Well, you've GOT to provide something the people want. And if you can do so uniquely, you've got an exclusive.
Being "surface" transportation, the trains can offer something that airlines can't....interim access to points between the ultimate destinations. Does Amtrak offer smoking lounges? I know a number of smokers who dread the time away from their beloved pass time when forced to fly. So "personal freedoms" might be a marketable aspect.
But personally, when forced to travel, minimizing transit time and inconvenience are paramount. High Speed rail might offer a unique combination between points within 400 miles of one another, but that pretty much falls outside of the parameters of this thread. And rail tourism just isn't going to serve a big enough need to allow economy of scale.
Perhaps if we cut off politically based foreign aid to all the countries we try to subscribe to our world vision, and instead spent the money locally creating jobs to build a (shudder "socialism") state of the art national passenger rail network, you might get what you want. But we'd have to give up on the idea of being the world's policeman...and I doubt that is a sacrifice that big money is willing to make.
Quoting Convicted One: " Does Amtrak offer smoking lounges?" I know of none, and there is no smoking on board. Some station stops, particularly at division points, are long enough for smokers to get their relief.
Johnny
It might be interesting to offer a smoking lounge car and see if demand upticks?
Convicted One It might be interesting to offer a smoking lounge car and see if demand upticks?
Can't do 'er; a little smoke would travel to at least the cars on either side with every entry and exit, and sensitive noses would be alerted. Leakage upstairs is what defeated the OLD smoking lounges.
Couldn't you treat them similarly to the way haz mat shipments are handled? (throw in an idler car)
But really, I'm just throwing out the concept as part of a broader "more personal freedoms than with flying" promo
I really wonder what results you might get if you took a poll of how travelers would prefer to travel trips of 75, 150, 300, and 500 miles (air, rail, bus, boat, car) what percentage of respondents under the age of 35 would prefer "rail"?
I really suspect that the lions share of those among all ages who specify "rail" would be nostalgists. And that (IMO) is a segment best served by specialty contractors (765.org etc)
It's time that I vented a little bit of "conspiracy theory" on the subject.
I believe that those in a decision making capacity for passenger rail in this country, much like my local bus company, the LAST thing in the world they want is to grow ridership. This is because they "lose" money on every trip, (ie farebox proceeds do not cover the cost of operation) so growing the business is like making a bad thing worse.
Their only true goal is to preserve their sincure.
Except when growing the business means far less need for extremely expensive highway widening, conversion of real estate to parking lots, massive airport expansion, etc. But, in general, this does not effect the LDs.
Convicted One I believe that those in a decision making capacity for passenger rail in this country, much like my local bus company, the LAST thing in the world they want is to grow ridership. This is because they "lose" money on every trip, (ie farebox proceeds do not cover the cost of operation) so growing the business is like making a bad thing worse.
i'm having trouble deciding if your opinion of the business understanding of those in decision making capacities is that deficient. Did you mean that literally, or is it just stretching reality to indicate they could manage better?
I believe that they have a higher priority in preserving their jobs than in making mass transit a growth industry, does that blow some of the fog away?
Convicted One I really wonder what results you might get if you took a poll of how travelers would prefer to travel trips of 75, 150, 300, and 500 miles (air, rail, bus, boat, car) what percentage of respondents under the age of 35 would prefer "rail"? . . . [snipped - PDN]
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_JrHow could they know ? How many have ever tried it ?
In a way, I think that was my point. Just with a different perspective.
daveklepperExcept when growing the business means far less need for extremely expensive highway widening,
You may have just hit upon a solution!! Add a line item to everyone's income tax form "would you prefer to pay a 10% tax surcharge to rebuild highways in this country, or a 6% tax surcharge for passenger rail expansion?" And let the tax payer choose.
Then watch the &%^$#^$ scramble to keep their jobs come next election!! lol!!
schlimm If we could accept the need for the government to provide the capial for infrastructure, as they do for highways and airlines, some corridors could break even or turn a profit. The NEC does here. Many German ICE (HSR) and French TGV routes do.
If we could accept the need for the government to provide the capial for infrastructure, as they do for highways and airlines, some corridors could break even or turn a profit. The NEC does here. Many German ICE (HSR) and French TGV routes do.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
oltmannd This is because the frt RRs aren't going to allow even on extra minute of delay to their trains when you add on the passenger trains
I would opine that if the "successful" premise of this thread was met, that would mean it was profitable.
And if it was profitable, I think you'd see the freight railroads anxious to run the show themselves. They would make it work if there was sufficient greenery.
Are you suggesting passenger trains resemble a cruise ship? Someone said rail passengers are nostalgic. I submit cruise ship travellers are more nostalgic than any rail passenger, since they often board and disemark at the same location on their "trip." Why do they go, they aren't going anywhere. I'd suggest combining C.O.'s "sin train" with one that also transports their car to avoid the "first mile/last mile" problem that haunts every form of multi-passenger transportation. (ala AutoTrain or Chunnel Train)
Murphy Siding schlimm If we could accept the need for the government to provide the capial for infrastructure, as they do for highways and airlines, some corridors could break even or turn a profit. The NEC does here. Many German ICE (HSR) and French TGV routes do. Are you saying infrastructure for commuter railroads or long distance passenger railroads?
Are you saying infrastructure for commuter railroads or long distance passenger railroads?
ALL.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
rrnut282 Are you suggesting passenger trains resemble a cruise ship? Someone said rail passengers are nostalgic. I submit cruise ship travellers are more nostalgic than any rail passenger, since they often board and disemark at the same location on their "trip." Why do they go, they aren't going anywhere. I'd suggest combining C.O.'s "sin train" with one that also transports their car to avoid the "first mile/last mile" problem that haunts every form of multi-passenger transportation. (ala AutoTrain or Chunnel Train)
I would suggest you re-read the posts.
schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm If we could accept the need for the government to provide the capial for infrastructure, as they do for highways and airlines, some corridors could break even or turn a profit. The NEC does here. Many German ICE (HSR) and French TGV routes do. Are you saying infrastructure for commuter railroads or long distance passenger railroads? ALL.
schlimm rrnut282 Are you suggesting passenger trains resemble a cruise ship? Someone said rail passengers are nostalgic. I submit cruise ship travellers are more nostalgic than any rail passenger, since they often board and disemark at the same location on their "trip." Why do they go, they aren't going anywhere. I'd suggest combining C.O.'s "sin train" with one that also transports their car to avoid the "first mile/last mile" problem that haunts every form of multi-passenger transportation. (ala AutoTrain or Chunnel Train) I would suggest you re-read the posts.
I have justified public subsidization of LDs many times in the past, and mentioned:
1. Mobility for the handicapped and elderly
2. encouraging domestic and foreign tourism
3. backup transportation for emergnencies
4. fairness in spending tax dolllars: granted subidization of certain corridors is essential, but it is unfair to subsidize the daily commuter in that corridor while removing the subsidy for a rural resident who wants to keep his one-train-a-day-one-hour-drive-away just in case he might want to use it and/or to give his children the highschool graduation present of a rail tour of America.
Murphy SidingI live in a state that in a hundred years still won't have enough population to justify commuter trains. But I can see the justification to use federal funds-including my tax dollars- to help with infrastructure in those areas that do have the population. Long distance passenger trains, I'm not so sure about. What justification do you see to use more public funds to support long distance passenger trains that would in reality only affect a very small slice of the population, and probably not those at a lower income level?
By ALL, I meant the infrastructure for all railroads should be bought by a separate, quasi-government entity as in the UK and elsewhere. It would improve and maintain various routes for corridor passenger services and freight. Routes could be operated by private freight lines and passenger by a mixture of private and Amtrak-like (some might be state-owned) companies. If LD services were shown to be needed, some operational subsidy might be provided, as the EAS does for air. It is possible some LD cruise-lines might be run by private operators, ala Ed Ellis and others, but those are not run as transportation.
Of course, I fully realize such a proposal is radical and would probably be rejected/ridiculed by the members here.
If rrnut does not understand the concept of a cruise line (nautical), perhaps the key words are "not transportation" and "pleasure." Or he could google for some discussions.
schlimm Murphy Siding I live in a state that in a hundred years still won't have enough population to justify commuter trains. But I can see the justification to use federal funds-including my tax dollars- to help with infrastructure in those areas that do have the population. Long distance passenger trains, I'm not so sure about. What justification do you see to use more public funds to support long distance passenger trains that would in reality only affect a very small slice of the population, and probably not those at a lower income level? By ALL, I meant the infrastructure for all railroads should be bought by a separate, quasi-government entity as in the UK and elsewhere. It would improve and maintain various routes for corridor passenger services and freight. Routes could be operated by private freight lines and passenger by a mixture of private and Amtrak-like (some might be state-owned) companies. If LD services were shown to be needed, some operational subsidy might be provided, as the EAS does for air. It is possible some LD cruise-lines might be run by private operators, ala Ed Ellis and others, but those are not run as transportation. Of course, I fully realize such a proposal is radical and would probably be rejected/ridiculed by the members here.
Murphy Siding I live in a state that in a hundred years still won't have enough population to justify commuter trains. But I can see the justification to use federal funds-including my tax dollars- to help with infrastructure in those areas that do have the population. Long distance passenger trains, I'm not so sure about. What justification do you see to use more public funds to support long distance passenger trains that would in reality only affect a very small slice of the population, and probably not those at a lower income level?
schlimm If rrnut does not understand the concept of a cruise line (nautical), perhaps the key words are "not transportation" and "pleasure." Or he could google for some discussions.
daveklepper 4. fairness in spending tax dolllars: granted subidization of certain corridors is essential, but it is unfair to subsidize the daily commuter in that corridor while removing the subsidy for a rural resident who wants to keep his one-train-a-day-one-hour-drive-away just in case he might want to use it and/or to give his children the highschool graduation present of a rail tour of America.
Removal of long-distance service not only hurts those who do or will ride the trains, but also their connections that won't see them because of that lack. Plus the businesses that depend on them. But certainly improvements are needed.
If Amtrak is inconvenient as to place and time where you live, is there connecting bus service that permits most of the long-distance trip to be by train, where you live?
Murphy Siding schlimm Murphy Siding I live in a state that in a hundred years still won't have enough population to justify commuter trains. But I can see the justification to use federal funds-including my tax dollars- to help with infrastructure in those areas that do have the population. Long distance passenger trains, I'm not so sure about. What justification do you see to use more public funds to support long distance passenger trains that would in reality only affect a very small slice of the population, and probably not those at a lower income level? By ALL, I meant the infrastructure for all railroads should be bought by a separate, quasi-government entity as in the UK and elsewhere. It would improve and maintain various routes for corridor passenger services and freight. Routes could be operated by private freight lines and passenger by a mixture of private and Amtrak-like (some might be state-owned) companies. If LD services were shown to be needed, some operational subsidy might be provided, as the EAS does for air. It is possible some LD cruise-lines might be run by private operators, ala Ed Ellis and others, but those are not run as transportation. Of course, I fully realize such a proposal is radical and would probably be rejected/ridiculed by the members here. What would you see as factors to determine if long distance services were needed?
What would you see as factors to determine if long distance services were needed?
There could be many. The EAS criteria could be used to determine where services might be needed, including current LD routes in flyoverland, but also other places not currently served. Curent patronage would be a factor of course. Much as it might be nice, providing a heavily subsidized sleeper service for a one-time grandchild vacation or visitors from overseas seems hard to justify compared to many other, more pressing matters.
The EAS criteria? What's that?
Wiki? Google?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.