Amtrak

[Anonymous]

Geepers Wally...We could get a guy to run the sleepes, parlors, lounges, and diners. Hope his name is Pullman.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

I am of the opinion that Amtrak should shut down its transcontinental lines, and concentrate on HSR, Chicago to New York City, Boston to Miami thru Atlanta, and Oakland to Los Angeles... When these are built turning an operational profit, I would like to see a HSR line from Chicago to Houston thru Dallas, a line from Houston to Jacksonville, and a line from Chicago to Atlanta..... These lines will cut thru 27 of the 50 states.... with over 80 percent of the nation's population.....

And keep building and expanding the HSR system.... Most of these lines are less than 900 miles in length. A train averaging over 150 mph could do these runs in 6 hours or less.... Because of the shortened time, the same number of trainsets operating on these lines could provide instead of a daily service a twice a day service easily..... No more Cleveland departures and arrivals past midnight.... a train leaving Chicago at 9 AM could be in Cleveland by noon and in New York City by 3 PM. Considering air traffic and congestion at the airports, this might be competitive in time......and price.....

One thing is for certain, no one in Europe is calling for the elimination of their High Speed trains......

[coborn35]

It looks like this is turning into a political bashing thread. Personally I think that Amtrak should do more like Japan and make bullet trains. I think that would solve a problem.

[Anonymous]

Don,

You must take into account that the capital costs in that 900 mile corridor are higher for the rail line than it is for the airline. Assuming that no one gets a subsidy, all the airline has to pay for in terms of capital investment is the airplane, and about 20,000 ft worth of two runways, and maybe their share of each air terminal. The railroad has to pay for 900 miles of railroad. The HSR may actually be more fuel efficient than the airline, but their capital costs are a multitude higher. Plus the airplane will still get there faster.

There is a reason passenger rail plays second fiddle to all other forms of moving people. Rairoads are slower than airlines, less flexible than bus lines, and lack the individual freedom of the private auto. The only way around this is to use freight rail lines (hopefully only having to pay for incremental maintenance costs), and run the rail schedule in situations where the time factor is not critical e.g. sight seeing tour trains and/or the overnight sleeper trains (where it is better for the traveller to take eight or so hours in transit than to only take two hours by plane in the same corridor but having to embark/disembark at odd hours of the night).

That is why it is important to lobby for a retention of the rights of passage over the Class I rail network, and pinpoint those corridors in which sufficient tour passengers can make a go without the need for a subidy, and those corridors where a train can leave at a decent evening hour from one city and arrive at a decent AM hour in the next city at normal freight train speeds.

[daveklepper]

Bush and his transportation secretary should look at the situation immediate post 11.09.01 and ask what would have happened if Amtrak had not been around.

[Anonymous]

Again, I can only comment on the northeast operations: an airliner is faster - in the air. But, a train gets you to downtown NY City where you were trying to get to in the 1st place. This is how we had over taken Eastern Airlines, making them the #2 carrier of passengers from Wash. DC to NY. Amtrak became #1. When you take a flight you have to consider the travel time to the departing airport, how long you have to wait for the runway to clear your flight to take off, then, land. Once in NY, you now face a costly cab ride of 45 minutes, or, longer, just to get to downtown Manhatten.

The bullet train post: in japan, that's the Only train allowed to run on those tracks. We inter-mix freights on the rails here. and, that was something that had impressed the French RR visitor who had once come out here to see a high speed crossover we had placed into service (it was a French product). They couldn't believe the size of the American freight cars, plus, how we could mix freight and passenger service.

MagLev trains: Balt. to Washington was a contender for this train. A train that cost over $800 million per mile to install and could only shave off 8 or so minutes from our existing MARC commuter trains. Wow, there was sure a lot of rail "excitement, interest" for that train! We wi***hat kind of excitement would be directed at the existing Amtrak the country now has and try to improve on that!!

The MagLev train would have had only 3 passenger stations: Wash DC, BWI Airport, and Baltimore. So, you're going to drive through the already congested roads in this area to get to a major city's MagLev station, wondering how long you'll be tied up in traffic to get to that station, to board the MagLev to save a few minutes compared to the MARC train??

The MARC train makes more station stops = more convenience. Communities here have grown because of the MARC train (owned by the state but operated by Amtrak crews). I've seen it 1st hand where the small town of Odenton, Md has exploded in population, where this once little commuter stop has now had its parking lot expanded already 3 times (free parking still). BWI station now has 2 muli-level parking garages with a free bus shuttle to move passengers from the train station to the airport.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens in October - which is the start of Amtrak's fiscal year 2006.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Bush and his transportation secretary should look at the situation immediate post 11.09.01 and ask what would have happened if Amtrak had not been around.

Are you seriously suggesting that Amtrak moved significant number of air travellers stranded by 9-11? Maybe in the NEC and it's branches, but the long distance trains don't have enough seats to even make a dent.

Take the Crescent as an example. Even with 5 coaches and two sleepers, the max capcy of the train is about 400. Considering just Atlanta to the northeast, Delta, Air Tran and USAir have over 30 flights a day, just to Phila. If you allow another 60 for NJ/NY and another 30 for DC, and 150 seats per plane, and 70% load factor that's 12,000 passengers per day or 30 train loads!

Amtrak can never be an emergency alternative to flying. Only the highways have enough capacity to do that.

If Amtrak's LD trains were not around post 9-11, Avis, Hertz et.al. would have had a few more rentals.

[klahm]

I was stranded in Houston on 9/11. Amtrak sold out before I could even think about using it. In the end, I just waited out the suspension and flew home, though driving the rental car back to Chicagoland might have saved me a day of time at the expense of much more frazzled nerves.

Outside the NEC, Amtrak didn't have the capacity to make any significant impact on strandees.

[daveklepper]

I think if one is really fair, one can conclude that the subsidy for the average long distance Amtrak passsenger is not any greater than the airline passenger and less than private plane operators. To me, the people who want to shut down Amtrak are guiilty of as much discrimination as racial or religious discrimination. There are people who cannot fly for various reasons. To shut down Amtrak, just because it only serves 1-1/2% of the population, is unfare to the people who use it. It means that these people are denies their rights as Americans to enjoy all of America and not just their immediate neighborhoods. I've discussed national defense, and yes troop trains were used extensively in the Korean war despite the existance of a strong airline system. I've discussed towns in the NW snowed in accept for Amtrak. But to me, it is simply that Bush is prejudiced against rail passengers and that holds for others as well. If the Canadians can support a well-run national passenger rail system, and generally it is well run and adequately funded, the USA should be able to do similarly, and from a cost reduction and organizational standpoint, David Gunn seems the best person to do it.

[dthede]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TRAINMANTOM

O.S.YOU DONT SEEM TO REALIZE THAT PEOPLE ARE SICK TO DEATH OF ALL THOSE OUTIN THE US WHO ARGUE A POINT WITHOUT LETTING ALL THE CORRECT FACTS ,OR ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEM IS GOOD FOR ALL .JUST BECAUSETHEY DONT USE AMTRAK NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED .YOU KNOW WHAT I DONT WANT MY TAX MONEY USED FOR THE HIGHWAYSOR AIRWAYS NOW WHAT IS TOUR REPLY SIR

That seems to be a complete misreading of what O.S. was saying: you two may well agree. Some followup to clarify your respective positions might show that.
--Didrik

[dthede]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Bush and his transportation secretary should look at the situation immediate post 11.09.01 and ask what would have happened if Amtrak had not been around.

....

Take the Crescent as an example. Even with 5 coaches and two sleepers, the max capcy of the train is about 400. Considering just Atlanta to the northeast, Delta, Air Tran and USAir have over 30 flights a day, just to Phila. If you allow another 60 for NJ/NY and another 30 for DC, and 150 seats per plane, and 70% load factor that's 12,000 passengers per day or 30 train loads!

Amtrak can never be an emergency alternative to flying. Only the highways have enough capacity to do that.

....

And, I'd add that Amtrak will not be such an alternative so long as no one plans for it. Lack of planning is our forte.

Contingency planning in the event that air traffic is grounded for a substantial period of time, nationally or regionally, would of necessity shift traffic to the other means. It is obvious that shifting additional passenger traffic to roadways is one approach, but imagine doing so during critical, recurring, rushhours, especially at the rate of one person per vehicle. Now transplant that scenario to Washington, D.C. , L.A., S.F., NYC or Boston. Combine the scenario with a job-function-prioritized, "national emergency," seating plan. Under the right circumstances, people can use rail transport crammed in sardine-style (Tokyo style?) and perhaps begin to approach air transport capacities.

The thing to remember, of course, if that the rail infrastructure must be in place for any of that to work. Then, scheduling is next important.

The stupidity of the Amtrak concept of operations is that the infrastructure shared with CSX, etc., puts freight (things) always more valuable than passengers (humans). So Washington passengers will understand what I'm saying when I say that they might be able to escape Washington in a national emergency providing the freights don't have the northbound passenger trains bolixed up in the Alexandria yards, as they have for that last 10 years; or, provided the daily freights Eastbound to Syracuse, NY don't have the Lake Shore Limited creeping along at 20 mph for an hour, so that every 15 mintes that go by reveals the train to be 15 minutes later than before.

Aside from my simple and naive speculations about national emergency transport, though, simply list the alternatives. Estimate capacities. Do the arithmetic. That's when the scary part begins.
--Didrik

[dthede]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

I am of the opinion that Amtrak should shut down its transcontinental lines, and concentrate on HSR, Chicago to New York City, Boston to Miami thru Atlanta, and Oakland to Los Angeles... When these are built turning an operational profit, I would like to see a HSR line from Chicago to Houston thru Dallas, a line from Houston to Jacksonville, and a line from Chicago to Atlanta..... These lines will cut thru 27 of the 50 states.... with over 80 percent of the nation's population.....

And keep building and expanding the HSR system.... Most of these lines are less than 900 miles in length. A train averaging over 150 mph could do these runs in 6 hours or less.... Because of the shortened time, the same number of trainsets operating on these lines could provide instead of a daily service a twice a day service easily..... No more Cleveland departures and arrivals past midnight.... a train leaving Chicago at 9 AM could be in Cleveland by noon and in New York City by 3 PM. Considering air traffic and congestion at the airports, this might be competitive in time......and price.....

One thing is for certain, no one in Europe is calling for the elimination of their High Speed trains......

Interesting observations and imaginative thoughts! One additional thought and a conclusion to throw in the mix is: look at the airport hub system whereby it is "sensible" but not necessarily energy-wise, to ship people by air 300 miles in the wrong direction relative to their final destination, in order to get the numbers up at the hubs to make a plane load. Conclusion might be that an integrated system of road, rail, and air transport should be created. We are heading to that state, little by little, as the U.S. government becomes the owner of the roads, the owner of the rail lines, and the (effective) owner of airlines. Eventually, under one management "roof" it dawns on the entity that all these modes of transport must be consolidated, organized for what part of transport they do best, and balanced in terms of energy usage.
--Didrik