Future of the American Passenger Train

[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.