Future of the American Passenger Train

[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.