Originally posted by up829 I think Amtrak is in a kind of Catch-22 where it doesn't have nearly enough riders to offer convenient service or operate on dedicated track outside of a few selected areas. Ridership on the Builder for example is pretty good, but it isn't nearly enough to justify more than 1 train per day and that's not enough to attract enough of the corridor riders Mark mentioned, who also care about when they travel. /quote] I'd like to see some proof on these boards that Amtrak doesn't have nearly enough riders. Where's the evidence? Amtrak ridership is at an all-time high. Then why is it hard to space on many of the LD trains during peak travel season? Not enough riders. I forgot. The overnight trains run empty, so saith the think-tanks. Who said Amtrak has to run on dedicated tracks? The CHI-DEN service is well partonized as are a lot of other LD segments. Ridership isn't the problem. The issue is MONEY. Plain and simple. Build it and people will come. Amtrrak, thanks to a stingy Congress, has never been provided enough resources to a) expand its routes b) add equipment to carry more people. Nearly every case where passenger rail has been added (with the exception of the Janesville Jooke and the KY Cardinal), ridership has exceeded projections. I point to Maine and Oklahoma's Heartland Flyer. As well as making the Texas Eagle daily. That alone made that train one of Amtrak's most heavily ridden, in terms of ridership, LD trains. Those trains have been outstanding successes. This statement reminds me of another post on this board where some railfan claimed every time he saw the Desert Wind in San Berdoo "it always ran late and empty." Baloney. Did he actually go on board and count heads? Or maybe his 2-3 visits were a representative sample as 365. Fact is, he didn't like Amtrak from the start. To back up his baseless position, he generalized about Amtrak. The Desert Wind, which ran from Salt Lake to Vegas to LA, was well patronized, even in a February when I rode it. The poster could have very well said the same thing about a certain flight he rode on a Tuesday or Wednesday, when passenger loads are less than other days. I know I often sound contentious in these parts, but people need to prove their assertions. Reply Edit gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Friday, September 17, 2004 9:17 AM Disclaimer: please don't take my challenge below as a disagreement with the many excellent responses to my post. I have learned more about Amtrak in the last 15 hours than I have in my entire life by such responses, and I am most greatful. But, because I believe one learns more from challenging positions rather than acquiescing to them: I am not sure I can buy the what appears to be the "Amtrak sticks around because that is what the voters want argument." Amtrak is a national instutition that is much more directed by Washington than the States--I would point to the posts about Nixon in support of this argument. National voters may hate Amtrak, they may love Amtrak, they may not care about Amtrak; but, I can guarantee that Amtrak will not sway ANYONE's national vote. Considerations such as national security, entitlements, and labor/business will dwarf considerations such as Amtrak. I would be shocked if the number of people who went to the national poles with the idea that they were voting to keep or get rid of Amtrak couldn't fit in a small telephone booth. That is partially why I suggested that Amtrak might be better off split up. It brings the issue closer to the local level and local elections where voters consider such things when casting their ballots. Some may argue that people do this in a more general way, in that some political views are government-subsidy friendly while others are not. However, it think this is a misnomer. There are very few people that think that all governmet subsidies are bad and few that think all are good. Most prefer the efficient ones and hate the useless ones. Without the ability to designate specific subsidies through the ballot, it is difficult to tell whether the voters think Amtrak is worth the price tag and runs on a voter mandate. Given the level of knowledge that went into Mark's and other's posts, I more than realize I am way out of my league in suggesting that this means we should get rid or split Amtrak up. I just want to see how these responses react to such an argument. Thanks again, Gabe Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 9:10 AM I think Amtrak is in a kind of Catch-22 where it doesn't have nearly enough riders to offer convenient service or operate on dedicated track outside of a few selected areas. Ridership on the Builder for example is pretty good, but it isn't nearly enough to justify more than 1 train per day and that's not enough to attract enough of the corridor riders Mark mentioned, who also care about when they travel. Someone else mentioned the scheduling of the Chcago to New York train, but in the glory days there were many Chicago to New York trains leaving at different times on different railroads, so whether you were a connecting passeenger or wanted to get to New York the next morning, there were enough options available. Airlines and light-rail operate the same way(at least they used to). The proposition gets even worse for dedicated high speed rail, you can't justify building such a line to run 4 or 5 trains a day on it. Consider how many people per hour such a line will move, then do the same with the right of way used instead as an Interstate highway. I wouldn't be surprised if even the NEC is an inefficient use of expensive real-estate. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 8:54 AM Another thought....Returning the passenger operations to the class 1s may have worked years ago when there was enough talent there to pull it off. Thirty some years later the class 1s would only do a watered down imitation of Amtrak. Today the class 1s would hire people from Amtrak, with its unsound 33 years of strange corporate culture, to run their passenger operation. Early on, in the '70s, Amtrak did a bad imitation of airlines. For this all to work, the notion of passenger train travel, and railroading in general has to become important to the national culture, which it isn't. When I first worked for the Chicago and North Western, where through passenger trains were hated by management, you still wouldn't dare to stick one of the passenger jobs. They ran on-time and were important to the Company's image as long as they still ran. These warps and fibers in the corporate upholstry have been lacerated beyond quick repair. Speaking of on-time and time keeping in general on the railroad, I remember when you were on the railroad after 60 days you were required to purchase and maintain a railroad watch. This tool of yours in the form of fine jewelry at a cost today of $1,500 reminded you at every glance of the watch that time was important. You compared it with the company's standard clock, and every one was in sinc with the stars. Now you can go to work with your wrist disguised as a bank time and temperature sign and that's good enough. Time is now a shade of grey instead of being black and white. Mitch Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 8:00 AM In my comments I'm not assigning blame. I'm stating what the outside world is looking at when they make a dicision to increase funding for rail passenger service. The public has no idea of freight schedules or other inside problems. They see a lousey show, that's all they know. Mark.. Thanks for your kind words. Mitch Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 6:01 AM I don't need to read everyones' opinions about what Amtrak should or should not be. Face the facts, NO ONE WANTS US...INCLUDING THE MANAGEMENT AND THE 'SO CALLED' BOARD OF DIRECTORS!!! Just as the public was so gullable to be convinced that Iraq was going to attack any day now, the same holds true for Amtrak. All you read or hear in the media is how much money Amtrak looses each year. You never hear about the amount of money our government waste on special projects that don't benefit humanity in the least. We can throw money to under-developed countries (or even developed ones) with no questions of when we'll get a return on it. Yet, Amtrak is always being told, we must show a return on the money it's given. In other countries outside of the US and Canada, their rail systems are operated as an essential service, just like the police and fire departments are an essential service. This country doesn't view Amtrak or any railroad in the same manner, eventhough it was 'US' that carried the bulk of every emergency personnel to where they were needed 'DURING AND AFTER' the terrorists' attack on our nation. It was the freight railroads that transported much of the military equipment to the ports during almost every war this country has been involved in. Face facts people, the public which we serve is unappreciative and spoiled. Yet, to all you railroaders out there, GOD BLESS AND THANK YOU!! Glenn A R E A L RAILROADER...A TRUE AMERICAN!!! Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 17, 2004 12:01 AM Speaking for the 99.7% of Americans who either don't use or can't use Amtrak, I will say this: I don't "hate" Amtrak per se, what I hate is...... 1. I am a railfan, and I would love the opportunity to legitimately travel by rail on a business or leisure trip if the opportunity came up, but the fact is my part of the country is not served by passenger rail, and other nearby parts of the country that are served by passenger rail are not served in a fashion convenient for utilizing it, and I have no incentive to go out of my way just to use it. Scheduling station stops at 2 am and going places other than where I need or want to go is no incentive to go out of my way just so I can say I rode the train. 2. It isn't Amtrak so much as it is the way Amtrak exists. Trying to run a 21st century train with 19th century logistics just doesn't cut it. Constanty feeding a bottomless pit with taxpayer dollars for an entity that has no real incentive to change for the better or provide a service that the other 99.7% of the nation can use doesn't cut it. As has been pointed out in other posts on this topic, the ideal of rail travel is the late afternoon boarding, a fine meal, cocktails, partying till 1am (or reading, quietly conversing, working out, watching a movie, etc), then off to your own room with your own bed, waking up and having a good breakfast, and then arriving at your destination by 9 am. That is the image that would attract a clientele, and that ideal should be the focus of Amtrak's resources, but tell me, where in the Amtrak Nation does this ideal ever exist? On the NEC? the LD's? Can an airline or a bus line compete with that ideal? NO! Instead, Amtrak just has to compete with puddlejumpers on the NEC and Greyhound on the LD's, so instead of focusing on the comparatively advantageous niche where there is no other real option for the traveler they waste their time on the competitive disadvantage, where there is a viable option for the traveler. 3. I have argued for reorganizing Amtrak into a National Rail Passenger Service oversight agency, wherein the proper incentives are put into play for the Class I's to take back the operation of passenger trains, and then sit back for 10 or 15 years and see if the private sector can come up with the necessary innovations that would make rail passenger service viable. A transferable tax credit for each passenger/mile served should be incentive enough to intice the Class I's to try it. If that doesn't amount to anything after a decade or so, then maybe a true national passenger rail service should go the way of the riverboat. If the Northeast states want the NEC to go on, then let them pay for it. Same for California, Florida, et al. If it's true that non-railfans are the ones who demand rail passenger service on a national scale, those same people may also support it on a state by state basis. At least then the 0.3% are forced to pay a greater share for their niche subsidy, which may cause them to rethink their support for this concept of rail passenger service. If not, then more power to them! Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:46 PM Mark If it's any consolation, there are many more people in your boat than my hypothetical taxpayer. I'm closer to your side of the curve, but in the event you change your mind about Amtrak subsidies, I'll cover you share. Mitch I am inclined to agree with your position on the "overnight" train runs. Sixteen hours or so for the 800 to 1000 mile runs with departure around 5:00pm just might bring back some business travel. Of course some improvement with on-time performance would also be necessary. That part reminded me of earlier this year, while visiting family in Gainesville, GA, when cousin Mike was returning from a conference in New York. He had a scheduled 2:00pm departure from a New York airport and, with delays, finally landed in Atlanta at Midnight and got home about 2:00am. The southbound Cresent leaves New York about the same time and stops at Gainesville about 8:00am. So maybe it's name your poison. Take a chance flying, or take the train and plan on a good nights sleep. 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 MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:46 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Amtrak’s existence has absolutely nothing to do with railfans or romantics. It exists because non-railfans – the people who use it – want it to exist. Amtrak has a substantial consitituency, and the funding it receives is demonstrative of the size and power of its constituency. There’s not enough of them to make it a great service, but there are enough of them that it will not go away. This is borne out by the news articles that were published each time Amtrak squeaked through the annual budgeting process in the pre-Gunn, pre-Warrington years. Amtrak did not have much of an 'offense', but the 'defense' swung into action each time. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:28 PM QUOTE: The whole idea that passenger trains competing with government subsidized automobiles and airplanes Oops..left something out - that should read "The whole idea that passenger trains competing with government subsidized automobiles and airplanes should be profitable..." Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:27 PM QUOTE: I think the subsidies are really the problem to begin with. If nothing were subsidized, people would travel on the means that are most efficient and an industry would find a way to make money meeting the demads of such travel. As of right now, the subsidies mask such efficiency determinations, and allow people--to borrow a phrase--to export their transportation costs to other entities. That is right on conceptually, but unfortunately it's way too late to undo the damge done by years of government interference (read subsidies) with what used to be a lot closer to free market transportation. Like it or not, nobody is going to un-build the highways or airports and air traffic control system, so for rail passenger service to play in today's reality (which is anything BUT an efficient or free market), it must be government subsidized. The whole idea that passenger trains competing with government subsidized automobiles and airplanes is every bit as ludicrous as the idea that the airline industry EVER turned an actual "profit" (ignoring for a moment all the years the airlines can't even turn their make believe "profits," without their extensive government subsidies, they couldn't exist much less turn a REAL profit). I've expressed this sentiment many times before - put "Amtrak" (or invent some silly new name if you're so inclined) on the SAME BASIS as the airline industry - that is, acquire land for and build a nationwide high speed rail network connecting all the cities currently connected by the interstate highways, build and operate dispatching facilities for the network, and then charge the operator(s) of the passenger trains on the network (i.e., "Amtrak") a "user fee" - that of course does not come close to covering the sunk costs, fixed costs and maintenance of the system, and since the system is "public" there will of course be no property taxes to worry about (for the train operator(s), i.e., "Amtrak.") THEN, I submit to you that not only would "Amtrak" be "profitable" (in the manner of speaking applied to the airlines), but it would post profits a hell of a lot more consistently than any airline EVER has. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:25 PM QUOTE: I think the subsidies are really the problem to begin with. If nothing were subsidized, people would travel on the means that are most efficient and an industry would find a way to make money meeting the demads of such travel. As of right now, the subsidies mask such efficiency determinations, and allow people--to borrow a phrase--to export their transportation costs to other entities. That is right on conceptually, but unfortunately it's way too late to undo the damge done by years of government interference (read subsidies) with what used to be a lot closer to free market transportation. Like it or not, nobody is going to un-build the highways or airports and air traffic control system, so for rail passenger service to play in today's reality (which is anything BUT an efficient or free market), it must be government subsidized. The whole idea that passenger trains competing with government subsidized automobiles and airplanes is every bit as ludicrous as the idea that the airline industry EVER turned an actual "profit" (ignoring for a moment all the years the airlines can't even turn their make believe "profits," without their extensive government subsidies, they couldn't exist much less turn a REAL profit). I've expressed this sentiment many times before - put "Amtrak" (or invent some silly new name if you're so inclined) on the SAME BASIS as the airline industry - that is, acquire land for and build a nationwide high speed rail network connecting all the cities currently connected by the interstate highways, build and operate dispatching facilities for the network, and then charge the operator(s) of the passenger trains on the network (i.e., "Amtrak") a "user fee" - that of course does not come close to covering the sunk costs, fixed costs and maintenance of the system, and since the system is "public" there will of course be no property taxes to worry about (for the train operator(s), i.e., "Amtrak.") THEN, I submit to you that not only would "Amtrak" be "profitable" (in the manner of speaking applied to the airlines), but it would post profits a hell of a lot more consistently than any airline EVER has. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 9:42 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark I'm afraid folks won't support any greater funding of passenger service because of their fear that it will be a lot more bad service. If there had been some extension of quality long distance service to use as an example perhaps there would be some hope of positive public pursuesion. F Mitch What does Amtrak need to do to please the public and its critics? Pull rabbits out of its pockets? Do you consider the Coast Starlight adventure bad quality service? I know arriving sometimes in LA after Midnight isn't great, but that's mostly due to the host RR. How about some of the other LD trains, that generally run well with the on-board services? If your ire is at timekeeping, check your complaints at the freight RRs' door. It isn't a coincidence that Amtrak trains have better OT performance on the less congested routes, such as the Empire Builder and Southwest Chief. Rail-friendly RR hosts also help. Your logic about quality could also fall apart in another area. The freeways in my area are filled with cars and potholes. So more money shouldn't be invested in fixing them? Reply Edit BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,292 posts Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, September 16, 2004 9:32 PM Transportation....all forms of it in this country is an entitlement to the US population. How much 'profit' does the Interstate system return to it's owners....directly none....indirectly through economic activity...enough. How much 'profit' does the Air Traffic Control system return...directly none....economic aciivity generated through air travel...enough. So why do we expect Amtrak to turn a direct profit on its operation? The economic impact from Amtrak, while not rivaling either the Interstates or Air Traffic Control, is sufficient to justify its continued existance. Secondarilym Amtrak or more precisely Rail Passenger Transportation is the only mode of transportation that can be expanded with the absolute minimum of expenditure when compared to the costs required to expand either the Interstates or build more Airports and Air traffic control facilities. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 9:29 PM Mitch's blame should then go towards the freight railroads, since freight-related delays have risen astronomically in the past decade. Amtrak adjusts its schedules based on freight interference and delays. If in doubt about this, check the performance and running times of the Southwest Chief, Empire Builder, Sunset Limited, Coast Starlight and California Zephyr west of Denver. The first two are generally impecable whilst the others generally run on rails hosted by a hostile railroad. (It would be interesting to see how cheerful these railfans will be if that hostile railroad starts treating them the same way it treats Amtrak.). Blaming Amtrak for such problems is like blaming the renter for a landlord's problems! Except the landlord, in this case, usually escapes any scrutiny. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 9:20 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark I'm afraid folks won't support any greater funding of passenger service because of their fear that it will be a lot more bad service. If there had been some extension of quality long distance service to use as an example perhaps there would be some hope of positive public pursuesion. For instance, using my favorite, Chicago to New York. If the thing ran like it did in 1973 when it left Chicago at 4pm and arrived in NYC at 10 the next morning ithout fail, people would use it. But it doesn't. It leaves late in the evening to insure the 12 or so connecting passengers from the west don't miss it and have to stay in a hotel at Amtrak's expense. Mitch, I assume you wrote that response with a straight face. You surely don't blame Amtrak for the pathetic timekeeping on ex-Conrail lines? Tell me again JUST HOW Amtrak runs, owns and operates that particular freight route? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 9:11 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 I am willing to blame "W" for a lot of things that are wrong in this country, but if Amtrak dies on his watch, I would consider it a mercy killing.[}:)] Not a mercy killing, but a murder. "If we just keep denigrating it in the media, cut its funding every year (while generously raising funding for AIR and HIGHWAYS) this monster that consumes all of the DOT's budget will go away... I know it will because that's our right-wing creed. Anything run by the gov'ment is bad. Repeat after me..." See how that works? Tell a lie long enough, and people believe it. Yeah, like the myth that Amtrak is only for well-heeled tourists who spend lots of money. A visit any major terminal will dispel that whopper. Or that "trains are best for short-distance corridors while LD trains run empty..." Uh-oh. The average LD traveler travels by 800 miles on a train. Or this one... most of Amtrak's travelers are vacationers or pleasure travel, like rail buffs. So it shouldn't be subsidised, since as well all know, airlines carry mostly business travel... Uh-oh again. The majority of travel in the U.S. over 100 miles distance is, my goodness, for personal reasons. That gem from the Bureau of Transportation Stats. Yep, just what the boys at Cato, Heritage, et. al., dribble. You appear to have bought that BS hook, line and sinker. Are you going to recommend killing highway funding? AIrport funding? The costs of law enforcement and the millions of other indirect subsidies our government provides non-rail transportation. Sure. Amtrak is evil and must be stopped. Kill all travel choices. We're railfans. We know what's best for you! Reply Edit jeaton Member sinceSeptember 2002 From: Rockton, IL 4,821 posts Posted by jeaton on Thursday, September 16, 2004 8:55 PM Those few who might read my posts know I favor rail passenger service of all types. For those who want "get rid off" I assume that it is a question of your tax dollars going to that service. As I recently posted elswhere, someone who makes $100,000 per year, is single with no dependents, no itemized deductions, no education credits or any other tax reducing benefits of use, would have all of FIFTY DOLLARS out of his or her tax payments going for Amtrak's full funding request. Assuming that in lieu of a subsidy to Amtrak, this money was returned as a tax cut-spend it wisely. For those who would "rethink", I strongly recommend looking at the "think". You will find it at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Title_Image_Copy_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1081442674477&ssid=322 Click on the link to the strategic plan for 2005-2009. You may be amazed at the scope of problems being addressed. Jay "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 AntonioFP45 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: Good ol' USA 9,642 posts Posted by AntonioFP45 on Thursday, September 16, 2004 8:51 PM Guys, Last I read Amtrak's numbers were steady and even rising slightly "outside of the corridor". I'm skeptical that Amtrak will "sink like the Titanic". Lately there have been so many "doom and gloom"[B)] postings on this forum regarding Amtrak. Ever since 1979, every 2 to 4 years we hear "Well it's in the News! Amtrak is going to become history". I still remember the political cartoon showing a picture of President Jimmy Carter nailing a "Closed Sign" on an Amtrak station. We thought then it was the "final Curtain Call". I was a 16 year old teen then. Yes, a few trains low patronage or slow trains around the country were deleted. The only decent train that should not have been axed was the Champion. [V] Here now it's 2004, I'm 41 now and hearing the SAME EXACT RHETORIC!!. I'm just surprised that this time it's coming from railfans with some that actually seem to hope that the plug is pulled and think that something better will replace it! In case no one has noticed that usually when we lose rail service.......it doesn't come back! Meanwhile, interstate gridlock continues to build up. I guess AAA is happy that they have plenty of members. Here in Florida, I've used Amtrak as a paying passenger and would use it again. It's much more comfortable and faster than the bus. Not everyone wants to travel by air or drive on the dangerous interstates I-75 and I-95 and stare at monotonous concrete. Guys, NO DENYING that there is a lot wrong with Amtrak, but there is also a lot right with it! We read and post some of the "nightmare" stories, but don't often hear of the positive trips experienced by the majority. Now that Mail & Express is being cut, schedules will be speedier [:D][8D][;)](probably except on UP rails![:(!]). I think that this rhetoric will continue onward for years to come as just that: "rumors & rhetoric"--(It costs too much!, trains are always late!, Not enough riders!, blah, blah, blah!). I sincerely believe that passenger train advocate groups like NARP are making a difference and have been actually garnering more support from Washington. As someone mentioned on this forum llast year, Mr. Bush (or Kery) in the future will not want to be known as "The President that killled national rail service". Being an old fashioned conservative, I disagree with liberals and democrats on most issues, however, I must compliment the many of them that have used very loud voices and policital pressuring that has helped keep Amtrak off the chopping block! Peace! "I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!" Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 8:41 PM Mark-- I think there is a difference, but it may be one somewhat of degree, and I pointed it out so the readers could see another aspect of the debate that perhaps they had not heard before. Ergo, there is in fact a significant difference between (1) taking over terminally ailing grandma's upkeep while she dies and (2) setting up the program so that you're slowly euthanizing her (terminally ill or not) while cynically cooing and telling her and the rest of the family you're doing the best thing. Rather's point, which does indeed take a different tack from the conventional lore, is that the Nixon White House staff took the latter approach and not the former. Volpe, on the other hand, was a true believer and doesn't fit the mold of the "we'll make her comfortable till she dies, which we know is going to happen" approach--he thought you could indeed nurse Grandma back to health. I'm not a conspiracy fan, but I'll point out that Charlie believed it, I think it's interesting, and I've seen little to refute it. As to competing ideologies, yes on one level, but Rather's point is that ideology made little or no difference in the final legislative product, and ego made all the difference. That's not the same viewpoint at all. I'll leave the economics issue for later. Mitch-- Bravo! Well said. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 8:11 PM I'm afraid folks won't support any greater funding of passenger service because of their fear that it will be a lot more bad service. If there had been some extension of quality long distance service to use as an example perhaps there would be some hope of positive public pursuesion. For instance, using my favorite, Chicago to New York. If the thing ran like it did in 1973 when it left Chicago at 4pm and arrived in NYC at 10 the next morning ithout fail, people would use it. But it doesn't. It leaves late in the evening to insure the 12 or so connecting passengers from the west don't miss it and have to stay in a hotel at Amtrak's expense. So who wants to eat dinner at 9.30pm? It arrives sometime in the middle of the afternoon rush hour in NYC. No chance of a business meeting or anything else. Just a mad attempt to find a taxi to get to your place for your stay. Many times over the years I've heard people on the train say, "Never again!" In 33 years, train by train, the medium has been able to turn off almost everyone in the nation to train travel. To say the least of what foreign visitors must think of the country as a whole. I remember a quote that goes something like this, "You can tell the quality of a modern industrial nation by the way it runs its trains." Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, and all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put Humpty Dumpty together again. Why? Because they don't know how, they really don't want to and they're at seminars, meetings, focus group sessions, hiring consultants, taking trips to Europe to see how "they" do it, and getting brain storm ideas that goof things up. So the "show" stinks, and the audience is leaving the theater. Mitch Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:45 PM A different view is contained in The Palace Guard, by Dan Rather (ignore his politics and latest follies for a minute--this was 30 years ago this year and we were all a lot younger), which for you young'uns was one of the more famous chronicles of the Nixon/Watergate era. Rather's position is that Trans. Secy. John Volpe had two pet projects: the SST and Railpax/Amtrak. He goes on to allow that Volpe's leadership in pushing these two projects over and apart from White House staff control was viewed as a feat of insubordination tantamount to treason which greatly (an understatement) annoyed the Haldeman/Erlichman leadership, who tried to maintain a chokingly tight reign on the chain of command in the administration. But, he says, Volpe had Nixon's ear and that situation set up a classical intramural "not invented here" squeeze play--H/E knew they didn't have Nixon's backing to can either Volpe or his two projects, so they set out to kill them in Congress. They succeeded magnificently with the SST (which probably was a great outcome in light of ensuing events). But Railpax wouldn't die, and Volpe had decided it was worth a fight to the death (which he could and would win because of his tight relationship with the President). So, Rather states, faced with this losing battle in the White House, H/E did the next best thing--they backed Railpax with one side of their mouths and, with the other side, they got their cronies in Congress to structure the legislation so Railpax would flop within 3-5 years, which they passed, and they did it admirably well. This desired outcome, of course, generally caused the RRs no grief at all, and so most of them got on the bandwagon. The scheme would have worked, too, except the Arabs got in the way after the 1973 Yom Kippur war with the oil embargo, which caused a significant shift in passenger loads to what was by then Amtrak, and a couple of powerful, very smart people (again regardless of your politics) Charlie Luna (President and founder of UTU,and an incorporator of Amtrak) and Joe McDonald, VP of Continental Can Co. ("consumer representative" appointed by powerful Conn. Sen. Lowell Wycher), got on the board and started stirring things up. Charlie used to swear that Rather was right on this, and he would have been one with the insider's knowledge to say yea or nay to the veracity of the story. If you look at the enabling legislation and the original appointments, purchases, etc., it also tracks the position that Railpax/Amtrak was a cynically conceived little illegitimate stepchild that was set up to fail 3-5 years after incorporation. The scheme backfired. FTR, Charlie was a personal friend of mine, and although I disagreed with his politics on a number of issues, he stands gigantically tall on this one. And a true prince of a guy, too, who knew more about how the Hill worked than the folks who resided there. He stood in the way as a mountainous blockade to those who wanted to kill Amtrak from within and without, and he could run rings around them politically. Joe was a an accounting whiz with the motivation of a hungry bulldog who was cut down by cancer far too quickly. Had he lived, the whole sorry can of worms would have been completely out in the open, because he had almost gotten all the way to the bottom as to how they were cooking the books when he passed away. His writings are priceless for any serious student who wants to know why Amtrak is the way it is. May they both rest in peace. Reply Edit Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain As I recall, at the time Amtrak was formed, the railroads looked at it as a means to the orderly demise of passenger service. For starters half of the nation's rail service ended in one fell swoop. The American Orient Express is neat, but I was thinking of a Park Service operation with new equipment that wouldn't require $3,000-$4,000 to ride. And that equipment is nearly shot. Instead, something that lives that captures the essence of streamliner rail travel, but more people would be able to afford. Ah, the coach version! I wonder how much of the AOE fare goes into those perks of first class. My guess would be something on the order of 25-30%. Most of that fare has to be for actual operation and a little profit. It is a business after all. A new government program? I suppose tax dollars have been spent on "stupider" stuff. I like that bit about an "orderly demise". 1971 was one shoe, we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop.[;)] I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:54 PM It was that kind of dumb attitude that got Nixon into trouble (Watergate). I don't know why anyother administration thought that Amtrak was not worth it. Even Regan liked the train as I saw him in a picture riding in one......and yet he did what he did...interesting and very flip-floppy if you ask me. Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:42 PM As I recall, at the time Amtrak was formed, the railroads looked at it as a means to the orderly demise of passenger service. For starters half of the nation's rail service ended in one fell swoop. The American Orient Express is neat, but I was thinking of a Park Service operation with new equipment that wouldn't require $3,000-$4,000 to ride. And that equipment is nearly shot. Instead, something that lives that captures the essence of streamliner rail travel, but more people would be able to afford. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:37 PM Well said artmark, amtrak-tom and M.W Hemphill. Andrew Reply Big_Boy_4005 Member sinceDecember 2003 From: St Paul, MN 6,218 posts Posted by Big_Boy_4005 on Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe If you are into fine dinning, I HIGHLY recommend the train in which Big_Boy_4005 refers to. I really think that is a neat opperation. People seem to enjoy it too. Gabe Thanks Gabe, it does sound like fun. The secret is that that mission is well defined, and properly funded by passenger fares. I think most here are in agreement that Amtrak is neither. Mark, who was it at the club that said " A horse designed by committee is a camel"? In this case the original committee was the railroads who signed on to form Amtrak. Of course the committee has changed over the years, as congress holds the purse strings over this aging beast. I am willing to blame "W" for a lot of things that are wrong in this country, but if Amtrak dies on his watch, I would consider it a mercy killing.[}:)] I'm back! Follow the progress: http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 4:55 PM Amtrak bashing? That's nothing new for us to hear at Amtrak. Gabe, if you lived on the Northeast Corridor, you may form a different opinion. We own the Northeast Corridor, we control the Northeast Corridor. When our trains are run on other lines, I think there is where the problem lies. I'm not into the politics, and, I can understand the freight lines having to make special room for Amtrak - and, it is "their railroad". We like President Gunn's stance - don't fund us properly, I'll shut it down. We've been waiting for someone like President Gunn to come along. Someone who doesn't live in Fantasy Land. Former Amtrak President Tom Downs before a Congressional hearing had stated "shut down the Northeast Corridor and you'll need thousands of fully loaded DC-9 jets to move the masses that we do per year". I had wondered if that was a bit of a stretch on the facts. But, a DC-9 holds about 99 passengers, not much more than a fully loaded passenger car. So, when I see a "short" Amtrak train with just 6 Amfleet cars enroute to New York, I am looking at about 6 DC-9 jets going by me on rails. Maybe out in Indiana there is poor OTP (On Time Performance), but, what is the true root cause (bottom line) for those delays? And, as was stated earlier, we're under funded. Either fund us properly, or, let us go. So far, we haven't been let go. President Reagan's era was one of the worst times for Amtrak. Even his Transportation Secretary, David Stockman, recanted his Amtrak bashings once Reagan's terms had ended. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 4:51 PM 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 Reply Edit BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,292 posts Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, September 16, 2004 4:50 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe BaltACD, Don't take this as an attack on your position; it is not. And, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. But does the solution really need to be that grandiose? For instance, I live in Indianapolis and drive to Chicago regularly. The I-65 corridor is packed, packed, packed and parking in Chicago is attrocious. Because Chicago has a great inter-city transportation and such problems, rail transport to Chicago is a no-brainer. However, as much as I love trains, I will never take Amtrak other than as an excursion to watch trains. Everyone I talk to in Indy, including those who don't know I am a rail fan, says how great it would be to have a train to Chicago to avoid such problems. But the train runs at hours that is convenient to no one, has not advertisement, and is rumored to be always late. This brings me back to my division of Amtrak suggestion. I can't help but think if one group of people only ran a train from Chicago to Indy (and maybe Cincinnati) and would have to get new jobs if the train failed, they would not run the train at the times it is run now and more efforts would be made to make sure it is not late. I don't need a 140 mile per hour train to Chicago. A 65 mile per hour train that left at a reasonable time and was run on time would get me there faster than driving. How much easier my life would be if someone in charge thought this way. Mark, That was interesing about Gunn. I have to admit, I didn't realize it and it does debunk my contentions. Gabe Gabe - While you don't need more than a 65 MPH train from Indy to Chicago, you and your other Indy boarding passengers are not sufficient to make any Indy to Chicago only service viable. Yes I am proposing a system that would seem grandiose, however, your description of traffic and parking in the jaunt to Chicago is the reason such a SYSTEM is NEEDED, at least on routes between major cities East of the Mississippi. We can't just keep adding lanes to the interstate. We don't have parking in the major metropolitan area for 'strangers'. The airline system is again approaching maximum capacity since the recovery of traffic from after 9/11. The High speed of the Network is needed to keep trips 'do able' within the time frame that the traveling public expects to be able to accompli***heir travel, ie. 6 AM to Midnight. Board the train at 6-7-8 AM....be transported 2 - 3 or 4 hours (ie. up to 600 miles) to your destination...conduct your business and return home at bed time. Obviously the current Amtrak can only approach this form of business on the NEC. It is a function that they perform well. That being said, there are more corridors that can support that type of service, however there must be a total political shift in public policy which I don't see occuring until I-95 is 16 lanes wide between Boston and Richmond. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply « 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
"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 M.W. Hemphill Amtrak’s existence has absolutely nothing to do with railfans or romantics. It exists because non-railfans – the people who use it – want it to exist. Amtrak has a substantial consitituency, and the funding it receives is demonstrative of the size and power of its constituency. There’s not enough of them to make it a great service, but there are enough of them that it will not go away.
QUOTE: The whole idea that passenger trains competing with government subsidized automobiles and airplanes
QUOTE: I think the subsidies are really the problem to begin with. If nothing were subsidized, people would travel on the means that are most efficient and an industry would find a way to make money meeting the demads of such travel. As of right now, the subsidies mask such efficiency determinations, and allow people--to borrow a phrase--to export their transportation costs to other entities.
QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark I'm afraid folks won't support any greater funding of passenger service because of their fear that it will be a lot more bad service. If there had been some extension of quality long distance service to use as an example perhaps there would be some hope of positive public pursuesion. F Mitch
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark I'm afraid folks won't support any greater funding of passenger service because of their fear that it will be a lot more bad service. If there had been some extension of quality long distance service to use as an example perhaps there would be some hope of positive public pursuesion. For instance, using my favorite, Chicago to New York. If the thing ran like it did in 1973 when it left Chicago at 4pm and arrived in NYC at 10 the next morning ithout fail, people would use it. But it doesn't. It leaves late in the evening to insure the 12 or so connecting passengers from the west don't miss it and have to stay in a hotel at Amtrak's expense.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 I am willing to blame "W" for a lot of things that are wrong in this country, but if Amtrak dies on his watch, I would consider it a mercy killing.[}:)]
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain As I recall, at the time Amtrak was formed, the railroads looked at it as a means to the orderly demise of passenger service. For starters half of the nation's rail service ended in one fell swoop. The American Orient Express is neat, but I was thinking of a Park Service operation with new equipment that wouldn't require $3,000-$4,000 to ride. And that equipment is nearly shot. Instead, something that lives that captures the essence of streamliner rail travel, but more people would be able to afford.
I'm back!
Follow the progress:
http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe If you are into fine dinning, I HIGHLY recommend the train in which Big_Boy_4005 refers to. I really think that is a neat opperation. People seem to enjoy it too. Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe BaltACD, Don't take this as an attack on your position; it is not. And, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. But does the solution really need to be that grandiose? For instance, I live in Indianapolis and drive to Chicago regularly. The I-65 corridor is packed, packed, packed and parking in Chicago is attrocious. Because Chicago has a great inter-city transportation and such problems, rail transport to Chicago is a no-brainer. However, as much as I love trains, I will never take Amtrak other than as an excursion to watch trains. Everyone I talk to in Indy, including those who don't know I am a rail fan, says how great it would be to have a train to Chicago to avoid such problems. But the train runs at hours that is convenient to no one, has not advertisement, and is rumored to be always late. This brings me back to my division of Amtrak suggestion. I can't help but think if one group of people only ran a train from Chicago to Indy (and maybe Cincinnati) and would have to get new jobs if the train failed, they would not run the train at the times it is run now and more efforts would be made to make sure it is not late. I don't need a 140 mile per hour train to Chicago. A 65 mile per hour train that left at a reasonable time and was run on time would get me there faster than driving. How much easier my life would be if someone in charge thought this way. Mark, That was interesing about Gunn. I have to admit, I didn't realize it and it does debunk my contentions. Gabe
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.