Get rid or rethink Amtrak

[gabe]

I know this is not going to be a very popular position, but:

I love trains, I really do. I hate to see lines abandoned, think railroads are a superior form of transportation both economically and evironmentally, and wi***o see the government either (1) support railroads directly to compensate them for the disadvantages that are caused by government subsidies to other forms of transportation or (2) remove some of the impediments to their success (yes, I do have specific examples, but will omit them to keep this from become a diatribe).

That having been said, I am very suprised to see the number of pro-Amtrak people on here. Few seem to acknowledge all of the problems and difficulties that are inherent to Amtrak's structure and even fewer seem to have seriously considered the possibility that we--as railroaders and as a country--just might be better off without it.

My real frustration is that Amtrak has taken on a sort of momentum to it and people cannot picture life without it. I think this momentum has dampened possible creative approaches in rethinking Amtrak--such as the advantages of spliting it up.

I realize my position is not well developed, but I think this topic is so complex it is better developed through dialog rather than one long recitation of my position.

Gabe Hawkins

[oltmannd]

I think just about everybody thinks Amtrak ought to be different than it is. However, the opinions range from "the corridor is killing the long distance train" to "forget long haul. How about some new corridors?" to "how about rearranging the parts to make it run better?" to "lets just forget the whole thing". However, year after year, we get status quo out of Washington.

Do you remember some of Don Phillips columns over the past years? He'd write one saying "NOW, the gov't is REALLY going to have to decide what to do with Amtrak". Followed by one the next month, "Well, maybe not." Then 6 months or a year later "NOW they REALLY, REALLY have to make a decision." Followed by an explanation of how Congress managed to avoid the issue again.

Someday, maybe after we're all dead, the Congress will decide what to do with intercity rail passenger service in general and Amtrak specifically......but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Junctionfan]

My position is that Amtrak really needs to be revamped and almost start over from scatch. Keep the name but redo the whole system. If Amtrak can get it together, they have the ability to be sucessful in long-distance intercity travel, corridor, NEC and yes even contract operator.

I believe that since Amtrak is the only "railroad" that has the ability to for "open access" on anyones railroad, if the market is there than Amtrak could easily monopolies on it. No other railroads other than VIA, has the motive power to exceed 90mph; surely that is a benefit in some way. Amtrak currently has MHCs and Roadrailers that could be leased or contracted out for some kind of express service, that too could be tinkered into something worth while (amtrak could lease to the couriers and logistic companies perhaps). Amtrak has MOW equipment, maybe they could sell the service of track maintainance to the shortline-who knows. The point is that Amtrak has a lot of potential if it is givin a better chance from the government.

[gabe]

I certainly understand the advantages of overlaping service. There are efficiencies to having one entity perform a number of tasks--this thinking (and the realization that American business now competes in a global economy) is largely responsible for the loosening of anti-trust legislation over the last ten years.

However, does Amtrak necessarily have to be divided into the four entities delineated by Mark? In other words, instead of dividing Amtrak into the four separate entities, could the division be on a route-by-route basis. For instance have a separate and distinct entity run the Empire Builder, another separate and distinct entity run the sunset, etc., etc.

I think there are numerous advantages to such a breakdown.

(1) The parts of Amtrak that are so inefficient and unwanted that they have no business existing in the first place would be more exposed and they wouldn't have the existing superstructure/umberella of Amtrak keeping the "money pit" in place.

(2) It would minimalize the bearacratic problems that typically plague large entities such as Amtrak. Right now if a corridor/route is not functioning up to snuff, it is just an expected consequence of being part of Amtrak--no one expects Amtrak to run efficiently, which allows slackers to hide between the cracks so to speak. If the various lines were split up, and some lines were noticeably run better than others, it would be more difficult for incompetence to hide. In short, it would provide more incentive to perform.

(3) The different divisions would have different ways of running their trains which would allow a "hybrid vigor" for ideas. I think the current size and structure of Amtrak stunt such ideas and make it difficult to tell which ones work and which ones do not.

(4) The state participation with passenger rail service will become more transparent. The more localized nature of the individual spin offs will put them in closer contact with the States and will put the desire of local travelers closer to the problems/solutions.

I certainly understand the argument that if Amtrak corridor service is cut either airline or highway traffic needs to be subsidized due to the resulting increased use; but is this necessarily the case?

I think the subsidies are really the problem to begin with. If nothing were subsidized, people would travel on the means that are most efficient and an industry would find a way to make money meeting the demads of such travel. As of right now, the subsidies mask such efficiency determinations, and allow people--to borrow a phrase--to export their transportation costs to other entities.

Perhaps I chose a topic too large to cover; but I am interested to see if I am the only one who has had these thoughts.

Thanks,

Gabe

[BaltACD]

Amtrak is configured just as Congress wanted it to be...A Failure. Congress designed Amtrak to be a failure and has funeded it so that it can do nothing but fail financially.

Rail passenger transportation needs to take the quantum leap beyond the sub 1940's product that Amtrak has been designed to deliver and be taken into building and delivering a 21st Century product that can compete even up with Air transit times on a city center to city center basis. Amtrak in its present form can not do it. In fact there is no model on how to do it except to view the French TGV and the Japanese Bullet Trains initiatives.

The Florida High Speed rail will be a start, if it can survive the political campaign against it that is relying on the reality that the system can not connect ALL the major cities in Florida on DAY ONE, so each city is being presented with a political campaign that since City A is not in the DAY ONE plan they shoud vote against it, Talk about being blind to the future. Were that political mentality existant in the 19th Century, we wold not even have the railroads we have today. Short sighted political policy will tie this country in transportation knots that will never be solved.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Here's some food for thought, and maybe it will narrow the scope of the problem.

The railroads did not turn themselves into freight haulers. Automobiles and airplanes turned the railroads into freight haulers.

With only a few exceptions passenger rail service should give up the ghost and get out of the way. I know these are strange words coming from a railfan and a democrat. They'll probably kick me out of the NMRA.[swg]

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe
I am very suprised to see the number of pro-Amtrak people on here. Few seem to acknowledge all of the problems and difficulties that are inherent to Amtrak's structure and even fewer seem to have seriously considered the possibility that we--as railroaders and as a country--just might be better off without it.

Gabe,
I am pro-Amtrak because I enjoy riding trains. I am well aware of the problems at Amtrak, both from reading articles by knowledgable authors, and experiencing some things first hand while riding trains.
I consider poor tike-keeping to be a critical problem, and I mention the likely risk of delay to anyone -fan or not - who elects to check out a long distance train in the west.
I also recognize that Amtrak is/can be disruptive to the freight railroads' schedules.

I am not opposed to another Amtrak restructuring, but I would not expect all problems to be solved with one. Even in restructurings in private enterprise, the well-connected remain in power (regardless of productivity levels). Decisions on who stays/who gets cut often depend more on network relationships and less on cold economics.
MP

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

I The parts of Amtrak that are so inefficient and unwanted that they have no business existing in the first place would be more exposed and they wouldn't have the existing superstructure/umberella of Amtrak keeping the "money pit" in place.

I think the subsidies are really the problem to begin with. If nothing were subsidized, people would travel on the means that are most efficient and an industry would find a way to make money meeting the demads of such travel. As of right now, the subsidies mask such efficiency determinations, and allow people--to borrow a phrase--to export their transportation costs to other entities.

Gabe,
Please point out ONE service that is so inefficient and unwanted.
Other than a certain region saying, well, no one rides any trains outside of our area, what services aren't being used? Even the Sunset, with all its problems - many of which created by the freight railroads - still carries a respectable amount of passengers for the few times a week it runs.

Your point on subsidies is way too late. To talk about having subsidy-free transporation is fantasy. You can't unring a bell. Transportation subsidies began nearly a century ago when this country went on a road-building spree and didn't stop until it built all the airports with federal money, thank you.

No one anywhere in the world travels on a subsidy-free transportation system. In the U.S.., unfortunately, a bully group that hates Amtrak likes to single it out and attack it regularly whilst ignoring the BILLIONS of dollars yearly dumped into other so-called private transportaiton systems.

Try to get Southwest Airlines to build one airport or fund FAA. Or ask GM to bulid the highways.
Yet the lousy CEO of SW frequently attacks Amtrak as if his airline isn't thoroughly subsidized.


Rail transportation susidies is relatively new, circa 1971. The initial land grants to the RRs, before anyone objects, have been long paid-off, so declared Congress years ago.

[gabe]

BaltACD,

Don't take this as an attack on your position; it is not. And, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you.

But does the solution really need to be that grandiose? For instance, I live in Indianapolis and drive to Chicago regularly. The I-65 corridor is packed, packed, packed and parking in Chicago is attrocious. Because Chicago has a great inter-city transportation and such problems, rail transport to Chicago is a no-brainer.

However, as much as I love trains, I will never take Amtrak other than as an excursion to watch trains. Everyone I talk to in Indy, including those who don't know I am a rail fan, says how great it would be to have a train to Chicago to avoid such problems.

But the train runs at hours that is convenient to no one, has not advertisement, and is rumored to be always late.

This brings me back to my division of Amtrak suggestion. I can't help but think if one group of people only ran a train from Chicago to Indy (and maybe Cincinnati) and would have to get new jobs if the train failed, they would not run the train at the times it is run now and more efforts would be made to make sure it is not late.

I don't need a 140 mile per hour train to Chicago. A 65 mile per hour train that left at a reasonable time and was run on time would get me there faster than driving. How much easier my life would be if someone in charge thought this way.

Mark,

That was interesing about Gunn. I have to admit, I didn't realize it and it does debunk my contentions.

Gabe

[gabe]

ohlemier,

Of course one cannot unring the subsidy bell. There is no disputing your contention. However, the exercise of future restraint on such subsidation is not covered by the same argument. I fail to see why it necessarily follows that if Amtrak is gone and there is now a group of people wanting to get from A to B that no longer has Amtrak we necessarily need to subsidize something.

Stated another way: is transportation in today's society so complex that subsidies are no required or is transportation in today's society so complex by the overwhelming use of subsidy?

Your contention regarding GM kind of speaks to my point. There is no way that a company would build a highway for such transportation, because the cost of doing so would never match the investment because long-distant automobile travel is no where close to the most efficient form of transportation. I think that speaks volumes as to subsidies' affect on transportation decisions.

Gabe

P.S. I realize a substantial amount of railroads in this country were started in the form of land grants--effectively a subsidy. And, I also realize that this--at least to a degree--undermines my point.

[Junctionfan]

I can't see private enterprise wanting to get involved in the passenger service. If the railroads didn't want it, why would anybody else want it?

You can't break it up because it is easier for one entity to obtain one contract from the railroad that have a couple (railroads don't like open-access). The government has to own it or the railroads will ignore it and just get in their way of operation even more if its owned privately in order to get rid of this "open-access" intruder.

I think that our countries is not ready for massive electrification of the railroads because the government doesn't like to spend money and a lot of the voters are too stupid to see the big picture because they want there money better spent but don't know what on. There is plenty of people like that in Canada so the U.S should be no exception.

Right now they need the funds to start fixing the way they operate and improve their P.R. Later on but not too much later, they have to start presenting more modern ways of operating. The NEC is a great start. Since UP and BNSF have abandoned some of the transcon lines (I think), Amtrak can by it and start operating high-speed service between where ever it takes them. If Amtrak keeps buying thease lines than starts filling in the gaps, then they can offer greater high-speed, bullet style train service. There is a couple of areas they could electrify a corridor either totally by themselves or add a couple of extra lines to. The possibility of electric Cal Trains including what would be the North-West Corridor; between Texas or Oklahoma to Los Angelas (formal transcon lines), and NEC extension to Montreal and Florida.

At some point elevated lines maybe necessary to avoid diamonds with other railroads. I would also suggest that Amtrak's future (distant future) would be better off with Alstom class high-speed trains than Bombardier since they offer better tilting technology in my opinion which would be very much needed on the formal transcon lines.

[Anonymous]

Reality is... there is a beginning and an end to everything. Amtrak has been an attempt to fend off the inevitable. I love trains, but let it go. Pay off the contractual arrangements. Let the track time be used by the railroads for more economically-valuable purposes. And for instance, let the northeast states work with what may be possible there with NEC passenger lines. Let California continue to develop its situation. Let Metra take over the routes to Milwaukee and the Illinois college towns. Bring attention to new ways of shaping tomorrow's world. Maybe that means ways of not needing transportation. Maybe that means a new type of transportation technology. I think the engine of mankind's advancement hasn't been through politics; rather it's been by creating things, be it music, poetry, surgery, or a Coca Cola bottle.

As a closing comment, I would like to see the creation of one heritage streamliner passenger train operated with class by the National Park Service (through the Feather River Canyon?), and with proper remuneration to the railroad that owns the route. To me that would properly befit the era of the passenger train.

[gabe]

Well,

I will hapily claim ignorance. I have never contended that I know more about, or even as much as, railroads than a single person on here. So, if you want to call me ignorant for questioning why alternatives such as doing away with Amtrak aren't seriously explored, I am not going to long any sleep.

However, trying to convince me that my position is incorrect on the basis that the 1.5 billion dollars Amtrak needs to be a system that the vast majority of Americans view as a joke will do very little to reduce my continued-ignorant position.

Also--because I recognize my ignorance--I am not nor have not contended that we should get rid of Amtrak. My contention is that it is very surprising to me that the virtues of such a move is not being explored more thoroughly on a forum such as this.

Ignorantly yours,

Gabe

P.S. At least freight railroads can argue that someday they might be able to make a return on their investment and are not a pariah.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Reality is... there is a beginning and an end to everything. Amtrak has been an attempt to fend off the inevitable. I love trains, but let it go. Pay off the contractual arrangements. Let the track time be used by the railroads for more economically-valuable purposes. And for instance, let the northeast states work with what may be possible there with NEC passenger lines. Let California continue to develop its situation. Let Metra take over the routes to Milwaukee and the Illinois college towns. Bring attention to new ways of shaping tomorrow's world. Maybe that means ways of not needing transportation. Maybe that means a new type of transportation technology. I think the engine of mankind's advancement hasn't been through politics; rather it's been by creating things, be it music, poetry, surgery, or a Coca Cola bottle.

As a closing comment, I would like to see the creation of one heritage streamliner passenger train operated with class by the National Park Service (through the Feather River Canyon?), and with proper remuneration to the railroad that owns the route. To me that would properly befit the era of the passenger train.

Actually there was a show on the travel channel recently about the American Orient Express which with the help of some buses, did just what you are talking about. The tourist train got people to Glacier, Yellowstone, Brice, Grand Canyon, and maybe one or two more, using rare mileage on the UP. I'm not sure if they used the Feather River Canyon. Of course this was a "land cruise" for luxury tourism, not transportation for travel.

It is out there, but it doesn't run often, and It's a BUSINESS which means it is all about the MONEY!

[gabe]

If you are into fine dinning, I HIGHLY recommend the train in which Big_Boy_4005 refers to. I really think that is a neat opperation. People seem to enjoy it too.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe


Everyone I talk to in Indy, including those who don't know I am a rail fan, says how great it would be to have a train to Chicago to avoid such problems.
But the train runs at hours that is convenient to no one, has not advertisement, and is rumored to be always late.
I can't help but think if one group of people only ran a train from Chicago to Indy (and maybe Cincinnati) and would have to get new jobs if the train failed, they would not run the train at the times it is run now and more efforts would be made to make sure it is not late.

Gabe, let me first apologize. I did not mean to direct my response to you. It's been edited.
I was going after a tone I hear a lot on Web forums.
I was venting from a lot of things I've read on this forum. So-called railfans hating Amtrak.
That's what I was saying to get over.

Regarding CHI- INDY service: I agree there should be decent train service between those two important cities.
The problem, however, is this:
You give an organization $100 to run a national system of trains, then tell it routinely that you will give it less and less, and even stiff it out of its funding - how can one expect ANY organization - Amtrak or not - to service the market?

If you can only run one train on a certain route, its inevitable that some cities will get poor hours. Amtrak has adjusted the Cardinal's schedule so it does service INDY a little better. But notice how CINCY now has crappy hours - after 1:00 a.m. and before 5:00 a.m.

The lack of trains isn't Amtrak's fault. It's Congress' and the state of Indiana.
Indiana can very well buy equipment and contract Amtrak to operate it much as does California.

Provide more money to a CEO with a private railroading career - such as Gunn - and you'll get better results.

[gabe]

Apology accepted.

Regarding the Indy service, I don't at all disagree with your contention that it is not Amtrak's fault due to poor funding, etc. However, it seems to me "all or nothing" is the way to go. If they are going to run a train that no one can ride because of the hours and service, they would be better off spending the money on ambulances and firetrucks to help the mounting accidents on the I-65 corridor.

I feel if this corridor were isolated, someone would say, that the train has potential. My fear is that it is being pushed under the rug due to the 1,000,000 other problems Amtrak has. If it were isolated, I believe the potential of this line would be more realized.

Nonetheless, now that Mark informs me that Gunn has tried at least a version of what I have suggested, I am much less confident of my position.

Gabe

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

BaltACD,

Don't take this as an attack on your position; it is not. And, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you.

But does the solution really need to be that grandiose? For instance, I live in Indianapolis and drive to Chicago regularly. The I-65 corridor is packed, packed, packed and parking in Chicago is attrocious. Because Chicago has a great inter-city transportation and such problems, rail transport to Chicago is a no-brainer.

However, as much as I love trains, I will never take Amtrak other than as an excursion to watch trains. Everyone I talk to in Indy, including those who don't know I am a rail fan, says how great it would be to have a train to Chicago to avoid such problems.

But the train runs at hours that is convenient to no one, has not advertisement, and is rumored to be always late.

This brings me back to my division of Amtrak suggestion. I can't help but think if one group of people only ran a train from Chicago to Indy (and maybe Cincinnati) and would have to get new jobs if the train failed, they would not run the train at the times it is run now and more efforts would be made to make sure it is not late.

I don't need a 140 mile per hour train to Chicago. A 65 mile per hour train that left at a reasonable time and was run on time would get me there faster than driving. How much easier my life would be if someone in charge thought this way.

Mark,

That was interesing about Gunn. I have to admit, I didn't realize it and it does debunk my contentions.

Gabe

Gabe -

While you don't need more than a 65 MPH train from Indy to Chicago, you and your other Indy boarding passengers are not sufficient to make any Indy to Chicago only service viable. Yes I am proposing a system that would seem grandiose, however, your description of traffic and parking in the jaunt to Chicago is the reason such a SYSTEM is NEEDED, at least on routes between major cities East of the Mississippi. We can't just keep adding lanes to the interstate. We don't have parking in the major metropolitan area for 'strangers'. The airline system is again approaching maximum capacity since the recovery of traffic from after 9/11. The High speed of the Network is needed to keep trips 'do able' within the time frame that the traveling public expects to be able to accompli***heir travel, ie. 6 AM to Midnight. Board the train at 6-7-8 AM....be transported 2 - 3 or 4 hours (ie. up to 600 miles) to your destination...conduct your business and return home at bed time.

Obviously the current Amtrak can only approach this form of business on the NEC. It is a function that they perform well. That being said, there are more corridors that can support that type of service, however there must be a total political shift in public policy which I don't see occuring until I-95 is 16 lanes wide between Boston and Richmond.

[Anonymous]

If Amtrak had the 1940s product for sale so often mentioned, they'd be packed. Just think. Get on a train in Chicago at 4.30pm. Have a cocktail and a big dinner. Meet friends in the lounge and party 'til 1am. Get some sleep, awake, have a shave by the train barber, breakfast, and be in NYC by 9am. When Amtrak started they had a 1920s product. They now are back to the 1870s. I've watched the whole thing unravel from day 1. Amtrak never really tried to improve the trains themselves until into the late 70s with the "Showcase Trains." Remember the Broadway "Train of the Stars where Legends are made?" Even that idea collapsed. Instead of keeping entire train sets together, they mixed em all up with different air condiioning and lighting systems. Then they worried about central, computerized reservations (OK that was good.) Then they had to get costumeware for the train crews. Names of train crew positions had to be changed. I remember a brochure that referred to the conductor as the "On-board Operation Officer," and the dining car chef as "The Food Specialist."they tried referring to tickets as "lift documents." But trains kept on being late, and instead of worrying about that, they printed up forms for people who arrived late. A lot of sizzle and no steak. As time has gone on the old head rail execs, who could understand the importance of passenger trains just passed on. Now we're left with this big shell that we lovingly call "Modern railroading." And no one seems to remember Amtrak's beginning and it's underlying reason for creation. I want to use railroad service from Chicago to New York, and so do a lot of others. The public thinks it's the medium that's bad, when it's the history and lack of thinking in the use of it that stinks.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

Amtrak bashing? That's nothing new for us to hear at Amtrak. Gabe, if you lived on the Northeast Corridor, you may form a different opinion. We own the Northeast Corridor, we control the Northeast Corridor. When our trains are run on other lines, I think there is where the problem lies. I'm not into the politics, and, I can understand the freight lines having to make special room for Amtrak - and, it is "their railroad". We like President Gunn's stance - don't fund us properly, I'll shut it down. We've been waiting for someone like President Gunn to come along. Someone who doesn't live in Fantasy Land. Former Amtrak President Tom Downs before a Congressional hearing had stated "shut down the Northeast Corridor and you'll need thousands of fully loaded DC-9 jets to move the masses that we do per year". I had wondered if that was a bit of a stretch on the facts. But, a DC-9 holds about 99 passengers, not much more than a fully loaded passenger car. So, when I see a "short" Amtrak train with just 6 Amfleet cars enroute to New York, I am looking at about 6 DC-9 jets going by me on rails. Maybe out in Indiana there is poor OTP (On Time Performance), but, what is the true root cause (bottom line) for those delays? And, as was stated earlier, we're under funded. Either fund us properly, or, let us go. So far, we haven't been let go. President Reagan's era was one of the worst times for Amtrak. Even his Transportation Secretary, David Stockman, recanted his Amtrak bashings once Reagan's terms had ended.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

If you are into fine dinning, I HIGHLY recommend the train in which Big_Boy_4005 refers to. I really think that is a neat opperation. People seem to enjoy it too.

Gabe

Thanks Gabe, it does sound like fun. The secret is that that mission is well defined, and properly funded by passenger fares. I think most here are in agreement that Amtrak is neither.

Mark, who was it at the club that said " A horse designed by committee is a camel"?
In this case the original committee was the railroads who signed on to form Amtrak. Of course the committee has changed over the years, as congress holds the purse strings over this aging beast.

I am willing to blame "W" for a lot of things that are wrong in this country, but if Amtrak dies on his watch, I would consider it a mercy killing.[}:)]

[Junctionfan]

Well said artmark, amtrak-tom and M.W Hemphill.

[Anonymous]

As I recall, at the time Amtrak was formed, the railroads looked at it as a means to the orderly demise of passenger service. For starters half of the nation's rail service ended in one fell swoop.

The American Orient Express is neat, but I was thinking of a Park Service operation with new equipment that wouldn't require $3,000-$4,000 to ride. And that equipment is nearly shot. Instead, something that lives that captures the essence of streamliner rail travel, but more people would be able to afford.

[Junctionfan]

It was that kind of dumb attitude that got Nixon into trouble (Watergate). I don't know why anyother administration thought that Amtrak was not worth it. Even Regan liked the train as I saw him in a picture riding in one......and yet he did what he did...interesting and very flip-floppy if you ask me.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

As I recall, at the time Amtrak was formed, the railroads looked at it as a means to the orderly demise of passenger service. For starters half of the nation's rail service ended in one fell swoop.

The American Orient Express is neat, but I was thinking of a Park Service operation with new equipment that wouldn't require $3,000-$4,000 to ride. And that equipment is nearly shot. Instead, something that lives that captures the essence of streamliner rail travel, but more people would be able to afford.

Ah, the coach version! I wonder how much of the AOE fare goes into those perks of first class. My guess would be something on the order of 25-30%. Most of that fare has to be for actual operation and a little profit. It is a business after all. A new government program? I suppose tax dollars have been spent on "stupider" stuff.

I like that bit about an "orderly demise". 1971 was one shoe, we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop.[;)]

[Anonymous]

A different view is contained in The Palace Guard, by Dan Rather (ignore his politics and latest follies for a minute--this was 30 years ago this year and we were all a lot younger), which for you young'uns was one of the more famous chronicles of the Nixon/Watergate era. Rather's position is that Trans. Secy. John Volpe had two pet projects: the SST and Railpax/Amtrak. He goes on to allow that Volpe's leadership in pushing these two projects over and apart from White House staff control was viewed as a feat of insubordination tantamount to treason which greatly (an understatement) annoyed the Haldeman/Erlichman leadership, who tried to maintain a chokingly tight reign on the chain of command in the administration. But, he says, Volpe had Nixon's ear and that situation set up a classical intramural "not invented here" squeeze play--H/E knew they didn't have Nixon's backing to can either Volpe or his two projects, so they set out to kill them in Congress. They succeeded magnificently with the SST (which probably was a great outcome in light of ensuing events). But Railpax wouldn't die, and Volpe had decided it was worth a fight to the death (which he could and would win because of his tight relationship with the President). So, Rather states, faced with this losing battle in the White House, H/E did the next best thing--they backed Railpax with one side of their mouths and, with the other side, they got their cronies in Congress to structure the legislation so Railpax would flop within 3-5 years, which they passed, and they did it admirably well. This desired outcome, of course, generally caused the RRs no grief at all, and so most of them got on the bandwagon. The scheme would have worked, too, except the Arabs got in the way after the 1973 Yom Kippur war with the oil embargo, which caused a significant shift in passenger loads to what was by then Amtrak, and a couple of powerful, very smart people (again regardless of your politics) Charlie Luna (President and founder of UTU,and an incorporator of Amtrak) and Joe McDonald, VP of Continental Can Co. ("consumer representative" appointed by powerful Conn. Sen. Lowell Wycher), got on the board and started stirring things up.

Charlie used to swear that Rather was right on this, and he would have been one with the insider's knowledge to say yea or nay to the veracity of the story. If you look at the enabling legislation and the original appointments, purchases, etc., it also tracks the position that Railpax/Amtrak was a cynically conceived little illegitimate stepchild that was set up to fail 3-5 years after incorporation. The scheme backfired.

FTR, Charlie was a personal friend of mine, and although I disagreed with his politics on a number of issues, he stands gigantically tall on this one. And a true prince of a guy, too, who knew more about how the Hill worked than the folks who resided there. He stood in the way as a mountainous blockade to those who wanted to kill Amtrak from within and without, and he could run rings around them politically. Joe was a an accounting whiz with the motivation of a hungry bulldog who was cut down by cancer far too quickly. Had he lived, the whole sorry can of worms would have been completely out in the open, because he had almost gotten all the way to the bottom as to how they were cooking the books when he passed away. His writings are priceless for any serious student who wants to know why Amtrak is the way it is. May they both rest in peace.

[Anonymous]

I'm afraid folks won't support any greater funding of passenger service because of their fear that it will be a lot more bad service. If there had been some extension of quality long distance service to use as an example perhaps there would be some hope of positive public pursuesion. For instance, using my favorite, Chicago to New York. If the thing ran like it did in 1973 when it left Chicago at 4pm and arrived in NYC at 10 the next morning ithout fail, people would use it. But it doesn't. It leaves late in the evening to insure the 12 or so connecting passengers from the west don't miss it and have to stay in a hotel at Amtrak's expense. So who wants to eat dinner at 9.30pm? It arrives sometime in the middle of the afternoon rush hour in NYC. No chance of a business meeting or anything else. Just a mad attempt to find a taxi to get to your place for your stay. Many times over the years I've heard people on the train say, "Never again!" In 33 years, train by train, the medium has been able to turn off almost everyone in the nation to train travel. To say the least of what foreign visitors must think of the country as a whole. I remember a quote that goes something like this, "You can tell the quality of a modern industrial nation by the way it runs its trains."
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, and all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put Humpty Dumpty together again. Why? Because they don't know how, they really don't want to and they're at seminars, meetings, focus group sessions, hiring consultants, taking trips to Europe to see how "they" do it, and getting brain storm ideas that goof things up. So the "show" stinks, and the audience is leaving the theater.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

Mark--

I think there is a difference, but it may be one somewhat of degree, and I pointed it out so the readers could see another aspect of the debate that perhaps they had not heard before. Ergo, there is in fact a significant difference between (1) taking over terminally ailing grandma's upkeep while she dies and (2) setting up the program so that you're slowly euthanizing her (terminally ill or not) while cynically cooing and telling her and the rest of the family you're doing the best thing. Rather's point, which does indeed take a different tack from the conventional lore, is that the Nixon White House staff took the latter approach and not the former. Volpe, on the other hand, was a true believer and doesn't fit the mold of the "we'll make her comfortable till she dies, which we know is going to happen" approach--he thought you could indeed nurse Grandma back to health. I'm not a conspiracy fan, but I'll point out that Charlie believed it, I think it's interesting, and I've seen little to refute it. As to competing ideologies, yes on one level, but Rather's point is that ideology made little or no difference in the final legislative product, and ego made all the difference. That's not the same viewpoint at all.

I'll leave the economics issue for later.

Mitch--

Bravo! Well said.

[AntonioFP45]

Guys,

Last I read Amtrak's numbers were steady and even rising slightly "outside of the corridor".

I'm skeptical that Amtrak will "sink like the Titanic". Lately there have been so many "doom and gloom"[B)] postings on this forum regarding Amtrak. Ever since 1979, every 2 to 4 years we hear "Well it's in the News! Amtrak is going to become history". I still remember the political cartoon showing a picture of President Jimmy Carter nailing a "Closed Sign" on an Amtrak station. We thought then it was the "final Curtain Call". I was a 16 year old teen then. Yes, a few trains low patronage or slow trains around the country were deleted. The only decent train that should not have been axed was the Champion. [V]

Here now it's 2004, I'm 41 now and hearing the SAME EXACT RHETORIC!!. I'm just surprised that this time it's coming from railfans with some that actually seem to hope that the plug is pulled and think that something better will replace it! In case no one has noticed that usually when we lose rail service.......it doesn't come back! Meanwhile, interstate gridlock continues to build up. I guess AAA is happy that they have plenty of members.

Here in Florida, I've used Amtrak as a paying passenger and would use it again. It's much more comfortable and faster than the bus. Not everyone wants to travel by air or drive on the dangerous interstates I-75 and I-95 and stare at monotonous concrete.

Guys, NO DENYING that there is a lot wrong with Amtrak, but there is also a lot right with it! We read and post some of the "nightmare" stories, but don't often hear of the positive trips experienced by the majority. Now that Mail & Express is being cut, schedules will be speedier [:D][8D][;)](probably except on UP rails![:(!]).

I think that this rhetoric will continue onward for years to come as just that: "rumors & rhetoric"--(It costs too much!, trains are always late!, Not enough riders!, blah, blah, blah!). I sincerely believe that passenger train advocate groups like NARP are making a difference and have been actually garnering more support from Washington. As someone mentioned on this forum llast year, Mr. Bush (or Kery) in the future will not want to be known as "The President that killled national rail service".

Being an old fashioned conservative, I disagree with liberals and democrats on most issues, however, I must compliment the many of them that have used very loud voices and policital pressuring that has helped keep Amtrak off the chopping block!

Peace!

[jeaton]

Those few who might read my posts know I favor rail passenger service of all types.

For those who want "get rid off" I assume that it is a question of your tax dollars going to that service. As I recently posted elswhere, someone who makes $100,000 per year, is single with no dependents, no itemized deductions, no education credits or any other tax reducing benefits of use, would have all of FIFTY DOLLARS out of his or her tax payments going for Amtrak's full funding request. Assuming that in lieu of a subsidy to Amtrak, this money was returned as a tax cut-spend it wisely.

For those who would "rethink", I strongly recommend looking at the "think". You will find it at
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Title_Image_Copy_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1081442674477&ssid=322

Click on the link to the strategic plan for 2005-2009. You may be amazed at the scope of problems being addressed.

Jay