertion that, "one thing has NOT changed however: Montana passengers had little to do with the EB's popularity. It was all about Chicago, Seattle, and just three major population centers in-between"). The real "slap in the face" comes from people like you that are so misinformed that you have to make up figures to support your stance. Too bad. And, I don't see the logic in berating people taking Amtrak to Big Mountain or Glacier Park for that matter. After all, doesn't this benefit Montana? I think access to Yellowstone Park or the Big Sky ski resort is a good reason to support Amtrak service through Southern Montana, but using your logic, it's not relevant because....well for whatever reason the Big Mountain people don't count, evidently. And you ask how many people boarding the Empire Builder are from Missoula, Helena, and Billings? Well, I don't know, how many, and this time, don't just make up a number, please! All I can tell you it's not significant, relative to the total number of people using the train. How do I know? Well, I've actually sold tickets along the Empire Builder route in the past, but I also know many of the Amtrak employees and have discussed this. Probably the greatest number (though still small) of patrons from Southern Montana board at Whitefish. But Shelby gets a great deal of business from Alberta (drawing from Lethbridge and Calgary, major cities which have bus service to Shelby) and Great Falls (Montana's third-largest city). Havre receives a lot of Great Falls traffic, too. Wolf Point and Williston, ND might benefit from Glendive patrons, but Glendive, and Miles City for that matter, are hardly major cities, even by Montana standards. As for the contention that people from Billings (Montana's largest city) are greatly augmenting ridership: it just doesn't add up because the closest stop, Malta, some 200 miles distant, is one of the least-patronized stops in the state. By the way, you need a new keyboard. The one you have doesn't know how to spell St. Ignatius, and it seems to use a lot of capitalization. If this was not a problem with your keyboard, I would suggest using more facts to bolster your argument rather than thinking this can be accomplished though the "caps lock" feature.

"Valorstorm" continues:
This particular Montanan has been vilified before, always deservedly; never in a TRAINs forum! WOW! The use of "dramatically misinformed statements" to accuse others of same? That usually elicits a "Nyaaa-nyaaa-nya-nyaaa-nyaaa." But VerMontanan is so obviously erudite, that his/her behavior, at this time of year? I find it "troubling."

**
One can only be truly vilified when another has proven incorrect. Given your numerous misstatements in this post, the many in the previous post, and the accusatory tone of this last paragraph, I let others that may be reading this to decide for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak should continue to operate the passenger trains, and U.S. taxpayers should fully subsidize Amtrak just like they subsidize all other modes of transportation.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak should continue to operate the passenger trains, and U.S. taxpayers should fully subsidize Amtrak just like they subsidize all other modes of transportation.

[VerMontanan]

Valorstorm of Missoula, Montana stated:
"Remember, YOUR favorite railroad wants Amtrak off as well, because it's costing them the same millions that it's costing the UP. And much as I love Amtrak (and I DO!), it doesn't provide a necessary service in MY state! The government shouldn't subsidize the Empire Builder Ski Train. And the BNSF shouldn't have to struggle with it either (they want Amtrak gone as much as the UP does-- don't kid yourself). In fact, the Empire Builder would be justified if it ran on the MRL thru Montana. That's where the population is, and all the traveling students and low-income cross-state motorists! Whew! I didn't breathe thru any of that!"

It's amazing that anyone could be so fantastically uninformed about the utility of the Empire Builder through Montana (and be from Montana, too!). Not justified? In FY2004 only the most ridden passenger train in the United States! Also, it shows ignorance of the fact that the Empire Builder route has historically had higher ridership than was the case through Southern Montana even when both roues had service. If Amtrak should run on the MRL route because of the higher population, then using that logic, the Empire Builder should be the least-patronized route of any Amtrak train, rather than the most patronized. But you forget that the reason that the Empire Builder exists and is used is because of the lack of alternative transportation across Northern Montana....little air and bus service. That someone would advocate depriving these communities of their only form of transportation only to supplement someone else's available transportation is troubling. The fact is that Amtrak is well-patronized in Montana. More people board Amtrak in Whitefish every year than they do in Salt Lake City or Albuquerque; more people board Amtrak in Shelby every year than they do in the state capital cities of Lincoln, NE and Topeka, KS COMBINED! So, given that the Empire Builder eclipses all other long distance routes in ridership (and all the other long distance routes have greater online population), not only is it not provable that Amtrak service through Southern Montana would have higher ridership, it would seem illogical. And the statement about the "Empire Builder ski train" is really a slap in the face to the over 13,000 people a year that board and detrain at places like Shelby and Havre (where are the ski areas there?) and the other locations along the Hi-Line with no air service, no bus service, no interstate highway, all of which can be found in Missoula, Montana.

The real amazing part of Valorstorm's statement is that he/she seemed to have missed the tremendous publicity surrounding the 75th anniversary of the Empire Builder in June of 2004. From Chicago to Seattle and Portland, literally thousands of people turned out at scores of locations up and down the line to show their appreciation for this, the second-longest continuously operated passenger train in North America. Among those in attendance were the governors of North Dakota and Wisconsin, the lieutenant governor of Montana, at least two U.S. Senators and Representatives, and numerous other dignitaries, as well as Amtrak's president. All were on hand to show appreciation for what is (to those that are informed on this subject) without a doubt the most successful long distance passenger train operating in the United States today. Not only is the Empire Builder a standout with regard to ridership, it often posts the best on-time performance of any long distance Amtrak train operated, and is the most socially necessary, serving the route with the least number of transportation alternatives. In addition, it also celebrated the history of the train, named after James J. Hill, often considered the most influential railroader in American history, and the fact that the train was historically the most popular train operating between the Midwest and Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, it is now the ONLY passenger train running between the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, but the main purpose of this 75th anniversary celebration was not only to tout the success of this train, but so show through its popularity that there is good reason to expand rail passenger service to other routes, such as the one through Missoula. Certainly, now more than ever, Amtrak needs all the support it can get. My hope, however, that there are a limited number of people like Valorstorm that claim to "love" Amtrak, and then make dramatically misinformed statements about the utility of current Amtrak service within the state of Montana. The only way to support passenger trains in this country is to build on the spartan service we have and be cognizant of value of the service it provides to its online communities.

[VerMontanan]

Valorstorm of Missoula, Montana stated:
"Remember, YOUR favorite railroad wants Amtrak off as well, because it's costing them the same millions that it's costing the UP. And much as I love Amtrak (and I DO!), it doesn't provide a necessary service in MY state! The government shouldn't subsidize the Empire Builder Ski Train. And the BNSF shouldn't have to struggle with it either (they want Amtrak gone as much as the UP does-- don't kid yourself). In fact, the Empire Builder would be justified if it ran on the MRL thru Montana. That's where the population is, and all the traveling students and low-income cross-state motorists! Whew! I didn't breathe thru any of that!"

It's amazing that anyone could be so fantastically uninformed about the utility of the Empire Builder through Montana (and be from Montana, too!). Not justified? In FY2004 only the most ridden passenger train in the United States! Also, it shows ignorance of the fact that the Empire Builder route has historically had higher ridership than was the case through Southern Montana even when both roues had service. If Amtrak should run on the MRL route because of the higher population, then using that logic, the Empire Builder should be the least-patronized route of any Amtrak train, rather than the most patronized. But you forget that the reason that the Empire Builder exists and is used is because of the lack of alternative transportation across Northern Montana....little air and bus service. That someone would advocate depriving these communities of their only form of transportation only to supplement someone else's available transportation is troubling. The fact is that Amtrak is well-patronized in Montana. More people board Amtrak in Whitefish every year than they do in Salt Lake City or Albuquerque; more people board Amtrak in Shelby every year than they do in the state capital cities of Lincoln, NE and Topeka, KS COMBINED! So, given that the Empire Builder eclipses all other long distance routes in ridership (and all the other long distance routes have greater online population), not only is it not provable that Amtrak service through Southern Montana would have higher ridership, it would seem illogical. And the statement about the "Empire Builder ski train" is really a slap in the face to the over 13,000 people a year that board and detrain at places like Shelby and Havre (where are the ski areas there?) and the other locations along the Hi-Line with no air service, no bus service, no interstate highway, all of which can be found in Missoula, Montana.

The real amazing part of Valorstorm's statement is that he/she seemed to have missed the tremendous publicity surrounding the 75th anniversary of the Empire Builder in June of 2004. From Chicago to Seattle and Portland, literally thousands of people turned out at scores of locations up and down the line to show their appreciation for this, the second-longest continuously operated passenger train in North America. Among those in attendance were the governors of North Dakota and Wisconsin, the lieutenant governor of Montana, at least two U.S. Senators and Representatives, and numerous other dignitaries, as well as Amtrak's president. All were on hand to show appreciation for what is (to those that are informed on this subject) without a doubt the most successful long distance passenger train operating in the United States today. Not only is the Empire Builder a standout with regard to ridership, it often posts the best on-time performance of any long distance Amtrak train operated, and is the most socially necessary, serving the route with the least number of transportation alternatives. In addition, it also celebrated the history of the train, named after James J. Hill, often considered the most influential railroader in American history, and the fact that the train was historically the most popular train operating between the Midwest and Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, it is now the ONLY passenger train running between the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, but the main purpose of this 75th anniversary celebration was not only to tout the success of this train, but so show through its popularity that there is good reason to expand rail passenger service to other routes, such as the one through Missoula. Certainly, now more than ever, Amtrak needs all the support it can get. My hope, however, that there are a limited number of people like Valorstorm that claim to "love" Amtrak, and then make dramatically misinformed statements about the utility of current Amtrak service within the state of Montana. The only way to support passenger trains in this country is to build on the spartan service we have and be cognizant of value of the service it provides to its online communities.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

QUOTE: Originally posted by u6729csx

AMTRAK is not the future of rail passenger transportation.

At best AMTRAK is a watered down 1940's era product being sold in the 21st Century. Who of us want to by a 1948 Chevy for daily highway tranportation today. Not me.

If rail passenger transportation is to have a future, High Speed Rail on a dedicated right of way constructed with 21st Century technology will be it. If we as a country, really desire to have rail passenger transportation in the 21st Century, then we must fund such a public works project. If we don't publiclly fund it, it won't get built and if it is not built, there is no future for rail passenger transportation.

So how do we explain the fact that Amtrak trains are booked for months, and that folks want to use it? I would use it more if there was more service. I'm not speaking as a fan. I worked 30 years in train and engine service. The last thing I need is another train trip for entertainment's sake. It's a sound transportation medium. I am in favor of high speed rai. In fact I'm the art director for the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. The public will not get the idea until, in logical steps, Amtrak service is improved.
If you use a safety razor, that's a 1915 product.
(I use a straight razor. the idea for them came from way, way back, You can still buy new ones.)
If you use aerosol shave cream, that's a 1940s era product.
If you use an electric toaster, that's a 1920s product.
I can and should go on but you all get ma drift. Hanging an "era" on any specific medium is silly if the item will still fill a need. The intercity passenger train, if only it were run on time with a good schedule, is perfectly saleable.
Mitch

The products you mention from the bygone eras have all 'improved' themselves since they initially placed on the market. Amtrak, despite newer equipment, has in fact regressed from the service levels that existed in the 1940's.

The 'good schedule' for the 21st Century, with drivers able to maintain 60 MPH or better average trip speeds for long distance trips, is a far cry from what qualified as a 'good schedule' in 1948 when a driver was 'really flying' to maintain average trip speeds of over 30 MPH.

The NEC is the best example of where Amtrak needs to be headed. High volume, High frequency, High speed intercity passenger transportation that makes sense to the traveler and is time competitive for both the highway and airline travelers.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

QUOTE: Originally posted by u6729csx

AMTRAK is not the future of rail passenger transportation.

At best AMTRAK is a watered down 1940's era product being sold in the 21st Century. Who of us want to by a 1948 Chevy for daily highway tranportation today. Not me.

If rail passenger transportation is to have a future, High Speed Rail on a dedicated right of way constructed with 21st Century technology will be it. If we as a country, really desire to have rail passenger transportation in the 21st Century, then we must fund such a public works project. If we don't publiclly fund it, it won't get built and if it is not built, there is no future for rail passenger transportation.

So how do we explain the fact that Amtrak trains are booked for months, and that folks want to use it? I would use it more if there was more service. I'm not speaking as a fan. I worked 30 years in train and engine service. The last thing I need is another train trip for entertainment's sake. It's a sound transportation medium. I am in favor of high speed rai. In fact I'm the art director for the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. The public will not get the idea until, in logical steps, Amtrak service is improved.
If you use a safety razor, that's a 1915 product.
(I use a straight razor. the idea for them came from way, way back, You can still buy new ones.)
If you use aerosol shave cream, that's a 1940s era product.
If you use an electric toaster, that's a 1920s product.
I can and should go on but you all get ma drift. Hanging an "era" on any specific medium is silly if the item will still fill a need. The intercity passenger train, if only it were run on time with a good schedule, is perfectly saleable.
Mitch

The products you mention from the bygone eras have all 'improved' themselves since they initially placed on the market. Amtrak, despite newer equipment, has in fact regressed from the service levels that existed in the 1940's.

The 'good schedule' for the 21st Century, with drivers able to maintain 60 MPH or better average trip speeds for long distance trips, is a far cry from what qualified as a 'good schedule' in 1948 when a driver was 'really flying' to maintain average trip speeds of over 30 MPH.

The NEC is the best example of where Amtrak needs to be headed. High volume, High frequency, High speed intercity passenger transportation that makes sense to the traveler and is time competitive for both the highway and airline travelers.

[Anonymous]

"I believe in traditional passenger service! "
-Daniel Michalk Dawson

What exactally does a statement like that mean?

[Anonymous]

"I believe in traditional passenger service! "
-Daniel Michalk Dawson

What exactally does a statement like that mean?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by u6729csx

AMTRAK is not the future of rail passenger transportation.

At best AMTRAK is a watered down 1940's era product being sold in the 21st Century. Who of us want to by a 1948 Chevy for daily highway tranportation today. Not me.

If rail passenger transportation is to have a future, High Speed Rail on a dedicated right of way constructed with 21st Century technology will be it. If we as a country, really desire to have rail passenger transportation in the 21st Century, then we must fund such a public works project. If we don't publiclly fund it, it won't get built and if it is not built, there is no future for rail passenger transportation.

So how do we explain the fact that Amtrak trains are booked for months, and that folks want to use it? I would use it more if there was more service. I'm not speaking as a fan. I worked 30 years in train and engine service. The last thing I need is another train trip for entertainment's sake. It's a sound transportation medium. I am in favor of high speed rai. In fact I'm the art director for the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. The public will not get the idea until, in logical steps, Amtrak service is improved.
If you use a safety razor, that's a 1915 product.
(I use a straight razor. the idea for them came from way, way back, You can still buy new ones.)
If you use aerosol shave cream, that's a 1940s era product.
If you use an electric toaster, that's a 1920s product.
I can and should go on but you all get ma drift. Hanging an "era" on any specific medium is silly if the item will still fill a need. The intercity passenger train, if only it were run on time with a good schedule, is perfectly saleable.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by u6729csx

AMTRAK is not the future of rail passenger transportation.

At best AMTRAK is a watered down 1940's era product being sold in the 21st Century. Who of us want to by a 1948 Chevy for daily highway tranportation today. Not me.

If rail passenger transportation is to have a future, High Speed Rail on a dedicated right of way constructed with 21st Century technology will be it. If we as a country, really desire to have rail passenger transportation in the 21st Century, then we must fund such a public works project. If we don't publiclly fund it, it won't get built and if it is not built, there is no future for rail passenger transportation.

So how do we explain the fact that Amtrak trains are booked for months, and that folks want to use it? I would use it more if there was more service. I'm not speaking as a fan. I worked 30 years in train and engine service. The last thing I need is another train trip for entertainment's sake. It's a sound transportation medium. I am in favor of high speed rai. In fact I'm the art director for the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. The public will not get the idea until, in logical steps, Amtrak service is improved.
If you use a safety razor, that's a 1915 product.
(I use a straight razor. the idea for them came from way, way back, You can still buy new ones.)
If you use aerosol shave cream, that's a 1940s era product.
If you use an electric toaster, that's a 1920s product.
I can and should go on but you all get ma drift. Hanging an "era" on any specific medium is silly if the item will still fill a need. The intercity passenger train, if only it were run on time with a good schedule, is perfectly saleable.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

AMTRAK is not the future of rail passenger transportation.

At best AMTRAK is a watered down 1940's era product being sold in the 21st Century. Who of us want to by a 1948 Chevy for daily highway tranportation today. Not me.

If rail passenger transportation is to have a future, High Speed Rail on a dedicated right of way constructed with 21st Century technology will be it. If we as a country, really desire to have rail passenger transportation in the 21st Century, then we must fund such a public works project. If we don't publiclly fund it, it won't get built and if it is not built, there is no future for rail passenger transportation.

[Anonymous]

AMTRAK is not the future of rail passenger transportation.

At best AMTRAK is a watered down 1940's era product being sold in the 21st Century. Who of us want to by a 1948 Chevy for daily highway tranportation today. Not me.

If rail passenger transportation is to have a future, High Speed Rail on a dedicated right of way constructed with 21st Century technology will be it. If we as a country, really desire to have rail passenger transportation in the 21st Century, then we must fund such a public works project. If we don't publiclly fund it, it won't get built and if it is not built, there is no future for rail passenger transportation.

[espeefoamer]

Amtrak is as neccessary as airlines and highways.If the government kills Amtrak,it should also end ALL airline subsidies.

[espeefoamer]

Amtrak is as neccessary as airlines and highways.If the government kills Amtrak,it should also end ALL airline subsidies.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oweonapc

Amtrak is a political deal to keep people who see a need for trains (passenger) voting for the wheeler dealers in washington and the people who pay so they can keep running for office. Railroads only make money with freight! Sure, they play the books so it looks like that. They keep merging so there will only be a few left and they can do what they want. From a train crew to only an engineer, and now remote control switch engines. Pretty soon trains run by dispatchers and no crew. I am glad I saw a lot of trains and rode some in my life, now I can model what I want and dont have to answer to anybody. Man, did any of this make sense? Bernt T.

Of course it makes sense. I've thought the same thing.
1920s. "If we could only get rid of the branch line passenger trains, we'd make money."
1950s. "If we could only get rid of the firemen, we'd make money."
1960s. "If only we could get rid of diners and sleepers, we'd make money."
Late 1960's. "If we could get rid of passenger trains, we could make money."
1970's "If we got rid of the branch lines we could make money."
Late 1970s. "If we got rid of one brakeman, we could make money."
1980s. "If we got rid of the suburban service, we could make money."
Late 1980s. "If we got rid of the brakemen and towers, we'd make money."
It's like I've saidin the past. The railroads seem to want to be a 20 story office building with a roller coaster. But now they're making forunes. So how do we get them to want to run passenger trains?
The public has lost touch with what a railroad really is. I vote for direct subsidies to the railroads for passenger service with supervision so they don't use the dough for CEO vacations, etc.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oweonapc

Amtrak is a political deal to keep people who see a need for trains (passenger) voting for the wheeler dealers in washington and the people who pay so they can keep running for office. Railroads only make money with freight! Sure, they play the books so it looks like that. They keep merging so there will only be a few left and they can do what they want. From a train crew to only an engineer, and now remote control switch engines. Pretty soon trains run by dispatchers and no crew. I am glad I saw a lot of trains and rode some in my life, now I can model what I want and dont have to answer to anybody. Man, did any of this make sense? Bernt T.

Of course it makes sense. I've thought the same thing.
1920s. "If we could only get rid of the branch line passenger trains, we'd make money."
1950s. "If we could only get rid of the firemen, we'd make money."
1960s. "If only we could get rid of diners and sleepers, we'd make money."
Late 1960's. "If we could get rid of passenger trains, we could make money."
1970's "If we got rid of the branch lines we could make money."
Late 1970s. "If we got rid of one brakeman, we could make money."
1980s. "If we got rid of the suburban service, we could make money."
Late 1980s. "If we got rid of the brakemen and towers, we'd make money."
It's like I've saidin the past. The railroads seem to want to be a 20 story office building with a roller coaster. But now they're making forunes. So how do we get them to want to run passenger trains?
The public has lost touch with what a railroad really is. I vote for direct subsidies to the railroads for passenger service with supervision so they don't use the dough for CEO vacations, etc.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

More high-speed corridors for Amtrak trains should be a priority. It 's a shame that only those whom live in close proximity to the NEC get to enjoy swift service between major cities.

I would not like to see long-distance trains slaughtered. The California Zephyr, for example, does have a purpose besides being a 'cruise train' for those whom travel aboard it one-way...only to use the plane to return to their point of origin. There are people who board in small towns along the route who depend on the train. If cuts are absolutely necessary for Amtrak, limit the number of trains that run long-distances as opposed to trashing them completely. Annihilating them makes no sense and is selfish.

America doesn't seem to have it's priorities in order in respect to passenger trains. If you want ridership to increase, give the travelling public a glorious alternative to their cars and the airlines. To make Amtrak more 'user friendly', you have to spend the dollars--in effective marketing, accommodations, personnel and infrastructure. I'll always be a fan of Amtrak, but it will take more than the fondness of one individual for Amtrak to survive.

Planes--and getting aboard them--are a pain. Buses? Too many crazies seem to ride them these days. Driving your car for long trips @ $2.00/plus per gallon--plus the increased congestion of our Interstates--seems more of headache. Properly nurtured, passenger trains can be an ideal mode of transportation for the masses and can once again show America's leadership in the transportation industry.

[Anonymous]

More high-speed corridors for Amtrak trains should be a priority. It 's a shame that only those whom live in close proximity to the NEC get to enjoy swift service between major cities.

I would not like to see long-distance trains slaughtered. The California Zephyr, for example, does have a purpose besides being a 'cruise train' for those whom travel aboard it one-way...only to use the plane to return to their point of origin. There are people who board in small towns along the route who depend on the train. If cuts are absolutely necessary for Amtrak, limit the number of trains that run long-distances as opposed to trashing them completely. Annihilating them makes no sense and is selfish.

America doesn't seem to have it's priorities in order in respect to passenger trains. If you want ridership to increase, give the travelling public a glorious alternative to their cars and the airlines. To make Amtrak more 'user friendly', you have to spend the dollars--in effective marketing, accommodations, personnel and infrastructure. I'll always be a fan of Amtrak, but it will take more than the fondness of one individual for Amtrak to survive.

Planes--and getting aboard them--are a pain. Buses? Too many crazies seem to ride them these days. Driving your car for long trips @ $2.00/plus per gallon--plus the increased congestion of our Interstates--seems more of headache. Properly nurtured, passenger trains can be an ideal mode of transportation for the masses and can once again show America's leadership in the transportation industry.

[Anonymous]

I will support killing Amtrak the very same day we kill the airline subsidies.....Until that day, I shall support Amtrak subsidies......

[Anonymous]

I will support killing Amtrak the very same day we kill the airline subsidies.....Until that day, I shall support Amtrak subsidies......

[Anonymous]

Bureau of Transportation Statistics Year 2000

Table 1-34: U.S. Passenger-Miles (Millions)
www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2003/html/table_01_34.html
Air, total 398,199
Highway, total 3,837,512
Commuter rail 7,996
Intercity / Amtrak 5,921

Table 3-16: Average Passenger Revenue per Passenger-Mile (Current ¢)
www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2003/html/table_03_16.html
Air carrier, domestic, scheduled service 14.6
Commuter rail 15.0
Intercity / Amtrak 18.4


Table 3-29a: Transportation Expenditures by Mode and Level of Government from Own Funds, Fiscal Year (Current $ millions)
www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2003/html/table_03_29a.html

Highways, total 103,952
Air, total 22,107
Rail, total 768

[Anonymous]

Bureau of Transportation Statistics Year 2000

Table 1-34: U.S. Passenger-Miles (Millions)
www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2003/html/table_01_34.html
Air, total 398,199
Highway, total 3,837,512
Commuter rail 7,996
Intercity / Amtrak 5,921

Table 3-16: Average Passenger Revenue per Passenger-Mile (Current ¢)
www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2003/html/table_03_16.html
Air carrier, domestic, scheduled service 14.6
Commuter rail 15.0
Intercity / Amtrak 18.4


Table 3-29a: Transportation Expenditures by Mode and Level of Government from Own Funds, Fiscal Year (Current $ millions)
www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2003/html/table_03_29a.html

Highways, total 103,952
Air, total 22,107
Rail, total 768

[randerson]

The solution is actually simple. . . allow Amtrak to ragain an ample share of U.S. mail contracts. After all, it was Eisenhower's insistance to build the interstate highways that caused the mail contracts to be shifted away from railroad passenger traffic in the 1950s. Once the mail contracts were lost to trucking (probably to justify the expense of building the interstate system), passenger service died a quick and inglorious death. Even the once-great flagships, such as NYC's 20th Century Ltd., or SF's Super Chief, became only caricatures of their former glory by the mid 60s once the mail contracts were lost.

Passenger traffic was once profitable. Considering the state of air travel following 9-11, there is no doubt that it can be again.

There are many solutions. The trouble is. . . politicians get in the way!

[randerson]

The solution is actually simple. . . allow Amtrak to ragain an ample share of U.S. mail contracts. After all, it was Eisenhower's insistance to build the interstate highways that caused the mail contracts to be shifted away from railroad passenger traffic in the 1950s. Once the mail contracts were lost to trucking (probably to justify the expense of building the interstate system), passenger service died a quick and inglorious death. Even the once-great flagships, such as NYC's 20th Century Ltd., or SF's Super Chief, became only caricatures of their former glory by the mid 60s once the mail contracts were lost.

Passenger traffic was once profitable. Considering the state of air travel following 9-11, there is no doubt that it can be again.

There are many solutions. The trouble is. . . politicians get in the way!

[METRO]

I'll tell you one thing though: Amtrak will never give up the NEC. They are the kings, queens and aces of intercity transit in the northeast and I don't think the government would allow them to stop.

I think that Amtrak will eventually move over to more localized or regional service, like Amtrak California, NEC and Northeast Service. Corridors will probably be set up in more areas (say Florida and a Chicago-Detroit line) but eventually the less profitable and more difficult long haul lines will go the way of the steamer.

I think that carriers like UP would be much happier if Amtrak became a regional carrier, they'd only have to deal with them in high-density corridors. As a compromise the passenger should be givien priority in these corridors, while this would probably irk large carriers to no end when they try to ship into major cities, it would also force them to decentralize their yard structure and make frieght moving more efficient.

[METRO]

I'll tell you one thing though: Amtrak will never give up the NEC. They are the kings, queens and aces of intercity transit in the northeast and I don't think the government would allow them to stop.

I think that Amtrak will eventually move over to more localized or regional service, like Amtrak California, NEC and Northeast Service. Corridors will probably be set up in more areas (say Florida and a Chicago-Detroit line) but eventually the less profitable and more difficult long haul lines will go the way of the steamer.

I think that carriers like UP would be much happier if Amtrak became a regional carrier, they'd only have to deal with them in high-density corridors. As a compromise the passenger should be givien priority in these corridors, while this would probably irk large carriers to no end when they try to ship into major cities, it would also force them to decentralize their yard structure and make frieght moving more efficient.

[AntonioFP45]

Tomtrain,

I drove charter buses part time for 10 years at Gray LIne. Our coaches were identical to what Greyhound was using (MC9s and MCI 102A3). As much as I enjoyed meeting people, I would never like to take a long trip on a bus, or a trip that lasts over 2 hours.

You only have so much height and width on a bus interior. There was a CH 13 news editor a few years back in Tampa who made the comment that an Amtrak coach is a bus on rails. Apparently he'd never ridden the rails. I've commented on how incredibly ignorant he was!

There is just no comparison to the freedom you have onboard the train. After 45 minutes, I like to be able to stand up and stretch. Restroom facilities on trains are much roomier. Families with babies appreciate that. Hungry? Walk to the lounge car and get a snack. Got kids or friends with you?--Sit in the lounge car and play a board game or cards. [:)][8D][:D][swg][tup]

No , I would likely not use the bus. This may sound a little corny, but I absolutely hate having to look at the scenery offered by our concrete interstates. [V][B)]

BowlerP is right on target. [;)]
It is a complex issue. Train speed was a big advantage and to a small degree it is in some areas, but with the railroads going with single track mainlining since the 1970s, Amtrak is often pinched by dispatchers giving hotshot freights preferences. Passenger rail will never succeed in this country until our mentality changes. As much as I dislike rising fuel costs, the positive outcome could be that Congress may start getting more earfuls of citizens demanding better support for passenger rail. [:)]

We're forced to support federal funding of abortions for the poor, our tax money is consistently wasted on projects that the majority of citizens don't support, yet what Amtrak needs is a drop in the bucket by comparison. I would love to see my tax dollars support a rail service that is viable and speedy. Our leaders, so far, are trying to make sure that this does not happen.

Mr. Bush, you're a nice guy but please sir, rethink your transportation policies!

10-4

[AntonioFP45]

Tomtrain,

I drove charter buses part time for 10 years at Gray LIne. Our coaches were identical to what Greyhound was using (MC9s and MCI 102A3). As much as I enjoyed meeting people, I would never like to take a long trip on a bus, or a trip that lasts over 2 hours.

You only have so much height and width on a bus interior. There was a CH 13 news editor a few years back in Tampa who made the comment that an Amtrak coach is a bus on rails. Apparently he'd never ridden the rails. I've commented on how incredibly ignorant he was!

There is just no comparison to the freedom you have onboard the train. After 45 minutes, I like to be able to stand up and stretch. Restroom facilities on trains are much roomier. Families with babies appreciate that. Hungry? Walk to the lounge car and get a snack. Got kids or friends with you?--Sit in the lounge car and play a board game or cards. [:)][8D][:D][swg][tup]

No , I would likely not use the bus. This may sound a little corny, but I absolutely hate having to look at the scenery offered by our concrete interstates. [V][B)]

BowlerP is right on target. [;)]
It is a complex issue. Train speed was a big advantage and to a small degree it is in some areas, but with the railroads going with single track mainlining since the 1970s, Amtrak is often pinched by dispatchers giving hotshot freights preferences. Passenger rail will never succeed in this country until our mentality changes. As much as I dislike rising fuel costs, the positive outcome could be that Congress may start getting more earfuls of citizens demanding better support for passenger rail. [:)]

We're forced to support federal funding of abortions for the poor, our tax money is consistently wasted on projects that the majority of citizens don't support, yet what Amtrak needs is a drop in the bucket by comparison. I would love to see my tax dollars support a rail service that is viable and speedy. Our leaders, so far, are trying to make sure that this does not happen.

Mr. Bush, you're a nice guy but please sir, rethink your transportation policies!

10-4

[philnrunt]

I 've flown United from Indy to Seattle,(delayed, crowded, the airports are asylums,but plenty fast) I've rode Greyhound from Colo Sprgs to Seattle(met and got to know some unique folks really, really , no I mean REALLY well, my baggage went to L.A., six days on the road and I'm a gonna find my gun tonight!) and I've taken Amtrak from Indy to Chicago and Denver. If I have the opportunity to do any again, it will be the civilized, scenic and (relative to the others) reliable train. You can stretch your legs, relax and let the world go past, and with the natural rocking of the cars, that one overpriced Tequilla Sunrise makes you feel like you got hammered on one drink!

[philnrunt]

I 've flown United from Indy to Seattle,(delayed, crowded, the airports are asylums,but plenty fast) I've rode Greyhound from Colo Sprgs to Seattle(met and got to know some unique folks really, really , no I mean REALLY well, my baggage went to L.A., six days on the road and I'm a gonna find my gun tonight!) and I've taken Amtrak from Indy to Chicago and Denver. If I have the opportunity to do any again, it will be the civilized, scenic and (relative to the others) reliable train. You can stretch your legs, relax and let the world go past, and with the natural rocking of the cars, that one overpriced Tequilla Sunrise makes you feel like you got hammered on one drink!

[AntonioFP45]

SlotRacer, [;)]

With all due respect, I agree with some of your points but you've left out one thing. There are too MANY people that WILL NOT STEP ABOARD AN AIRPLANE! [B)][:0] I had to fly from Texas to Tampa, Florida on a Southwest Airlines 737. WHAT A CATTLE CAR! I'm not that big (6ft tall). The seat was cramped and the 2 1/2 hour ride was incredibly bumpy! I had a big headache when I arrived in Tampa. The 737 was far less roomier than an Amfleet coach. I sincerely wi***hat our government would change its atttitude towards passenger rail. I drive to Georgia quite a bit, hating the traffic on I-75, saying repeatedly that if only Amtrak had a train going this way.............[sigh][sigh]

The reason national service is sparse is because the combination of the Class 1 railroads and government bueracrats like Norm Mineta and John McCain (please retire) want to make sure that long distance trains remain an obsolete form of travel, citing "inefficiences". True before, but now there is finally a COMPETENT president onboard , David Gunn, who is doing what he can with little or nothing. Yet, the politicians still won't meet him halfway. (Sorry, but privitization won't work! - failed in Europe!) The good thing about Gunn is that his attitude is that Amtrak is "a package deal", local and long distance service. HIs two predecessors seemed mainly focused on the Northeast Corridor.

It's been suggested that Uncle Sam give railroads tax breaks on double tracking mainlines and upgrading for 90mph operation. Why isn't this happening since our Republican administration is good about passing tax cuts? (of which I'm not against as long as it has a positive impact on the economy, which to a degree it has.)

I'm conservative, but if Kery does get into the white house I hope that he supports passenger rail like most of his constituents. Norm MIneta definetly needs to go!

[AntonioFP45]

SlotRacer, [;)]

With all due respect, I agree with some of your points but you've left out one thing. There are too MANY people that WILL NOT STEP ABOARD AN AIRPLANE! [B)][:0] I had to fly from Texas to Tampa, Florida on a Southwest Airlines 737. WHAT A CATTLE CAR! I'm not that big (6ft tall). The seat was cramped and the 2 1/2 hour ride was incredibly bumpy! I had a big headache when I arrived in Tampa. The 737 was far less roomier than an Amfleet coach. I sincerely wi***hat our government would change its atttitude towards passenger rail. I drive to Georgia quite a bit, hating the traffic on I-75, saying repeatedly that if only Amtrak had a train going this way.............[sigh][sigh]

The reason national service is sparse is because the combination of the Class 1 railroads and government bueracrats like Norm Mineta and John McCain (please retire) want to make sure that long distance trains remain an obsolete form of travel, citing "inefficiences". True before, but now there is finally a COMPETENT president onboard , David Gunn, who is doing what he can with little or nothing. Yet, the politicians still won't meet him halfway. (Sorry, but privitization won't work! - failed in Europe!) The good thing about Gunn is that his attitude is that Amtrak is "a package deal", local and long distance service. HIs two predecessors seemed mainly focused on the Northeast Corridor.

It's been suggested that Uncle Sam give railroads tax breaks on double tracking mainlines and upgrading for 90mph operation. Why isn't this happening since our Republican administration is good about passing tax cuts? (of which I'm not against as long as it has a positive impact on the economy, which to a degree it has.)

I'm conservative, but if Kery does get into the white house I hope that he supports passenger rail like most of his constituents. Norm MIneta definetly needs to go!

[TH&B]

I just want to say that I refused to put in a vote on this topic I just looked at today because the choices were not complete. I do not believe private companys like UP should be forced to deal with it <like incinutated> if there was anything in it they, would do it automaticaly. The F Gov should only be involved as long as none else is interested, such as these times but should always be trying to find a private solution..... but CAN NOT dump it on our PRIVATE freight railroads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TH&B]

I just want to say that I refused to put in a vote on this topic I just looked at today because the choices were not complete. I do not believe private companys like UP should be forced to deal with it <like incinutated> if there was anything in it they, would do it automaticaly. The F Gov should only be involved as long as none else is interested, such as these times but should always be trying to find a private solution..... but CAN NOT dump it on our PRIVATE freight railroads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

When railroads were owned by private companies passenger train service was once excellent. In the late 50's and early sixties you could still ride the Burlington Zephyr from Denver to Chicago for as low as a $6.00 fare and the ride took 13 hours from 5AM to 6PM . So what forced private railroad companies out of business?- our government did.
When airplane travel started to become popular in the late 50's and early 60's they started with a distinct advantage that continues today.. Airlines land at government built and owned facilities for a very nominal fee- the municipal airports. The government also maintains these facilities.. The railroads on the other hand not only had to own and maintain millions of miles of track but had to pay real estate taxes on every station, signal, yard, switching tower, right of way and terminal. Being saddled with this high maintenace and tax burden is it any wonder why the railroads could not compete ? Provide tax free right of ways for the railroads ( as the airlines enjoy) and I predict that private rail service will come back.
When you consider the traveling time to the airport, the time you must arrive to park and get through security, the time to check and pick up your baggage it is far more efficent ( and comfortable) to take a 200- 300 mile trip by rail to the major cities. . I've taken many trips to Washington DC, Boston and Baltimore from NJ , both by rail and by train and have always found that the TOTAL traveling time is always far less by rail.
Case in point- trip to Baltimore by air. .
Travel time to Newark Airport from my home 1:15
Time needed to check in, clear security and park 1:15- 2:00
TIme to get your baggage from check in :30
Flight time to Baltimore, (if the plane takes off on time) 1:00
Total time of trip via air 4:00 to 4:30 hours
Now lets take the same trip via Amtrak
Travel time to Princton RR station :30
Time to park and check in ( bags carrried on) 15
Time of RR trip 2:10
Total time 2 hours 55 minutes - a minimum of 1 hours savings. AND the seats and legroom are much wider, you can use your cell phone all along the trip, you can walk to the dining car to purchase a variety of food and drink, you can plug in your laptop, stretch your legs and arrive feeling relaxed and refreshed.
The reason why we don't have private railroads running passenger service is that our government does not and did not make it profitable for this business to prosper. Excessive taxation is the reason why we lost the the Reading, Pennsylvania, NYC, Lackawanna, C&O, B&O, Erie, B&M, Rutland, Jersey Central, and others.

[Anonymous]

When railroads were owned by private companies passenger train service was once excellent. In the late 50's and early sixties you could still ride the Burlington Zephyr from Denver to Chicago for as low as a $6.00 fare and the ride took 13 hours from 5AM to 6PM . So what forced private railroad companies out of business?- our government did.
When airplane travel started to become popular in the late 50's and early 60's they started with a distinct advantage that continues today.. Airlines land at government built and owned facilities for a very nominal fee- the municipal airports. The government also maintains these facilities.. The railroads on the other hand not only had to own and maintain millions of miles of track but had to pay real estate taxes on every station, signal, yard, switching tower, right of way and terminal. Being saddled with this high maintenace and tax burden is it any wonder why the railroads could not compete ? Provide tax free right of ways for the railroads ( as the airlines enjoy) and I predict that private rail service will come back.
When you consider the traveling time to the airport, the time you must arrive to park and get through security, the time to check and pick up your baggage it is far more efficent ( and comfortable) to take a 200- 300 mile trip by rail to the major cities. . I've taken many trips to Washington DC, Boston and Baltimore from NJ , both by rail and by train and have always found that the TOTAL traveling time is always far less by rail.
Case in point- trip to Baltimore by air. .
Travel time to Newark Airport from my home 1:15
Time needed to check in, clear security and park 1:15- 2:00
TIme to get your baggage from check in :30
Flight time to Baltimore, (if the plane takes off on time) 1:00
Total time of trip via air 4:00 to 4:30 hours
Now lets take the same trip via Amtrak
Travel time to Princton RR station :30
Time to park and check in ( bags carrried on) 15
Time of RR trip 2:10
Total time 2 hours 55 minutes - a minimum of 1 hours savings. AND the seats and legroom are much wider, you can use your cell phone all along the trip, you can walk to the dining car to purchase a variety of food and drink, you can plug in your laptop, stretch your legs and arrive feeling relaxed and refreshed.
The reason why we don't have private railroads running passenger service is that our government does not and did not make it profitable for this business to prosper. Excessive taxation is the reason why we lost the the Reading, Pennsylvania, NYC, Lackawanna, C&O, B&O, Erie, B&M, Rutland, Jersey Central, and others.

[bowlerp]

I think the question is not the correct one to ask, for I am not of the opinion that the Class One RR's can or will successfully be forced to re-start their own passenger service. The Bush Administration has once again (in the last week or two) asked for information on the dissolution of AMTRAK for intercity.

It is a thinly veiled tactic to achieve the strategy of completely abandoning long distance passenger travel. Ask yourself how one can reasonably expect an entity like AMTRAK to survive with such a minimal subsidy? New Jersey transit alone has access to nearly $45 Billion in capital and operating funds for commuter operations (Railway Age, May 2004) in their corridors. AMTRAK, by contrast, currently has only slightly over $1 billion in operating funds for the entire 22,000 mile "system".

Every behavior of this Administration points to the strategy of dissolution. Their public statements are more subtle, for they want to achieve this quietly, with little public debate and without riling up the silent minority. This is my analysis through observation and should not be attributed to any other unless by coincidence. The Administration believes that a slow death by starvation will achieve their goal. The tactic is to deteriorate service by starvation to the extent that even rabid supporters of AMTRAk will lose patience and give up. Perhaps this administration has read and taken Joe Vrannich too closely to heart.

Recall your history and you will realize that the strategy is not new or creative. It is an almost direct copy of the strategy of abandonement that Class One RRs assumed in the 1950s and 1960s, when they had to appeal to the ICC for each individual passenger train abandonement. This version is simply a speeded up one, on a more wholesale scale.

The key question to ask is: what is the motivation of the Bush Administration to achieve this objective? I cannot answer, but certainly it is not for the cost savings reasons that they publicly pitch to you and I. The dollars, +- 1Billion, are simply too trivial to bother over in the big picture. Compare to how much we spend to kill people all over the world. Compare to the amount of money we spend to re-build the same highways and bridges over and over again, usually shoddily. Compare to how much money we spend to subsidize air terminals on behalf that private business. Let me qualify these by telling you that I am NOT a liberal, a socialist, or a communist. I do object strongly to having someone else's socio-political agenda imposed upon me when it does not make sense for the country in the long run.

The entire world should be thinking about ways to convert to sustainable economies, to protect our global diminishing resources of clean air, clean water, and raw materials. A key transition technology, already realized in most developed countries and in many underdeveloped ones, is rail transit and rail long distance. The reason is simple - though its capital costs are high, its energy efficiency is undeniable compared to individual, private travel. Even in a sustainable economy, people must have jobs and earn a living, thus we must continue to refine the ways and efficiencies of doing that. I would argue that continuing to spread ever increasing private car travel and truck hauling throughout the world is not the way to achieve our benficial goals. Can you imagine how polluted our air will become when China has 300-400 million cars, etc. India and Africa? And where will the fuel for them be coming from?

No, abandoning rail travel is not the logical choice of a right thinking society.

End of editorial. It is yours to respond to, but please keep your comments limited to good arguments and moderate tone, though your opinions may differ. My tone is always reasonable. Thank you.

[bowlerp]

I think the question is not the correct one to ask, for I am not of the opinion that the Class One RR's can or will successfully be forced to re-start their own passenger service. The Bush Administration has once again (in the last week or two) asked for information on the dissolution of AMTRAK for intercity.

It is a thinly veiled tactic to achieve the strategy of completely abandoning long distance passenger travel. Ask yourself how one can reasonably expect an entity like AMTRAK to survive with such a minimal subsidy? New Jersey transit alone has access to nearly $45 Billion in capital and operating funds for commuter operations (Railway Age, May 2004) in their corridors. AMTRAK, by contrast, currently has only slightly over $1 billion in operating funds for the entire 22,000 mile "system".

Every behavior of this Administration points to the strategy of dissolution. Their public statements are more subtle, for they want to achieve this quietly, with little public debate and without riling up the silent minority. This is my analysis through observation and should not be attributed to any other unless by coincidence. The Administration believes that a slow death by starvation will achieve their goal. The tactic is to deteriorate service by starvation to the extent that even rabid supporters of AMTRAk will lose patience and give up. Perhaps this administration has read and taken Joe Vrannich too closely to heart.

Recall your history and you will realize that the strategy is not new or creative. It is an almost direct copy of the strategy of abandonement that Class One RRs assumed in the 1950s and 1960s, when they had to appeal to the ICC for each individual passenger train abandonement. This version is simply a speeded up one, on a more wholesale scale.

The key question to ask is: what is the motivation of the Bush Administration to achieve this objective? I cannot answer, but certainly it is not for the cost savings reasons that they publicly pitch to you and I. The dollars, +- 1Billion, are simply too trivial to bother over in the big picture. Compare to how much we spend to kill people all over the world. Compare to the amount of money we spend to re-build the same highways and bridges over and over again, usually shoddily. Compare to how much money we spend to subsidize air terminals on behalf that private business. Let me qualify these by telling you that I am NOT a liberal, a socialist, or a communist. I do object strongly to having someone else's socio-political agenda imposed upon me when it does not make sense for the country in the long run.

The entire world should be thinking about ways to convert to sustainable economies, to protect our global diminishing resources of clean air, clean water, and raw materials. A key transition technology, already realized in most developed countries and in many underdeveloped ones, is rail transit and rail long distance. The reason is simple - though its capital costs are high, its energy efficiency is undeniable compared to individual, private travel. Even in a sustainable economy, people must have jobs and earn a living, thus we must continue to refine the ways and efficiencies of doing that. I would argue that continuing to spread ever increasing private car travel and truck hauling throughout the world is not the way to achieve our benficial goals. Can you imagine how polluted our air will become when China has 300-400 million cars, etc. India and Africa? And where will the fuel for them be coming from?

No, abandoning rail travel is not the logical choice of a right thinking society.

End of editorial. It is yours to respond to, but please keep your comments limited to good arguments and moderate tone, though your opinions may differ. My tone is always reasonable. Thank you.

[wallyworld]

Unless there is an enormously catastrophic crisis leading to a shortage in the world oil supplies, you will see modest improvements in short haul trains primarily funded by state rather than federal sources. There will be increased use of diesel powered multiple unit equipment patterned on the original concept of RDC’s, some scattered and again modest increases in track speed following the past pattern of improvement which has been primarily due to technological advances in equipment design rather than any national program of track realignments or electrification. Amtrak will continue to sputter and fitfully continue its status quo in terms of being a token alternative to highway surface transportation and suffer politically weak support for funding. The trend of a de facto takeover of Amtrak by the more urbanized states will continue and Amtrak itself will gradually fade away unnoticed. I think leisurely paced luxury travel trains operated by private companies will continue to hold their own. The number of long distance passenger trains will shrink on a route by route basis beginning in the West but will survive largely East of the Mississippi on state funded programs like that of my own state, North Carolina. Light rail programs and construction will really start to take off in total mileage due to the trend already in place of existing systems being expanded and new ones in development now that will be expanded later in the future. You will see interurban like routes of light rail feeding
City owned heavy rail systems. As GPS systems for tracking and more “intelligent” software based applications appear, these will be automated operationally.

[wallyworld]

Unless there is an enormously catastrophic crisis leading to a shortage in the world oil supplies, you will see modest improvements in short haul trains primarily funded by state rather than federal sources. There will be increased use of diesel powered multiple unit equipment patterned on the original concept of RDC’s, some scattered and again modest increases in track speed following the past pattern of improvement which has been primarily due to technological advances in equipment design rather than any national program of track realignments or electrification. Amtrak will continue to sputter and fitfully continue its status quo in terms of being a token alternative to highway surface transportation and suffer politically weak support for funding. The trend of a de facto takeover of Amtrak by the more urbanized states will continue and Amtrak itself will gradually fade away unnoticed. I think leisurely paced luxury travel trains operated by private companies will continue to hold their own. The number of long distance passenger trains will shrink on a route by route basis beginning in the West but will survive largely East of the Mississippi on state funded programs like that of my own state, North Carolina. Light rail programs and construction will really start to take off in total mileage due to the trend already in place of existing systems being expanded and new ones in development now that will be expanded later in the future. You will see interurban like routes of light rail feeding
City owned heavy rail systems. As GPS systems for tracking and more “intelligent” software based applications appear, these will be automated operationally.

[Anonymous]

I think the railroads should be forced to run passenger service. I am no expert ( only 12 yrs. old ) but I think that with the proper management, passenger service can be quite successeful. here are things that I think are needed.

1) faster trains
2) better looking trains ( I don't know about you, but looks say alot to me )
3) more routs
4) competition

I think if the railroads would provide : clean trains, affordable service, and apealing trains. the passanger train industry could be quite succesful. Look at the Alaska Railroad. Then agin the Alaska railroad has i good tourist market. just my opinion

[Anonymous]

I think the railroads should be forced to run passenger service. I am no expert ( only 12 yrs. old ) but I think that with the proper management, passenger service can be quite successeful. here are things that I think are needed.

1) faster trains
2) better looking trains ( I don't know about you, but looks say alot to me )
3) more routs
4) competition

I think if the railroads would provide : clean trains, affordable service, and apealing trains. the passanger train industry could be quite succesful. Look at the Alaska Railroad. Then agin the Alaska railroad has i good tourist market. just my opinion

[Anonymous]

I want Passenger trains to stay until the end of the world

[Anonymous]

I want Passenger trains to stay until the end of the world

[cpbloom]

Unforunately we railfans don't speak for all of America and I have heard what some of them had to say about Amtrak in non-railroad messageboards; it is not favorable. So regardless of what I say or what we say, what can be done to convince the non-railfan, average and time-sensitive traveler, to use Amtrak?

[cpbloom]

Unforunately we railfans don't speak for all of America and I have heard what some of them had to say about Amtrak in non-railroad messageboards; it is not favorable. So regardless of what I say or what we say, what can be done to convince the non-railfan, average and time-sensitive traveler, to use Amtrak?

[Anonymous]

Sorry. Above should have been for Ironrooster.

[Anonymous]

Sorry. Above should have been for Ironrooster.

[Anonymous]

Amen trainrooster.

What airline pays for the FAA? How many airports do they own?

What barge line pays for dredging and dams done by the Army Corps of Engineers?

Which of the above pay property taxes for their right of way?

I think everybody knows the answer is NONE! We have an incohrerent transportation polcy in this country which subsidizes certain types of transportaion and then expects Amtrak and freight railroads to cover all of their own costs.

[Anonymous]

Amen trainrooster.

What airline pays for the FAA? How many airports do they own?

What barge line pays for dredging and dams done by the Army Corps of Engineers?

Which of the above pay property taxes for their right of way?

I think everybody knows the answer is NONE! We have an incohrerent transportation polcy in this country which subsidizes certain types of transportaion and then expects Amtrak and freight railroads to cover all of their own costs.

[IRONROOSTER]

I think passenger service will have to continue to be funded in part by the Federal government. This is no different than the governent funding other transportation modes. Condsidering how much is spent on highways, rural roads, city streets etc. rail isn't too expensive. The high density routes in the northeast corridor will always do well, but just as the post office delivers everywhere, so should the railroads.

As the population increases in this country I think that the roads and airways are going to become overloaded and rail will provide a vital part of the tranportation needs.

Enjoy
Paul

[IRONROOSTER]

I think passenger service will have to continue to be funded in part by the Federal government. This is no different than the governent funding other transportation modes. Condsidering how much is spent on highways, rural roads, city streets etc. rail isn't too expensive. The high density routes in the northeast corridor will always do well, but just as the post office delivers everywhere, so should the railroads.

As the population increases in this country I think that the roads and airways are going to become overloaded and rail will provide a vital part of the tranportation needs.

Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

Make the freight railroads take back passenger service [:o]???? this is a joke,right ?[(-D]

I think if your going to do something, don't do it half-a[censored]. Amtrak needs to be properly funded or eliminated all together, not run the way it has ben.
I personaly think Amtrak is a nessasary alternative and needs to have the money takes
to operate it. If that means more taxes so be it. But I realise not everyone thinks so, and probably won't till it's too late. [X-)]
[#oops]

[Anonymous]

Make the freight railroads take back passenger service [:o]???? this is a joke,right ?[(-D]

I think if your going to do something, don't do it half-a[censored]. Amtrak needs to be properly funded or eliminated all together, not run the way it has ben.
I personaly think Amtrak is a nessasary alternative and needs to have the money takes
to operate it. If that means more taxes so be it. But I realise not everyone thinks so, and probably won't till it's too late. [X-)]
[#oops]

[Anonymous]

I f there,s a market for rail travel, than you shouldn't have to force the railroads to take on passenger service . It's real simple, if it can't sustain the revenue through it services than it is no longer a viable business . Forcing legitimate corporations to take on this service is simply un-American. I love riding on passenger trains myself, but think it is absurd to tell a company that they have to take on a losing venture wether they want to or not.

[Anonymous]

I f there,s a market for rail travel, than you shouldn't have to force the railroads to take on passenger service . It's real simple, if it can't sustain the revenue through it services than it is no longer a viable business . Forcing legitimate corporations to take on this service is simply un-American. I love riding on passenger trains myself, but think it is absurd to tell a company that they have to take on a losing venture wether they want to or not.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeriley2002

I am amazed at the lack of knowledge and understanding of the economics of passenger rail service shown by the forum respondents. One would expect industry fans would have a deeper grasp of the subject than the idiological claptrap uttered here.

Hear! Hear!

I can't name a single railroad that provided passenger service that was a higher earner than freight. Passenger service just doesn't pay as well as freight. The railroads are like any other company, interested in the bottom line. For those of you who think that's an arrogant statement to make, remember, you're also concerned with the bottom line - the amount of money in your wallet/checking account, etc.

I've lived overseas in Europe, and yes, the train service is quite good. Yes, it's also government subsidized and the government takes its share of income taxes from the populace to help pay for those railroads and other social programs. How much are income taxes in Canada? Most of us in the United States pay less than 15% of our income on taxes, yet we never seem to stop complaining about how much we have to pay. (Don't get me started on gas prices - 25 years ago, I was paying $3.00 a gallon, so $1.63 today isn't that high.) All part of the joys of living in the greatest country in the world.
(Insert flag waving icon here.)

As for people not having the time to go here and there, well, why bother flying? It's cheaper to do a videoteleconference - been there, done those. The basic setup isn't all that expensive, and heck, it can be done from a desktop computer. Why spend the time (3 - 4 hours flight time), the money (fare, hotel, food, etc.) on a flight, when you can just call them up and talk to them?

I remember the old B & O passenger service. The trains weren't all that comfortable, the ride was bumpy and noisy. As late as 1967, even the Pennsylvania Railroad, one of the richest, was trying to knock off passenger service.

For those of you who villify Amtrak, I think they're a darn sight better than letting the Union Pacific run passenger service. They don't provide it now, what would make you think it would be something they'd start doing in the future? They know their profit is in freight.

Those of you who don't trust the government, I don't blame you. But I distrust companies like Union Pacific even more. By the way, wasn't Amtrak formed during the Republican administration of Richard Nixon?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeriley2002

I am amazed at the lack of knowledge and understanding of the economics of passenger rail service shown by the forum respondents. One would expect industry fans would have a deeper grasp of the subject than the idiological claptrap uttered here.

Hear! Hear!

I can't name a single railroad that provided passenger service that was a higher earner than freight. Passenger service just doesn't pay as well as freight. The railroads are like any other company, interested in the bottom line. For those of you who think that's an arrogant statement to make, remember, you're also concerned with the bottom line - the amount of money in your wallet/checking account, etc.

I've lived overseas in Europe, and yes, the train service is quite good. Yes, it's also government subsidized and the government takes its share of income taxes from the populace to help pay for those railroads and other social programs. How much are income taxes in Canada? Most of us in the United States pay less than 15% of our income on taxes, yet we never seem to stop complaining about how much we have to pay. (Don't get me started on gas prices - 25 years ago, I was paying $3.00 a gallon, so $1.63 today isn't that high.) All part of the joys of living in the greatest country in the world.
(Insert flag waving icon here.)

As for people not having the time to go here and there, well, why bother flying? It's cheaper to do a videoteleconference - been there, done those. The basic setup isn't all that expensive, and heck, it can be done from a desktop computer. Why spend the time (3 - 4 hours flight time), the money (fare, hotel, food, etc.) on a flight, when you can just call them up and talk to them?

I remember the old B & O passenger service. The trains weren't all that comfortable, the ride was bumpy and noisy. As late as 1967, even the Pennsylvania Railroad, one of the richest, was trying to knock off passenger service.

For those of you who villify Amtrak, I think they're a darn sight better than letting the Union Pacific run passenger service. They don't provide it now, what would make you think it would be something they'd start doing in the future? They know their profit is in freight.

Those of you who don't trust the government, I don't blame you. But I distrust companies like Union Pacific even more. By the way, wasn't Amtrak formed during the Republican administration of Richard Nixon?

[Anonymous]

I'm not quite sure how and where to start. As an AMTRAK Conductor in the corridor, and as one who rides to KCY to visit family, I've seen quite a bit. It doesn't make me iconoclastic that I have just about 35 years in this occupation.. What I've done is to take a look at all the stuff I've heard and seen and have tried to make some sense of it. I cannot give out info about the company. I cannot, nor do I care to, denigrate the company. It has provided well for me, and I have provided well for the company.
I have seen an interesting balance vis-a-vis the Corinthians qoute about doing a good job for the people you work for. There are many who view this as a job, and many who view this a a career. I can tell you that I feel that the track dept. can be relied upon to do a superb job--after all I feel safe riding on this infrastructure at over double the highway speed limit. I can tell you that there are some really great people on both sides of the agreement/non-agreement fence that show remarkable dedication to the company. Ther is a very dedicated CEO in place at this time who may very well be able to demonstrate to the club down there in D. C. that we can master the ordinary.
There is also some very pleased patronage who are riding with us as a matter of preference who haven't really experienced the "nostalgia" of how it used to be done.
Some even have great expectations that we are able to meet.
A number of years ago "Time" magazine devoted quite an issue on the love affair of the American male with the automobile. It is believed by quite a few that the automobile industry runs our economy. If we think about all the general commentary from our media, and put it all together, we may realize that individuality is the force of the American Human Psyche (and boy do I hope i can copyright THAT label, although i don't care for the language of spin), and with the studied effort of Madison Ave., that that industry has historically tried to keep us out of every other form of ground transportation that didn't have to stop at the gas pumps. Their lobbying efforts have been just plain enormous.
Then, so I don't appear one sided, I care to agree that not all is perfect, including myself, with the company, but one can find those stories elsewhere. This is a topic steeped in nostalgia. heaped with history, rife with rumor, hearsay, and slant, and a topic that should be continually studied and commented upon, with the hope that someday we can all get it right. There are professionals out there who can be found contributing to the pages of "Trains", etc. on the enthusiast side, and "Railway Age", etc. on the wheel meets the rail side who can help us with this process.
It's a rather big picture. In my neck fo the woods we host the freight trains of some of the railroads that host us to Florida, New Orleans, and Chicago off corridor. Metro North has us in two of their very busy lines. Chicago's METRA hosts us on many routes. The western giants give grace to our-one-train-a-day-each-way as well. Complicated. Multi-tasked. And very interesting to view.
This gets me to the personal part. I have a pretty open profile on view. Many commentators do not. I have found it best to not be a "loner" while traveling the trains. Visit the lounge car. Bring magazines and a book. Small games are suitable along with conversation. View the countryside. There's something about a train. . .
Take care,
Al

[Anonymous]

I'm not quite sure how and where to start. As an AMTRAK Conductor in the corridor, and as one who rides to KCY to visit family, I've seen quite a bit. It doesn't make me iconoclastic that I have just about 35 years in this occupation.. What I've done is to take a look at all the stuff I've heard and seen and have tried to make some sense of it. I cannot give out info about the company. I cannot, nor do I care to, denigrate the company. It has provided well for me, and I have provided well for the company.
I have seen an interesting balance vis-a-vis the Corinthians qoute about doing a good job for the people you work for. There are many who view this as a job, and many who view this a a career. I can tell you that I feel that the track dept. can be relied upon to do a superb job--after all I feel safe riding on this infrastructure at over double the highway speed limit. I can tell you that there are some really great people on both sides of the agreement/non-agreement fence that show remarkable dedication to the company. Ther is a very dedicated CEO in place at this time who may very well be able to demonstrate to the club down there in D. C. that we can master the ordinary.
There is also some very pleased patronage who are riding with us as a matter of preference who haven't really experienced the "nostalgia" of how it used to be done.
Some even have great expectations that we are able to meet.
A number of years ago "Time" magazine devoted quite an issue on the love affair of the American male with the automobile. It is believed by quite a few that the automobile industry runs our economy. If we think about all the general commentary from our media, and put it all together, we may realize that individuality is the force of the American Human Psyche (and boy do I hope i can copyright THAT label, although i don't care for the language of spin), and with the studied effort of Madison Ave., that that industry has historically tried to keep us out of every other form of ground transportation that didn't have to stop at the gas pumps. Their lobbying efforts have been just plain enormous.
Then, so I don't appear one sided, I care to agree that not all is perfect, including myself, with the company, but one can find those stories elsewhere. This is a topic steeped in nostalgia. heaped with history, rife with rumor, hearsay, and slant, and a topic that should be continually studied and commented upon, with the hope that someday we can all get it right. There are professionals out there who can be found contributing to the pages of "Trains", etc. on the enthusiast side, and "Railway Age", etc. on the wheel meets the rail side who can help us with this process.
It's a rather big picture. In my neck fo the woods we host the freight trains of some of the railroads that host us to Florida, New Orleans, and Chicago off corridor. Metro North has us in two of their very busy lines. Chicago's METRA hosts us on many routes. The western giants give grace to our-one-train-a-day-each-way as well. Complicated. Multi-tasked. And very interesting to view.
This gets me to the personal part. I have a pretty open profile on view. Many commentators do not. I have found it best to not be a "loner" while traveling the trains. Visit the lounge car. Bring magazines and a book. Small games are suitable along with conversation. View the countryside. There's something about a train. . .
Take care,
Al

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Willy2

I must admit that It is terrible how the freight railroads treat Amtrak. I will consider contacting my local officials or at least I'll ask my Mom and Dad to contact them.

I hope you have done so. But don't stop there, you have friends who can do the same. There is power in numbers. There is strength in numbers. It is time to be heard and not forgotten. Keep on your friends, keep on your parents and keep on your elected officials. We must do everything we can to keep Amtrak. But again not just the status quo, Amtrak must improve and the freight railroads must cooperate with Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Willy2

I must admit that It is terrible how the freight railroads treat Amtrak. I will consider contacting my local officials or at least I'll ask my Mom and Dad to contact them.

I hope you have done so. But don't stop there, you have friends who can do the same. There is power in numbers. There is strength in numbers. It is time to be heard and not forgotten. Keep on your friends, keep on your parents and keep on your elected officials. We must do everything we can to keep Amtrak. But again not just the status quo, Amtrak must improve and the freight railroads must cooperate with Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

Being a railroad "brat", I rode passenger trains prior to AmTrak. I have even ridden Amtrak. I miss the passenger service that was there when I was a child. It was fun and adventureous. I didn't get the same feeling riding on AmTrak, although it was just exciting being around the rails once again.

I would like to see rail lines be able to once again run passenger service. I think that AmTrak and the Gov't could learn how to be more self sufficient and "penny-wise" if there was a little healthy competition in the private sector. Not really sure if this would work, but it would be nice to see.

[Anonymous]

Being a railroad "brat", I rode passenger trains prior to AmTrak. I have even ridden Amtrak. I miss the passenger service that was there when I was a child. It was fun and adventureous. I didn't get the same feeling riding on AmTrak, although it was just exciting being around the rails once again.

I would like to see rail lines be able to once again run passenger service. I think that AmTrak and the Gov't could learn how to be more self sufficient and "penny-wise" if there was a little healthy competition in the private sector. Not really sure if this would work, but it would be nice to see.

[Willy2]

I must admit that It is terrible how the freight railroads treat Amtrak. I will consider contacting my local officials or at least I'll ask my Mom and Dad to contact them.

[Willy2]

I must admit that It is terrible how the freight railroads treat Amtrak. I will consider contacting my local officials or at least I'll ask my Mom and Dad to contact them.

[Anonymous]

Bravo ironhorseman, I'm with you the whole way.

[Anonymous]

Bravo ironhorseman, I'm with you the whole way.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Willy2

Being a train guy I have to say that Amtrak should stay. I have rode it once and I am really itching to ride again soon because I don't know what its fate is going to be. Knowing how terribly unreliable it is is the only think that makes me think twice before saying that Amtrak should stay. If Amtrak does go a new passenger service should definatly be installed as soon as possible!

Willy

I don't think if Amtrak were to stop running their trains that the freight railroads would allow another provider to do so. Amtrak was the answer, or so we were told, to the national rail passenger problem. The freight railroads were happy to "give" their passenger service to the government. It is too bad that the railroads don't give Amtrak the time of day. They do everything they can to delay Amtrak trains.

It is time for all who WANT rail passenger service to let their elected officials know about it and not be timid. We must become vocal or we might lose even more. We have lost far too much already. The government must do something to help Amtrak financially. They also need to become more forceful with the freight railroad and let them know that the status quo is not acceptable any more. Amtrak must be given a green light to run on time and there will be penalties if they don't (in other words stop putting Amtrak in a sidding for an hour waiting on a freight when it is not necessary).

Amtrak was created to help the freight railroads now it is time for the railroads to return the favor and help Amtrak. The railroads could have never afforded the land the government gave the railroads to build their railroad. So the railroads need to rethink their position and make things better for Amtrak.

There are many problems that need to be solved reguarding Amtrak. Let your officials know you want something positive done about Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Willy2

Being a train guy I have to say that Amtrak should stay. I have rode it once and I am really itching to ride again soon because I don't know what its fate is going to be. Knowing how terribly unreliable it is is the only think that makes me think twice before saying that Amtrak should stay. If Amtrak does go a new passenger service should definatly be installed as soon as possible!

Willy

I don't think if Amtrak were to stop running their trains that the freight railroads would allow another provider to do so. Amtrak was the answer, or so we were told, to the national rail passenger problem. The freight railroads were happy to "give" their passenger service to the government. It is too bad that the railroads don't give Amtrak the time of day. They do everything they can to delay Amtrak trains.

It is time for all who WANT rail passenger service to let their elected officials know about it and not be timid. We must become vocal or we might lose even more. We have lost far too much already. The government must do something to help Amtrak financially. They also need to become more forceful with the freight railroad and let them know that the status quo is not acceptable any more. Amtrak must be given a green light to run on time and there will be penalties if they don't (in other words stop putting Amtrak in a sidding for an hour waiting on a freight when it is not necessary).

Amtrak was created to help the freight railroads now it is time for the railroads to return the favor and help Amtrak. The railroads could have never afforded the land the government gave the railroads to build their railroad. So the railroads need to rethink their position and make things better for Amtrak.

There are many problems that need to be solved reguarding Amtrak. Let your officials know you want something positive done about Amtrak.

[Willy2]

Being a train guy I have to say that Amtrak should stay. I have rode it once and I am really itching to ride again soon because I don't know what its fate is going to be. Knowing how terribly unreliable it is is the only think that makes me think twice before saying that Amtrak should stay. If Amtrak does go a new passenger service should definatly be installed as soon as possible!

Willy

[Willy2]

Being a train guy I have to say that Amtrak should stay. I have rode it once and I am really itching to ride again soon because I don't know what its fate is going to be. Knowing how terribly unreliable it is is the only think that makes me think twice before saying that Amtrak should stay. If Amtrak does go a new passenger service should definatly be installed as soon as possible!

Willy

[Anonymous]

As long as we have some sort of quality passenger service in the United States I don't care who runs it.

[Anonymous]

As long as we have some sort of quality passenger service in the United States I don't care who runs it.

[Anonymous]

Whether the 'Republican Guard' realize it or not, there is a very large part of the U. S. population that needs rail passenger service. Heck, I'd rather walk to California than take an alternative mode other than the train. Instead trying to politic the train out of existence, we should recognize the real value this most efficient people mover in America has to offer! With our wasteful fuel consumption and reckless polution habits, this is really the most practicle solution to many problems.

[Anonymous]

Whether the 'Republican Guard' realize it or not, there is a very large part of the U. S. population that needs rail passenger service. Heck, I'd rather walk to California than take an alternative mode other than the train. Instead trying to politic the train out of existence, we should recognize the real value this most efficient people mover in America has to offer! With our wasteful fuel consumption and reckless polution habits, this is really the most practicle solution to many problems.

[slotracer]

You are not living in the world the majority of us are. Too much in a hurry....MOST people do not have 2-3 days to get from NY to LA. Businessman cannot afford this kind of time lost, family vacation time is at a premium and to add several days in transit each way that gets subtracted off time planned at a destination is not something most will opt for.
Next time read. I did not contradict myself, there are some who ride trains, but they are a minority and most have a special interest stake motivating them to do so. Most people do not have an iterest in riding trains, I know that is hard for die in the wool railbuffs to understand that the general population does not share in their love of trains, but that is the way it is.
The Caddilac buggy comment IS relevant, sorry you do not have a relevant reason why it is not. The bottom line is that private companies should not be forced into providing a good or service that is outmoded as the population votes with it's dollars.
Riding on a grayhound bus and riding on an airplane is apples to oranges, either one is restricted room wise vs a train, yet you are on and off a plane in a couple hours not days. Also buses are generally undesirable as they are the low cost option, those who take them are forced to take them due to economic factors. A high percentage of your bus riding clientelle are the type that most people do not wi***o travel amongst to say the least.
Sorry you feel this is a case of instant gratification, but if I lived in NY and wanted to ski in Colorado, I'd prefer to have a day or two extra skiing than sitting on a train looking at mowed under cornfields in Iowa, and since huge numbers of people also prefer to use theri time doing what they wish, I am definitely not alone.

Price?.....I've not shopped every lane, but I did look at Amtrack on some lanes out of curiosity, as a possible traveling family trip plan or as a possible option when I had time to ride and in every case the Amtrack fare was slightly to substantially higher than air.

Passenger service is in the stae it is in becasue something better came along and people opted for that, times change and the era of teh passenger train went down to change decades ago.

[slotracer]

You are not living in the world the majority of us are. Too much in a hurry....MOST people do not have 2-3 days to get from NY to LA. Businessman cannot afford this kind of time lost, family vacation time is at a premium and to add several days in transit each way that gets subtracted off time planned at a destination is not something most will opt for.
Next time read. I did not contradict myself, there are some who ride trains, but they are a minority and most have a special interest stake motivating them to do so. Most people do not have an iterest in riding trains, I know that is hard for die in the wool railbuffs to understand that the general population does not share in their love of trains, but that is the way it is.
The Caddilac buggy comment IS relevant, sorry you do not have a relevant reason why it is not. The bottom line is that private companies should not be forced into providing a good or service that is outmoded as the population votes with it's dollars.
Riding on a grayhound bus and riding on an airplane is apples to oranges, either one is restricted room wise vs a train, yet you are on and off a plane in a couple hours not days. Also buses are generally undesirable as they are the low cost option, those who take them are forced to take them due to economic factors. A high percentage of your bus riding clientelle are the type that most people do not wi***o travel amongst to say the least.
Sorry you feel this is a case of instant gratification, but if I lived in NY and wanted to ski in Colorado, I'd prefer to have a day or two extra skiing than sitting on a train looking at mowed under cornfields in Iowa, and since huge numbers of people also prefer to use theri time doing what they wish, I am definitely not alone.

Price?.....I've not shopped every lane, but I did look at Amtrack on some lanes out of curiosity, as a possible traveling family trip plan or as a possible option when I had time to ride and in every case the Amtrack fare was slightly to substantially higher than air.

Passenger service is in the stae it is in becasue something better came along and people opted for that, times change and the era of teh passenger train went down to change decades ago.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

Should we FORCE cadillac to make buggies for horses because they did it at one time and a small amish population that actually uses them in this day and age still wants them?

Irrelevant

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

The only people that take it on a wide scale are train buffs, people with time to get where they are going and want to make the train trip part of the vacation, those afraid to fly and those with the time and curiousity to try it vs flying.

People do not have the time to waste traveling by train vs going air point to point.

Why did you just contradict yourself? The only people who take trains have the time? and people don't have time?

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

To go from Denver to Kansas City, one needs to go to Omaha and then bus to KC, I can get to KC by air in an hour and a half......5 hrs including my time to and from airports, and security time. To go to less "major" cities, I cannot even get close by rail or have to travel so far out of my way it is a joke. So rail offers no service, time or other incentive to switch from air, why else would people go by train....Price?.....sorry in most cases rail cost close to the same and in many cases more.

The price IS cheaper than air travel. Most places that are served by rail are ridiculously cheaper than flying, not to mention all the special discounts you can get away with when making reservations. You wouldn't fly from KC to St. Louis would you? But from NY to LA? It may be cheaper by air, and quicker which I'll grant.

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

Corperations do not exist to subsidize at a loss,

Try this one: http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/may02/may20/1_mon/news5monday.html

Seems these corporations like the idea of advertising on trains.

The fact is that everyone likes trains, deep down inside. I can't believe you don't have anything good to say about trains. All you see are $$ signs, based on what you you wrote above.

To say that trains are outdated would be unfair to include the bus services. Think how long you have to sit riding cross country in a crowded, uncompfortable bus. The airlines arn't anymore compfortable unless you fly first class. You have to stand in line forever, put up with agents that rush you through, sit on a crowded plane for hours, losing luggage, and not to mention going through it all over again when you have to make connections to flights that are late or are broken down.

Give me a train any day. There's more leg room, the seats are compfortable, the people are more relaxed, the meals are better, snacks are available all the time, and the train delivers you right to heart of downtown, no need to compete for a cab from the outskirts of town. In race from NY to Boston the train passenger lost to the airline passenger no more than 5 minutes. The train passenger paid less, was more relaxed, and could work on the train. The airline passenger was lucky to get a flight that could get him to Boston by the dead line. Even though the flight is only an hour and the train ride is three hours, the airline passenger has to wait in line, sit on a cramped plane, and wait for delays in air traffic and weather. The trains run in all weather.

It's a shame that the more pracitcal form of travel is not utilized more.

People who don't ride trains don't know what they're missing. If you're in THAT big a hurry to get from A to B I pity you. You're a growing part of America that more often demands instant gratification.

There are millions of people a year that travel using this out moded technology. And other countries are also content with using this out dated system. It's ironic that other countries envy our freight network and we envy other countries passenger network.

Trains arn't old fashioned, it's just the way they're managed and run.

If trains are going out of style get me a ticket because I'd rather go with them.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

Should we FORCE cadillac to make buggies for horses because they did it at one time and a small amish population that actually uses them in this day and age still wants them?

Irrelevant

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

The only people that take it on a wide scale are train buffs, people with time to get where they are going and want to make the train trip part of the vacation, those afraid to fly and those with the time and curiousity to try it vs flying.

People do not have the time to waste traveling by train vs going air point to point.

Why did you just contradict yourself? The only people who take trains have the time? and people don't have time?

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

To go from Denver to Kansas City, one needs to go to Omaha and then bus to KC, I can get to KC by air in an hour and a half......5 hrs including my time to and from airports, and security time. To go to less "major" cities, I cannot even get close by rail or have to travel so far out of my way it is a joke. So rail offers no service, time or other incentive to switch from air, why else would people go by train....Price?.....sorry in most cases rail cost close to the same and in many cases more.

The price IS cheaper than air travel. Most places that are served by rail are ridiculously cheaper than flying, not to mention all the special discounts you can get away with when making reservations. You wouldn't fly from KC to St. Louis would you? But from NY to LA? It may be cheaper by air, and quicker which I'll grant.

QUOTE: Originally posted by slotracer

Corperations do not exist to subsidize at a loss,

Try this one: http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/may02/may20/1_mon/news5monday.html

Seems these corporations like the idea of advertising on trains.

The fact is that everyone likes trains, deep down inside. I can't believe you don't have anything good to say about trains. All you see are $$ signs, based on what you you wrote above.

To say that trains are outdated would be unfair to include the bus services. Think how long you have to sit riding cross country in a crowded, uncompfortable bus. The airlines arn't anymore compfortable unless you fly first class. You have to stand in line forever, put up with agents that rush you through, sit on a crowded plane for hours, losing luggage, and not to mention going through it all over again when you have to make connections to flights that are late or are broken down.

Give me a train any day. There's more leg room, the seats are compfortable, the people are more relaxed, the meals are better, snacks are available all the time, and the train delivers you right to heart of downtown, no need to compete for a cab from the outskirts of town. In race from NY to Boston the train passenger lost to the airline passenger no more than 5 minutes. The train passenger paid less, was more relaxed, and could work on the train. The airline passenger was lucky to get a flight that could get him to Boston by the dead line. Even though the flight is only an hour and the train ride is three hours, the airline passenger has to wait in line, sit on a cramped plane, and wait for delays in air traffic and weather. The trains run in all weather.

It's a shame that the more pracitcal form of travel is not utilized more.

People who don't ride trains don't know what they're missing. If you're in THAT big a hurry to get from A to B I pity you. You're a growing part of America that more often demands instant gratification.

There are millions of people a year that travel using this out moded technology. And other countries are also content with using this out dated system. It's ironic that other countries envy our freight network and we envy other countries passenger network.

Trains arn't old fashioned, it's just the way they're managed and run.

If trains are going out of style get me a ticket because I'd rather go with them.

[slotracer]

Should we FORCE cadillac to make buggies for horses because they did it at one time and a small amish population that actually uses them in this day and age still wants them?

For us to be funding long haul passenger travel today is a joke, it is a form of travel that has outlived it's mass need and usefulness by 40-50 years. It is as costly or more costly thatn air travel, goes to far fewr locations and by circutous routes, times are widely variable, service is substandard and the time needed to get from point a to point b is not acceptable in todays reality.

The only people that take it on a wide scale are train buffs, people with time to get where they are going and want to make the train trip part of the vacation, those afraid to fly and those with the time and curiousity to try it vs flying.

People do not have the time to waste traveling by train vs going air point to point. To go from Denver to Kansas City, one needs to go to Omaha and then bus to KC, I can get to KC by air in an hour and a half......5 hrs including my time to and from airports, and security time. To go to less "major" cities, I cannot even get close by rail or have to travel so far out of my way it is a joke. So rail offers no service, time or other incentive to switch from air, why else would people go by train....Price?.....sorry in most cases rail cost close to the same and in many cases more.

I'd gladly rife and enjoy a premium train through beautiful scenery like the American Orient express type offerings but to use long distance rail as a means of travel on a semi regular basis forget it. We are wasting money keeping this corpse going, lets end it.

And don't give m the tired old false arguements that if it was promoted people would use it, and that RR's did everything they could to kill it in the 50's and sixties and thus everyone left the passenger train. The fact is the ICC forced the rr's to run passenger long past the PUBLIC decided a better mode had come along and began to abandon the passenger train for other reasons. The railroads had to cut costs on an outmoded service they were forced to continue to stem the losses, any help to reduce passenger count and speed up the process to cut trains, thus money losses is in a companies best interest. Corperations do not exist to subsidize at a loss, services or products that sufficint numbers of consumers abandon due to changing times, just because a tiny portion of the population has a nostolgia ty to it and demand it be kept around so they feel good.
Passenger trains are dead long ago, lets acknowlede it and move on.

[slotracer]

Should we FORCE cadillac to make buggies for horses because they did it at one time and a small amish population that actually uses them in this day and age still wants them?

For us to be funding long haul passenger travel today is a joke, it is a form of travel that has outlived it's mass need and usefulness by 40-50 years. It is as costly or more costly thatn air travel, goes to far fewr locations and by circutous routes, times are widely variable, service is substandard and the time needed to get from point a to point b is not acceptable in todays reality.

The only people that take it on a wide scale are train buffs, people with time to get where they are going and want to make the train trip part of the vacation, those afraid to fly and those with the time and curiousity to try it vs flying.

People do not have the time to waste traveling by train vs going air point to point. To go from Denver to Kansas City, one needs to go to Omaha and then bus to KC, I can get to KC by air in an hour and a half......5 hrs including my time to and from airports, and security time. To go to less "major" cities, I cannot even get close by rail or have to travel so far out of my way it is a joke. So rail offers no service, time or other incentive to switch from air, why else would people go by train....Price?.....sorry in most cases rail cost close to the same and in many cases more.

I'd gladly rife and enjoy a premium train through beautiful scenery like the American Orient express type offerings but to use long distance rail as a means of travel on a semi regular basis forget it. We are wasting money keeping this corpse going, lets end it.

And don't give m the tired old false arguements that if it was promoted people would use it, and that RR's did everything they could to kill it in the 50's and sixties and thus everyone left the passenger train. The fact is the ICC forced the rr's to run passenger long past the PUBLIC decided a better mode had come along and began to abandon the passenger train for other reasons. The railroads had to cut costs on an outmoded service they were forced to continue to stem the losses, any help to reduce passenger count and speed up the process to cut trains, thus money losses is in a companies best interest. Corperations do not exist to subsidize at a loss, services or products that sufficint numbers of consumers abandon due to changing times, just because a tiny portion of the population has a nostolgia ty to it and demand it be kept around so they feel good.
Passenger trains are dead long ago, lets acknowlede it and move on.

[Anonymous]

I believe that the end of amtrak would bring the end to all long distance rail service in the u.s. The passenger train has been a losing proposition since the airline/automobile boom after ww2. All that would remain is the short quick routes such as the n.e. corridor. Amtrak has done some wonderful things, but until the average person is physically removed from his/her automobile it will be a losing proposition.
and for those who call amtrak ''RAILROAD WELFARE'' remember back in those troubled days, the ICC would NOT let the railroads run their own business and did not allow them to cut the UNPROFITABLE routes. Yet on may 1st 1971 amtrak cut all those same runs and kept the money makers. amtrak needs a unique quality not found anywhere else...such as game cars, perhaps in the lounge cars, where people can play arcade games, and so on. those are long boring trips for most and PEOPLE LIKE TO BE ENTERTAINED plus it would generate more revenue.
faster schedules with quicker stops are a must because time is the biggest issue. its just more hours than most want to spend traveling. i think adding auto carriers to long east west routes is essential as well, such as the auto train. vacationers need a car upon arrivals at vacation destinations. heck, they are already hauling freight so why not. people drive to destinations to have mobility, give it to them.

[Anonymous]

I believe that the end of amtrak would bring the end to all long distance rail service in the u.s. The passenger train has been a losing proposition since the airline/automobile boom after ww2. All that would remain is the short quick routes such as the n.e. corridor. Amtrak has done some wonderful things, but until the average person is physically removed from his/her automobile it will be a losing proposition.
and for those who call amtrak ''RAILROAD WELFARE'' remember back in those troubled days, the ICC would NOT let the railroads run their own business and did not allow them to cut the UNPROFITABLE routes. Yet on may 1st 1971 amtrak cut all those same runs and kept the money makers. amtrak needs a unique quality not found anywhere else...such as game cars, perhaps in the lounge cars, where people can play arcade games, and so on. those are long boring trips for most and PEOPLE LIKE TO BE ENTERTAINED plus it would generate more revenue.
faster schedules with quicker stops are a must because time is the biggest issue. its just more hours than most want to spend traveling. i think adding auto carriers to long east west routes is essential as well, such as the auto train. vacationers need a car upon arrivals at vacation destinations. heck, they are already hauling freight so why not. people drive to destinations to have mobility, give it to them.

[Trainnut484]

I know I'm putting a fantasy idea out here, and it would be the most expensive idea for Amtrak, but would give some relief. Amtrak's on time departures and arrivals would greatly increase if it had its own tracks for long distance runs. Yes, laying their own tracks. Amtrak's long distance runs are one of its main weakest points. The freight roads delay passenger trains, and sometimes Amtrak shot themselves in the foot by not providing enough power for its own train. Years ago, train #4, LA - CHI Southwest Chief, would stall on Raton Pass because it was underpowered. As the saying goes, "the late gets later." The freight roads would scream if forced to retake passenger service. If fantasy could come true, Amtrak should lay their own tracks.

[Trainnut484]

I know I'm putting a fantasy idea out here, and it would be the most expensive idea for Amtrak, but would give some relief. Amtrak's on time departures and arrivals would greatly increase if it had its own tracks for long distance runs. Yes, laying their own tracks. Amtrak's long distance runs are one of its main weakest points. The freight roads delay passenger trains, and sometimes Amtrak shot themselves in the foot by not providing enough power for its own train. Years ago, train #4, LA - CHI Southwest Chief, would stall on Raton Pass because it was underpowered. As the saying goes, "the late gets later." The freight roads would scream if forced to retake passenger service. If fantasy could come true, Amtrak should lay their own tracks.

[Anonymous]

Here's my opinion on Amtrak frivilous waste of money: They can't get themselves in the red but they can repaint an amfleet car in four differen tschemes within a period of ten years. If they could just stop worrying so much about their image and focus on service, mabye they'd actually turn a profit.

[Anonymous]

Here's my opinion on Amtrak frivilous waste of money: They can't get themselves in the red but they can repaint an amfleet car in four differen tschemes within a period of ten years. If they could just stop worrying so much about their image and focus on service, mabye they'd actually turn a profit.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CPRboy

This is what needs to change in North America. Amtrak, and VIA to a lesser extent, need to embrace the idea of running passenger trains not as a private enterprise, but rather a government service. With concern these days about congested highways, increased truck traffic, and a general shift away from air-travel, funding of passenger trains can result in economic benefits which many short-sighted politicians fail to see.

Government service trains: the worst of everything. I know you mean well, but the thing is I wouldn't want the government to control anything, much less trains. Amtrak is already completely funded by the government. How many billions of dollars was Amtrak asking from Congress this time?

I don't know what the magic solution is to keeping US passenger trains running, profitable, and enjoyable, but I do know that government intervention is not the answer. Amtrak was a government entity in 1971 to bail out the railroads that didn't want to run passenger train anymore.

Governments in other countries of the world fund some or most projects 100%. Bully for them, but that's not how the USA works. We're not other countries. What is needed is some financial business wizard to be on the Amtrak team to figure out how to make it profitable again and how to make the trains run on time. I've suggested in another forum that Amtrak should look for sponsors to slap their logos on the outside (and inside) of trains just like NASCAR does. That sport wouldn't survive without corporate sponsorship.

Maybe what we need is a wake up call. When the USA looses all of it's long distance trains someday maybe that will make people realize how much we need them. Just how badly do we need passenger trains? That's a rhetorical question for everyone to think about. I'm not in favor of killing off passenger trains, but it's time to think outside the box because the government is NOT the solution to our problem, government IS the problem.

I know nothing about VIA other than what I read in Trains Magazine so I'm not going to comment on them.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CPRboy

This is what needs to change in North America. Amtrak, and VIA to a lesser extent, need to embrace the idea of running passenger trains not as a private enterprise, but rather a government service. With concern these days about congested highways, increased truck traffic, and a general shift away from air-travel, funding of passenger trains can result in economic benefits which many short-sighted politicians fail to see.

Government service trains: the worst of everything. I know you mean well, but the thing is I wouldn't want the government to control anything, much less trains. Amtrak is already completely funded by the government. How many billions of dollars was Amtrak asking from Congress this time?

I don't know what the magic solution is to keeping US passenger trains running, profitable, and enjoyable, but I do know that government intervention is not the answer. Amtrak was a government entity in 1971 to bail out the railroads that didn't want to run passenger train anymore.

Governments in other countries of the world fund some or most projects 100%. Bully for them, but that's not how the USA works. We're not other countries. What is needed is some financial business wizard to be on the Amtrak team to figure out how to make it profitable again and how to make the trains run on time. I've suggested in another forum that Amtrak should look for sponsors to slap their logos on the outside (and inside) of trains just like NASCAR does. That sport wouldn't survive without corporate sponsorship.

Maybe what we need is a wake up call. When the USA looses all of it's long distance trains someday maybe that will make people realize how much we need them. Just how badly do we need passenger trains? That's a rhetorical question for everyone to think about. I'm not in favor of killing off passenger trains, but it's time to think outside the box because the government is NOT the solution to our problem, government IS the problem.

I know nothing about VIA other than what I read in Trains Magazine so I'm not going to comment on them.

[Anonymous]

I do not personally feel that forcing the railroads to take back passenger would result in better service. I agree with the one respondent would said that they would simply "put up a fuss." I also do not think that it should be left to the free market either. Free market control of railways was what brought us here in the first place.

I believe the answer lies in a change of ideology. Here in Canada where I live, and also in many European nations, passenger railroads are run and funded by the government. Canada has VIA Rail which is a federally owned crown-corporation (an entity that runs like a business but is answerable to the government directly). This arrangement seems to be working quite well as VIA has recently purchased a new fleet of Genesis locomotives, some British-built "Renaissance" passenger cars and has even introduced a new tourist train route from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Sydney on Cape Breton Island. In France, the TGV is run at an incredible loss but the government feels that the economic benefits of having that service - benefits that are not easily quantifiable - far outweigh the financial cost of the service.

This is what needs to change in North America. Amtrak, and VIA to a lesser extent, need to embrace the idea of running passenger trains not as a private enterprise, but rather a government service. With concern these days about congested highways, increased truck traffic, and a general shift away from air-travel, funding of passenger trains can result in economic benefits which many short-sighted politicians fail to see.

[Anonymous]

I do not personally feel that forcing the railroads to take back passenger would result in better service. I agree with the one respondent would said that they would simply "put up a fuss." I also do not think that it should be left to the free market either. Free market control of railways was what brought us here in the first place.

I believe the answer lies in a change of ideology. Here in Canada where I live, and also in many European nations, passenger railroads are run and funded by the government. Canada has VIA Rail which is a federally owned crown-corporation (an entity that runs like a business but is answerable to the government directly). This arrangement seems to be working quite well as VIA has recently purchased a new fleet of Genesis locomotives, some British-built "Renaissance" passenger cars and has even introduced a new tourist train route from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Sydney on Cape Breton Island. In France, the TGV is run at an incredible loss but the government feels that the economic benefits of having that service - benefits that are not easily quantifiable - far outweigh the financial cost of the service.

This is what needs to change in North America. Amtrak, and VIA to a lesser extent, need to embrace the idea of running passenger trains not as a private enterprise, but rather a government service. With concern these days about congested highways, increased truck traffic, and a general shift away from air-travel, funding of passenger trains can result in economic benefits which many short-sighted politicians fail to see.

[SALfan]

I believe Amtrak should be given 1/2 cent of the Federal excise tax on gasoline, or should have some other dependable funding mechanism. As things stand now, they cannot even set up a budget for the next fiscal year with any degree of confidence. As others have pointed out, all other modes of transport are subsidized by our tax dollars. I would ride Amtrak more often if trains went where I need to go with a reasonable schedule frequency.

[SALfan]

I believe Amtrak should be given 1/2 cent of the Federal excise tax on gasoline, or should have some other dependable funding mechanism. As things stand now, they cannot even set up a budget for the next fiscal year with any degree of confidence. As others have pointed out, all other modes of transport are subsidized by our tax dollars. I would ride Amtrak more often if trains went where I need to go with a reasonable schedule frequency.

[Anonymous]

Here's my two cents' worth. Amtrak isn't the greatest railroad to ever come down the pike, to be sure--I remember the delights of riding the Silver Meteor, the Crescent, and the Southern Belle, among others, when a railroad like the Seaboard could still advertise itself as "the Route of Courteous Service" without fear of contradiction or satire. Nevertheless, Amtrak has, I believe, done the best it could on the starvation funding meted out by Uncle Sam these thirty-two years.

Why no Congress or President in this period has had the political will to make passenger trains an integral part of our national transportation system--I mean out here beyond the Northeast Corridor--is something I just can't understand. Trains are much more fuel-efficient per passenger mile than airplanes; they can serve smaller communities more effectively than airlines in many cases; they offer an alternative means of travel in case of disaster (remember 9/11?); increased train travel would relieve clogged airports and highways; a revived train industry would create jobs; and for short- and medium-length journeys, trains are simply the most comfortable way to go if you don't or can't drive yourself.

I suppose govenment hesitates to fully fund Amtrak because the politicos assume it would mean "new taxes," although the truth is, every airline ticket and every bus ticket in this country is already subsidized by plenty of tax dollars. (Who pays for air traffic control? Airport terminals? Highways and bridges and traffic signals? Not the plane and bus companies, not nearly--Your Tax Dollars At Work.) I don't see a logical objection to subsidizing, directly or indirectly, another major form of transportation that would provide so many benefits to the environment, the economy, and the traveling public. But for whatever reasons--and who knows what they might be?--Uncle Sam never has had the will to revive train travel and give this country a first-class passenger rail system.

We ought to have one--speedy, comfortable, convenient, and reliable--that complements airplane and bus travel and is integrated with them (imagine big-city airline terminals combined with bus and train stations). And I don't particularly care whether Amtrak provides the service, or whether the "freight" railroads do, if some bright boy with an economics degree figures out a way to give them a profit motive for reviving passenger trains. As a taxpayer, I just would like to have the choice, a real choice, one that doesn't leave town at 3 a.m. on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday only (holidays excepted). People like John McCain love to point to low ridership numbers on trains like the Sunset Limited, as if they prove that trains are a waste of money. But I just wonder how many more riders would be on those trains if they left on time, at decent times, with the choices and convenient connections that our government-subsidized airplanes offer?

But for thirty-two years, the annual anxiety has been, "Will Amtrak live? Will it die?" Please, let's either put it out of its misery and content ourselves with fond memories of train travel--or let's do something really wonderful with trains and people. We're the richest, smartest, savvyest nation on the face of the earth. It CAN be done, and done well, if the powers that be decide it should be done.

[Anonymous]

Here's my two cents' worth. Amtrak isn't the greatest railroad to ever come down the pike, to be sure--I remember the delights of riding the Silver Meteor, the Crescent, and the Southern Belle, among others, when a railroad like the Seaboard could still advertise itself as "the Route of Courteous Service" without fear of contradiction or satire. Nevertheless, Amtrak has, I believe, done the best it could on the starvation funding meted out by Uncle Sam these thirty-two years.

Why no Congress or President in this period has had the political will to make passenger trains an integral part of our national transportation system--I mean out here beyond the Northeast Corridor--is something I just can't understand. Trains are much more fuel-efficient per passenger mile than airplanes; they can serve smaller communities more effectively than airlines in many cases; they offer an alternative means of travel in case of disaster (remember 9/11?); increased train travel would relieve clogged airports and highways; a revived train industry would create jobs; and for short- and medium-length journeys, trains are simply the most comfortable way to go if you don't or can't drive yourself.

I suppose govenment hesitates to fully fund Amtrak because the politicos assume it would mean "new taxes," although the truth is, every airline ticket and every bus ticket in this country is already subsidized by plenty of tax dollars. (Who pays for air traffic control? Airport terminals? Highways and bridges and traffic signals? Not the plane and bus companies, not nearly--Your Tax Dollars At Work.) I don't see a logical objection to subsidizing, directly or indirectly, another major form of transportation that would provide so many benefits to the environment, the economy, and the traveling public. But for whatever reasons--and who knows what they might be?--Uncle Sam never has had the will to revive train travel and give this country a first-class passenger rail system.

We ought to have one--speedy, comfortable, convenient, and reliable--that complements airplane and bus travel and is integrated with them (imagine big-city airline terminals combined with bus and train stations). And I don't particularly care whether Amtrak provides the service, or whether the "freight" railroads do, if some bright boy with an economics degree figures out a way to give them a profit motive for reviving passenger trains. As a taxpayer, I just would like to have the choice, a real choice, one that doesn't leave town at 3 a.m. on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday only (holidays excepted). People like John McCain love to point to low ridership numbers on trains like the Sunset Limited, as if they prove that trains are a waste of money. But I just wonder how many more riders would be on those trains if they left on time, at decent times, with the choices and convenient connections that our government-subsidized airplanes offer?

But for thirty-two years, the annual anxiety has been, "Will Amtrak live? Will it die?" Please, let's either put it out of its misery and content ourselves with fond memories of train travel--or let's do something really wonderful with trains and people. We're the richest, smartest, savvyest nation on the face of the earth. It CAN be done, and done well, if the powers that be decide it should be done.

[pgillis]

The future of the passenger train is like every other funded service in this country. We have highways, airports, river systems, sports facilities, etc. because our society puts a priority value on such projects. If our society ever gets to that point with passenger trains then we will have the finest system in the world - if not, plan on buying videos as the passenger train will be history.

[pgillis]

The future of the passenger train is like every other funded service in this country. We have highways, airports, river systems, sports facilities, etc. because our society puts a priority value on such projects. If our society ever gets to that point with passenger trains then we will have the finest system in the world - if not, plan on buying videos as the passenger train will be history.

[Anonymous]

I tend to agree with much of what Paul has to say, in his last posting. I do think that the government, the Fed's that is, should be consistant in their support for the entire transporation industry. In order to maintain that consistancy, they need to increase the subsidy to AMTRAK.

Look at the other modes of transporation. Air: the airports are supported by the FAA for operations and the local communities for maintenance (terminals), Bus: That's obvious, who pays for the Interstate and Federal highway systems, tax dollars. Water: the inland waterway system of rivers is operated and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Even our seaports are maintained by the Corps, again tax dollars. To expect AMTRAK or any passenger service (UP, BNSF, N&S, etc.) to survive without an equivalent subsidy is sticking your head in the sand. There was a proposal some years ago for the railbeds to be taken over by and operated and maintained by the Corps of Engineers, much like is done on the river system now.

I also agree with what Paul said about AMTRAK should be looking for what part or niche of the Passenger Traffic system it is best suited to fill. I believe they are doing that in the Northeast corridor. There should be other places where that works well. There has been progress on the Chicago-Detroit high-speed line, and also the Chicago-St. Louis. But progress has been so slow, one wonders just what the level of committment there is to finding these niche's.

One also wonders if the progress has been so slow on these opportunities because the competing modes see the threat and are lobbying, apparently very effectively, against AMTRAK.

--Don

[Anonymous]

I tend to agree with much of what Paul has to say, in his last posting. I do think that the government, the Fed's that is, should be consistant in their support for the entire transporation industry. In order to maintain that consistancy, they need to increase the subsidy to AMTRAK.

Look at the other modes of transporation. Air: the airports are supported by the FAA for operations and the local communities for maintenance (terminals), Bus: That's obvious, who pays for the Interstate and Federal highway systems, tax dollars. Water: the inland waterway system of rivers is operated and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Even our seaports are maintained by the Corps, again tax dollars. To expect AMTRAK or any passenger service (UP, BNSF, N&S, etc.) to survive without an equivalent subsidy is sticking your head in the sand. There was a proposal some years ago for the railbeds to be taken over by and operated and maintained by the Corps of Engineers, much like is done on the river system now.

I also agree with what Paul said about AMTRAK should be looking for what part or niche of the Passenger Traffic system it is best suited to fill. I believe they are doing that in the Northeast corridor. There should be other places where that works well. There has been progress on the Chicago-Detroit high-speed line, and also the Chicago-St. Louis. But progress has been so slow, one wonders just what the level of committment there is to finding these niche's.

One also wonders if the progress has been so slow on these opportunities because the competing modes see the threat and are lobbying, apparently very effectively, against AMTRAK.

--Don

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing: You can't legally "force" the railroads to take back a service they originally paid a one-time (albeit ridiculously low) fee to get out of. Even more to the point, you don't want to force them; the "service" they'd wind up providing would be so bad it'd make their previous efforts -- back in the days when roads like the SP were doing everything short of waving guns at passengers to scare them out of rail travel -- look like the golden age of rail travel by comparison.

Amtrak did two things wrong right from the start: First off, it allowed the railroads over which its trains run to reverse the priority of traffic (freight movements now superior to passenger, which is guaranteed to slow things down), and then its first generation of employees was almost entirely made up of the same railroad personnel -- and the same anti-passenger mindset -- that had made rail travel such a mess to begin with.

As additional icing, Amtrak continues (mistakenly) to emphasize long-haul traffic as opposed to more localized marketing: Even in this post-911 era, very few people are going to willingly choose the train to get from Chicago to LA, as an example, over the plane. Amtrak can't compete in that arena, but it can and should compete for the traffic in between the long-distance terminals. There's where it's future lies, if it's to have a future.

Amtrak can compete -- and does so, very effectively, in many instances -- with Greyhound. I can think of at least several existing routes where Amtrak's combination of train and bus (Amcoach) service is both cheaper and faster (and a whole lot more comfortable) than Greyhound. Amtrak nees to expand on this service and identify new markets for it. Additionally, Amtrak could likely increase its on-time arrival rate (dismally low now) by offering performance incentives to the railroads on which it's a tenant. The rail industry as a whole isn't waxing that fat these days that another source of revenue such as this wouldn't be welcome.

And who knows? Amtrak might even turn self-supporting yet. If only its management starts using its head.

-- Paul

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing: You can't legally "force" the railroads to take back a service they originally paid a one-time (albeit ridiculously low) fee to get out of. Even more to the point, you don't want to force them; the "service" they'd wind up providing would be so bad it'd make their previous efforts -- back in the days when roads like the SP were doing everything short of waving guns at passengers to scare them out of rail travel -- look like the golden age of rail travel by comparison.

Amtrak did two things wrong right from the start: First off, it allowed the railroads over which its trains run to reverse the priority of traffic (freight movements now superior to passenger, which is guaranteed to slow things down), and then its first generation of employees was almost entirely made up of the same railroad personnel -- and the same anti-passenger mindset -- that had made rail travel such a mess to begin with.

As additional icing, Amtrak continues (mistakenly) to emphasize long-haul traffic as opposed to more localized marketing: Even in this post-911 era, very few people are going to willingly choose the train to get from Chicago to LA, as an example, over the plane. Amtrak can't compete in that arena, but it can and should compete for the traffic in between the long-distance terminals. There's where it's future lies, if it's to have a future.

Amtrak can compete -- and does so, very effectively, in many instances -- with Greyhound. I can think of at least several existing routes where Amtrak's combination of train and bus (Amcoach) service is both cheaper and faster (and a whole lot more comfortable) than Greyhound. Amtrak nees to expand on this service and identify new markets for it. Additionally, Amtrak could likely increase its on-time arrival rate (dismally low now) by offering performance incentives to the railroads on which it's a tenant. The rail industry as a whole isn't waxing that fat these days that another source of revenue such as this wouldn't be welcome.

And who knows? Amtrak might even turn self-supporting yet. If only its management starts using its head.

-- Paul

[Anonymous]

Well, whatever you do, don't follow the example of the rail 'privatisation' here in the U.K. The solution here was to nationalise all the track, which is then maintained by one private company (currently 'Network Rail'), and then let other private companies (the Operating Companies) apply to the government for the right to run rail services (passenger or freight) over those rails. These operating companies must pay Network Rail for the maintenance work according to the contracts they have negotiated with it. Periodically the government decides that one of the operating companies has been doing a bad job and replaces them with another. Virtually all the equipment the operating companies use is leased from leasing companies. (There are some recent exceptions, for example Virgin Rail has bought some of its own new equipment).

In practice, what happens is that the maintenance company subcontracts out all the work to a myriad of smaller companies and bills the operating companies in accordance with its contracts. It also receives a fixed allocation of money from the government, on the principle that it is maintaining a national right of way, like the highways. If the sum of the receivables from the operating companies plus the fixed government allocation is insufficient to cover expenses, the maintenance company first defers ‘non-essential’ maintenance and simultaneously squeezes its subcontractors to perform the ‘essential’ work ever-more-cheaply, and, if that fails to stem the red ink, it goes bankrupt. This has happened once already. The shareholders then lose all their value and the company is re-constituted and re-floated on the stock exchange.

The severing of the link between maintenance and operations has proved to be a disaster from both a safety and an efficiency standpoint -- e.g. vital signal and track work going out the lowest bidder, maintenance work being scheduled at peak rush hours, etc.

[Anonymous]

Well, whatever you do, don't follow the example of the rail 'privatisation' here in the U.K. The solution here was to nationalise all the track, which is then maintained by one private company (currently 'Network Rail'), and then let other private companies (the Operating Companies) apply to the government for the right to run rail services (passenger or freight) over those rails. These operating companies must pay Network Rail for the maintenance work according to the contracts they have negotiated with it. Periodically the government decides that one of the operating companies has been doing a bad job and replaces them with another. Virtually all the equipment the operating companies use is leased from leasing companies. (There are some recent exceptions, for example Virgin Rail has bought some of its own new equipment).

In practice, what happens is that the maintenance company subcontracts out all the work to a myriad of smaller companies and bills the operating companies in accordance with its contracts. It also receives a fixed allocation of money from the government, on the principle that it is maintaining a national right of way, like the highways. If the sum of the receivables from the operating companies plus the fixed government allocation is insufficient to cover expenses, the maintenance company first defers ‘non-essential’ maintenance and simultaneously squeezes its subcontractors to perform the ‘essential’ work ever-more-cheaply, and, if that fails to stem the red ink, it goes bankrupt. This has happened once already. The shareholders then lose all their value and the company is re-constituted and re-floated on the stock exchange.

The severing of the link between maintenance and operations has proved to be a disaster from both a safety and an efficiency standpoint -- e.g. vital signal and track work going out the lowest bidder, maintenance work being scheduled at peak rush hours, etc.

[Anonymous]

I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP AMTRACK AROUND NEVER RODE IT BUT ,WOULD LIKE TO.ME PERSONNALY LAST TIME I RODE ON A PASSENGER TRAIN WAS WHEN THEY HAD SEABOARD COAST LINE ENJOYED IT.MAYBE THEY SHOULD GO BACK TO THE GOLDEN YEARS WHEN PASSENGER SERVICE WAS KING.I WOULD LIKE FOR PEOPLE TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AMTRACK WILL SURVIVE

[Anonymous]

I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP AMTRACK AROUND NEVER RODE IT BUT ,WOULD LIKE TO.ME PERSONNALY LAST TIME I RODE ON A PASSENGER TRAIN WAS WHEN THEY HAD SEABOARD COAST LINE ENJOYED IT.MAYBE THEY SHOULD GO BACK TO THE GOLDEN YEARS WHEN PASSENGER SERVICE WAS KING.I WOULD LIKE FOR PEOPLE TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AMTRACK WILL SURVIVE

[Anonymous]

I am amazed at the lack of knowledge and understanding of the economics of passenger rail service shown by the forum respondents. One would expect industry fans would have a deeper grasp of the subject than the idiological claptrap uttered here.

[Anonymous]

I am amazed at the lack of knowledge and understanding of the economics of passenger rail service shown by the forum respondents. One would expect industry fans would have a deeper grasp of the subject than the idiological claptrap uttered here.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak is a political deal to keep people who see a need for trains (passenger) voting for the wheeler dealers in washington and the people who pay so they can keep running for office. Railroads only make money with freight! Sure, they play the books so it looks like that. They keep merging so there will only be a few left and they can do what they want. From a train crew to only an engineer, and now remote control switch engines. Pretty soon trains run by dispatchers and no crew. I am glad I saw a lot of trains and rode some in my life, now I can model what I want and dont have to answer to anybody. Man, did any of this make sense? Bernt T.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak is a political deal to keep people who see a need for trains (passenger) voting for the wheeler dealers in washington and the people who pay so they can keep running for office. Railroads only make money with freight! Sure, they play the books so it looks like that. They keep merging so there will only be a few left and they can do what they want. From a train crew to only an engineer, and now remote control switch engines. Pretty soon trains run by dispatchers and no crew. I am glad I saw a lot of trains and rode some in my life, now I can model what I want and dont have to answer to anybody. Man, did any of this make sense? Bernt T.

[Anonymous]

I like several writers before me, do not claim to have the answers to the interstate rail passenger travel problem. I firmly believe we need such a system and I would much rather see my tax dollars go to Amtrak rather than rebuilding the interstate highway system just so some trucker can blow me off of same.

[Anonymous]

I like several writers before me, do not claim to have the answers to the interstate rail passenger travel problem. I firmly believe we need such a system and I would much rather see my tax dollars go to Amtrak rather than rebuilding the interstate highway system just so some trucker can blow me off of same.

[Anonymous]

No forcing is needed. Just kill amtrack and let free trade decide. With all the old equipment they could buy on the cheap every railroad could decide on there own wether to provide.

[Anonymous]

No forcing is needed. Just kill amtrack and let free trade decide. With all the old equipment they could buy on the cheap every railroad could decide on there own wether to provide.

[Anonymous]

Being a rail fan i want to keep passenger trains out of my own pure love for them.I think 99 percent of us feel that way.That being said,the transportation quagmire that resulted after the terror attacks of September 11 2001 demonstated that we simply can not afford to be without a rail passenger network.I dont claim to have any knowlage of how the money can be provided for this service,it is only my humble opinion that it has to be found.

[Anonymous]

Being a rail fan i want to keep passenger trains out of my own pure love for them.I think 99 percent of us feel that way.That being said,the transportation quagmire that resulted after the terror attacks of September 11 2001 demonstated that we simply can not afford to be without a rail passenger network.I dont claim to have any knowlage of how the money can be provided for this service,it is only my humble opinion that it has to be found.

[ironhorseman]

As part of a generation that never knew anything other than Amtrak it's hard for me to say. I would guess that if the railroads were forced (emphsis on forced) to bring back passenger service they would deliberatly do poor at it. It's like a kid that's being forced to do something he don't want to do he'll whine and put up a fuss.

Now, I'm no financial or business wizard, but I think the short answer to the problem is to find a way for Amtrak to be self sufficient, not relying solely on gov't funding. I was telling someone not too long ago that I read that Amtrak was not supposed to last more than two or three years and they guy I told this to looked surprised and had always thought Amtrak was to be a permanent replacement. He said other countries fund their railroads 100%. I said we're not other countries. Amtrak needs to think, act, and operate like a private business. The only problem is Amtrak has no one to compete with. If you want to take a train from Los Angeles to Chicago your choices are simple: Amtrak or Amtrak. Gov't is not going to kill the passenger train. Lack of passengers is not going to kill the passenger train. Lack of competition is going to kill the passenger train. It's rediculous that Amtrak, Greyhound, and all the airlines are pitted against each other. It should be train vs train, bus line vs bus line, and airline vs airline. My brother took a Greyhound bus recently and the driver was a raving lunitic. Well guess what? If he ever want's to take a bus again his only choice is to patronize Greyhound again.

Well, I hope I made my point clear. It's not a perfect solution. Heck, it's not even a solution, but it'll be ripped apart and criticized like all the other suggestions people have made on Amtrak.

Once I made a satirical point by suggesting we merge all the RR companies and call it Amfrieght. Man, that made some people upset and I was only joking.

Well, that's my 2 cents worth.

[ironhorseman]

As part of a generation that never knew anything other than Amtrak it's hard for me to say. I would guess that if the railroads were forced (emphsis on forced) to bring back passenger service they would deliberatly do poor at it. It's like a kid that's being forced to do something he don't want to do he'll whine and put up a fuss.

Now, I'm no financial or business wizard, but I think the short answer to the problem is to find a way for Amtrak to be self sufficient, not relying solely on gov't funding. I was telling someone not too long ago that I read that Amtrak was not supposed to last more than two or three years and they guy I told this to looked surprised and had always thought Amtrak was to be a permanent replacement. He said other countries fund their railroads 100%. I said we're not other countries. Amtrak needs to think, act, and operate like a private business. The only problem is Amtrak has no one to compete with. If you want to take a train from Los Angeles to Chicago your choices are simple: Amtrak or Amtrak. Gov't is not going to kill the passenger train. Lack of passengers is not going to kill the passenger train. Lack of competition is going to kill the passenger train. It's rediculous that Amtrak, Greyhound, and all the airlines are pitted against each other. It should be train vs train, bus line vs bus line, and airline vs airline. My brother took a Greyhound bus recently and the driver was a raving lunitic. Well guess what? If he ever want's to take a bus again his only choice is to patronize Greyhound again.

Well, I hope I made my point clear. It's not a perfect solution. Heck, it's not even a solution, but it'll be ripped apart and criticized like all the other suggestions people have made on Amtrak.

Once I made a satirical point by suggesting we merge all the RR companies and call it Amfrieght. Man, that made some people upset and I was only joking.

Well, that's my 2 cents worth.

[Anonymous]

Recently the Union Pacific railroad has claimed that running Amtrak is costing the railroad millions of dollars per year. The big Railroads and their allies in the Republican party have tried for years to kill Amtrak and the passenger train.

Of course no one ever mentions that Amtrak was begun as a bailout (ie welfare) for the railroads who had tried everything to drive off the traveling public in the late 1960's.

So what do you think? Should the railroads be given back their passenger trains and forced to provide a service they got government to take over? Should Amtrak simply be run off the rails in the name of "free markets". Or do we continue as we have since 1971 weith a quasi governmental rail system which lives hand to mouth depending on the kindness of who controls the government at the time.?