Why should the President consider Amtrak vital to National Security?

[Modelcar]

...Maintaining a stable country which includes the economic structure during a time of conflict requires all modes of transportation we can muster....In my thoughts, I've not been preaching using Amtrak to move troops here and there...although it is possible to do....but to service the remaining folks to try to keep some semblance on normalcy present by using all kinds of transportation....Some of which may not be available at times if we have interruptions in this country.

[Modelcar]

....And of course most of us agree there is no real substitute for moving heavy equipment around in this country then by rail.....I didn't hear anyone debating against that...Not even an issue...just assuming it's there and ready to do just that.

[Sterling1]

I just wish and wonder that the railroads could be used in some meaningful way to transport military stuff, though I do remember that many of the tank divisions went by rail to go to the nearest port.

[Modelcar]

...In this past year or so I personally saw several trains completely loaded with military equipment.

[ajmiller]

Maybe, just maybe, we can convince the President that he needs a secret rail-based mobile command center in the event of "nucular" combat. We could equip the train with stealth technology and vertical takeoff and landing. It would be called--AirTrak One--but only when he's on board. Surely he'd see the wisdom of such a plan and feel compelled to fully fund Amtrak.



[swg]

[Modelcar]

....Won't be needed until we find some more WMD someplace.

[Anonymous]

I was jsut down in the states.

You know there is somehting wrong when a CAR passes a PASSENGER train.

'nuff said.

[Junctionfan]

Amtrak sure is nothing like VIA.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....And of course most of us agree there is no real substitute for moving heavy equipment around in this country then by rail.....I didn't hear anyone debating against that...Not even an issue...just assuming it's there and ready to do just that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to beat you up. As far as substitute methods of transportation in times of crisis, I'm all for passenger trains. In fact I'm all for passenger trains as primary modes of transportation. I'm not sure a serious argument can be made for passenger trains for long haul as a means of transportation in the US for contingency purposes. As it is, Amtrak long haul makes the transportation a part of the vacation...just like a cruise liner.....as long as you don't need to get there in a hurry. Short haul (NEC, Caltrans, VRE) has their place regardless of situations. Taking the military logistics value out and just moving civilians, some things to consider....

1) Using the protracted WWII example, the government discouraged non-essential travel (auto, rail, etc) to minimize the use of resources dedicated to other than war effort (insert any crisis here), just as they did in the period post 9/11/01. It would be better to keep them off the rails...and as far as that goes, roads and airlines too.

2) Given the capacity of freight roads, single line mains, the need to move materials, and the inherent problems Amtrak has with long haul schedules as it is....it might be better to not create routing conflicts that don't directly support the effort.

3) Technology has lessened to a degree the need for business travel. Things can be done now that do not require face to face meetings (which can be done via tele-conferencing in many cases) and in the event of a crisis, business will adapt to what it needs to do to operate. So do you really need it?

4) If you are talking about moving large quantities of evacuees from somewhere, sure Amtrak could have value. But at that point, so do gondolas and white FEMA boxcars with shackles.

Having a healthy, diverse and redundant infrastructure is always a benefit to the overall common good, but in some instances, the inflexibility of railroads can be a liability vice and benefit. If the argument is that more money (subsidies, trust, etc) should be made available to the RRs as a whole to maintain a healthy, efficient infrastructure as support national defense or readiness, I would whole heatedly agree. But trying to justify Amtrak long haul trains I think is a stretch....Does the government need to subsidize intercity bus service under the guise of national defense also? The counter would be that they already do by funding interstates...I would say that by helping the railroads infrastructure, they are making a strategic investment, much more so than by trying to justify Amtrak as having intrinsic strategic value.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I doubt if Amtrak could be considered vital to National security in the same way the railroads were considered vital to national security in WW II. During WW II the railroads had far more capacity to handle passengers than Amtrak seems to have today. Back in the WW II era the demand for passenger rail service was there, however, this is not to imply Amtrak can't handle its current demand plus some extra.

While the Armed forces shipped troops around the country by train during WW II starting with the Korean Conflict, and ever since, the Armed Forces have mostly shipped troops aroud the country for short distances by bus, and long distance by air.

If Amtrak or the freight railroads were to have some national security passenger rail role they would need reserve equipment and reserve personnel to staff the equipment. how long would it take to get the personnel or the equipment up to speed?

[Anonymous]

AMTRAK is a passenger moving business. My experience with Army logistics involved a lot of planning moving troops and equipment to ports.

Most Army posts do have rail connections, for moving heavy freight. The way it works is that the Army will plan to move a unit- be it an Infantry brigade or a missile battalion- in two parts. The equipment always moves first, and always moves to a port for shipping. (The exception is when Army units go to the National Training Center in California, or the site at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Then the equipment is almost always kept on the same train.)

Moving people is done by the fastest, most convenient way. No one wants to deploy troops who will sit around without equipment at the other end. It's better to keep them at their home station for as long as possible to let them clear up family problems and get mentally ready to do their job.

When the balloon goes up, troops do a duffle bag drag to a chartered bus, which will take them to the nearest military air base. Sometimes that's right across the post; sometimes it's to a civilian airport capable of handling big transports.

BTW, a typical Army division (which is pretty hard to define) will range anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 soldiers. Unlike WWII, most Army divisions are "mechanized"- which means that your typical Infantryman will be working out of a Bradley fighting vehicle, rather than walking into battle. (This is not true of "airborne" paratrooper units or "air assault" units- once they fall out of the airplane, their feet provide their mobility.)

AMTRAK works best at moving passengers short distances at high speeds. Railroads work best at moving bulk freight. For moving people as fast as possible, in coherent unit groups, for long distances over 300 miles, nothing beats an airplane. Cost and efficiency, while important, don't neccessarily play a role- but time and troop readiness are everything.

Erik

[Modelcar]

....Kevin, are you saying automobiles do not pass passenger trains in Canada.....? Surely some do. I agree it shouldn't be that way but...It probably happens many places around the world.

[Modelcar]

...I served in the Korean War and was transported from the east to Seattle, Wash. by troop train....and 16 months later I was brought back across the country from Seattle to Ft. Meade, Md....You guessed it, by troop train....and enjoyed every minute of it....after we recovered from sickness the first night on the train probably the different food as we had just gotten off the General Howsie troop ship {after 17 days on it}, shortly before we embarked to the train....for the long trip towards home across the country. I made sure I had a lower berth {with a window}, so I could enjoy the scenes at night.....

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

You could literally move an entire division on a train. 6000 troops in a division (or is it 10000?) say 6,000. At least 50 per car=120 cars at the most. Lash up 4 or 5 P-42s and away you go. You can't do that on 1 747 and a convoy screws up traffic on the road.

This is a joke, right?

After you load 6,000 troops in a 120 car passenger train, where would you take them? The train's gotta go someplace.

To a port of embarkation and a waiting troopship?

Obviously you need to go to a port..........Kind of a no brainer.

It's a no brainer to think that our money should be confiscated so the Army can have a back up plan to use 120 car passenger trains to move troops to sea ports. Why on Earth would they send soldiers to an ocean terminal?

You know what I think this was-- I think this was a serious comment by a left wing bigot who really believes that we conservatives will simply, without thought, fork over money at the mention of the words "national security". We're like Pavlov's Dog, we salivate at the sound of the words.

If Amtrak could just be linked to national security he could have all the money to play train with that he wanted. And President Bush will go along with it because, in the bigot's opinion, he's as dumb as we are.

Why we don't want to spend money like "he knows we should". That proves we're dumb and just don't understand the need to play trains.

[Junctionfan]

Bigot eh? (ignoring it as it is off topic)

I explained one time on a thread that VIA lashes two trains into 1. The two go from Toronto to Kingston and than split up into the two trains; one going to Montreal and the other going to Ottawa. The train I was on looked something like this 1 P-42, 4 LRCs, 1 P-42, 4 LRCs. If they are to move 120 cars, you could break it up in sections like VIA does and then separate the sections to be moved into different platforms / tracks. That was the original theory; for airport or military amphibious landing craft zone-depends on the situation.

[daveklepper]

It simply takes a whale of a lot more fuel to move a division with its equipment to a port by the present bus plane and truck technique than putting the whole works on a train, equipment and personel. The scenereo that I have been called a no-brainer for suggesting is a possible wartime situation where overseas oil is cut off. Not that I really ever expect it to happen, BUT BEING PREPAIRED FOR IT TO HAPPEN IS PART OF PREVENTING IT FROM EVER HAPPENING! So having the equipment IN USE BY AMTRAK can mean that it is ready for more important uses in an emergency. That is why President Bush should consider a strong Amtrak as a componant of National Defense!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

We're like Pavlov's Dog, we salivate at the sound of the words.

"The Contract with America," "Partial Birth Abortion," "The Marriage Tax," "The Death Tax," and of course "The War on Terror" were all developed using focus groups with everyone hooked up to a dial which they turned one way or the other based on their reflex response to phrases. Frank Luntz is the master of finding words people salivate to. Any phrase that sparks critical thinking is immediately discarded.

[Junctionfan]

I should mention so people know where I am coming from when I suggest that it be made up into large "120 car troop trains" and not smaller ones. Consider the fact that the class 1s are near capacity. It is easier on them and cheaper to run 1 or 2 huge passenger trains than runs dozens which chew up capacity (cheaper in that not needed to build extra track either on mainline or staging yard leads). I suspect that's why VIA runs the trains coupled together between Toronto and Kingston so they reduced the already conjested CN Kingston Subdivision.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I should mention so people know where I am coming from when I suggest that it be made up into large "120 car troop trains" and not smaller ones. Consider the fact that the class 1s are near capacity. It is easier on them and cheaper to run 1 or 2 huge passenger trains than runs dozens which chew up capacity (cheaper in that not needed to build extra track either on mainline or staging yard leads). I suspect that's why VIA runs the trains coupled together between Toronto and Kingston so they reduced the already conjested CN Kingston Subdivision.

Well, I have to admit it -- keeping Amtrak on standby to run 120 car distriubted power passenger trains filled with troops to ocean ports of embarkation -- just in case of the occurance that the US Air Force is out of fuel and can not operate its transports -- is the best argument I've heard in favor of Amtrak in 33 years.

Seriously, I like trains too. I'd like to see some real justification for operating a passenger service west of Minneapolis to the Pacific. In all these years, I've never seen such a justification. Even if the airplanes are subsidized, which I ain't convinced of yet, it just doesn't make sense to then have two competing subsidized services. That would be really throwing away money.

Amtrak may make sense in the Northeast and in California. But I don't see much need for it elsewhere. Trying to grab dollars because of a nonsense national security claim will make other people, besides my ownself, think you are not to be taken seriously.

[Modelcar]

...Study the data and You probably will eventually understand that commercial air travel in this country is most certainly subsidized.

[daveklepper]

It is not nonsense. America imports too much of its fuel to really consider itself prepared for a national emergency.

And even more than the airlines, which are definitely subsidized, so is the private automotible. And even more than the automobile, very highly subsidized, is long distance trucking.

Amtrak is subsidized about in the middle on a per/passenger-mile basis, but the subsidies would be less if the capital investment would be made to bring it to a good state of repair, and that is really all the investment I am asking for.