September 2015 "Trains" NP-MILW merger.

[chutton01]

Convicted One

What can one think? I was shocked to see Penn Station included as one of the biggest blunders in RAILROADING.

Gee, how many railroads even think passenger rail is important today? How many are sitting around thinking "If we just had an opulant passenger terminal in Manhattan, we could operate a successful passenger business!"?  How many of the class one's have any desire at all to be involved in passenger rail?

I just saw the "21 Blunders" article in Trains today, and as a life-long New Yorker I have no real regrets that Penn Station was torn down (of course, I was about 1 when this happened in '65) and replaced by MSG & Penn Plaza (MSG I have often attended events at over the decades - darn convenient); I'm pretty ambivalent about the "new" Farley Station Annex, because while I do appreciate the long necessary extension of platforms and expansion of underground walkays, I'm quite meh about the "train hall" skylight and not at all happy about Amtrak moving ticketing offices to Farley.  From images I've seen, the old Penn Station IMO just had a lot of unused, open space (must have been fun to heat), and before you go on about Grand Central Terminal, consider the original plans did call for a multistory office building above Grand Central (just be thankful we didn't get the 1968 International Style building illustrated on that page; even I think that looks silly).

But getting back to the Blunders article - IIRC at least 2 other "major" blunders dealt with passenger service
Blunder 1 was the major investment railroads made in passenger service, mostly in new passenger rolling stock, after WWII.  If I understand that correctly, that means by Amtrak day in 1971 (assuming the time line remains the same otherwise), instead of relatively modern stock (25 years or younger stainless steel passenger stock from Budd and PS), Amtrak would have to make do with only pre WWII 40+ year old worn out heavy-weights, and a handful of one-offs streamlined trains (think Zephyrs and the like).  That would have went over well witht the traveling publc at the time.
But, that wouldn't even matter - as Blunder 2 was "joining Amtrak" - and if I am reading that one right, basically it boils down to railroads shouldn't have joined Amtrak, but just let LD passenger service vanish by the 1970s?
So, who would have been using that preserved Penn Station from the initial Blunder? I can assure you the majority of NJT and LIRR commuters really wouldn't give a poop one way or another, especially as the concourse as it stands is fairly well-lit. clean, and convenient.

[dakotafred]

I loved those old Taj Mahal railroad stations -- they were things of beauty and real monuments to the aspiring instincts of man and business. BUT --

Just the property taxes on them -- especially in the East, where the real edifices were and the taxes highest -- helped guarantee a passenger deficit for owner railroads and could not be sustained. To that extent, I understand the 'Amshacks' that have taken their place and think they will do very nicely for the few trains they host every day.

We can rebuild and pay taxes on cathedrals when Americans return to passenger trains in a meaningful way.

Incidently, a city does not have to wait on Amtrak. The best station new or old I saw on an extended trip last fall was New Orleans', which is a transit center for all surface modes that, although new, has that old heroic railroad feel.

[Convicted One]

chutton01

 Blunder 2 was "joining Amtrak" - and if I am reading that one right, basically it boils down to railroads shouldn't have joined Amtrak, but just let LD passenger service vanish by the 1970s?

 

I may be wrong, and if I am then I'm sure someone will jump in to correct me. But I always thought that the major railroads, prior to Amtrak, were obligated to furnish passenger rail, as a public service. Something to do with their having been given the power of eminent domain back during their growth phase. Mom, apple pie, and serving "the greater common good" and all that noise. (As an aside, I always thought that was where the expression "accommodation run" came in as a description of some passenger service. The railroad was  providing the service as an accommodation to public need,  rather than in true business spirit.)

The primary benefit (within this line of thinking) of Amtrak to the railroads being that it relieved them of that obligation. I look forward to the collective responses  that are sure to follow.

[NorthWest]

Under the Amtrak legislation, railroads could either join or operate their trains into the late 1970s when they could legally be discontinued (I don't remember the specific year), which a few railroads did.

The author argues that it would have been cheaper for the railroads to continue to operate them and then cancel them all when capacity was cheap than to join Amtrak and eventually deal with their trains that do not pay full access costs.

[BaltACD]

It is always easier to criticize decisions after they have been made and one can see how they turned out than it is to make the decisions at the time they have to be made with the information available at that time.

Blunders are in the eyes of the beer holders.

[Convicted One]

NorthWest

The author argues that it would have been cheaper for the railroads to continue to operate them and then cancel them all when capacity was cheap than to join Amtrak and eventually deal with their trains that do not pay full access costs.

 

Didn't most people at the outset expect Amtrak to fade into oblivion? I seem to recall a Don Philips installment where he states that the one thing no one ever expected was for Amtrak to survive 40 years and become a budget "hot potato" (my metaphor, not his)

[NorthWest]

BaltACD

It is always easier to criticize decisions after they have been made and one can see how they turned out than it is to make the decisions at the time they have to be made with the information available at that time.

Exactly. Amtrak was intended to die a quick and quiet death, with the similar to SD40-2 SDP40Fs going to freight railroads. Then, in 1973, OPEC decided to start the oil embargo...

 

[dakotafred]

I was working for a railroad and keeping up with the news during Penn Central and the creation of Amtrak. "Insiders" can claim Amtrak was supposed to be only a flag stop enroute to abandonment, but believe you me this is not the way it was represented to the public.

To the extent abandonment was the real plan all along, shame on the planners for their misrepresentation to the public.

Instead, we have seen another example of the hardihood of ALL government programs, worthy or not. I would count Amtrak among the worthy survivors.  

[Convicted One]

dakotafred

but believe you me this is not the way it was represented to the public.

 

I completely agree. It was a shell game designed in part to soothe the segment of the public that relished passenger rail.