QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier Originally posted by futuremodal Easy there, Big Fella! Where do you get your numbers? Is that 25 million discrete people, or trips? It is probably trips. My wife took two trips on Amtrak this year, and so did I. Were we counted as two specific people or four trips? Probably four trips. NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. In the case of MN and the NEC I suspect that a lot of these trips are repeat business so 11 million different people are not riding Amtrak in the NEC. On MN I would imagine most people are commuters making 10 trips a week so the number of individuals would be about 120,000. Yes, 120,000 because they do it five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and MN says their ridership is 240,000 trips per day. Applying that same analysis to the Amtrak number of 25 million and assuming they are all 5 day a week commuters that would be about 1.7% of the people ride Amtrak. Since we know that isn't a valid assumption, because my wife and I do not commute on Amtrak, the true number is probably greater but far less than the 10% that you claim because Amtrak is counting trips, not individuals. Also, serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? To quote you, "I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations." Nice try, but that in no way indicates 99.7% of Americans haven't tried or don't have access to Amtrak. So..... the 500 million or so who flew last year.... they in no way can be per person. Those are likely people that have flown 20-30 times a year and include many foreigners. Get this: Amtrak ridership - INCLUDING THE LDS - is at an all-time high. Even that isn't enough to please picky "railfans" who would prefer people fly. What a joke. (They don't advocate privatizing the airline infrastructure and stiffing THAT industry out of proper funding). Again, so-called railfans continue slamming Amtrak. If we only repeat lies long enough, the monster that no one wants will go away.... Who are you calling a liar? Myself and others are repeating the statistics that are well known and available to anyone who bothers to pull his or her head out of the sand and see the truth about Amtrak. Whether or not Amtrak's ridership is increasing or not is totally irrelevant to the miserably low market share. I don't care if it's 0.3%, 1.0%, 4.3%, or even 10%, it is still not enough to justify a national subsidy. Highways and airports are legitimate in their subsidization (if indeed there is such a thing as a legitimate subsidy) because a majority or plurality of the nation's population use them. If highways and airports only resulted in Amtrak-esque ridership numbers, we'd be calling for those subsidies to end too, but the fact is they do garner enough of a market share, so case closed. Most of us so-called "so-called railfans" would probably even support an increase in subsidies for passenger rail if it earned at least a 25% or 30% share in today's transportation climate, but the fact may be that the market niche necessary for such a share probably doesn't even exist, even with tax breaks and other incentives. And no, we don't want to start quadrupling the gas tax to force people to use passenger rail, because such a move would destroy the economy and we'd be left with double digit unemployment like France and Germany. Quadrupling the gas tax would not result in people switching to passenger rail, because the fundamentals needed for them to use it still would not exist, and the end result would only be to make peoples lives more miserable, without really aiding the cause of passenger rail. Amtrak was and is a miserable failure, it was designed to be a failure by an incompetent federal government, it can only continue to exist as a miserable failure in the future......UNLESS.....the whole thing is dumped and reconfigured from the ground up to allow some form of competitive spirit to exist (the better to facilitate innovations that will please potential patrons) and for the niche markets to be developed out of the theoretical spectrum into a basic reality. If passenger rail can somehow be allowed to evolve into a transportation option that a plurality of all Americans will use, then and only then will we see if all the ascribed characteristics associated with the concept of passenger rail worldwide (e.g. can't make a profit, can't compete with airlines without high speed spending, can't compete with highways, et al) are fundamental truisms or simply steriotypical urban myths. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:02 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier Originally posted by futuremodal Easy there, Big Fella! Where do you get your numbers? Is that 25 million discrete people, or trips? It is probably trips. My wife took two trips on Amtrak this year, and so did I. Were we counted as two specific people or four trips? Probably four trips. NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. In the case of MN and the NEC I suspect that a lot of these trips are repeat business so 11 million different people are not riding Amtrak in the NEC. On MN I would imagine most people are commuters making 10 trips a week so the number of individuals would be about 120,000. Yes, 120,000 because they do it five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and MN says their ridership is 240,000 trips per day. Applying that same analysis to the Amtrak number of 25 million and assuming they are all 5 day a week commuters that would be about 1.7% of the people ride Amtrak. Since we know that isn't a valid assumption, because my wife and I do not commute on Amtrak, the true number is probably greater but far less than the 10% that you claim because Amtrak is counting trips, not individuals. Also, serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? To quote you, "I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations." Nice try, but that in no way indicates 99.7% of Americans haven't tried or don't have access to Amtrak. So..... the 500 million or so who flew last year.... they in no way can be per person. Those are likely people that have flown 20-30 times a year and include many foreigners. Get this: Amtrak ridership - INCLUDING THE LDS - is at an all-time high. Even that isn't enough to please picky "railfans" who would prefer people fly. What a joke. (They don't advocate privatizing the airline infrastructure and stiffing THAT industry out of proper funding). Again, so-called railfans continue slamming Amtrak. If we only repeat lies long enough, the monster that no one wants will go away.... Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:21 AM Milwaukee-Chicago??? What do you want? That business is up by 12 percent for the year, is looking at about 230,000 passenger round trips, and the people who can use it from Milwaukee to Chicago save at least thirty minute for the trip. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:13 AM I wasn't suggesting paving the NEC and I agree that what's needed to achieve critical mass on most routes is 4 to 5 trains a day. Filling up 1 train or meeting some artificially low quota doesn't take Amtrak out of the novelty category and onto the radar screens of the general public. It's like when Metra here in Chicago tried running 1 or 2 commuter trains a day on older freight routes. Have a late meeting or an un-expected phone call and you're stranded, so ridership was poor. Miss a flight from Seattle to Chicago and chances are you can get a later one. On the other hand consider that when the former Trains editor needed to get from Milwaukee to a Chicago suburb, he drove. Union Station in Chicago is within a couple of blocks of 8 out of about 10 heavy commuter rail lines, a half dozen rapid transit lines, more bus routes than a west coast planner has wet dreams about, car rentals, taxis, a commuter boat, and even a horse drawn carriage. End point connectivity doesn't get much better. And Amtrak has been hyping 'corrridors' between Chicago a various nearby cities for almost it's entire existance, we've had Turbo trains, frequent schedules, etc., yet none of them have been really successfull. Maybe what's needed for corridors to really work is 2 end points that are really big where congestion & traffic have driven people out of their cars. In other words, Milwaukee isn' screwed up enough yet, Detroit is the motor city and that's a big mistake and if Amtrak really wants to make this work, they need to do really high speed rail between Chicago and New York and forget about all these test projects between little politically connected cities that don't need them. For Milwaukee to Chicago, an extension of the Metra North commuter line from Kenosha up to Milwaukee would probably serve more people more conveniently than anything Amtrak has tried. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:59 AM I agree to some extent that trains were "old hat" and superhighways and air travel were the "new, space ages stuff". And, I'll even agree that trains are now novel and flying passe, but..... fashion only goes so far. Do you remember the regular service of the American Orient Express on the Broadway that ran for about a year in the mid 80s? Definately not a boring. Premium service - premium price. Picthed at the overnight business traveller Broadway was still original route with 9AM arrival into Chicago and Conrail was doing a good job with it thanks to Stanley Crane, int those days. It failed miserably. Also, the diesel hauled streamliners introduced in the post WWII era, did have improved ridership - they were viewed as "sleek and modern". But, as the air industry grew and highways spread, the ridership shrank. Me, I love to ride trains. I've done all kinds of funky things to work train travel into business trips. But once married and with kids, those nights at home are more valuable than the fun of riding a train, so flying is the norm. I did take the Crescent back to Atlanta from Philly a few months ago - coach - it was my nickel. It was on time, the equiment decent, the staff friendly, the diner excellent and the fare $10 below Airtran. It was also full out of DC. Now, if we could comliment that with some day trains between Atlanta and the Carolinas, thru to the northeast, THAT would be worth something! Let me say this about that...I remember the American European Express. I think it's serving its real purpose now as an excursion, once-in-a-lifetime service. When it was in regular service on Amtrak I remember seeing it arrive eastward at Hammond and at Valpo. All the blinds would be drawn except in the diner so you couldn't tell the train was empty. On the eastward move the train's arrival time in NYC was still too late for a business man, and one would have to endure that whole morning, early afternoon ride before arriving in Manhattan. But most importantly it was way too much of a deal. The far extreme of what I've been speaking about. I feel that what the prospective American rail traveler would want in terms of the "theming" of the train would be that of an American streamliner. Something they've seen in old movies that they want as an experience. A conductor wearing a cape and referred to as "Le conductor des tren" in my opinion could infuriate people. We talk all the time about how great a country this has been and is, and then we have to go copy Europe to inject an imaginary carload of class into the deal. Every time I saw that train I would yodel and reach for a box of Godiva chocolates. The AEE had too expensive of a price tag for repeat business, and if you wanted something other than the fare offered with your ticket in the diner, it was really costly. I feel that what the industry needs as a whole, and what Amtrak needs in the specific is one flagship train that does its job well. Something that EVERY railroader would want to be associated with. he public has to get a good view of railroading, and the railroads need to be viewed. The American public now has a complete disassociation with our industry because there's not much positive to link the two back together. Run the train I speak of with normal sleepers, an interesting mid-train lounge, a good diner and perhaps an obs car, on a convenient 16 hour schedule, get some movie stars to use it, feature it in commercials for other products and you'll have business everywhere. exBNSFer... Boy are you right. The air industry has drained the coffers worse than any 200 years of Amtrak . The air industry gets almost free dispatching and depots and they still can't manage. I never thought I would see the day where United Airlines would be a potential fallen flag. And you can still ride an interurban in this country. Mitch Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:18 AM One last thing for Gabe. There are 19 Amtrak services that are state supported. The Hoosier State is not one of them. If your fellow citizens didn't go for the political canditates with the theme of good highways and tax cuts for everyone, you could probably have a very nice little train service meeting your needs for travel from Indianapolis to Chicago. Since I do the I-65 tango 10-12 times a year, I wouldn't mind. Oh yes, I usually buy a tank of gas in Indiana each time through. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:06 AM oltmannd and others on "market share" Amtrak's July monthly report for July came out yesterday and the ridership numbers indicate that the 25 million pasenger count will be made for FY2004. This does NOT INCLUDE the passenger counts for the commuter services run by Amtrak nor any of the services that use Amtrak owned track. Getting to the number of individuals takes some guesses, but I have made a stab at it. First, it is reasonable to assume that 100% of the riders are on round trips, which drops the number to 12.5 million. This is the breakdown by the four major categories. (Million round trips) NEC (Acela,Metroliner,Regional/federal/Clocker) 5.7 19 State supported Routes 4.0 4 Other Short Distnce Trains (Empire,Chicago-Detroit,Hoosier,Pensylvanian .4 16 Long Distance Trains 1.9 My guesses are that the long distance trains have the lowest number of average trips per individual, the NEC the highest. Plugging some numbers I come up with a range of 3-4 million individuals took one or more trips on Amtrak or 1 to 1.3% of the American population. That, however, is not market share. Try this. In July 2004 Amtrak had 2.246 million passengers. (That's the one-way number). Airlines boarded 45.771 passengers. Do the math. Amtrak had 4.7 % of that travel market. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, September 18, 2004 12:14 AM Mitch Obviously this is anecdotal, but your assesment of the decline and fall of business travel by train defines my own experiences. My guess is Dave Gunn would agree that you are right on the mark, both as to what happened and what needs to be done to capture more business travel on the longer distance trains. I think he would like to make the improvements to the service needed, but beyond just the struggle for funds to bring the present operation in good order, there is now the issue of how to get the added capacity that would allow faster schedules and a vastly improved on time performance. Jay "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Friday, September 17, 2004 11:46 PM oltmand If he is still doing that traveling, ask him if he would now consider a train at least some weekends, if there was a 5pm deprture to 9am arrival. If he was traveling back when there still was a Conrail, you are talking about a time when those home for the weekend trips by air were one hell of a lot easier than they are now. For about 15 years from 1975, I flew on business at least 20 times a year, and some years up to 40. There was the occasional problem, but never so much I had any great dislike for the experience. My brother is now taking about 20 trips a year, and beside the extra hour spent at the airport for the security thing, about half the time he will tell me about some other crap he had to put up with. I would be very surprised if surveys of business travelers didn't show a huge drop in satisfaction levels. Unless, of course, the flight was on the company jet. Regrettably, Amtrak is not in a position to be an option for business travelers in many markets. The NEC is an exception where I believe they have over 40% of the for hire carrier market. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, September 17, 2004 9:07 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Crunch some numbers: What is the cost of a Chicago to NY flight, plus hotel and dinner? Include the time and hassle of going from hotel to resturant and back. Now, what would be the cost of a Chicago to NY overnight train? If the price of the train ticket includes all the amenities, and if that is marketed correctly and used in comparison to the usual travel plans, that might make a new impression on the business traveler. I knew of a long time PRR mechanical guy who left Conrail and took a AVP job in Chicago with TTX. Lived in Chicago all week, went home to the Philly mainline for the weekends. BIG TIME railfan - has pictures in several books, active in NRHS, etc. Had a FREE PASS to ride Amtrak over PC routes. Could have take the Broadway back and forth FOR FREE. He flew United. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, September 17, 2004 9:04 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Crunch some numbers: What is the cost of a Chicago to NY flight, plus hotel and dinner? Include the time and hassle of going from hotel to resturant and back. Now, what would be the cost of a Chicago to NY overnight train? If the price of the train ticket includes all the amenities, and if that is marketed correctly and used in comparison to the usual travel plans, that might make a new impression on the business traveler. Why do I need the hotel and dinner? I flew in in the morning and back that evening. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 8:42 PM Crunch some numbers: What is the cost of a Chicago to NY flight, plus hotel and dinner? Include the time and hassle of going from hotel to resturant and back. Now, what would be the cost of a Chicago to NY overnight train? If the price of the train ticket includes all the amenities, and if that is marketed correctly and used in comparison to the usual travel plans, that might make a new impression on the business traveler. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 7:47 PM Tom, I know what you mean about the Lake Shore. There's a good example. When I was doing a poster project in Atlantic City I used the train to go east. I could pull into the lot at South Bend, wait for the train, and walk right up the hill to my sleeper. One night it showed up in South Bend 1.5 hours late account waiting for a late number 6. I had a parlor car connection on a Metroliner to Phili the next day that allowed for 4 hours in NYC. The Atlantic City people had a Limo waiting for my scheduled arrival in Phili. 1.5 hours soon became 2 hours late, then another hour delay. We sat at Rennselear for almost an hour waiting for a connection. What a forlorn lot we were. Passengers and crew alike sitting at picnic tables outside the depot. The crew had nothing that really resembled a uniform on. The conductor had his own little cap on. It was like being on a saffari. I made my Metroliner with one minute to spare at Penn Station. Once I used the Capitol with a connection out of DC. We were on time out of Pittsburgh, and then it happened. The CSX roadmaster decided to stop all traffic for 2 hours while they replaced the crossover at Snowshoe. He could have waited for us but so what. It's only Amtrak. There were a few business types on board who merrily clicked away at their lap-tops and used their cell phones, none the worse for wear. But still the experience stunk. This is what folks see now a days of train travel. The product has to be made attractive. Like my cousin, Gina Lola Berkowitz. She was a dumpy hag until she got one of those Swan type extreme makovers. Now she fights 'em off. So...If we're to re-think Amtrak we have to imagine what will bring in the proper market share and image plus service is where we have to start. It's my opinion, and has been since being a conductor on train 7 and 8 in the '70s, that people are looking for an honest to goodnest good train ride. When they see one go by I don't think they're impressed by a freight train sandwich with all the M&E fore and aft. They want to see a real conductor in proper uniform,well groomed, be they male or female, they want nice surroundings in the diner without 3 tables being used as the ketchup coach yard. When they sit in the lounge they want seats that are comfortable and stable and don't remind them of a tilt-a-whirl. Good interior color schemes would help. These things, good taste and class, don't mean you have to spend a lot of dough. You just have to spend a little thought time. If we make friends out of the customer they'll be loyal, and we could better define the enemies. Mitch Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, September 17, 2004 7:35 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark Streamliners failed not by their quality but because they went out of fashion. Part of that image thing I discussed. When the airlines came out with free meals and pretty girls to serve them, you know right where the business guys went. They abandoned the old, sometimes cranky men in favor of the then new mode. It is a differnt world now. A 16 hour trip versus a 24 hour, poorly timed trip with all the amenities would sell if handled correctly. Mitch The PRRs Broadway died running a 16 hour businessman's schedule. How would recreating the 1950 Broadway work now when it didn't work then? It wasn't the stewardess that got business traveller to fly. It was the extra nights they got to spend at home, flying in the morning an evenings instead of trying to sleep in a roomette. The PRR and NYC (and others) tried mightily to hang on to business travellers. They even tried to shave another 30 minutes off their schedules for a while, but by the mid 50s, the game was over. Let's talk a few moments about the extra night sleep at the end of a business day in New York. First and foremost. In my father's post war era, most decisions were based on being modern. My fathers group was getting over the Great Depression, and the trauma of WWII. We were moving into the jet age and the space age in the '50s. We were moving into suburbia, and Heffner said it was OK to look at things in a glossy magazine that heretofore was unthinkable. They were going to be junior executives with a new slant. Disney predicted the future with superhighways where one wouldn't even have to steer their car. You wouldn't catch James Bond on the Limited, and you wouldn't see the President of the United States on one either. Movies had shown people on trips with clips of trains going by. Now it would be clips of TWA 707s landing and Zsa Zsa Gabore stepping off with a pink poodle, getting into a Cadillac. So you have to be at a meeting in New York City at 11.30 am and you want to fly. It's 1950 and you've booked passage on American Airlines flight 14, "The American Brigadier," due out of Chicago's Midway Airport at 7.00am. You have to be at the airport around 6.30 am to get your tickets and board. Since a trip to the airport involved local streets and Boulevards it takes an hour to get there. You have to leave the house by 5.30am. So you're up at 5am. You had to get to bed early that night and couldn't really sleep because you had to get up early for the flight, and you couldn't afford to oversleep. Flight 14 arrives at LaGuardia at 10.55am if it's on time. Thirty-five minutes is all youhave to make the meeting in Manhattan. On the way back you take flight 21, "The American Commodore." Your client stops talking by 3pm so you can get a cab to the airport. The flight arrives back at MDW at 7.15pm. You're in the door at 8.15pm at home. Pheh. Eight hours of travel in one day for a 4 hour meeting. But we did it because it was new and exciting. We didn't do it if MDW wassnowbound or enshrouded in snow. Let's look at 1957. The Boeing 707 is making its first appearance shaving half the air time off the trip. The recession of that year plus the 707 drove the businessman off the trains enmass. Of course you'll fly. If you go to the depot you see nothing but old stuff, and you have to pay for your meals. There's nothing but other men and old folk on the train. Out the window is nothing but steel mills. Now for today. First. The 707 and the "Supersonic Transport" are on their way to museums, and it's sometimes tough to book a room on a poor train, let alone a great one. I'm not looking for all the business travel today, just a share. There's people out there that want a good train experience, and a good night on a good train is not beyond their thinking. Business people are different. It's not just the man in the grey flannel suit who looks like Mell Cooley. It's young, vibrant people who are a lot more sociable, cross gender, et al. So for business or just travel a "1950" type of Century service would be welcomed if handled correctly. In the '70s, the Broadway was fun, close to on-time, and had a somewhat reasonable schedule until '76. I used it a lot on semi-monthly trips to NYC. I've found recently that on-board Amtrak people are genuine and decent. I've also found that airline people of today are cranky and much like the old railroad folks of years ago. Now you'll have to buy your meal on the plane, and it's free to sleeping car passengers on the train. Prospective, repeat rail passengers are out there if only they got a variety of good services to choose from. Repeat business is the key. Don't forget, nowadays you can spend your night on a cot in the airport. Mitch Mitch- I agree to some extent that trains were "old hat" and superhighways and air travel were the "new, space ages stuff". And, I'll even agree that trains are now novel and flying passe, but..... fashion only goes so far. Do you remember the regular service of the American Orient Express on the Broadway that ran for about a year in the mid 80s? Definately not a boring. Premium service - premium price. Picthed at the overnight business traveller Broadway was still original route with 9AM arrival into Chicago and Conrail was doing a good job with it thanks to Stanley Crane, int those days. It failed miserably. Also, the diesel hauled streamliners introduced in the post WWII era, did have improved ridership - they were viewed as "sleek and modern". But, as the air industry grew and highways spread, the ridership shrank. Me, I love to ride trains. I've done all kinds of funky things to work train travel into business trips. But once married and with kids, those nights at home are more valuable than the fun of riding a train, so flying is the norm. I did take the Crescent back to Atlanta from Philly a few months ago - coach - it was my nickel. It was on time, the equiment decent, the staff friendly, the diner excellent and the fare $10 below Airtran. It was also full out of DC. Now, if we could comliment that with some day trains between Atlanta and the Carolinas, thru to the northeast, THAT would be worth something! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 7:28 PM I'm so sick of this crap about passenger rail not being "viable." There's not a highway or airline that is "viable" from the private enterprise perspective, so why should rail transport have to live up to a better standard?! Before you **** and moan about Amtrak's lack of "market share" or how it isn't "profitable," consider two things: First, railroads (both freight and passenger) were the ONLY transportation mode that EVER was GENUINELY profitable, bar none (every other mode has gotten hordes of government subsidies, while RR subsidies only became necessary BECAUSE of the subsidies received by all of their competition!); second, highways and aviation have basically become tapped out in terms of capacity in anyplace but the most rural areas of the country, and we NEED RR capacity, which is tremendous by comparison to either in terms of space needed to move X amount of people, in order to provide non-congested means of travel. If there is a "sinkhole" in this country, it is the airline industry. The government provides airports and air traffic control for the airlines and charges them miniscule fees that don't come close to covering the costs of either, and regularly bails out airlines that regularly go through bankruptcies because EVEN WITH the gigantic subsidies they receive, they can't consistently turn even their make believe "profits" on their operations. Plus, the cost of indifference of the airline industry to providing security with respect to their operations has been paid for in blood by thousands of American lives and the loss of the WTC in New York city, and it isn't any better now. I think we should "privatize" all of the country's airports - make the airlines buy them, pay PROPERTY TAXES on them, and operate their own traffic control - then they can try to charge something that resembles the REAL cost of air travel to passengers. I guarantee they won't be in business on anything like the current scale, if at all, for long! [:(!] Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 6:10 PM Mitch, I think you're right about the attractiveness of an overnight rail trip to business travelers if the key advantages of rail travel were delivered. What's ticked me off recently is having the opportunity where I could have had just such an experience on the Lakeshore, and would have taken it if it were reliable. Within reason, the dollars wouldn't have been an issue. Instead I drove, because I didn't want to fly this time. I have found Amtrak's condition to be deplorable and offputting in my recent direct contacts with it (not the employees). Thank you for your insights. Tom Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 4:28 PM Mark, I agree with your observations. I advance the notion of a great rain as an alternative from time-to-time. Cost to the passenger is always a factor but there are those cases when you would want to "treat yourself" to something new or special. What a fabulus way to reward a good employee, or to take care of a valued client. We eat at Burger King, and we eat at Chez Costa Plenty. Mitch Reply Edit tree68 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Northern New York 25,024 posts Posted by tree68 on Friday, September 17, 2004 3:50 PM And something that doesn't bode well for any mode of travel (besides the oil issue) is the digital age. It's now possible to go "face-to-face" with someone half way around the world via video teleconferencing. Press the flesh? Why bother? I'm only a few minutes from my desk (or at my desk), and have zero possibility of a travel delay. No long lines, no crying kids (except that damned intern), etc, etc. Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it... Reply Randy Stahl Member sinceJune 2004 From: roundhouse 2,747 posts Posted by Randy Stahl on Friday, September 17, 2004 3:46 PM And of course petroleum was plentiful with no end to it in sight. Now days WE can see the end of petroleum. Randy Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 3:37 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark Streamliners failed not by their quality but because they went out of fashion. Part of that image thing I discussed. When the airlines came out with free meals and pretty girls to serve them, you know right where the business guys went. They abandoned the old, sometimes cranky men in favor of the then new mode. It is a differnt world now. A 16 hour trip versus a 24 hour, poorly timed trip with all the amenities would sell if handled correctly. Mitch The PRRs Broadway died running a 16 hour businessman's schedule. How would recreating the 1950 Broadway work now when it didn't work then? It wasn't the stewardess that got business traveller to fly. It was the extra nights they got to spend at home, flying in the morning an evenings instead of trying to sleep in a roomette. The PRR and NYC (and others) tried mightily to hang on to business travellers. They even tried to shave another 30 minutes off their schedules for a while, but by the mid 50s, the game was over. Let's talk a few moments about the extra night sleep at the end of a business day in New York. First and foremost. In my father's post war era, most decisions were based on being modern. My fathers group was getting over the Great Depression, and the trauma of WWII. We were moving into the jet age and the space age in the '50s. We were moving into suburbia, and Heffner said it was OK to look at things in a glossy magazine that heretofore was unthinkable. They were going to be junior executives with a new slant. Disney predicted the future with superhighways where one wouldn't even have to steer their car. You wouldn't catch James Bond on the Limited, and you wouldn't see the President of the United States on one either. Movies had shown people on trips with clips of trains going by. Now it would be clips of TWA 707s landing and Zsa Zsa Gabore stepping off with a pink poodle, getting into a Cadillac. So you have to be at a meeting in New York City at 11.30 am and you want to fly. It's 1950 and you've booked passage on American Airlines flight 14, "The American Brigadier," due out of Chicago's Midway Airport at 7.00am. You have to be at the airport around 6.30 am to get your tickets and board. Since a trip to the airport involved local streets and Boulevards it takes an hour to get there. You have to leave the house by 5.30am. So you're up at 5am. You had to get to bed early that night and couldn't really sleep because you had to get up early for the flight, and you couldn't afford to oversleep. Flight 14 arrives at LaGuardia at 10.55am if it's on time. Thirty-five minutes is all youhave to make the meeting in Manhattan. On the way back you take flight 21, "The American Commodore." Your client stops talking by 3pm so you can get a cab to the airport. The flight arrives back at MDW at 7.15pm. You're in the door at 8.15pm at home. Pheh. Eight hours of travel in one day for a 4 hour meeting. But we did it because it was new and exciting. We didn't do it if MDW wassnowbound or enshrouded in snow. Let's look at 1957. The Boeing 707 is making its first appearance shaving half the air time off the trip. The recession of that year plus the 707 drove the businessman off the trains enmass. Of course you'll fly. If you go to the depot you see nothing but old stuff, and you have to pay for your meals. There's nothing but other men and old folk on the train. Out the window is nothing but steel mills. Now for today. First. The 707 and the "Supersonic Transport" are on their way to museums, and it's sometimes tough to book a room on a poor train, let alone a great one. I'm not looking for all the business travel today, just a share. There's people out there that want a good train experience, and a good night on a good train is not beyond their thinking. Business people are different. It's not just the man in the grey flannel suit who looks like Mell Cooley. It's young, vibrant people who are a lot more sociable, cross gender, et al. So for business or just travel a "1950" type of Century service would be welcomed if handled correctly. In the '70s, the Broadway was fun, close to on-time, and had a somewhat reasonable schedule until '76. I used it a lot on semi-monthly trips to NYC. I've found recently that on-board Amtrak people are genuine and decent. I've also found that airline people of today are cranky and much like the old railroad folks of years ago. Now you'll have to buy your meal on the plane, and it's free to sleeping car passengers on the train. Prospective, repeat rail passengers are out there if only they got a variety of good services to choose from. Repeat business is the key. Don't forget, nowadays you can spend your night on a cot in the airport. Mitch Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 11:24 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Speaking for the 99.7% of Americans who either don't use or can't use Amtrak, Please tell us how you derived that inaccurate figure. You're a transportation expert who's surveyed America's traveling habits? Nearly 100% of Americans haven't ridden or can't ride Amtrak? That's fiction, pal. 25 million Americans rode Amtrak last year. If the country has 280 people, how does that translate to not even 1%? So about 10% of the public has ridden Amtrak. That's 10x as much as your lowball figure. . Amtrak also serves about 85% of this country's metropolitan statistical areas, so the claim that 100% of people don't have Amtrak service is groundless as well. The train may not serve every city at the best of hours, but that's not Amtrak's fault. Amtrak serves 500 cities. The most any single airline serves is 150, if I recall correctly. I'd therefore say Americans have more access, in general, to rail travel than air. I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations. Easy there, Big Fella! Where do you get your numbers? Is that 25 million discrete people, or trips? It is probably trips. My wife took two trips on Amtrak this year, and so did I. Were we counted as two specific people or four trips? Probably four trips. NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. In the case of MN and the NEC I suspect that a lot of these trips are repeat business so 11 million different people are not riding Amtrak in the NEC. On MN I would imagine most people are commuters making 10 trips a week so the number of individuals would be about 120,000. Yes, 120,000 because they do it five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and MN says their ridership is 240,000 trips per day. Applying that same analysis to the Amtrak number of 25 million and assuming they are all 5 day a week commuters that would be about 1.7% of the people ride Amtrak. Since we know that isn't a valid assumption, because my wife and I do not commute on Amtrak, the true number is probably greater but far less than the 10% that you claim because Amtrak is counting trips, not individuals. Also, serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? To quote you, "I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations." Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, September 17, 2004 11:01 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313 QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier That's fiction, pal. 25 million Americans rode Amtrak last year. If the country has 280 people, how does that translate to not even 1%? So about 10% of the public has ridden Amtrak. That's 10x as much as your lowball figure. . I have seen similar stats that give Amtrak anywhere from 0.3% to 0.5% of the market. Bear in mind that 25 million number represents tickets sold, not individual passengers. There are several "repeat visitors (guests?) included in the total. I purchased maybe 5 of those tickets, and there are a lot of folks who ride a lot more frequently than I do. It is common in all transportation modes to cite number of tickets sold, without trying to distinguish how many of the tickets are from repeat travelers vs. one-timers. The ridership numbers include hundreds of folks who commute on Amtrak on the NEC and it's branches. Those people would total 500 tickets in a year, each. There are certainly many, many other riders making repeat trips, as well, particularly businsess travellers on the NEC. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, September 17, 2004 10:53 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark Streamliners failed not by their quality but because they went out of fashion. Part of that image thing I discussed. When the airlines came out with free meals and pretty girls to serve them, you know right where the business guys went. They abandoned the old, sometimes cranky men in favor of the then new mode. It is a differnt world now. A 16 hour trip versus a 24 hour, poorly timed trip with all the amenities would sell if handled correctly. Mitch The PRRs Broadway died running a 16 hour businessman's schedule. How would recreating the 1950 Broadway work now when it didn't work then? It wasn't the stewardess that got business traveller to fly. It was the extra nights they got to spend at home, flying in the morning an evenings instead of trying to sleep in a roomette. The PRR and NYC (and others) tried mightily to hang on to business travellers. They even tried to shave another 30 minutes off their schedules for a while, but by the mid 50s, the game was over. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, September 17, 2004 10:29 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier Originally posted by up829 Where's the evidence? Amtrak ridership is at an all-time high. Outside of the NEC and California, Amtrak has rather steadily lost market share. That is, the increase in ridership is lower than the increase overall increase in travel. Even on an absolute basis over the past 1-15 years, with the exception of the past year or two, Amtrak ridership has been just about flat. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Friday, September 17, 2004 10:24 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Are there any abandoned transcon lines that Amtrak could use for high-speed service between Los Angelas and Texas or Chicago (that direction)? There are fragments here and there but it would be too expensive or impractical to rebuild them, and they generally are not near each other. Old El Paso & Southwestern (SP) between Douglas, AZ and El Paso. Old SP Tennessee Pass line, and the Missouri Pacific east of Pueblo, CO Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Friday, September 17, 2004 10:17 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier That's fiction, pal. 25 million Americans rode Amtrak last year. If the country has 280 people, how does that translate to not even 1%? So about 10% of the public has ridden Amtrak. That's 10x as much as your lowball figure. . I have seen similar stats that give Amtrak anywhere from 0.3% to 0.5% of the market. Bear in mind that 25 million number represents tickets sold, not individual passengers. There are several "repeat visitors (guests?) included in the total. I purchased maybe 5 of those tickets, and there are a lot of folks who ride a lot more frequently than I do. It is common in all transportation modes to cite number of tickets sold, without trying to distinguish how many of the tickets are from repeat travelers vs. one-timers. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 10:06 AM Streamliners failed not by their quality but because they went out of fashion. Part of that image thing I discussed. When the airlines came out with free meals and pretty girls to serve them, you know right where the business guys went. They abandoned the old, sometimes cranky men in favor of the then new mode. It is a differnt world now. A 16 hour trip versus a 24 hour, poorly timed trip with all the amenities would sell if handled correctly. Mitch Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Friday, September 17, 2004 10:04 AM Are there any abbandoned transcon lines that Amtrak could use for high-speed service between Los Angelas and Texas or Chicago (that direction)? Andrew Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, September 17, 2004 10:01 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark 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 Mitch- I agree Amtrak would be better off if the service was better, but I have to disagree in general that a 1940s product would be a substantial improvment. The fact is that the streamliners that the RRs purchased in great numbers in the 1940s were failures. They failed to hold significant ridership on most routes despite improved running times and high levels of service. Highways, car ownership, airlines and the suburbanization of American society changed everything. The overnight business traveller is gone - the 1940s steamliner he abandoned 50 years ago won't lure him back. I have ridden quite a few of the long distance trains in the east - mostly in the 1970s thru the early 90s - mostly for business. I rode the Broadway in 1973 and it was terrible - mostly due to track condition. After Conrail and HEP, it was a whole lot better, even as the schedule was lengthened. Good track and reliable heat/AC made the train comfortable. Speed and timekeeping seemed much less important to me. Clipping a couple of hours off the running time wouldn't have effected my decision to ride or not. The really neat thing about a long distance train is the wide cross-section of people you find on it. All kinds of people travelling for all kinds of reasons. And, the dining car experience, where you are "forced" to sit with stangers and ususally wind up making conversation does not exist anywhere else in American society. It's part of the charm of the train that attacts people. Back to the point, I'd like to see corridors emerge by playing "connect the dots" between major cities where "higher" speed rail can be competitive with fly/drive, and reasonable cheap to build and where there is avoided cost for constructing new highways. Then have the long distance trains operate over multiple corridors, bridging the gaps with "lower" speed frt lines. To get there, there will have to be some sort of public/private partnership activity, particularly for capital expenditure. With an ever increasing slice of the fed and state budgets going to direct social welfare (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), I'm not too hopeful that much will be available for new public works. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 9:50 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Speaking for the 99.7% of Americans who either don't use or can't use Amtrak, Please tell us how you derived that inaccurate figure. You're a transportation expert who's surveyed America's traveling habits? Nearly 100% of Americans haven't ridden or can't ride Amtrak? That's fiction, pal. 25 million Americans rode Amtrak last year. If the country has 280 people, how does that translate to not even 1%? So about 10% of the public has ridden Amtrak. That's 10x as much as your lowball figure. . Amtrak also serves about 85% of this country's metropolitan statistical areas, so the claim that 100% of people don't have Amtrak service is groundless as well. The train may not serve every city at the best of hours, but that's not Amtrak's fault. Amtrak serves 500 cities. The most any single airline serves is 150, if I recall correctly. I'd therefore say Americans have more access, in general, to rail travel than air. I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations. Reply Edit « First«2345678 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier Originally posted by futuremodal Easy there, Big Fella! Where do you get your numbers? Is that 25 million discrete people, or trips? It is probably trips. My wife took two trips on Amtrak this year, and so did I. Were we counted as two specific people or four trips? Probably four trips. NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. In the case of MN and the NEC I suspect that a lot of these trips are repeat business so 11 million different people are not riding Amtrak in the NEC. On MN I would imagine most people are commuters making 10 trips a week so the number of individuals would be about 120,000. Yes, 120,000 because they do it five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and MN says their ridership is 240,000 trips per day. Applying that same analysis to the Amtrak number of 25 million and assuming they are all 5 day a week commuters that would be about 1.7% of the people ride Amtrak. Since we know that isn't a valid assumption, because my wife and I do not commute on Amtrak, the true number is probably greater but far less than the 10% that you claim because Amtrak is counting trips, not individuals. Also, serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? To quote you, "I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations." Nice try, but that in no way indicates 99.7% of Americans haven't tried or don't have access to Amtrak. So..... the 500 million or so who flew last year.... they in no way can be per person. Those are likely people that have flown 20-30 times a year and include many foreigners. Get this: Amtrak ridership - INCLUDING THE LDS - is at an all-time high. Even that isn't enough to please picky "railfans" who would prefer people fly. What a joke. (They don't advocate privatizing the airline infrastructure and stiffing THAT industry out of proper funding). Again, so-called railfans continue slamming Amtrak. If we only repeat lies long enough, the monster that no one wants will go away....
QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier Originally posted by futuremodal Easy there, Big Fella! Where do you get your numbers? Is that 25 million discrete people, or trips? It is probably trips. My wife took two trips on Amtrak this year, and so did I. Were we counted as two specific people or four trips? Probably four trips. NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. In the case of MN and the NEC I suspect that a lot of these trips are repeat business so 11 million different people are not riding Amtrak in the NEC. On MN I would imagine most people are commuters making 10 trips a week so the number of individuals would be about 120,000. Yes, 120,000 because they do it five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and MN says their ridership is 240,000 trips per day. Applying that same analysis to the Amtrak number of 25 million and assuming they are all 5 day a week commuters that would be about 1.7% of the people ride Amtrak. Since we know that isn't a valid assumption, because my wife and I do not commute on Amtrak, the true number is probably greater but far less than the 10% that you claim because Amtrak is counting trips, not individuals. Also, serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? To quote you, "I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations."
Originally posted by futuremodal
QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwicks QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier Originally posted by futuremodal Easy there, Big Fella! Where do you get your numbers? Is that 25 million discrete people, or trips? It is probably trips. My wife took two trips on Amtrak this year, and so did I. Were we counted as two specific people or four trips? Probably four trips. NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren't a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million. In the case of MN and the NEC I suspect that a lot of these trips are repeat business so 11 million different people are not riding Amtrak in the NEC. On MN I would imagine most people are commuters making 10 trips a week so the number of individuals would be about 120,000. Yes, 120,000 because they do it five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and MN says their ridership is 240,000 trips per day. Applying that same analysis to the Amtrak number of 25 million and assuming they are all 5 day a week commuters that would be about 1.7% of the people ride Amtrak. Since we know that isn't a valid assumption, because my wife and I do not commute on Amtrak, the true number is probably greater but far less than the 10% that you claim because Amtrak is counting trips, not individuals. Also, serving, or being available doesn't mean people will ride it. New York City proves that. A population of 8 million, more if you incude everything on the Bos-Wash corridor, and only 11 million riders in a year? To quote you, "I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations." Nice try, but that in no way indicates 99.7% of Americans haven't tried or don't have access to Amtrak. So..... the 500 million or so who flew last year.... they in no way can be per person. Those are likely people that have flown 20-30 times a year and include many foreigners. Get this: Amtrak ridership - INCLUDING THE LDS - is at an all-time high. Even that isn't enough to please picky "railfans" who would prefer people fly. What a joke. (They don't advocate privatizing the airline infrastructure and stiffing THAT industry out of proper funding). Again, so-called railfans continue slamming Amtrak. If we only repeat lies long enough, the monster that no one wants will go away.... Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:21 AM Milwaukee-Chicago??? What do you want? That business is up by 12 percent for the year, is looking at about 230,000 passenger round trips, and the people who can use it from Milwaukee to Chicago save at least thirty minute for the trip. "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:13 AM I wasn't suggesting paving the NEC and I agree that what's needed to achieve critical mass on most routes is 4 to 5 trains a day. Filling up 1 train or meeting some artificially low quota doesn't take Amtrak out of the novelty category and onto the radar screens of the general public. It's like when Metra here in Chicago tried running 1 or 2 commuter trains a day on older freight routes. Have a late meeting or an un-expected phone call and you're stranded, so ridership was poor. Miss a flight from Seattle to Chicago and chances are you can get a later one. On the other hand consider that when the former Trains editor needed to get from Milwaukee to a Chicago suburb, he drove. Union Station in Chicago is within a couple of blocks of 8 out of about 10 heavy commuter rail lines, a half dozen rapid transit lines, more bus routes than a west coast planner has wet dreams about, car rentals, taxis, a commuter boat, and even a horse drawn carriage. End point connectivity doesn't get much better. And Amtrak has been hyping 'corrridors' between Chicago a various nearby cities for almost it's entire existance, we've had Turbo trains, frequent schedules, etc., yet none of them have been really successfull. Maybe what's needed for corridors to really work is 2 end points that are really big where congestion & traffic have driven people out of their cars. In other words, Milwaukee isn' screwed up enough yet, Detroit is the motor city and that's a big mistake and if Amtrak really wants to make this work, they need to do really high speed rail between Chicago and New York and forget about all these test projects between little politically connected cities that don't need them. For Milwaukee to Chicago, an extension of the Metra North commuter line from Kenosha up to Milwaukee would probably serve more people more conveniently than anything Amtrak has tried. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:59 AM I agree to some extent that trains were "old hat" and superhighways and air travel were the "new, space ages stuff". And, I'll even agree that trains are now novel and flying passe, but..... fashion only goes so far. Do you remember the regular service of the American Orient Express on the Broadway that ran for about a year in the mid 80s? Definately not a boring. Premium service - premium price. Picthed at the overnight business traveller Broadway was still original route with 9AM arrival into Chicago and Conrail was doing a good job with it thanks to Stanley Crane, int those days. It failed miserably. Also, the diesel hauled streamliners introduced in the post WWII era, did have improved ridership - they were viewed as "sleek and modern". But, as the air industry grew and highways spread, the ridership shrank. Me, I love to ride trains. I've done all kinds of funky things to work train travel into business trips. But once married and with kids, those nights at home are more valuable than the fun of riding a train, so flying is the norm. I did take the Crescent back to Atlanta from Philly a few months ago - coach - it was my nickel. It was on time, the equiment decent, the staff friendly, the diner excellent and the fare $10 below Airtran. It was also full out of DC. Now, if we could comliment that with some day trains between Atlanta and the Carolinas, thru to the northeast, THAT would be worth something!
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Crunch some numbers: What is the cost of a Chicago to NY flight, plus hotel and dinner? Include the time and hassle of going from hotel to resturant and back. Now, what would be the cost of a Chicago to NY overnight train? If the price of the train ticket includes all the amenities, and if that is marketed correctly and used in comparison to the usual travel plans, that might make a new impression on the business traveler.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark Streamliners failed not by their quality but because they went out of fashion. Part of that image thing I discussed. When the airlines came out with free meals and pretty girls to serve them, you know right where the business guys went. They abandoned the old, sometimes cranky men in favor of the then new mode. It is a differnt world now. A 16 hour trip versus a 24 hour, poorly timed trip with all the amenities would sell if handled correctly. Mitch The PRRs Broadway died running a 16 hour businessman's schedule. How would recreating the 1950 Broadway work now when it didn't work then? It wasn't the stewardess that got business traveller to fly. It was the extra nights they got to spend at home, flying in the morning an evenings instead of trying to sleep in a roomette. The PRR and NYC (and others) tried mightily to hang on to business travellers. They even tried to shave another 30 minutes off their schedules for a while, but by the mid 50s, the game was over. Let's talk a few moments about the extra night sleep at the end of a business day in New York. First and foremost. In my father's post war era, most decisions were based on being modern. My fathers group was getting over the Great Depression, and the trauma of WWII. We were moving into the jet age and the space age in the '50s. We were moving into suburbia, and Heffner said it was OK to look at things in a glossy magazine that heretofore was unthinkable. They were going to be junior executives with a new slant. Disney predicted the future with superhighways where one wouldn't even have to steer their car. You wouldn't catch James Bond on the Limited, and you wouldn't see the President of the United States on one either. Movies had shown people on trips with clips of trains going by. Now it would be clips of TWA 707s landing and Zsa Zsa Gabore stepping off with a pink poodle, getting into a Cadillac. So you have to be at a meeting in New York City at 11.30 am and you want to fly. It's 1950 and you've booked passage on American Airlines flight 14, "The American Brigadier," due out of Chicago's Midway Airport at 7.00am. You have to be at the airport around 6.30 am to get your tickets and board. Since a trip to the airport involved local streets and Boulevards it takes an hour to get there. You have to leave the house by 5.30am. So you're up at 5am. You had to get to bed early that night and couldn't really sleep because you had to get up early for the flight, and you couldn't afford to oversleep. Flight 14 arrives at LaGuardia at 10.55am if it's on time. Thirty-five minutes is all youhave to make the meeting in Manhattan. On the way back you take flight 21, "The American Commodore." Your client stops talking by 3pm so you can get a cab to the airport. The flight arrives back at MDW at 7.15pm. You're in the door at 8.15pm at home. Pheh. Eight hours of travel in one day for a 4 hour meeting. But we did it because it was new and exciting. We didn't do it if MDW wassnowbound or enshrouded in snow. Let's look at 1957. The Boeing 707 is making its first appearance shaving half the air time off the trip. The recession of that year plus the 707 drove the businessman off the trains enmass. Of course you'll fly. If you go to the depot you see nothing but old stuff, and you have to pay for your meals. There's nothing but other men and old folk on the train. Out the window is nothing but steel mills. Now for today. First. The 707 and the "Supersonic Transport" are on their way to museums, and it's sometimes tough to book a room on a poor train, let alone a great one. I'm not looking for all the business travel today, just a share. There's people out there that want a good train experience, and a good night on a good train is not beyond their thinking. Business people are different. It's not just the man in the grey flannel suit who looks like Mell Cooley. It's young, vibrant people who are a lot more sociable, cross gender, et al. So for business or just travel a "1950" type of Century service would be welcomed if handled correctly. In the '70s, the Broadway was fun, close to on-time, and had a somewhat reasonable schedule until '76. I used it a lot on semi-monthly trips to NYC. I've found recently that on-board Amtrak people are genuine and decent. I've also found that airline people of today are cranky and much like the old railroad folks of years ago. Now you'll have to buy your meal on the plane, and it's free to sleeping car passengers on the train. Prospective, repeat rail passengers are out there if only they got a variety of good services to choose from. Repeat business is the key. Don't forget, nowadays you can spend your night on a cot in the airport. Mitch
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark Streamliners failed not by their quality but because they went out of fashion. Part of that image thing I discussed. When the airlines came out with free meals and pretty girls to serve them, you know right where the business guys went. They abandoned the old, sometimes cranky men in favor of the then new mode. It is a differnt world now. A 16 hour trip versus a 24 hour, poorly timed trip with all the amenities would sell if handled correctly. Mitch The PRRs Broadway died running a 16 hour businessman's schedule. How would recreating the 1950 Broadway work now when it didn't work then? It wasn't the stewardess that got business traveller to fly. It was the extra nights they got to spend at home, flying in the morning an evenings instead of trying to sleep in a roomette. The PRR and NYC (and others) tried mightily to hang on to business travellers. They even tried to shave another 30 minutes off their schedules for a while, but by the mid 50s, the game was over.
QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark Streamliners failed not by their quality but because they went out of fashion. Part of that image thing I discussed. When the airlines came out with free meals and pretty girls to serve them, you know right where the business guys went. They abandoned the old, sometimes cranky men in favor of the then new mode. It is a differnt world now. A 16 hour trip versus a 24 hour, poorly timed trip with all the amenities would sell if handled correctly. Mitch
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Speaking for the 99.7% of Americans who either don't use or can't use Amtrak, Please tell us how you derived that inaccurate figure. You're a transportation expert who's surveyed America's traveling habits? Nearly 100% of Americans haven't ridden or can't ride Amtrak? That's fiction, pal. 25 million Americans rode Amtrak last year. If the country has 280 people, how does that translate to not even 1%? So about 10% of the public has ridden Amtrak. That's 10x as much as your lowball figure. . Amtrak also serves about 85% of this country's metropolitan statistical areas, so the claim that 100% of people don't have Amtrak service is groundless as well. The train may not serve every city at the best of hours, but that's not Amtrak's fault. Amtrak serves 500 cities. The most any single airline serves is 150, if I recall correctly. I'd therefore say Americans have more access, in general, to rail travel than air. I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Speaking for the 99.7% of Americans who either don't use or can't use Amtrak,
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313 QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier That's fiction, pal. 25 million Americans rode Amtrak last year. If the country has 280 people, how does that translate to not even 1%? So about 10% of the public has ridden Amtrak. That's 10x as much as your lowball figure. . I have seen similar stats that give Amtrak anywhere from 0.3% to 0.5% of the market. Bear in mind that 25 million number represents tickets sold, not individual passengers. There are several "repeat visitors (guests?) included in the total. I purchased maybe 5 of those tickets, and there are a lot of folks who ride a lot more frequently than I do. It is common in all transportation modes to cite number of tickets sold, without trying to distinguish how many of the tickets are from repeat travelers vs. one-timers.
QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier That's fiction, pal. 25 million Americans rode Amtrak last year. If the country has 280 people, how does that translate to not even 1%? So about 10% of the public has ridden Amtrak. That's 10x as much as your lowball figure. .
QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier Originally posted by up829 Where's the evidence? Amtrak ridership is at an all-time high. Outside of the NEC and California, Amtrak has rather steadily lost market share. That is, the increase in ridership is lower than the increase overall increase in travel. Even on an absolute basis over the past 1-15 years, with the exception of the past year or two, Amtrak ridership has been just about flat. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Friday, September 17, 2004 10:24 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Are there any abandoned transcon lines that Amtrak could use for high-speed service between Los Angelas and Texas or Chicago (that direction)? There are fragments here and there but it would be too expensive or impractical to rebuild them, and they generally are not near each other. Old El Paso & Southwestern (SP) between Douglas, AZ and El Paso. Old SP Tennessee Pass line, and the Missouri Pacific east of Pueblo, CO Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Friday, September 17, 2004 10:17 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by ohlemeier That's fiction, pal. 25 million Americans rode Amtrak last year. If the country has 280 people, how does that translate to not even 1%? So about 10% of the public has ridden Amtrak. That's 10x as much as your lowball figure. . I have seen similar stats that give Amtrak anywhere from 0.3% to 0.5% of the market. Bear in mind that 25 million number represents tickets sold, not individual passengers. There are several "repeat visitors (guests?) included in the total. I purchased maybe 5 of those tickets, and there are a lot of folks who ride a lot more frequently than I do. It is common in all transportation modes to cite number of tickets sold, without trying to distinguish how many of the tickets are from repeat travelers vs. one-timers. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 10:06 AM Streamliners failed not by their quality but because they went out of fashion. Part of that image thing I discussed. When the airlines came out with free meals and pretty girls to serve them, you know right where the business guys went. They abandoned the old, sometimes cranky men in favor of the then new mode. It is a differnt world now. A 16 hour trip versus a 24 hour, poorly timed trip with all the amenities would sell if handled correctly. Mitch Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Friday, September 17, 2004 10:04 AM Are there any abbandoned transcon lines that Amtrak could use for high-speed service between Los Angelas and Texas or Chicago (that direction)? Andrew Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, September 17, 2004 10:01 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark 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 Mitch- I agree Amtrak would be better off if the service was better, but I have to disagree in general that a 1940s product would be a substantial improvment. The fact is that the streamliners that the RRs purchased in great numbers in the 1940s were failures. They failed to hold significant ridership on most routes despite improved running times and high levels of service. Highways, car ownership, airlines and the suburbanization of American society changed everything. The overnight business traveller is gone - the 1940s steamliner he abandoned 50 years ago won't lure him back. I have ridden quite a few of the long distance trains in the east - mostly in the 1970s thru the early 90s - mostly for business. I rode the Broadway in 1973 and it was terrible - mostly due to track condition. After Conrail and HEP, it was a whole lot better, even as the schedule was lengthened. Good track and reliable heat/AC made the train comfortable. Speed and timekeeping seemed much less important to me. Clipping a couple of hours off the running time wouldn't have effected my decision to ride or not. The really neat thing about a long distance train is the wide cross-section of people you find on it. All kinds of people travelling for all kinds of reasons. And, the dining car experience, where you are "forced" to sit with stangers and ususally wind up making conversation does not exist anywhere else in American society. It's part of the charm of the train that attacts people. Back to the point, I'd like to see corridors emerge by playing "connect the dots" between major cities where "higher" speed rail can be competitive with fly/drive, and reasonable cheap to build and where there is avoided cost for constructing new highways. Then have the long distance trains operate over multiple corridors, bridging the gaps with "lower" speed frt lines. To get there, there will have to be some sort of public/private partnership activity, particularly for capital expenditure. With an ever increasing slice of the fed and state budgets going to direct social welfare (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), I'm not too hopeful that much will be available for new public works. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 9:50 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Speaking for the 99.7% of Americans who either don't use or can't use Amtrak, Please tell us how you derived that inaccurate figure. You're a transportation expert who's surveyed America's traveling habits? Nearly 100% of Americans haven't ridden or can't ride Amtrak? That's fiction, pal. 25 million Americans rode Amtrak last year. If the country has 280 people, how does that translate to not even 1%? So about 10% of the public has ridden Amtrak. That's 10x as much as your lowball figure. . Amtrak also serves about 85% of this country's metropolitan statistical areas, so the claim that 100% of people don't have Amtrak service is groundless as well. The train may not serve every city at the best of hours, but that's not Amtrak's fault. Amtrak serves 500 cities. The most any single airline serves is 150, if I recall correctly. I'd therefore say Americans have more access, in general, to rail travel than air. I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations. Reply Edit « First«2345678 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by up829 Where's the evidence? Amtrak ridership is at an all-time high.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Are there any abandoned transcon lines that Amtrak could use for high-speed service between Los Angelas and Texas or Chicago (that direction)?
QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark 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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.