Finally, some support in high places for rail travel in America:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/why-america-needs-trains_b_412393.html
"Gabby Johnson is right!"
Unfortunately, the people who run Amtrak generally have it wrong. I looked into taking my family on the Acela from our home in the Boston Burbs to New York City. The tickets are the same price as a full-fare airplane ride. This may not be much to high rollers like Joe Biden (and former Amtrak head Mike Dukakis) but for us working stiffs who have to pay for the tickets ourselves with after-tax dollars, well, the economics say "Just drive the car."
Similarly, I was looking at the "Downeaster" service from Boston to Portland, Maine, to connect with a proposed ski bus up to the Sunday River area. Unfortunately, the earliest train on Saturday morning wouldn't get me to the mountain much before noon, and I'd have to leave shortly after lunch on Sunday to get the last train back that evening. A few years back, there actually was a ski train which ran from Portland to Sunday River, but, with connecting service like this, it's no wonder that it wasn't popular enough to keep running.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Hear, hear!
In good old Europe, we are well pampered when it comes to taking the train. But we had to learn the hard way as well. Run-down equipment, slow service, bad connections and high fares don´t make people take the train. A role model for how to develop showcase train service is certainly Switzerland. Trains run with the precision of a Swiss watch, passengers enjoy a load of on-board comfort, the trains are fast and quiet and pricing is fair. In Germany, we see some step-up improvents in this direction, but not in all regions.
But: With the exception of long distance travel, passenger trains don´t earn their feed and have to be susidized heavily. But that´s the way it has been even in the best years of rail travel.
Sir MadogA role model for how to develop showcase train service is certainly Switzerland. Trains run with the precision of a Swiss watch, passengers enjoy a load of on-board comfort, the trains are fast and quiet and pricing is fair.
Switzerland is the nicest layout I've ever seen.
MisterBeasleySir MadogA role model for how to develop showcase train service is certainly Switzerland. Trains run with the precision of a Swiss watch, passengers enjoy a load of on-board comfort, the trains are fast and quiet and pricing is fair. Switzerland is the nicest layout I've ever seen.
You could not be more right, Mr. Beasley. The whole country is just one big model railroad!
To be successful trains must be fast, frequent, and on time. Except on the NE Corridor Amtrak is none of those.
I take the train when it is consistent with my travel plans. I do not compare the cost to air travel because I quit going to the airport when they installed the East German style checkpoints. I only compare rail to automobile. If there are only one or two of us traveling and the train actually goes where I need to go I take the train even if it takes longer because it is a more pleasant way to travel. Unfortunately, the train does not always serve the places I want to go.
When we go to the Timonium Train show, we take Amtrak to DC and the Metro to our hotel. The Metro into DC to do the museums on one or two days. Then the Metro to Union Station, Amtrak to Baltimore, and the Light rail to the Timonium fair grounds. We never need a car.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe VetWhen we go to the Timonium Train show, we take Amtrak to DC and the Metro to our hotel. The Metro into DC to do the museums on one or two days. Then the Metro to Union Station, Amtrak to Baltimore, and the Light rail to the Timonium fair grounds. We never need a car.
I like that routing--makes a lot more sense--
When I go to Toronto ON--I take VIA to TO's Union Station --get on TTC subway--which is right there--go to transfer point get on subway car to destination---eh Voila!! there!---
If I took car-----BIG Parking Fees Await
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Biden's story is interesting. He was elected to the Senate at age 29 and had to wait a little past the regular swearing-in date until he turned 30 (by the constitution you have to be 30 to be a Senator) to actually take office. During that interim period his wife was killed in an accident, and he decided that rather than uproot his young kids in a situation like that, instead he would keep them all in the family home. So he began to spend a couple of hours one-way every day commuting by rail from Delaware to D.C. and back. He continued to do that the entire time he was in the Senate.
Many years ago I drove to DC for a convention. I left the car at the hotel and took the Metro everywhere we went. After that I saw no need to take the car at all. The Metro also goes to the airport if you are inclined to put up with that.
In Baltimore the light rail went everywhere we wanted to go except the B&O museum. For that we had to take the bus from the inner harbor.
Well as far as Amtrak goes their auto train is some what of a joke here on the east coast. A good idea in principal but you have to pick it up in Lorton Va. just outside of D.C. and it takes you to Sanford Fla. What about all the people who live north of D.C. lets say our friends up in Maine or Boston. Maybe it's a matter of logistics or some other corporate mumbo jumbo but I can't see why they shouldn't have an auto train terminal in every major city on the eastern seaboard. Here you have a clear ct advantage over the airlines fro families and their not capitalizing on it, doesn't make sense.
I live about 35 miles south of Hamburg. Going into town takes about 45 - 60 minutes by car, plus an average of $ 15 parking fee. The train takes me in just 30 minutes to downtown Hamburg, the ticket includes all metro-, bus- and subway lines, so I can get anywhere I want. No parking fee, no hassle, I can even get a coffee and a hot dog on the train - and the return fare is less than the parking fee!
One problem with New York is that the Amtrak station is right in the center of the city. There is no place to load cars. I suppose they could put a facility in New Jersey, but that would mean a long delay while the cars were added to the train. The area is very built up, and acquiring that amount of real estate could be a problem, too.
Also, the tunnels used for trains going through New York are old, and might not accomodate the auto carriers. The Long Island Railroad, for example, can't run some of its equipment into certain Manhatten stations because there isn't enough clearance.
I'm not sure that an auto-train from Boston would be cost-effective, either. We travel to Florida frequently. Flights are frequent and, if we pick our dates right, very inexpensive. Door to door, it's about 7 hours. The train, on the other hand, would be a couple of days, and at least as expensive. When dealing with a week-long vacation timeframe, most travellers would rather spend their time at their destination instead of in transit.
It's not a train, but the story of the ferry from Portland, Maine to Nova Scotia is instructive. They used to have a couple of standard large ocean-going ferries running this route. They carried cars and offered sleeping accomodations (and gambling) for the overnight runs. These old boats were retired in favor of "The Cat," a high-speed hydrofoil ferry. Travel time was cut in half, so they didn't need to run an overnight boat.
We took this boat last year. It was OK, but the TV ads which made it look like a luxury cruise ship were misleading. It was crowded, with pretty much every seat being full. It was more like a big, fat airplane than a cruise ship. It was also expensive - the round trip for our car and 3 people was close to a thousand dollars. When compared with the driving time of about 14 hours, the 5-hour trip seems good, but when you add on the loading time and the long delays while all those people try to get through customs / security at once, I would drive next time.
Not that I would have a choice. The Cat, which collected government subsidies in addition to the high fares, has been shut down.
I'm happy to take public transportation when I can, but most of the time driving is both more convenient and more cost-effective.
Phoebe Vet Many years ago I drove to DC for a convention. I left the car at the hotel and took the Metro everywhere we went. After that I saw no need to take the car at all. The Metro also goes to the airport if you are inclined to put up with that. In Baltimore the light rail went everywhere we wanted to go except the B&O museum. For that we had to take the bus from the inner harbor.
In DC I agree, who needs a car. In Baltimore you must not have needed or wanted to see very much of it if the light rail took you everywhere you needed to go. As a life long Baltimore area resident, I can tell you that except for your train show conncetion to Timonium, the Baltimore light rail is of little use to most of us in the area.
Baltimore is layed out like a wagon wheel, with 12 "spokes", or suburban corridors that connect the suburbs to the city. The light rail serves two of those, the metro one. The other nine suburbs have no such mass transit other than poorly run bus service. Three "distant" suburbs are served by the MARC train service.
Back in the day, most of these twelve "spokes" had trolley lines, we replaced them why?
Even in the terrible traffic we have here, I can get most places by car much faster than by bus or light rail, assuming it even goes from were I am to my destination. The nearest train station to my house is 16 miles away, going in the opposite direction from Baltimore. There's a good plan, drive 16 miles the wrong way to take the MARC train to Penn Station to than take the light rail to Timonium to the train show. Its only 20 miles from my house to Timonium, through a buch of windy back roads and takes only 30 min. That train trip would take 2-1/2 hrs.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not againt mass transit, but, maybe I am, since I don't think it should be subsidized by the rest of us. But I don't think governments should build airports for private airlines either. Or, that airlines should be allowed to charge one person $69 and another person $369 for the same flight.
Parking at the Timoium train show and the B&O museum is free.
Sheldon
Sir MadogBut: With the exception of long distance travel, passenger trains don´t earn their feed and have to be susidized heavily. But that´s the way it has been even in the best years of rail travel.
Not true in the past here in the US. From the 1880's to the 1950's the government moved the mail by rail. The fees paid for this supported the passenger trains on which the mail was carried. Paying passengers where just cream off the top.
Today, that same post office expendature goes to trucking companies who move the mail on the highways and thereby subsidizing the interstate highway system through the fuel and road use taxes.
If that same money was still moving the mail by rail, the passenger trains here would still be running and making money.
It was only after the decline/elimination of the Railway Post Office service that railroads moved to abandon passenger service in the US.
I was addressing it from the transient traveler's perspective. Local commuter is a different ball game.
I lived in Laurel for a while in the mid '60s, courtesy of Uncle Sam. I worked at The Governor Ritchie Drive-In in Glen Burnie in 1967.
Boston is also a spoke-and-hub system. (Boston sometimes refers to itself as The Hub, but the implication is "Hub of the Universe.") The T, the light rail and subway system, is pretty good in terms of covering the metro area. However, the commuter rail which links in the outer suburbs leaves much to be desired. It really is "commuter rail," and is focused on providing service for daily commuters, not occasional riders who might want to attend the theater or a sporting event.
And, as a hub-and-spoke system, it's basically useless for going anywhere except in and out of the city. I can drive to work in about 20 minutes, or I can drive for 15 minutes to a train station, pay to park, ride a train for 10 minutes and then walk another 15 minutes to work, rain or shine. Since downtown is not my destination, the people who run the T don't care about me, except when it comes time to raise taxes state-wide to pay for their pensions.
In all fairness, the same inefficient bureaucrats also spend state revenues to support the bungling Turnpike Authority, which runs highways I never use. (Except, oddly, when I drive to Springfield for the upcoming train show later this month!)
MisterBeasleyBoston is also a spoke-and-hub system. (Boston sometimes refers to itself as The Hub, but the implication is "Hub of the Universe.") The T, the light rail and subway system, is pretty good in terms of covering the metro area. However, the commuter rail which links in the outer suburbs leaves much to be desired. It really is "commuter rail," and is focused on providing service for daily commuters, not occasional riders who might want to attend the theater or a sporting event. And, as a hub-and-spoke system, it's basically useless for going anywhere except in and out of the city. I can drive to work in about 20 minutes, or I can drive for 15 minutes to a train station, pay to park, ride a train for 10 minutes and then walk another 15 minutes to work, rain or shine. Since downtown is not my destination, the people who run the T don't care about me, except when it comes time to raise taxes state-wide to pay for their pensions.
I'll agree with that...If I want to get anywhere on another line, I have to take the hour-and-15-minute ride in from Westborough Station, switch trains, and then then go right back out of the city. By the time I get there it'll be time to go home in time for dinner!
I wrote a letter to the Lt. Governor Tim Murray (a huge proponent of commuter rail) as well as to the editor of the Worcester Telegram asking for the line between Worcester and Ayer (on the Fitchburg Line, which is getting upgrades that will allow 80 mph track speeds) to get commuter rail service.
Then instead of commuting in and out on the slow Worcester line, I could walk right from work at the Museum of Science to North Station, hop aboard a Fitchburg Line train, speed out to Ayer at 80 mph, and then take the Worcester-Ayer shuttle to a local station like Clinton or West Boylston!
But due to the MBTA's equipment shortage, their multi-million dollar debt, and the fact that it would take millions more to upgrade Pan Am's ill-maintained track from a mix of 10 and 25 mph track to anything resembling a commuter railroad, I don't think that's going to happen in the near future...
My personal dream is to have that line upgraded to at least 40 and have commuter service from Ayer to Worcester, and then down to Providence on the P&W! And while I'm at it, the Worcester line will be upgraded for Amtrak's Inland Route and have frequent service to Framingham, Worcester, Springfield, and New Haven where it connects back up to the NEC!
In the 1950's, USA had the best trains in the world. Our family traveled by train in different directions from Chicago. It was a great way to travel. Dome cars were the best of all.
Unfortunately, the public was convinced that planes and cars were better, and the government invested huge sums on highways and airports. That was too way much competition for railroad trains. Fares could not be increased to keep up with rising costs. Trains became unprofitable and service was cut back. The US Post Office took mail off of the trains which was a huge blow to revenues for passenger trains. Eventually, Congress created Amtrak allowing railroad companies' passenger trains to go out of businiess.
Amtrak's mandate from Congress was to be financially self sufficient. Congress, however, continued to stack the deck against trains being profitable. Highways and airports were expanded.
Today, airports lose money and highways lose money. Somehow, however, Amtrak is expected to make money. Its critics will cite it as an example of government inefficiencies.
Today, too, railroad trains continue to be much more fuel efficient than competing modes. I question the wisdom of governemnt losing money on highways and airports which are less fuel efficient than railways. If Uncle Sam is going to lose money on transport, why not lose it on railways?
I suspect if railways continued to be the primary transport mode, America would not need to buy its oil from foreign sources. Imagine the implications.
Meanwhile, I'll operate my HO 1950's era passenger trains and enjoy the hobby.
Cheers, everybody. All Aboard.
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
Amtrak would do well to concentrate on what trains do best, short and intermediate travel instead of cross country routes. While I would rather spend 3 days on a train than 3 hours on a plane, and many on this board I'm sure might share the sentiment, most of the traveling public just wants to get there as quickly as possible. Their focus is on the destination rather than the journey. For long distance travel, its no contest between choosing train or plane. But regional railroads which can take people from the heart of one city to the heart of another can make an attractive option to the plane. By the time one takes into account the time and expense of either long term parking or taking a cab ride to the airport, often located a good distance from the center of the city, getting to check-in 2 hours before take off so you can pass through all the security measures, sitting on the tarmack waiting your flight's turn in line, time in the air, waiting for you luggage to arrive at baggage claim, and then another long cab ride back into town, in many cases you can save time and money by taking the train. For that reason, many professional sports teams now travel by train rather than plane when moving between eastern seaboard cities.
Unfortunately, for most of the country, this sort of intermediate travel is not an option. Amtrak service into Columbus, OH hasn't been available for over 30 years and when it was here, it came through in the middle of the night. There has been talk for almost as long about creating a 3C corridor train linking Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati and possibly another Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo route, but so far, that's all it's been. One commision after another has been appointed to "study" it but it's never gotten beyond that stage. I happen to think the 3C corridor could work economically. When I go to Cleveland for a sporting event, I stop on the outskirts of the city and ride the commuter train into downtown. It's cheaper than parking and I don't have to fight the traffic after the game. The train stations in Cincinnati and Cleveland are close to the sports and entertainment venues as well as other attractions. The old Amtrak route through downtown Columbus goes right by Nationwide arena where the NHL team plays and the old train station was about a block away. (although at the rate it is burning cash, the hockey team might not be around much longer, but concerts are frequently held there too). In any case, if Amtrak would concentrate more on intermediate travel which coordinated with existing light rail commuter options, I believe it could at least reach break even status if not becoming profitable. The eastern seaboard has shown that regional passenger service can work.
Phoebe VetI was addressing it from the transient traveler's perspective. Local commuter is a different ball game.
I agree, the point is still how much of who's money should be spent on mass transit. In my world view, taxes are way too high now. If we want public funded mass transit, we need to figure out what we don't need the government to do. ha-ha.
Phoebe VetI lived in Laurel for a while in the mid '60s, courtesy of Uncle Sam. I worked at The Governor Ritchie Drive-In in Glen Burnie in 1967.
I grew up in Severna Park and saw many a movie at that drive-in. There's a shopping center there now. I now live in Harford County, north of Baltimore, in a little village once a stop on the Ma & Pa.
I live in Illinois, 25 miles East of St. Louis, MO. About 25 miles Southeast of St. Louis is Scott Air Force Base, MAC (Military Air Command) Headquarters and formerly Strategic Air Command Headquarters. (In other words, it's a BIG facility!)
Several years ago, the local politicians got on the bandwagon to build a regional airport next to Scott AFB. They called it a "dual use" airport, military/commercial. So they built it. When it officially opened for business, it had NO airline tenants and NO inbound or outbound flights. Eventually, a small regional carrier began using the airport, but there wasn't enough demand to justify it and the airline either closed their facility or went out of business entirely, I don't remember which.
Now for the kicker. Those same politicians (I think they were the same, but it's hard to tell. They all ACT so much alike!) decided that what this regional airport needed was a rapid transit system to bring all those non-existant passengers to those non-operating airlines at a vacant airport. Yup, that's right, they EXTENDED the St. Louis Metro commuter train from downtown St. Louis all the way out to the airport.
So now we have an expensive commuter train running miles through suburban but mostly rural areas carrying NO riders to an airport that has NO flight service and NO airline tenants! Your tax dollars at work!
Now, on the OTHER side of St. Louis, you have Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, about 15 to 20 miles WEST of downtown St. Louis. There is a major interstate (I70) that passes right in front of the airport and TWO interstate feeders (I170 & I270) that are a few miles East or West of the airport. The Missouri politicians lobbied to extend the Metro light rail system to the airport. There have been a few problems with the rail service since it opened, but overall, the service has been good. It provides efficient transportation directly to the airport and reduced traffic congestion at the airport and on the highways.
I guess you could call this "A Tale of Two Airports". LOL Missouri politicians made a good choice that their Illinois counterparts didn't make.
By the way, the suburban Illinois county I live in does NOT have commuter rail service. The politicians who run the local transit authority busses don't WANT competition from rails. So when we need to go to the airport, we have to drive 10 to 15 miles to get to a rail station to catch the train to the airport. Since Lambert-St. Louis is about 40 miles from where I live, and parking at the airport is expensive, it's a better proposition to drive to the train station and take the train to the airport. But it would be a whole lot easier if my county had train service!
Darrell, quiet...for now
Didn't the President make a big splashy speech about expanding high-speed rail in this country? Whatever happened to that initiative, anyway? As I recall, they were going to work first on intercity traffic in the Chicago area, where estimated traffic would justify improved rail service.
Sadly, I don't see a large pro-train lobbying effort making "campaign contributions" to everyone to get this to happen.
MisterBeasley Didn't the President make a big splashy speech about expanding high-speed rail in this country? Whatever happened to that initiative, anyway? As I recall, they were going to work first on intercity traffic in the Chicago area, where estimated traffic would justify improved rail service. Sadly, I don't see a large pro-train lobbying effort making "campaign contributions" to everyone to get this to happen.
You are most welcome to pay my share of ANY new taxes, for trains or anything else.
ATLANTIC CENTRALYou are most welcome to pay my share of ANY new taxes, for trains or anything else.
A good point. However, I was really pointing out government inaction, and the number of times Washington has made sure that the "promise of high-speed rail transportation" remained just that - a promise, nothing more.
Detailed stories about these proposals, by the way, pointed out that the suggested "upgrades" would only provide speeds of 90-100 MPH, while speeds of 130 MPH were routinely hit in the 1930s. I think we need to replace some of the hot air with steam engines.
just another political football. having ridden many passenger trains in my youth, i regard amtrak as a joke. bottom line is any service or product is only worth what consumers are willing to pay for it. if the income does not offset the costs then it will not work. when the government gets involved, all the rules go out the window and the special interests take over.
the powers that be keep talking about high speed passenger service between St Louis and Chicago. something about 4 hours or less. bullfeathers!! at least 3 railroads (GM&O IC WABASH) were doing it in about 5 hours some 50 years ago with time table and train order operation on jointed rail track.
in order for someone to really want to take the train, it must serve their agenda of getting from A to B or else they must enjoy the travel experience. the first group will support rail transportation as long as it keeps working for them and i doubt if there are enough of the second group to really matter. if they remember the Limiteds, Zehpys, and Cities of where ever then they will be pretty let down by today's excuses for passenger service.
one of the last rail trips i took was on the then newly created PC from St Louis to New York. i talked with the conductor and learned that about half of the riders were deadheads like me (riding on a pass) most of the rest looked like a bunch of little old ladies that were afraid to fly.
i'm sure rail passenger transportation has it's place in major metro areas. where the infrastructure has been preserved, it works quite well even with government subsidies. but, crying over and over about the free ride the highway, river barge, and airline systems get is useless. do you think the guys who set it all up in the first place didn't know that it was lopsided and benefited special interests when they did it?
if that had not been the case then it would not have happened.
the mail and express business is not coming back. the passengers are not coming back. the streamliners and E-9's are not coming back. Ralph Budd, Graham Claytor, Wayne Johnston and all their kind are long gone. nobody is about to tear out I-70 and put in a bike trail.
i guess we have to be satisfied with living vicariously through our models of the great passenger trains and let it go at that. sadly, many modelers today have no first hand experience with their prototypes and that is a bigger loss than they will ever know.
grizlump (grouchy german)
The southeast corridor is plugging along slowly.
It takes ten years to get the environmental studies and other red tape done before you actually start to move dirt.
http://www.sehsr.org/
Phoebe VetTo be successful trains must be fast, frequent, and on time. Except on the NE Corridor Amtrak is none of those.
Wrong, you forgot California, nd I think I've reado fo one other, smaller operation that's working.
Has anyone read the article in this month's Trains yet? There's an interesting one on AMtrak CA, and the new Federal move for states to handle the shrot runs and the feds to get the long ones. I love the line in the article. "They (AMTKCA) can go to the Railroads wth a request and throw money on the table. They don't have to beg for favors."
Jist something to think about, and don't take me the wrong way, I want to make a creer out of these possible intermediate runs that are slowly catching hold, but at the Indiana Transportation museum, 80% of ticket price goes away just for fuel. Now, Amtrak isn't trying to feed a GP7 and a GP9 at once, but i bet they aren't far off. on a 12.50 dollar ticket, that leaves a buck and a half to two (roughly) to cover car maintence, track maintence, building maintence. ANd notice, we don't have to pay workers. I bet the scaling isn't far off for AMtrak, either. as I said, just something to think about.
There is still a market for long distance. So long as it isn't trying to go head-to-head with the plane trips. unfortunately, the microwave toster that Amtrak calls dining service won't support long distance, but a trip for tp's sake will sell. A while ago, a local paper ran an article titled "Travelling at See-Level" and the travel options that AMtrak has. I think it pushed flying one way, and taking the train back. The best of both worlds.
-Morgan
I would think that the market for long distance would be in the vacation experience of the trip itself. Wasn't there an American "Orient Express" line out there running that went bankrupt?