TRAINS MAG. and Amtrak

[favuprailroadfan]

I would really appreciate any opinions on this topics. OK First things first, I wi***hat TRAINS magazine would stop reporting on AMTRACK every issue. I get the mag. to read about railroads not just Amtrak. I am so sick and tired of this issue. It just clutters up the pages, and I don't want to see it much more. I want to see some more hardcore down in the trenches type stuff when they went to Nebraska to visit the UP. Now that is railroading to me, why haven't they done an issue like that since. I am not slamming the reporters in any way. Its just the fact that it is in every issue Anyways, if yall are sick and tired of it too. Write your opinion and lets see what can happen. Yes, the Amtrak issue is big to some of you. But I don't care for it because I think its a waste of government money and tax dollers. I say let the railroads take back over. But that is a complete differant issue.

Let me know what you think, Dru

[Soo2610]

Dru... In some respects I agree with you. While Amtrak is a big issue right now, I don't foresee the railroads taking it over. They don't want anything to do with passenger service and are quite happy to be rid of it.
I don't think Trains Magazine is as good as it was a couple of years ago. I just tried two free issues after not getting it for a couple of years and it just isn't the same. I can't quite put my finger on it but it just doesn't seem to be as in depth as it used to be and the articles don't seem to be as diversified. I don't know if they have lost a couple of contributors or what, but it just isn't the same.

[Anonymous]

Yes I agree with you about Trains not being as in depth about their reporting as they use to be. I've been getting Trains for the past nine years and the articles do not seem to have the detail they once had, maybe we just have to wait while the Mark(Hemphill) gets his hands wrapped around the ball(so to speak) and leds the magazine in his own direction. One issue I really liked for the detail involved was the October 1995 issue regarding UP. When I pick up the latest issue from the news stand I look to see what is coming next month and think I will have to get that issue. One issue I was disapointed with was this years January issue, the cover story turned out to be nothing more than a pictorial. I can understand that not every issue can contain stories that are highly detailed but I felt a liitle bit more on the history could have been included. On the Amtrak issue(pun unintended), it is a big issue now with a new president and Amtrak asking Congress for more money, wait a few months and it will go away(the news not Amtrak)

[Anonymous]

I agree with you, too much Amtrak. The article on how to save it was long on wishful thinking and short on analysis. I hope Amtrak dies, but I expect congress will continue to fund it

Mac

[Anonymous]

I would guess since Amtrak is the 'national' passenger rail service, then the magazine HAS to report it. After all, it is one way of finding out how the taxpayers money is being spent. My own view is that $500 million is NOT a lot of money to run a continetal rail network. Here in the UK, the government has to 'bail out' private train operators even more than the old British Rail.

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Dru,
You have made a good point. I agree that in recent months, Trains has had too many articles about Amtrak. In my recent railfan trackside visits, I have only seen one Amtrak train out of 200+ trains. That Amtrak was 6 hours late. I am interested in freight railroads and how they operate. The articles on UP Super RR and BNSF articles on their operations were great. The items about UPS at Willow Springs IL BNSF intermodal ramp on the Trains web site were super. Trains should run some articles on the automotive parts and vehicle business the rails carry. That is a major part of the nations rail freight.
Most railfans do not have contact with many Amtrak trains. Freight railroads are where the action is.
Amtrak should operate in the Northeast Corridor, the Auto Train and in California and the rest should be eliminated.
Let's put the freight back in railroading.

[favuprailroadfan]

Thank you, I am glad that I am not the only person who sees railroading the way that I do. I can see the one guys point about how it is a way of seeing how our tax money is being spent. But it does no good when they continuasly ask for more. They just keep digging their hands into the confer as wanting more. I only live 30 miles from the route of the Southwest Chief. I would go down and see this, but it always runs at night both ways. They need to talk about more of the hidden lines that don't get much talk. I am a big UP fan, but I would like to see a article on the BNSF's High Line through Montana and the Dakota's. They need to revisit the DM&IR in Minnesota. Soldier Summit is another one. But they also need to update us on the Sunset Route. Some of the traffic that runs through there, runs there my town. I need to know how the trackwork to help the capacity increase is doing. Granted back in the Nov. issue, they did a great story on the Golden State Route. But that is one of the last great stories I've read. However, in this month's issue. One Word. FANTASTIC. Especially about the yards. But one other thing though. Too much Amtrak.

Keep the replies coming,

Dru

[Anonymous]

Dru, I agree 100%. Way too much Amtrak.

[favuprailroadfan]

Thank you Dan


Dru

[Anonymous]

You guys seem to be mixing two different arguments here. TRAINS editorial policy regarding Amtrak vs. a political argument about Amtrak's future.
Well I do agree with some of the statements about TRAINS having fewer in depth articles of late,I also understand that the magazine has always tried to balance being a railroad news magazine and a rail enthusiast magazine. This is a fine balancing act.The magazine has provided in depth coverage of Amtrak since before 1971. As someone interested in many aspects of railroading I think TRAINS does a pretty good job,I can't name a better general railroad related publication. I also read DIESEL ERA,EXTRA 2200 SOUTH and RAILPACE regularly,these are great publications,but specialized and so more narrow in scope.

[Anonymous]

Wish Kalmbach published a magazine that strictly focused on today's railroading,without all the ideology and the "that's the way we used to do it"stories and comments.I love trains...not commentary and opinion.

[Anonymous]

I'll be the odd person but, perhaps because I'm in New York City and used to commute by train, the passenger coverage is important to me. I take Amtrak cross country once or twice a year and endured the decline of the Penn Central passenger service (which Amtrak is starting to remind me of).
John Kelley

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Some railroad passenger service is necessary, but it was a pipe dream to even think Amtrak could be self sufficient by December 2, 2002. I agree, in some cases Amtrak has wasted the taxpayer's money. Some examples are the Acela branding and the Janesville, WI passenger service. The reason Trains carries so much about Amtrak recently is because it is news, however I do not think their reporting is objective because the columnist who writes about Amtrak thinks it can do no wrong. However we have to balance that against the fact that Trains is between a rock and a hard place, it cannot publish material that is too critical of Amtrak or any other railroad for tht matter.

[BRAKIE]

Dru,I agree with you.There is way to much Amtrak.
To the others,I agree,trains is broke and needs fixed.I have noticed that the articles has gone down hill,to much finding fault or put downs in the articles.They will do a real good job and ruin it by adding the put downs or some wise *** remark that is not called for.I know and understand that Trains has always been anti management and anti union I can live with that.I can not help to think here lately perhaps anti railroad by some of the remarks made and wonder if they are not pro truck...This has gotten wrost over the years. I only buy Trains on a Good Issue bases.I may stop that.I really do not care for the woes of the railroads,I have enough to worry about besides how long it takes a boxcar to get from point A to point B.Trucks have the same problems as railroads do,but you never hear about it.I only wi***rains would go back to its old ways,good stories,less comments.Trains needs to do a turn around.I am not the only one that feels this way.BTW I am a long time reader of Trains untill late.
BTW what happen to Ed King's boomer column Mark?
This is my veiws and concerns as well as some others I have talked to.I really hate to see Trains going down hill like it is heading.I use to look forward to each issue,now as I stated it is bought only on a "Good Issue Bases". I am not alone in doing this.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I agree federally funded passenger rail service should be limited to the Northeast Corridor and to interstate or bi-state operations such as those in California or in the Cascadia Corridor. The Auto Train might be spun off, but the rest of the long distance train service should be abolished. Will this happen? I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Ever stopped to think that with a half dozen big railroads left in the country there is just not as much to write about that is interesting? To leave Amtrak out, the one area of railroading that is creating news, would be irresponsible. There are a lot of people out there who would complain more loudly if Amtrak was left out of the magazine. I think Trains has done remarkably well in not repeating itself, considering that the subject matter for the magazine has dwindled since the mega-merger movement. The sad truth is the railroads have stumbled badly the past ten years, during a period in which they might have made huge market gains. This hurts, but to not report it and the fight for traffic with trucks would be plain bad journalism.

[Anonymous]

Dru,

While I respect your opinion, and possibly even see where you're coming from, you have to understand that to some of us, reading about railroads in Nebraska is just as boring as for you reading about Amtrak. Personally, for me, articles such as those on Washington's Union Station and the traffic issues at Big Apple's Penn Station, ARE about railroading at its very essence. Let's face it unless you work on a railroad or constantly hang around a primarily-freight mainline or a freight yard (not easy if you live in Philadelphia or New York), passenger trains, where they are available, is the way that you interact with railroads.
It has been said many times over that the fact that passenger trains in the U.S. are now concentrated in a few major areas (you can count on your hands the amount of long-distance routes) is precisely why the public's knowledge of railroads (unless they live along thr NEC) is embarassingly low.

Regarding your comments about Amtrak being a "waste of tax money", passenger trains are transportation - a form of service to the general public. The main objectives of transportation are speed, reliability, safety, and comfortability, with profitability a DISTANT second. In private hands, profitability, rightfully, moves to the front, thus conflicitng with the true objectives.

[Anonymous]

Jim,

I am in complete disagreement with you. There are a lot of people who, when the word "train" is mentioned, think of a passenger train, not a freight train. So, your phrase "let's put freight back into railroading" is a very ignorant statement.........

[Anonymous]

The point of all this is, that some of us feel less Amtrak reporting should be in Trains. Some articles on Amtrak are ok but not too much. If you do not live in the Northeast or California then you have little contact with Amtrak and usually not much interest.

[Anonymous]

Rudy,

I do not agree that Federally funded passenger rail should be limited to any geographic area. On the contrary, Federally funded 'anything' should require equal access to all geographic regions.

I think the cost of providing passenger rail service to everyone is too high. Therefore, the geographic regions served by Amtrak should bear the cost.

I am not against trains as I have often been accused. I am just opposed to paying for trains that don't provide a service to me. - Ed

[favuprailroadfan]

I respect your opinion on this, but I am not from the Northeast. I am from the Midwest, where I'm sure the government doesn't give a flip about Amtrak out here. Granted, it is a form of transportation, but since I live on one of UP's major lines, I believe on a freight line, I don't care for Amtrak. If you have ever been in Nebraska, along the Overland Route, you will see that they run almost as many freights on this line as Amtrak runs on the NEC. UP is making money, Amtrak isn't. Can Amtrak say that they are making roughly 3 billion dollers a year? If they are, why are they asking the government for 1.2 billion more? If anybody can explain that, I would like to see an answer? I read recently that it takes 700 million dollers just to keep the NEC in shape a year. UP spent 125 million on building all new triple track and basically rebuilding the other two tracks. I don't think it takes 700 million a year to maintain that. UP is the (in my opinion, and I know there are others that will disagree with me on this), the greatest railroad in the world. If Trains mag. is so into Amtrak, why don't they do a story on the NEC as in depth as they did about the UP's Overland Route? They were allowed full access to this area, I don't think that Amtrak will do such a thing. Why did UP do it, because they care and they wanted to show what they were made of. Granted UP slipped big time when they took over SP, but guess what they are back and bigger than ever. They don't go a beg the government for more and more and more money which they will NEVER EVER see any of it again. Amtrak will NEVER become self sufficiant. If anybody has ever thought that they will. Sorry they won't. Well keep the good replies coming.

Thanks, Dru

[favuprailroadfan]

That is exactly right Jim. That is basically how it is. In California, they are doing great. I just can't see why, the rest of Amtrak can't do the same?

Laters, Dru

[Anonymous]

Dru,
There are plenty of people out there who couldnt give a hoot about Nebraska and the UP. They are interested in the whole picture. Do you think that if Amtrak was eliminated that it wouldnt effect the rest of the industry? Most Americans still have the image of a dying industry in their minds from the 60s and 70s and really have no knowledge of railroading other than Amtrak. If Amtrak was allowed to compete on a level field with the Airlines and highways for support you would see a real change in attitudes towards it from the general public, and perhaps a realization that the rail industry is still vitally needed in this country. As fans, we sometimes forget that in many minds the railroads are as outdated in transportation needs as the Pony Express, a revitalized Amtrak could be the catalyst to change this perception.

[Anonymous]

Jonathan and Yevgeny, thanks for your thoughts, I live in the Southeast and I agree with your thinking. Even though Amtrak might do things better it's still the passenger service we have to live with today, I feel we need to encourage them. As for freight, whoever said TRAINS reports on what there is today has the right idea. When you merge 15-20 plus mainline into what we have today what do you expect as far as news to report.

[favuprailroadfan]

Yes, I will agree with you on some of this things that you have said. I don't care for Amtrak because I live in an area where Amtrak isn't near. Nearest Amtrak route is 40 miles away. Only thing I will say, keep Amtrak where they need it and get rid of the rest. People that live on the east or west coast, probably need Amtrak. I know that Amtrak is very big on the east coast. Alot more people there than there is here. Ok one more thing, have you ever sat back and thought where some of your products comes from. UP and BNSF, everything that comes from the west travels on these two railroads. Only thing that UP is trying to do is get that stuff to you more quicker, but I know it's a slow go sometimes. Think about the United Parcel Service, BNSF carries just as much stuff on they're trains than they do on aircraft. So if you think that freights trains aren't important in where they run, then you have some problems.


Laters, Dru

[Anonymous]

Dru,
If you read my post, I stated its my opinion that most people that live in this country dont know anything about railroads, their whole perception about the industry is based on what happened 40-50 yrs ago. The publics only contact with railroads is with Amtrak or waiting at a grade crossing for a train. The general perception is that the industry is dying, and is no longer a "player in the transportation network". Although we know better, most people are not railfans and consequently Amtrak is their only contact with the industry. It only makes sense that a revitalized Amtrak would do wonders for the railroads PR. If railroads were to be more visable to the public through a improved Amtrak, the public would be more aware of the contribution that they make to everyday life. This, in the long run, can only be a good thing for us as railroaders or railfans.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

The public has little interest in railroading or other modes of transportation. Unfortunately the public image of Amtrak is one of an organization that is in perpetual financial trouble. The notion that Amtrak isn't competing on a level playing field with airlines and highways is a myth according to the Amtrak Reform Council's Second Report to Congress. Airline passengers and highway users pay user fees which support the various infrastructure projects and the air traffic control system. What user fees do railroad passengers pay? None, zip, nada, zero!

[Anonymous]

Rudy,
Airline passengers pay nowhere near enough for the use of the airports. In the area I live, there is a hotel/motel tax coupled with a tax on entertainment (whatever that entails) that have helped fund the improvements at the airport in the area. This tax applies to everyone, not just airline passengers. The roads are funded largely by a taxes levied on the private auto, that unfortunately, do the the least damage to the highways. The trucking companies, which cause most of the wear on the road surface, pay a much smaller percentage of the cost of maintaining the highway system. By the way, if you think that the airline passengers support the ATC system and airports, you are mistaken. Most of the airlines could not remain in business if it wasnt for federal subsidies, the huge bailout of the airlines after 9/11 comes immeadiatly to mind, and this after several warnings of inadequate security at our airports. It took the government to bail them out again by Federalizing the security forces at the airports. How about I just push post reply once on this one. I do, however, appreaciate your opinion .

[Anonymous]

Did passenger service make money in 1905.If it did why woant it now.Freight did and does now.

[Anonymous]

In 1905, trains were the least expensive way to travel from one city to another. Trains were the quickest way to travel from one town to another. People were willing to schedule their lives around train schedules. The train companies had infrastructure to provide services to the public like resturants and hotels.

Today, trains don't travel often enough to be a convenience to most of us. Other modes of transportation are more attractive and the costs are closer to train travel. And I'm told Amtrak doesn't take the extra step to earn a customer for life. And they are not the quickest mode of travel anymore either.

In contrast, freight travel times are not as sensitive so the cost per ton mile is much more important. But the trains lack of flexibility coupled with the creation of the primary and interstate highway systems has allowed trucks to gain 'market share' vs. trains. On the other hand, new markets like intermodal freight, have given a real boost to freight railroads in the last twenty or so years. Trucks are not likely to compete with a train that can pick up a whole train of well cars in CA and take them to VA for another ship to transport to Europe.