Future of the American Passenger Train

[Anonymous]

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

[ironhorseman]

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

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

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

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

Well, that's my 2 cents worth.

[ironhorseman]

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

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

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

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

Well, that's my 2 cents worth.

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

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