TRAINS MAG. and Amtrak

[Anonymous]

Not trying to be the bad guy here...we each have our preferences, that's why we're all railfans. I work(lucky me!) at a "hot spot" in Kansas City, Kansas, and used to see the Amtrak KC-St. Louis train turning around every day on my lunch hour(if it was on time, of course-sorry,cheap shot). I just would rather see freight trains, that's all. I have subscribed to Trains since 1993, and have noticed a change. It would be nice for them to follow up on major features that they've done, like are all the hot spots in their big Chicago issue still hot spots after the mergers, things like that. As I said, I've seen enough of railroading in Washington state to last me a while, and yes enough feature Amtrak stories. Again, that is just my opinion. Terry

[Anonymous]

I would have to agree with you that they have maybe a little too much coverage of Amtrak, but like others have said, that is NEWS right now. I personally have very little interest in passenger rail, having grown up along an old Great Northern branchline, but I understand the importance of it. I remember feeling sadness when I saw rusting hulks of GN passenger cars spotted on out of the way sidings.
CN, which also used to run passenger rail through my hometown, discontinued its regular Winnipeg passenger train when I was a young child. Everyone was quite angry because it meant we would have to drive our private cars 2 1/2 hours to get to Winnipeg, which was the only real metro area we had easy access to in Northern MN. Before that, it was only a nominal fare and a nice relaxing train ride to the heart of Winnipeg.
I do however feel that it is vital to our national security and our freedom that we maintain a nationwide passenger rail system. In WWI and WWII, the railroads moved our armies and their weapons across the country. After September 11, it was about the only thing moving too.
EVERY industrialized nation in the world that I am aware of has a highly developed national passenger network. I would be surprised if any of them are profitable, but they do the job they were built to do. I think our national system is an embarrassment beside those of Europe and Japan.
I think the best argument for railroading, whether freight or passenger, is why run hundreds of vehicles burning gas/fuel from point a to point b to transport x number of people or y tons of freight, when one train can do the same thing?
I am generally a conservative on most issues, but I feel that our government has to provide this service and we should be willing to pay for it.
I saw an editorial cartoon a while back in which a person sitting on a station platform looked down the tracks and saw an airplane rolling down the tracks toward him. He said "I guess Amtrak finally figured out how to get federal funding". Think about it...
Why does our government spend billions bailing out the airlines which many people never use in their life, and let passenger rail twist in the wind?
This is just my opinion...

[Anonymous]

I took Amtrak 2 months ago into Chicago. I ended up about 3-4 hours late, but that wasn't too bad considering that the train was coming from Cali and was on its third day. As soon as I get the opportunity, I'll ride it again.

[Anonymous]

Ed, I agree and disagree with you. I think that a national rail system is key to the country. If another emergency happens and the planes are grounded for a few days, the only way to get anywhere would be by train or car.

If running long-distance isn't feasible anymore, then maybe the routes can be broken into segments. For instance, the California Zephyr could break down into the following parts:

Chicago-Omaha
Omaha-Denver
Denver-Emeryville

Each segment would have trains going between the points each day.

I would also like to see some form of regional commuter rail run from Omaha, through either Des Moines or Ames, to the Quad Cities, and on into Chicago. Maybe it could even be high-speed (I know, wishful thinking).

[Anonymous]

I think your idea on foreign features is a good one, Trains should not limit their coverage to a narrow scope, there are already many magazines out there that do that and do a good job with it. Trains is a national magazine and to limit coverage to one segment of the industry would not really be covering the whole scene. I think Trains has reached a nice balence of the old and the new, and all and all is doing a good job covering US railroading.

[Anonymous]

Terry, it sounds like you think that an Amtrak train is not modern railroading.
Anyway, in my opinion, there should be a balanced coverage if the rail industry in TRAINS. Maybe half passenger and half freight, or 60/40 to reflect the dominance of freight in this country. But certainly the ratio should not be 95/5, as you guys seem to be suggesting.

TRAINS should also do more foreign features. The recent thing on Spain's AVE line was a pleasant suprize.

[Anonymous]

Dru-I live in Overland Park and while in Olathe checking out the BNSF, I guess I just got lucky catching the UP stacks. I'm at work and trying to picture a map of Kansas in my head-do the UP stacks head west from Emporia through Newton to Hutchinson? Or am I way off-I have a Kansas rail map on my wall at home, I'll check it out later. One more thing about Trains(okay, two)-have we seen enough of Washington state? And do you think that the "map of the month" for the most part is a bit overrated? The latest coal flow map didn't really do anything for me. Well, thanks for the info.....Terry

[favuprailroadfan]

Dear Terry, Thank you for agreeing with me on all these issues at hand. Yes it has been that long ago since that wonderful UP issue back in Nov. 95. I will also agree with you on the Chicago issue. Yes, the reason you have seen a decrease in traffic is because the UP is running a double tie gang on its Marysville Sub west of KC. They should be completed here soon. But I have an engineer freind of mine that lives in Herington and he runs to KC and he said that traffic is actually up a bit. I live along this same route, and I have noticed an increase also. He said that one day they ran three sections of the ITICH. Where do you live at around KC? These detours only consists of just a couple of stacks and a couple of racks. But once these gangs are completed, it SHOULD returmn back to normal. These trains just run to Hutchinson on trackage rights, but I'm sure you already knew that. So if there is anything else you want to know, just let me know and I'll try to the best of my ability to answer them.

Later, Dru

[Anonymous]

Dru & Co., I'm in total agreement about too much Amtrak coverage in Trains magazine and how the magazine itself has slipped a bit. Living here in the Kansas City area, I'm a bit biased toward any article about railroading here(the update on Argentine Yard was great, if not too short!), but I thought the Nebraska UP issue was one of the best(was that really that long ago?) as well as the Chicago issue with all the hot spots. They definitely need to do more issues like that. I'm sure that there is room from time to time for Amtrak, rail travel, steam locomotives(sorry, I live in the present), etc., but I am far more interested in modern railroading, especially the employment opportunities. One more thing for Dru- have you noticed a decrease in Golden State Route traffic lately? I've seen quite a few UP stack trains headed out of KC on BNSF's Emporia sub. Detours for trackwork? Just wondering. Terry

[Anonymous]

How many of you have used Amtrak? (I don't live in the US, so can't)

Jason.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the I40 bridge being out will help railroads for a little while.About time a highway bridge gets hit than seems always a rail bridge.

[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.

[Anonymous]

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

[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 .

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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