Why should the President consider Amtrak vital to National Security?

[Junctionfan]

I though I would move this a thread on its own. I know some people think that the only way Bush will maintain if not improve Amtrak's funding, is to make a case that it would be in the best interest for national security.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this particularly on how this could happen and please friendly debate on it if you wish.

[Anonymous]

One has only to look at history to see the advantages that such an asset cqn be to a nation at war. From the two front war in WWII for the us or the movement of the Mongolian Army to the Eastern Front in the old Soviet Union. Its cheaper than flying and not as fuel hungry as trucks.

[Modelcar]

....And it moves masses of people like no other type of transportation. And of course as we saw at 9-11 when air travel was rendered useless...the rails looked pretty important. Something that can happen in the blink of an eye...We never know from where it's coming and where it might happen....that one tragedy that can paralyze some form of transportation.

[Junctionfan]

You could literally move an entire division on a train. 6000 troops in a division (or is it 10000?) say 6,000. At least 50 per car=120 cars at the most. Lash up 4 or 5 P-42s and away you go. You can't do that on 1 747 and a convoy screws up traffic on the road.

[Anonymous]

1. Amtrak has the largest concentration of long distance passenger equipment in the country and the rights to travel anywhere there are rails.

2. Amtrak is a government controlled corporation that would be relatively simple to mobilize for large scale troop and equipment movements.

3. Rail movement of troops and equipment is easier, safer and more easily concealled than alternative methods of travel such as road or air travel.

4. Most major military installations retain a rail connection.

I'm sure I'll think of a few more as I go...

LC

[PNWRMNM]

Not a reason in the world.

Amtrak does not have the equipment to move any credible number of troops and airplane are so much faster.

How many troop trains have moved in the past 20 years?

Mac

[Anonymous]

I don't understand. Outside the NEC Amtrak uses somebody else tracks!! Why are they vital? Worse case the GOV'T orders UP to take Amtraks moth-balled cars and run them.

[Anonymous]

Yes!

[Modelcar]

...Our interstates are busy at best now....we all know that...and ANY hickup in some kind of tragedy in this country that disrupts air travel....and we all now know that can happen, will cause expanded interstate travel. In some areas any great amount of expanded I S travel will paralyze that system and what then...Gridlock...! So, having a viable rail transportation system to move people surely makes sense. A no brainer. But don't hold your breath as the government we now have will not...not support it.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...Our interstates are busy at best now....we all know that...and ANY hickup in some kind of tragedy in this country that disrupts air travel....and we all now know that can happen, will cause expanded interstate travel. In some areas any great amount of expanded I S travel will paralyze that system and what then...Gridlock...! So, having a viable rail transportation system to move people surely makes sense. A no brainer. But don't hold your breath as the government we now have will not...not support it.

Let's be clear here....Any hiccup disrupts CIVILIAN air travel. Surprising how easy it is to fly from Pt A to Pt B with all the civils out of my way.

I like Amtrak, but critcal to defense isn't even a viable argument. Freight carriers, absolutely, the only method of moving unit's heavy equipment efficiently and cohesively other than ships, is by rail. But troops is another matter, this isn't WWII. By default nearly everything we have now is required to be worldwide deployable in hours, not days. The airlift is the most efficient, expiditious way to go..period. The only case I can think of for Amtrak is to roll it's budget into buying more airlift capacity.

Sorry guys.......I like trains too, but this is a non-argument.

[Junctionfan]

Could Amtrak help out with munitions and weapons that way the railroads can concentrate on the raw materials and other industrial demands associated in a war build up?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Could Amtrak help out with munitions and weapons that way the railroads can concentrate on the raw materials and other industrial demands associated in a war build up?

If need be...(lets hope not)...Amtrak could help by staying out of the way!

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by talbanese

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Could Amtrak help out with munitions and weapons that way the railroads can concentrate on the raw materials and other industrial demands associated in a war build up?

If need be...(lets hope not)...Amtrak could help by staying out of the way!

Exactly.

The railroads are, do and will continue to support any war effort, just doing what they do. Moving large quantities of material between points, be it military equipment or raw materials to support production. We don't move troops by ship anymore, except for Marines, and that is a different example all together. Maintaining a viable and efficient rail network is extremely important to national defense. Maintaining Amtrak is not. If for some reason, airlift was not available, through military or charter means, and there was no other way to move a large numbers of troops, then Amtrak equipment could be pressed into service, but it would be as a special movement. It is possible..not real likely even within the confines of the continental US. If I had the choice, in the name of national defense, to buy passenger cars or more airlift aircraft, there is no choice. Additional airlift capacity is of greater flexibilty (ie it is not restrained by limits of rail), and greater strategic and tactical value. From a efficiency point of view, I can move 400 troops on a 747 from the west coast to east coast in hours and don't have to worry about feeding, sleeping or supporting them for days in a railcar. If the move is that important, I can ATC route them directly to where they need to go.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm. I see that the President of the Flight Attendants Union is calling for a national strike against the airlines in retaliation for their allegedly using the Bankruptcy proceedings to bust the union...

This should be good. I'm guessing that whatever major carriers are left will be bankrupt after this and the entire union will suffer. As they say on my favorite Guinness commercial...

BRILLIANT!!

Well now Southwest, Airtran and Jet Blue can really sweep the skies...

Hope Amtrak ridership goes up....

LC

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

You could literally move an entire division on a train. 6000 troops in a division (or is it 10000?) say 6,000. At least 50 per car=120 cars at the most. Lash up 4 or 5 P-42s and away you go. You can't do that on 1 747 and a convoy screws up traffic on the road.

This is a joke, right?

After you load 6,000 troops in a 120 car passenger train, where would you take them? The train's gotta go someplace.

To a port of embarkation and a waiting troopship?

[Anonymous]

Questions: Does the military get a discount when using the rails? Do the railroads have to bid on normal military traffic?

[Modelcar]

....In this "non-argument" situation....I am one that is thinking in a calamity of sort in this country people other than military personal have to move about.....and if civilian aircraft are not flying for a period of time....and the panic clogs the Interstates....How does it happen...? How do ordinary folks move about....Well one solution is a viable rail transportation system....What's so wrong about that.....It does not specifically have to be Amtrak, but I'm simply saying a viable rail passenger transportation system.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....In this "non-argument" situation....I am one that is thinking in a calamity of sort in this country people other than military personal have to move about.....and if civilian aircraft are not flying for a period of time....and the panic clogs the Interstates....How does it happen...? How do ordinary folks move about....Well one solution is a viable rail transportation system....What's so wrong about that.....It does not specifically have to be Amtrak, but I'm simply saying a viable rail passenger transportation system.

If that is the case then I will be willing to more in anything (passenger car, boxcar, open hopper). The question is not about the rails but about AMTRAK.

Plus why can't UP/BNSF/CSX/NS/KCS use old amtrak cars after amtrak is/if gone??

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by talbanese

Questions: Does the military get a discount when using the rails? Do the railroads have to bid on normal military traffic?

For many years "land grant railroads" were required to carry goverment shipments for reduced rates to "pay" for the land they received. I believe this requirement was ended (in the 1970's or 80's?) It was determined that the railroads had "paid" many times the value of the land.

[Anonymous]

I don't think there are many old Amtrak, old railroad passenger cars left....they have all been scrapped.....or nearly so.....

As far as troop movement is concerned, airlift has won the day..... However, as far as moving the army's freight....the railroads are still doing it..... and will be doing it in the future......

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

You could literally move an entire division on a train. 6000 troops in a division (or is it 10000?) say 6,000. At least 50 per car=120 cars at the most. Lash up 4 or 5 P-42s and away you go. You can't do that on 1 747 and a convoy screws up traffic on the road.

This is a joke, right?

After you load 6,000 troops in a 120 car passenger train, where would you take them? The train's gotta go someplace.

To a port of embarkation and a waiting troopship?

Obviously you need to go to a port..........Kind of a no brainer.

[Modelcar]

....Why does Amtrak have to be "gone:".....Make it work and use it. But as I said in a former post, the adminstration will not now put the money in it to allow it to function as it could.

[Anonymous]

Which bring us to one of the reasons why the interstate highway system was built.... Yes, defense..... Yet, there aren't many military bases serviced directly by the interstate highway system...... So much for that myth.....

[Anonymous]

Let's see...make the Chairman of Amtrak a Cabinet level position; add thousands of new bureaucrats, er, civil servants to Amtrak rolls; keep telling anyone who'll listen that Amtrak is vital to US security and finally, cleave to the ancient philosophy best portrayed by Mel Brooks in "Blazing Saddles"..."Harump, harump.Gentlemen, we must protect our phoney-baloney jobs!"

[Modelcar]

And if the airlines aren't flying in hours the interstates would be a parking lot especially around Metropolitan areas and any high population areas. Think back to the pandemonium in NYC in the past year or so when we had the black out....A disruption just causes the total city to shut down....We need plan B.

[passengerfan]

The railroads may move the equipment such as tanks and other armored equipment to the ports but planes today will move the troops. Am I missing something here or not but I don't see where Amtrak fits into the picture at all. All of the provisions needed by the troops will also travel to the front by ship. Hasn't Operation Iraqi freedom taught anyone the new facts of life less passenger rail in wartime.

[rrnut282]

Are you saying have a passenger train 120 cars long? If so, wouldn't the HEP cables melt from the load they would have to carry? Also there would be some logistical problems in boarding a train that stretches 1.8 miles give or take. I hope you were thinking several more-manageable-sized trains.

One other problem with this scenario is CRAF: Civilian Reserve Air Force. Several major and minor airlines have pledged to make their wide-body aircraft available to the military with the proper notice to handle any large troop movements anywhere in the world. IIRC 7 out of 10 of the soldiers that went to Desert Storm travelled on a commercial aircraft flying for CRAF. I believe they also included straight freighter aircraft as well, although most of the commercial aircraft cannot handle most military 'outsized' cargos like tanks. Those can only go in C5 or C17's. The ability to draw from this "reserve" wipes out any advantage rail might have had. Sorry.

To clarify a prior post, the interstate highway system is/was sold to congress as a vital part of national defence. One of the design requirements for any interstate highway is that 1 in every 5 miles be straight so it could be converted to a runway in a national emergency.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....In this "non-argument" situation....I am one that is thinking in a calamity of sort in this country people other than military personal have to move about.....and if civilian aircraft are not flying for a period of time....and the panic clogs the Interstates....How does it happen...? How do ordinary folks move about....Well one solution is a viable rail transportation system....What's so wrong about that.....It does not specifically have to be Amtrak, but I'm simply saying a viable rail passenger transportation system.

In that type of scenario, 1) railroads aren't going to be helping much anyway, and 2) if it is truly that bad, as Tom alludes to, folks will travel in boxcars if they had to.

The entering argument is approaching Amtrak funding as a function of national defense. From that point of view..national defense..there is basically nothing Amtrak has to offer the modern military in terms of logistics. Freight roads already do a significant amount of military movement. If all the oxygen is removed from the skies, preventing aircraft from achieving combustion in thier engines, yes then maybe, Amtrak would be pressed into service to move troops. Other than that, airlift is going to be the primary means of moving personnel and light material, both INCONUS and OCONUS. Our major bases are co-located with airfields for that very purpose. Heavy equipment will be moved by rail or whatever means possible from it's home base to an APOD (AIrborne Point of Departure) or SPOD (Seaborne Point of Departure). From there it will be transloaded and shipped. The personnel will board aircraft and head out overseas, if they stop at all and marry up with their equipment or use prepositioned equipment.

I am not saying it has to be an either or, but if you say Amtrak is vital to national defense, a military logistician is going to ask where it fits in, and for personnel movement it does not. The best thing it could do, is cancel movements to allow heavy equipment to proceed without delay. Europe is a different playground or perhaps if we were to fight Mexico or Canada. The arguments here seemed to be based on a WWII example that doesn't exist anymore or presumptions made by folks with no military logistics experience.

An efficient rail network to support the operations it does now is vital, trying to fund Amtrak to meet a need that does not exist is not. I'm not saying that Amtrak should go away, far from it. But from a point of national defense...national defense......not railfan hopes...Amtrak's funding would be better served going to more logistics aircraft or Military Sealift Command ships...

[Anonymous]

In 1919 a junior officer named Eisenhower led an Army convoy from Annapolis Md. to San Francisco. It took 3 months. Eisenhower learned highways are vital to national defense.

Meanwhile in Germany, ex-corporal Hitler was fuming that the Army in WWI couldn’t maneuver any distance from the railroads because they could only be supplied by train.

The Autobahn and the Interstate were intended to transform military logistics.

Today, only the Army’s 2 airborne divisions can deploy quickly, the 8 heavier divisions need months to deploy.

In the cold war when NATO war gamed against a Soviet invasion of Western Europe we lost because we couldn’t resupply our troops. After the cold war our military was sized to fight two wars at once but we could never really do this because airlift didn’t have the capacity for one war. In both Iraq wars the 5 month build up of forces was needed because of the slow speed and limited sea lift capacity.

The military doesn’t have the logistics to fight preemptive war and war against mobile terrorists organizations. But I don’t think the scenarios so far; troop trains, grounded civil aviation, gridlocked Interstates make the case that Amtrak is the answer.

[gabe]

I don't see the issue so much as Amtrak providing a tactical military advantage like most have argued. It is as Greyhound said, where are the trains going to go; one would hope that there will not be a front where Amtrak can take troops to in the near future. Nonetheless, I don't think you are "kidding" and your argument has some merit.

(1) National security is not just about taking troops to the front; it is about maintaining a stable economy. Osama bin Laden claims his entire strategy against the United States is attacking its economy.

The difference between a first-world nation and a third-world nation is infrastructure. Accordingly, I think Amtrak provides an invaluable alternative for long and medium distance transportation/infrastructure in the event airline transportation is compromised.

(2) Troop movements are not entirely concerned with taking troops to the front. Taking scores of troops from home towns to basic training bases might be more reasonable. That having been said, the abilities of MAC are formidable.

Gabe