Get rid or rethink Amtrak

[gabe]

Apology accepted.

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

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

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

Gabe

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe


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

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

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

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

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

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

[gabe]

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

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

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

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

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

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

[gabe]

Well,

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

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

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

Ignorantly yours,

Gabe

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

[Junctionfan]

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

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

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

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

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

[gabe]

ohlemier,

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

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

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

Gabe

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

[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

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[MP57313]

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

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

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

[Big_Boy_4005]

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

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

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

[BaltACD]

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

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

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

[gabe]

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

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

I think there are numerous advantages to such a breakdown.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Gabe

[Junctionfan]

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

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

[oltmannd]

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

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

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

[gabe]

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

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

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

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

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

Gabe Hawkins