Get rid or rethink Amtrak

[Junctionfan]

Now for some more hypothetical questions to broaden my understanding.

As far as the "man-made obstacles" are concerned, is it possible for Amtrak to build an elevated line like in Japan, or/and could they go underneath the ground like Boston has (or is in the process of completing) with their highways?

Also, if BNSF and UP own their own rails, do they own the space that is above it? As long as BNSF and UP have the clearances to run their excess height trains, can Amtrak build an elevated line over top of the railroads'?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
Mr. Seldon also states the fact that Amtrak's market share is less than 1%, and he's a passenger rail advocate, not a right wing extremist rail basher! Hmmmmmm!

Selden is a respected passenger rail authority. Wendall Cox isn't.

Cox hates rail period - high-speed, LD, short corridors, commuters. Again, do a web search on him. He's reactionary to any type of rail progress.
He will always find something wrong with rail in ANY form.

Agreed, right-wing may not have been the best term to use here.

I didn't dispute the 1% market share contention. I disputed the assertion that Amtrak isn't available to 97% of the population when train service is available to 85% of the public.

I also objected to the taking that 1% out of context. By only focusing on such a small number, and omitting the fact that air service is not much greater - like 12% - that's distorting of the facts.

The contention that since Amtrak only has such-and-such a market share, it isn't worth improviing to gain additional market share is what I'm arguing against.

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

The reason it has not been done is no Administration, neither Democratic nor Republican, has truly faced the fact that the USA, like any civilized nation, needs a strong passenger rail system .

WHY? What evidence beyond feelgoodism and wishful thinking supports that contention?

"Feelgoodism"? Wow!, based on personal experience I thought it was more like "highway gridlock" and deteriorating air service that goes with that contention. Unless it's an extreme emergency, I won't step on board an airliner. My last flight on a Southwest 737 was far rougher than an old Volkswagon Beetle speeding down a Georgia clay road! Instead of "Arriving Refreshed" I arrived with a giant headache!

A lot of complex bantering going on here with statistics being hurled around for and against Amtrak. $30 Billion in 3 decades? That's spent in one year subsidizing the airline industry! What are we moaning about????????

Fact remains: Inspite of the critics (including the ones on this thread), and the hostility of railroads like the UP, ridership is growing and many of the riders ARE NOT railfans either. In spite of Norm Mineta's and John McCain's stances, the public in general is willing to support Amtrak if the service were expanded that would include faster schedules and greater frequency.

Unfortuantely as seen here Amtrak simply has too many enemies. The "boys" in Washington have gotten to be "experts" at ignoring the wishes of the majority.

I'm looking forward to my rail trip as I have a training seminar to attend (Oh geez! I guess that's a business trip!) Hopefully the Silver Star will still be stopping at Tampa Union Station in 2005.

[CG9602]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Two observations: Andrew Seldon uses the term "load factor" rather loosely. He is using it in reference to passenger miles per trip, when it would be more appropriate to use that term as a ratio of available space to "cargo", cargo being passengers, and use yearly figures rather than per trip figures. Using his logic, a LD train carrying 50 people 1000 miles per trip has a greater "load factor" than a shorthaul train carrying 400 people 100 miles per trip (50 x 1000 = 50,000 passenger miles while 400 x 100 = 40,000 passenger miles). Of course, the shorthaul trains have a greater cycyle frequency, and I would suspect the annual passenger miles totals are far greater for SD than LD. The truth is, LD's have poor utilization compared to SD's when far fewer people are using the relatively same amount of "cargo" space.

Also if interest, Mr. Seldon also states the fact that Amtrak's market share is less than 1%, and he's a passenger rail advocate, not a right wing extremist rail basher! Hmmmmmm!

Where there is a strong Amtrak presense in the transport marktplace (for example, the NEC & NYC - Albany), Amtrak has at times dominated the airlines and offers a significant alternative to car travel. Amtrak has, in the past, carried as much as 50 % of all non-auto travel between NYC & D.C. This includes newark/JFK/La Guardia & Reagan Nat'l/Dulles, as well as stations and traffic as far south as Fredricksburg, VA. As travel volume grows in the future, the construction of airport & highways will become more and more expensive, and more impractical. This could make the demand for passenger rail service all the greater. Amtrak, right now, is the only entity that the freight RR's allow to operate over their mains, and they are strongly opposed to any other operators. Amtrak's small market share is a result of being underfunded and undercapitalized to begin with. Where Amtrak offers several frequnecies per day, they are a significant player in the market place.

[Junctionfan]

Is there rail service of any kind at LAX?

[Overmod]

Keep playing Devil's advocate, Dave; if better answers can't be honed, it'll at least get the complacent thinking a bit more.

There is no doubt that shutting down all passenger rail would have a dramatic effect on many hundreds of thousands of American lives. Ask any Manhattanite who's had to endure a subway strike (although I greatly enjoyed watching our Columbia shuttle driver run rush-hour traffic on 5th Avenue like a taxicab in a big MCI 8-wheel bus!) or anything that interrupts commuter service.

Of course, you meant Amtrak services -- here again, you have to rule out the NEC and all those little regional rail services like Trinity and VRE which have demonstrated an increasing utility which could not possibly be achieved using existing road facilities.

Naturally, there are a very large number of Americans -- perhaps an absolute majority -- who could care less if Amtrak's choo-choos shuffled off to Buffalo or wherever they go. But you'll find a substantial number who, for whatever reasons, prefer to use trains than to go by other modes. Would they find an alternative if there were no trains? Almost certainly -- the car, the dog, shuttle or car services, even if they didn't like to fly. There was a service in Wilkes-Barre in the 1970s that would provide a driver for however many days you wanted to go somewhere in your own car (if you paid his expenses plus a reasonable salary) and another one that would let you use car and driver by the day or week on similar terms. I remember a statistic in Trains sometime in the early '70s to the effect that Amtrak's subsidies at some point were such that it would have been cheaper for the Government to have bought everyone who rode the train a brand-new Volkswagen. It may be likely that the vast majority of riders, offered such an alternative, would take the car rather than ride trains.

I tend to disagree with those who think that Amtrak has value as a training exercise for the future. I think that it would be perfectly easy to start up or expand passenger railroading as a system 'from scratch', whether or not you mothballed equipment to cut capital expenses or not, and both future technology and contract manufacturing will only reduce the cost further. It would be traumatic to lots of the folks working for Amtrak, who care about providing performance and customer service to people ... but that isn't an objective financial reason for finding the best use of Government money. I also think that conditions that would lead large numbers of Americans to HAVE to take the train would also result in America being, or at least seeming, a very different place than it is today, and the kind of train service 'acceptable' in that world would be difficult at best and probably useless to predict.

Having said that, I do think that having a non-driving alternative to LD travel is important. Greyhound buses are NOT it, even if you ran the seat tracking out to where I have enough legroom not to have cramps. Airline service is too susceptible to various forms of interdiction without advance warning. Which leaves us what? Additional H.323 videoconferencing, with meetings led by a ridiculous face on a TV set? Don't make me laugh, and I've seen my share of laughable teleconferencing over the years since we did the first tech demonstrations at Cornell in the '80s.

Perhaps a full and effective "national" network is, and may remain, beyond Amtrak's means to achieve in a financially 'responsible' manner without subsidies. But I would expect that there are a large number of opportunities where trains make sense, and Government policies can be furthered by having trains for, or in, those opportunities. (In addition to which the capital equipment already procured by the Government for Amtrak has little or no practical resale value to private entities which are already more interested in opportunity uses for capital, so a case could be made that using it even for incremental marginal revenue is preferable to letting charges pile up on its finance, security, and storage if not running...)

[Junctionfan]

Does anybody here believe Amtrak should mothball the MHC and roadrailer equipment just in case they need it in the future?

I have to say yes personally because you never know when you get rid of something, it tends to come back and bite your butt. Then you have to spend all that money on buying all those Wabash Nationals and more 60 foot highcubes again. (not cheap)

[Anonymous]

Some points on public support for Amtrak...

Singling out Amtrak assumes taxpayers do not want to invest in passenger rail.

Polls consistently show that Americans support federal funding for a national rail passenger system.

A Washington Post poll taken July 26-30, 2002 found an overwhelming majority of the public - 71% - support for continued or increased federal funding of Amtrak.

Conservative Columnist George Will, in a June 4, 2003, column, said the poll indicated that "support for Amtrak is strong among all regions, ages, education levels and income groups."

A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll conducted June 21-23, 2002 -- near the height of Amtrak's funding crisis -- found 70% support for continued federal funding for Amtrak. Votes in Congress have demonstrated time and again that taxpayers' duly elected representatives agree.

The above from NARP - The National Association of Railroad Passengers.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the feedback. I expect there are regional preferences for rail passenger service that are stronger on the East Coast and the various pockets of Urbania throughout the U.S., and less in those areas in which current service is either spotty, inconvenient, or non existant. If true, that would beg the observation that rail passenger services should be primarily burdened on regional transporation authorities rather than the nation at large.

I'm not sure you can trust the validity of a poll by an outfit such as the Washington Post, at least any more so than a similar poll by a more mainstream news source. I expect that poll reflects the regional bias of the NEC, not a true representation of the nation at large (George Will's opine notwithstanding). There is a vast disconnect between extrapolating the results of such a poll to the nation at large when the market share numbers we've discussed do not validate that level of support. Like it's been said before, if there was legitimate national support for Amtrak, it would be reflected in the more localized support areas (state funding).

Regarding highway congestion, isn't that also a localized phenomenon related mostly to commuting characteristics? If so, how could increase a national passenger rail budget help this situation? More LD trains won't help, nor even medium distance trains. The short distance train corridors are more apt for transit concepts, not national passenger rail. In short, I don't see a correlation between increasing funding for Amtrak and relief from highway congestion.

[Anonymous]

am curious. So many of you are anti-Amtrak but appear to have no problem with the US Govt. bailing out domestic airlines time after time after time. If Delta files soon -do you realize that aprox. 60% of all US carriers will be under control of the courts (bankruptcy) ...Lastly-it's interesting that US Air -the latest to get a govt hand-out is in a battleground state

[Anonymous]

Ladies and gentlemen of the forum: I have really enjoyed this thread. Things are being said here that I have heard many people speak of for what's now going on twenty years. Finally the place has surfaced and the time correct for these matters tobe heard. Quite frankly the time is close that this discussion will be heard in many wide and diverse places as well. I only hope that the moderate civility of this thread can hold in those arenas. An alternative, addition or enhansement to the current transportaion system will be needed sooner than later. Weather it be by conventional rail or by other mode not yet discovered is yet to be seen. Yet the need is real, try traveling most anywhere on an interstate highway without being crowded out or pushed around by an 18 wheeler or trying to get a flight without going through the hours long check in and if that were not enough and to drive the point a bit further THE PRICE OF OIL CLOSED AT $ 47.00 THE BARRELL today (9/21). This time of our lives looks a lot like what Winston Churchill once said about it not being the beginning of the end, but rather the end of the beginning, whatever that ends up being we will just have to wait and see. In closeing, it is always a pleasure to hear someone say something better than I could have imagined writing myself. Thanks for letting me sit in, even if I don't agree with everything I read.[2c][^]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dfwguy

am curious. So many of you are anti-Amtrak but appear to have no problem with the US Govt. bailing out domestic airlines time after time after time. If Delta files soon -do you realize that aprox. 60% of all US carriers will be under control of the courts (bankruptcy) ...Lastly-it's interesting that US Air -the latest to get a govt hand-out is in a battleground state

I'm not sure any of us have stated or infered in any way that we have "no problem with the US Govt. bailing out domestic airlines". On the contrary, I oppose these bailouts, since the problems of Delta and other carriers are simply that they can't or won't compete with the cut rate carriers like Jet Blue and Southwest. BTW, if any of these carriers go under, it is doubtful the Govt. will be coerced into forming a "national air carrier" aka "AmAir" ir something to that effect.

You people need to realize that comparing the subsidies for highways and airports with the Amtrak subsidy is like comparing apples to buggy whips. Amtrak is an operating company, highways and airports are infrastructure. You subsidize infrastructure because ostensibly it is open to anyone who is qualified to operate on it or over it. You do not subsidize operating companies, because to do so is to unfairly aid one operating company over private competitors.

If we want to parenthetically "equalize" the playing field among rails, roads, waterways, and airports, there would first have to be some kind of separation of rail infrastructure from rail operating companies, then allow the rail infrastructure it's "fair share" of taxes/user fees/etc to level the playing field, then sit back and see what happens. I'm not sure if there is an objective way to quantify a "fair share" for rail infrastructure in comparison to roads or waterways. Maybe a $0.50 or so per gallon fuel tax on rail operating companies to pay for maintenance and expansion of the rail infrastructure (rather than a ton/mile fee).

In other words, if Amtrak's current subsidy went straight to the rail infrastructure owners rather than to Amtrak itself, things would become more equalized and the comparisons of subsidies among roads, airports, and rails would be more apt. That way, it could all be classified as "user fees" and then we'll see if that support for Amtrak over highways and airlines really exists.

[Junctionfan]

Can the U.S government fire management?

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Can the U.S government fire management?

Certainly. And the voters can fire management's bosses.

[AntonioFP45]

Futuremodal,

Good idea about the money going to the rail infrastructure owners.

The scenario: The freight railroads don't even want it due to the incredible amount of bueracratic red tape that would accompany the subsidy. Add to that the high costs of liability coverage for any passenger carrier. Inspite of the tragic Amtrak accidents of the past, the Sunset Limited's wreck in a Lousiana bayou has become the most "infamous" for helping to boost the skyrocketing prices of liability insurance. Not long after the wreck a number of rail tour operators around the U.S had to shutdown operations as their premiums shot through the roof.

Subsidizing the Class 1s and Class II railroads to support passenger rail may be a viable alternative, but basically it's a "Thanks, but definetly No Thanks we haul freight" atmosphere. Who can blame them.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Does anybody here believe Amtrak should mothball the MHC and roadrailer equipment just in case they need it in the future?

I have to say yes personally because you never know when you get rid of something, it tends to come back and bite your butt. Then you have to spend all that money on buying all those Wabash Nationals and more 60 foot highcubes again. (not cheap)

Of course they should mothball the MHCs. At some point there may very well be a need for the service.
What else would they make troop sleepers out of?
Mitch

[Junctionfan]

Maybe the government should keep a detailed and public record of Amtrak's spending so that management's pockets don't attract the funds like a magnet of greed........just a thought.

[jeaton]

Andrew

Amtrak does provide that information to the DOT and any other government entity that wants the data. And it is made public. http://www.amtrak.com

Jay

[gabe]

dfwguy and government bailouts of airlines:

This is not an attack on your position; it is a request for clarification.

I am not sure what you mean by government bailouts of the airlines. How has the government bailed out the airline industry (I am not saying they haven't, but I am not aware that they have).

You refer to bankruptcy; is that what you mean by a government bailout? I don't think bankruptcy in any way shape or form is a government bailout--the effects of even a Chapter 11 generally leave most CEOs/governing boards wishing they hadn't been bailed out--to say nothing of Chapter 7s. Furthermore, if bankruptcy is the standard, the government has certainly done its share of bailing out railroads.

I also know of post-911 airline funding. However, I don't really see this as a bailout. I realize we can argue about this until we are blue in the face, but: I see this as more of a compensation that allows airlines to cope with what I am sure we all hope is a temporary situation.

Our government has implemented this sort of funding when geo-political situations tend to have a unique impact on a particular industry since our nation's founding.

I am not saying you are wrong; I am just curious as to what you mean by government bailouts? I have to admit, I don't know that much about airlines.

Gabe

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Andrew

Amtrak does provide that information to the DOT and any other government entity that wants the data. And it is made public. http://www.amtrak.com

Jay

I said that because I could have sworn someone said something to the effect that management was not being honest with the funds (I wish I could have found the quote)

I don't know if they are wrong or not but I am assuming that they could be right. Some companies in Canada are getting into trouble for getting to cozy with the feds (sponsership scandal) which caused the firing of Pelletier from VIA rail.

Hypothetically speaking, I was wondering how accurate their report was and if maybe stricter accounting practices might be required. (probably should have explained that in the first place)

[CG9602]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

I expect there are regional preferences for rail passenger service that are stronger on the East Coast and the various pockets of Urbania throughout the U.S., and less in those areas in which current service is either spotty, inconvenient, or non existant. If true, that would beg the observation that rail passenger services should be primarily burdened on regional transporation authorities rather than the nation at large.

There are regional preferences for rail passenger service. However, the Federal governemtn has matching funding programs (the 80% Fed/20% State) that are udes for regional, and, yes, local, roadways. Why not rail? Aslo, when you consider just how many metro areas cross state lines, you realize that this makes the issue one for the Federal gov't to deal with, not just the individual states in question. how would you deal with commuter rail in someplace like Cincinatti, or, say Louisville, KY, or even Chicago or the Twin Cities, all of who have metro areas that cross state boundaries? When something crosses stae lines, it become subject to interstate, i.e. Federal, jurisdiction.

QUOTE: I'm not sure you can trust the validity of a poll by an outfit such as the Washington Post, at least any more so than a similar poll by a more mainstream news source. I expect that poll reflects the regional bias of the NEC, not a true representation of the nation at large (George Will's opine notwithstanding). There is a vast disconnect between extrapolating the results of such a poll to the nation at large when the market share numbers we've discussed do not validate that level of support. Like it's been said before, if there was legitimate national support for Amtrak, it would be reflected in the more localized support areas (state funding).

USA Today/CNN, and Gallup, certainly entites that have a nationwide if not wider reach, have conducted polls that show 70 % of the US population support continued federal funding for Amtrak, and governors of vsrious states (including one Tommy Thompson and a certain G. W. Bush when they were governors) have supported copntinued federal funding for nationwide rail service. Votes in congress have also indicated some sort of support. The people's elected representatives have indicated tiome and again that there is some support out there for rail.

QUOTE: Regarding highway congestion, isn't that also a localized phenomenon related mostly to commuting characteristics? If so, how could increase a national passenger rail budget help this situation? More LD trains won't help, nor even medium distance trains. The short distance train corridors are more apt for transit concepts, not national passenger rail. In short, I don't see a correlation between increasing funding for Amtrak and relief from highway congestion.

You fail to see a correlation between an increased funding for rail, increased opportunities to get cars off of the road, increased number of trains or other transport choices in the transport marketplace, and relief from highway congestion? Ever driven along I-5, or the roads between WAS - NYC? now, imagine what they would look like if amtrak didn't exist. How many more cars wuld you see then? how much more road rage?
Highway congestion is also a reflection of a lifestyle choice. People choose tio live in such a fashion that living without a car in many parts of the country is challenging, if not downright impossible. Yes, congestion and traffic jams are local characteristics, but they reflect a nationwide cultural trend. Train travel and the Revenue passenger Miles have been shown to increase when the regional rail system is connected to a larger transport network. One thing that was observed in the 1960s was that as service was discontinued, and routes were disconnected, the number of passengers getting on or off the remaining trains dropped dramatically. This was due to the lack of connections between trains, and the difficulty in making connections. A regional rail service might see its numbers of Passenger Miles (note the use of that term) increase because passengers can get from one train to another train. You'll see higher numbers of Passenger Miles if the cregional system connects to a national system, than you will with just a discreet, stand-alone commuter rail system. You'll notice that airports and buses don't just have long-distance services, they also try to erve (in some cases at great expense) some of the smaller communities with feeder routes to the national system.

[CG9602]

QUOTE: You people need to realize that comparing the subsidies for highways and airports with the Amtrak subsidy is like comparing apples to buggy whips. Amtrak is an operating company, highways and airports are infrastructure. You subsidize infrastructure because ostensibly it is open to anyone who is qualified to operate on it or over it. You do not subsidize operating companies, because to do so is to unfairly aid one operating company over private competitors.

If we want to parenthetically "equalize" the playing field among rails, roads, waterways, and airports, there would first have to be some kind of separation of rail infrastructure from rail operating companies, then allow the rail infrastructure it's "fair share" of taxes/user fees/etc to level the playing field, then sit back and see what happens. I'm not sure if there is an objective way to quantify a "fair share" for rail infrastructure in comparison to roads or waterways. Maybe a $0.50 or so per gallon fuel tax on rail operating companies to pay for maintenance and expansion of the rail infrastructure (rather than a ton/mile fee).

In other words, if Amtrak's current subsidy went straight to the rail infrastructure owners rather than to Amtrak itself, things would become more equalized and the comparisons of subsidies among roads, airports, and rails would be more apt. That way, it could all be classified as "user fees" and then we'll see if that support for Amtrak over highways and airlines really exists.

i concede your first point: Compareing rail service to air service or highways is the proverbial apples-to-oranges comaprison, i.e., invalid, for reasons not limited to the ones that you state. The rest of your post sounds like the "open access" arguements that have been tossed about for well on a decade or so. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if I wake up someday and find out that, due the certain large RR company's inabilities to cover their cost of capital, they have no other choice but to liquidate their real estate assets and just exist as a service provider. Once those real estate is owned by a public entity, one can go about setting up some sort of trust fund, like a rial version of the Airline and airport trust fund, or the Highway Trust Fund. It could be supported by user fees ( also known as 'Tolls"). Your suggestion that part of Amtraks subsidy go directly to the infrastructure owners - isn't that already happening, seeing as how Amtrak already pays "rent" in order to access the freight RR tracks? Perhaps Amtrak should pay more "rent" - oh, wait, that would mean that Our Elected Representatives need to pay out more for Amtrak.!

maybe they could specify that Amtrak's "rent" payments go directly to the MOW department for each of the lines that Amtrak travels over. Hmmm. it would still mean that Congress has to shell out more for Amtrak, though.

[daveklepper]

Amtrak is open access. Anyone can buy a ticket and get on the train. That is what open acccess really means in passenger train technology, since to have several competing rail services using the same tracks is wasteful, can lead to safety problems, and just does mot make sense with the plane and the private car and the bus providing enough competition . I see a lot of ideoligy on this thread . Most makes absolutely no sense to me. If you want a decent passenger train service, either light rail, subways, commuter rail, corridor intercity, or nationwide, it has to be subsidized. Under the present situation, subsidizing Amtrak is about as efficient a way of getting decent service from each taxpayer dollar as their is. Mind you, I got no personal benefit from Amtrak in my present and future location, but I hate to see the good work of people like the Claytors and now Dave Gunn go down the tubes. I remain proud to be an American, and railroads helped build America and brought the immigrants to their farms and factories. Every civilized country needs a decent rail passenger system and a dollar spent on Amtrak will do far more for America than any pie in the sky fuel cell research or even most highway expansion and improvement or additional airports under present conditions.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Does anybody here believe Amtrak should mothball the MHC and roadrailer equipment just in case they need it in the future?

I have to say yes personally because you never know when you get rid of something, it tends to come back and bite your butt. Then you have to spend all that money on buying all those Wabash Nationals and more 60 foot highcubes again. (not cheap)

Sell it off!

A couple of reasons:

1. The money you gain from the sale is available to put towards other projects/assets. I suspect Amtrak's internal rate of return hurdle for capital projects is pretty high. That is they can get an excellent return for each incremental dollar invested. An example would be repairing some Superliners. The revenue gain from having the cars in service would likely pay for the repairs in short order. Even if the sale price is cents on the dollar for what they originally paid, having an unproductive assets sitting around is a bad idea.

2. The roadrailer equipment will likely become obsolete in 5-10 years. Truck trailers do not generally have the life of rail equipment and it would be a good guess that there will be a new generation of roadrailer equipment in the marketplace within the next decade or so. 57' boxes maybe?

3. If Amtrak does need express equipment at some point in the distant future, it is always possible to find someone to own it and then lease it to you. It might be that Amtrak is only leasing this equipment now, anyway, in which case it's an operating expense that should be avoided if the equipment isn't going to be used.

[Junctionfan]

A lot can happen in 10 years though. I don't know if it would be advisable to get rid of it just yet. There are a few possible things that amtrak could get into that might prove to be profitable for Amtrak.

I have a major problem with selling off assets only to repurchase things again. Railroads do this by ripping up track only to have to put it back again. Railroads say it is saving money but to me it is like spending 10 dollars to save a buck. How illogical is that? I wonder if what Amtrak could be doing the same kind of thing.

Granted that trailers do have a rather short "shelf life", but is that true for the Wabash Nationals that are not in use for an extended period of time and are covered up? What about the MHC cars? They are like anyother kind of rollingstock that has lasted for up to 50 years like a lot of the NYC rollingstock.

I must question you on how you have come to the conclusion that the roadrailer will be obsolete in 5-10 years.

I think for the roadrailers, it might be advisable if they are the owner of them, to lease their equipment if possible to Triple Crown if Amtrak can't find any customers that will get them into a unit "as required" express train.

[Anonymous]

For the panelist, here's evidence of Wendall Cox's ignorance, absolute idiocy and twisting of facts.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-cox020502.shtml

"What, for example, could possess any rational human being to believe that a train from Meridian, Mississippi to Dallas was a high priority for expansion of passenger-train service? Why not Opelika to Cleveland? "

What that ignoramus deliberately failed to mention in his diatribe against giant old Amtrak was that the route proposed wasn't an entirely new route just to serve Meridian.

Instead, it was an EXPANSION of the Crescent. Instead of running only from New York to New Orleans, the train would split at Meridian with one section running through Jackson, Miss., Shreveport, La., and Dallas, Texas.

If the train was run, one of the largest metropolitan areas of the coutnry, Dallas, would finally have direct rail access to Atlanta, DC, PHL, NY, etc.

Kind of like the Empire Builder splits at Spokane for Seattle and Portland and the Lake Shore Limited's splitting at Albany for Boston and New York.

Makes a lot of sense to me. Expand a train's route to serve more customers.

But it never happened, thanks to Congress again stiffing Amtrak of the funds needed to buy new equipment and run more trains.

If I recall correctly, the "honorable" Sen. John McCain attached an amendment to a senate bill striking Amtrak's request for something like $200-400 million to purchase more superliners and viewliners.

Stabbed in the back again. Then the same windbag of a senator turns around and lashes out at Amtrak because it didn't turn a profit. Great. Control the funding. Make sure it fails. It fails. Then blame Amtrak, not the purse-keepers.

The Meridian - Dallas train likely wouldn't have required a lot of subsidy - except for the upgrade of the KCS tracks - since additional passengers travelling directly from Texas to the south and northeast (including Atlanta) would likely have increased Amtrak's revenues.

But wise old Wendall Cox can only bash Amtrak, not offer genuine solutions. His so-called analysis is awash in half-truths and misleading information.

That kind of intellectual laziness and deceit makes him illegitimate and no source worthy of quoting on any topic.

[Overmod]

I think Don's take on the M&E assets is reasonable. I confess I understood the 'question' to be more limited, to 'should Amtrak sell off the equipment to *other than scrap dealers*.

I would be disappointed to see the cars cut up for a fraction of their replacement cost, especially if there are alternative forms of service that could use all or part of their structure, including trucks. On the other hand, if any service 'wins' an auction for a substantial part of the capacity, and can arrange to run it effectively, the less that service has to pay (and the less Amtrak gets for capital they've chosen not to use) the more likely it will 'make its numbers' faster. This kinda plays both halves of the arguments I've seen so far a bit differently.

[Junctionfan]

I don't know.

I can't help feel that the reason why the express service went to the crappers was because it interfered with the passenger schedules and it effected passenger on-time performance too.

Not knowing too much of the destinations of the express loads, I can only extrapolate that much of it originated from one major city like New York to another like Chicago. Maybe a unit train of mail and parcel from various couriers like UPS, Federal Express, Purolator and ICS along with the US Postal Service loads, could be created (as required) using the equipment they have.

If not, at least for the roadrailers; amtrak can use the roadrailers as freight delivery for on-time courier service and see if railroads like NS and BNSF can't run them with the Triple Crown trains if the railroads won't agree to let them run their own mail trains.

I don't know really because I don't have all the answers, but it would be ashame that Amtrak couldn't get some meaningful use out of the equipment.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

Originally posted by futuremodal

You fail to see a correlation between an increased funding for rail, increased opportunities to get cars off of the road, increased number of trains or other transport choices in the transport marketplace, and relief from highway congestion? Ever driven along I-5, or the roads between WAS - NYC? now, imagine what they would look like if amtrak didn't exist. How many more cars wuld you see then? how much more road rage?

Counting only Amtrak riders, you'd see 500-1000 less cars per hour on I-95 if the NEC didn't exist.. Not even a 1/2 a lanes worth of traffic. Maybe at peak times, a whole lane's worth. The existence of Amtrak isn't really a capacity issue as much as a service issue.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) 

• Reply