Let's get this straight!!!

[gfjwilmde]

This thread is once again about Amtrak. I've been reading some of your threads in others' forums and also the responses to my comments. Even for some of you who are against funding Amtrak, I can agree with you on parts of your opinions, but, I strongly disagree with some of you on others. Keep in mind however, some of these other countries that are ardent capitalistic societies also support their all, if not most of their countries' rail network. That's passenger, commuter and freight operations. Some of these same countries view the need for a strong rail network as we view the need for a police force and a fire department in some of our major cities. Other city sevices in some cities, counties and towns are optional, but not police and fire. We pay alot of taxes to have these services and now in this era of fiscal restraining and cut backs, some of our locales are in danger of loosing even the basics of services.

I worked with a man when I worked in DC, who was from England and he worked for British Rail before the break up into private entities. He said it is the biggest mistake the British government could ever have made. Unlike our rail system here in North America(US, Canada & Mexico), where most of our rail companies own their right of ways, are responsible for maintaining their own right of ways, equipment and structures, plus are responsible for dispatching their own trains or the trains of other companies(under agreements). Well, he explained to me that the entire British rail network was privatized. There were separate companies for track & signal maintenance, equipment maintenance, building maintenance and dispatching services. He said, none of these companies coordinated with each other, is why there were an increase incidences of derailments, collisions and equipment failures up until recently. There was even talk about going back to government control of the railroad.

Here however, we continually believe in this free-market society where you either make it or you don't. Yet, I can recall our government bailing out some of our auto makers and airline without blinking a eye, and that was 'OUR' tax money going to this. I thought the free-market was suppose to be at work here? Let's speak the truth people!

Well, what's it going to be? If you're going to drop Amtrak from the budget, then you have to drop giving money to the states for highway projects and stop bailing out the airlines and let them falter. I mean, fair is fair. You can throw up all kinds of numbers for or against, but remember this...WE ARE SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH WEEK ON FIGHTING TWO WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST!! That's BILLIONS A WEEK, while the GAO says Amtrak lost that in the thrity years it's been in existance. I'm not saying it's alright to continually loose money with no accountablity for it. Yet our government loose that much and more in a day, a week, a month or a year and no one questions it. IS THERE SOMETHING WORNG WITH THIS PICTURE OR IS IT JUST ME??!!



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!

[Anonymous]

The way I look at is,Amtrak doesn't stand a chance in hell because of America's love for the Automoble,Sorry.

[Anonymous]

No, I agree with what you are saying. Why do we continue to support everyone else in other parts of the world, but do not think about the things in our own country that continue to fall apart or break down. Maybe we should try to start a petition for this issue and start to submit it to Congress to see what they come up with!
Another thing about it all, is the continuing costs. These might not be where they are if some of the so called big shots, would stop lining their pockets with huge pay raises, and put some of the money they are paying themselves, back into the system to try to improve it. Come back to the real world with the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Sure, maybe today Amtrak isn't a vital part of American transportation. However the cheap gas that the American car culture revolves around isn't going to last much longer. In China and India, people are just starting to "discover" the car and be able to pay for it. Just think, 2 billion more people with cars. What's that going to do to gas prices?

Brennan

[tree68]

Amtrak will be dismantled as a waste of taxpayer money by politicians eager to show how they value the taxpayers dollar and want to provide the best possible value for it.

As soon as the American public forgets about the whole affair (about 2 nanoseconds), the need for a national system of passenger rail will be discovered and will be fully funded by politicians eager to show how they value the taxpayers dollar and want to provide the best possible value for it.

[DSchmitt]

Spending money collected from highway users on highways does not justify subsidizing Amtrak. Even if the Federal government were subsidizing highways, that would not justify subsidizing Amtrak. Subsidizing air travel doesn't justify subsidizing Amtrak. (I am not addressing whether or not any mode of transportation should be subsiddized)

Spending money to defend this country does not justify subsidizing Amtrak. (Unless Amtrak can be shown to be useful for defence)

Amtrak may be worth funding. If so, find legitimate reasons to subsidize Amtrak.
If money isn't being taken from a lot of people just to let a few (1%) play with trains, prove it.

The proposed funding was not determined by whim. People who studied the issues much more thoroughly than any of us had input on the decision. The buget the President sends to Congress is never the budget adopted. Good solid arguments are needed if you want Amtrak funding increased.

[daveklepper]

There are several arguments for subsidizing Amtrak and even increasing the subsidy to insure more comprehensive and better service:

1. Competitive transportation that supposidly pays its own way doesn't. Airlines have been bailed out many times. Both airlines and highways use lots more real estate than passenger and frieght railroading put together, even with all this big yards and terminals, and this is real estate removed from the tax roles. Highway user fees don't being to cover the added police force personel needed for trafic control and law enforcement. Both highway and air transportation do more environmental damage than railroad transportation, freight and passenger.

2. Amtrak and before that the private railroads have always come through in emergencies . America would truly have "shut down" when airlines were grounded after 11 September '01, and buses and the highways could not have begun to do the whole job . I am old enough to remember the "A-cars" gas rationing (and tire rationing)during WWII. Shutting down Amtrak is one more nail in the coffin for a realistic middle-east policy and a way of making the USA more dependent on middle-east oil. America's railroads are indeed an important part of national defense and passenger railroading must be available on a standby basis. It is a lot cheaper to have something up in running than to try to pull stuff out of mothballs and set up an operating plan and open stations and figure schedules overnight.

3. Tourism and impression foreign visitors have of the USA.

4. Essential transportation in the Northwest where towns are otherwise snowed in.

5. Elderly and infirm and people who cannot fly.

6. The Northeast where passenger railroad is now an essential part of daily life and essential to the economy.

Now, I don't recommend curtailing any other form of transportation to save Amtrak. I think they are all needed.

Possibly we should take a close look at intercity travel in Mexico. I understand that is the one "developed?" country that has truly shut down its intercitiy passenger rail system. All that is left are some commuter operations and tourist trains aimed for the USA market. Am I correct? One big difference of course, is that Mexico has a small middle class, either you are very wealthy and fly and have your own private plane or you are poor and use the buses, and the bus network I understand is far more extenxive than in the USA, but not up Greyhound standards of comfort and cleanliness and on-time performance. Still, it might be instructive to compare the situation.

Canada, other other hand, is far more like the USA when it comes to the society in general. The arguments against passenger rail, low population density and long distances, are even more true in Canada. But we all agree VIA is doing a good job compared to Amtrak, has better funding, and is better supported by the politicians.

Poles show a majority of Americans suppport passenger rail. I think the President should take note of that fact. If there were better alternatives available that could replace Amtrak, some of the arguments would apply. But until there is, with David Gunn running the outfit, it should have our support.

[DSchmitt]

From the Lionel Board (of all places) on AOL

"On February 7, the Amtrak Reform Council, established by Congress to determine if Amtrak could support itself, presented to Congress and the White House, its proposal to reorganized the system.

ARC recommended Amtrak be replaced with a series of independent corridor-based entities. The first of those, and one that is already well on the way to spinning off Amtrak is the Washington-Oregon Cascade system.

California has similar plans for its three routes - Pacific Surfliner, Capital and San Joaquin Daylight service. California already funds 30% of all Amtrak operations nationwide, with revenue earned from state sponsored routes. California purchased new locomotives and Alstom built bi-level cars and continues to upgrade the system within its borders, purchasing right of way from BNSF and UP and leasing back trackage rights to the freight carriers. If money from Amtrak California were only vouchered to California trains, the Golden State rail system would enjoy an operating ratio below 1.0.

The hard cold fact of the matter - Only twelve states currently support Amtrak with state subsidies for trains operated within their region: Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. Those twelve states stand to gain from the ARC's breakup plan. The other 38 states will be sucking eggs unless their citizens demand that their state government climb aboard the passenger railroad train. Won't do any good to write to the White House or Congress. Writing to your governor and state assembly is a more effective plan.

Its all over for the Northeast Corridor except for the crying. Nobody wants the NEC, because it is a mess. The boondoggle of Acela drained all the money that should have been used to upgrade the infrastructure and purchase conventional rail equipment. The states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland could have helped, but they didn't. What's next for the NEC? I don't know.

Long distance trains will be put up for bid. Freight railroads and other entities can bid on the trains, either piecemeal, or all together. Its doubtful most of the long distance trains will survive.

XOXOXO

Tina Hot Mail"

[daveklepper]

And then if there is a national emergency?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

And then if there is a national emergency?

What service will Amtrak provide that any other RR could not provide?

[Anonymous]

How about convenience? I can get in my car, go 10 blocks to I-10 and go anywhere I want to go in North America. I can't do that with Amtrak, even though their trains go through here twice a day. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to take the train, but it doesn't go where I want to go. I'd like to take the train to see my brother in Wichita this summer, but it would be a major pain to pull it off. I'd just as soon drive.



m

[Junctionfan]

A better Amtrak is the best way to conserve fuel for war. If everybody is using gas then the military can't use it for their equipment.

As far as 2 wars go, try 3 now. It would appear that in addition to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there maybe a war with Iran and Syria is allied with them. Having said that, conservation of fuel is the best way to prepare for such an unfortunate turn of events. U.S may have money for the gas but if they can't get the supplies, then what. Answer is fuel rations. Now to avoid totally screwing up the way the country does business is to start having better funded and serviced mass transit systems including Amtrak. Let's face it, the U.S government can obtain concrete for ties, steel for rails etc far easier then oil from other countries. Acela units come from Montreal and so does most of the stuff that Bombardier sells. Other locomotives come from GE in Erie PA so really, it is alot easier for the "War on Terrorism" to have better mass transit systems and conserve/reduce on hard-to-obtain fuel from those same countries you are essentially trying to stop. Militarily speaking, it is hard to achieve victory if you are continuing to give funds to the enemy to build up on troops and buy black market arms.

[Anonymous]

gfjwilmde:

If passenger rail is such a desireable mode of travel, why is it then that it cannot sustain itself??

Why should I, living over 100 miles from the nearest staffed Amtrak station where I one can even hope to buy an over the counter ticket, be forced to subsidize (through taxes) a passenger system that doesn't serve my needs?

Why should the policy of a foreign nation who's physical size is suffuciently small that any rail journey can be completed within one day, have any bearing on what this country "should" do?

I'd "like" to keep passenger rail afloat,...but not if it's gonna mean an increase in taxes, my plate is already full, in that regard.....

Admittedly, I am somewhat jaundiced, because when Amtrak dropped the Broadway limited, they stopped serving my community. You can call me selfish, but from that point in time on, the concept of Amtrak funding became one of "my having to pay, so that someone else may ride",...and that doesn't make me very happy.

A common argument to my posture seems to be that since I'm subsidizing the Air travel industry, and the highway system, why should I care if I support rail as well?

Well, the answer to that one is really quite simple,...the town where I live has Highways, and has an airport....so I might actually use those services, and derive some benefit... not so with Amtrak...

Next question?

[bbrant]

Glenn -

Let me start by saying that the cuts come for Amtrak's operating expenses, not for things such as right of way maintenance, etc. and this is NOT about how much funding goes to the war on terror. Please don't confuse the issue.

No matter how you look at it, Amtrak needs to become more efficient. If cuts in funding are what it takes, then so be it. Like I mentioned in another post, if you don't take the training wheels off the bike, the kid will never learn to ride on their own. Same can be said here.

Honestly, how long could you put money into something that's not giving a suitable return on investment before saying enough is enough? Think of it this way, if you're invested X amount into a company time and time again without a satisfactory return, would you still continue to invest money in that company?

It's business and business isn't always the way we would like it to be.

Brian

[Anonymous]

Glenn,

The British rail privatization has in time been shown to have been a smart move. The initial high rate of accidents immediately after privatization has been shown to have occurred due to the accelerated deteriorated state of the system prior to privatization. This infrastructure deterioration was underplayed by the British Rail officials, and it was only after some study recently that it was discovered how much worse shape the system was in under government ownership. Ostensibly, with this new discovery, the necessary changes will be made to make that system fluid.

Some have suggested that Amtrak officials who oversee the NEC are also underreporting the level of deterioration, should the NEC be either privatized or transfered to a regional authority. Either way, the NEC should be taken off the national tax payers list of responsibilities.

[Anonymous]

This is addressed to those of you that consider Amtrak a failed business or a theft of the taxpayer's money. The problem you face is that a majority of the voters in this country consider Amtrak to be a public service. They don't care that Amtrak doesn't cover its costs. They've had 34 years experience with that fact, and if it hasn't fazed them yet, when, seriously, do you expect that it will?

I'm not seeing a plan from those of you who want to get rid of Amtrak. You've got to have a plan. Doubling and redoubling the vehemence of your arguments is not a plan.

OS

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S.



I'm not seeing a plan from those of you who want to get rid of Amtrak. You've got to have a plan.

H'mmmmmm,...And I guess that such a plan would have to be at least as honest as the plan orchestrated by the Govt in keeping passenger rail alive these past 30+ years?

[Anonymous]

Wuuuuhhh? Orchestrated by who? This isn't a dictatorship. The people voted for George Bush, AND they voted for a lot of congressmen and senators who consistently vote for Amtrak. They get all the government they vote for.

My advice? Quit worrying about their plan. Worry about selling your own plan.

OS

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S.

This is addressed to those of you that consider Amtrak a failed business or a theft of the taxpayer's money. The problem you face is that a majority of the voters in this country consider Amtrak to be a public service. They don't care that Amtrak doesn't cover its costs. They've had 34 years experience with that fact, and if it hasn't fazed them yet, when, seriously, do you expect that it will?

I'm not seeing a plan from those of you who want to get rid of Amtrak. You've got to have a plan. Doubling and redoubling the vehemence of your arguments is not a plan.

OS

The majority of the voters don't know anything about Amtrak and don't care. When planning a trip they don't even consider the train. Although it does go to makor population centers, in most of the country there isn't any Amtrak service within 100 miles.

Large areas of this country never have had passenger train service. It wasn't economical to serve many areas by train even when the alternative mode was the stage coach.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S.

Wuuuuhhh? Orchestrated by who? This isn't a dictatorship. The people voted for George Bush, AND they voted for a lot of congressmen and senators who consistently vote for Amtrak. They get all the government they vote for.

My advice? Quit worrying about their plan. Worry about selling your own plan.

OS

Much as I'm sure I'd like to,...*this* was not a step towards bashing Bush, at least on my part...

I'm talking about the ruse of the expectation of Amtrak ever being self sufficient in the firstplace.

After reading Don Phillips column in the mag these last few years, the conclusion I've drawn is that the initially proposed time line (for self sufficiency) was little more than a stall tactic, out of concern over the public outcry that would have resulted, had passenger rail been abruptly terminated back in the late 60's. Evidently the thinking was that a couple decades worth of "stall" would deaden the sting to the passenger rail faithful and die hard nostalgists, like some carnival nut shell game where the last shell is held down long enough in hopes that everyone would just leave rather that wait for the outcome...

There never was a realistic hope for profitability, just as the crooked shell game artist has no pea under any of the shells.

So, if a plan of equivalent legitimacy is all that you ask, how about this one: raise each fare sufficient to cover the cost of each passenger trip, and let market influances determine Amtraks fate. Then auction off the rubble left over after one year.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

A better Amtrak is the best way to conserve fuel for war. If everybody is using gas then the military can't use it for their equipment.

As far as 2 wars go, try 3 now. It would appear that in addition to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there maybe a war with Iran and Syria is allied with them. Having said that, conservation of fuel is the best way to prepare for such an unfortunate turn of events. U.S may have money for the gas but if they can't get the supplies, then what. Answer is fuel rations. Now to avoid totally screwing up the way the country does business is to start having better funded and serviced mass transit systems including Amtrak. Let's face it, the U.S government can obtain concrete for ties, steel for rails etc far easier then oil from other countries. Acela units come from Montreal and so does most of the stuff that Bombardier sells. Other locomotives come from GE in Erie PA so really, it is alot easier for the "War on Terrorism" to have better mass transit systems and conserve/reduce on hard-to-obtain fuel from those same countries you are essentially trying to stop. Militarily speaking, it is hard to achieve victory if you are continuing to give funds to the enemy to build up on troops and buy black market arms.

Uhh..Okaayyy

[tree68]

So how come I'm paying for all those air traffic control people (and the equipment they operate) when I rarely fly? I'm certainly not benefitting from their existance on a regular basis, yet I pay their salaries via my federal taxes every day. Extend that to someone who doesn't (and/or won't) fly at all... Shouldn't the users pay?

[dharmon]

I like trains. I like passenger trains.

However, airports and highways serve more people on a daily basis than passenger rail in the US and play a greater role in our economy than Amtrak does, and thus should get a greater share of subsidies than Amtrak. Business travellers by and large do not travel by rail across the country. Families who want to spend five days of a week's vacation at the vacation site do not take the train to get there, they fly. Long distance rail travel is akin to cruise ships...it is part of the vacation, not just the means to get get there. I don't need my tax dollars subsidizing vacations unless it's mine. And I'm sorry but Amtrak does not serve a vital national defense role, the days of troop filled heavyweight passenger cars carrying the boys off to war are gone......there is more than enough excess passenger airlift capacity available. Areas that are ripe for passenger service generally seem to make it happen...California, MARC, NJ Transit......but it's short haul that makes the money. I like Amtrak. I wish it was successful and flourishing, but regardless of the historical reasons why it isn't ... it isn't. And it will take a whole lot more money to make it shine. All Amtrak has been doing is keeping a patient on life support. It's time to take it off. Either it lives or it doesn't.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

A better Amtrak is the best way to conserve fuel for war. If everybody is using gas then the military can't use it for their equipment.

As far as 2 wars go, try 3 now. It would appear that in addition to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there maybe a war with Iran and Syria is allied with them. Having said that, conservation of fuel is the best way to prepare for such an unfortunate turn of events. U.S may have money for the gas but if they can't get the supplies, then what. Answer is fuel rations. Now to avoid totally screwing up the way the country does business is to start having better funded and serviced mass transit systems including Amtrak. Let's face it, the U.S government can obtain concrete for ties, steel for rails etc far easier then oil from other countries. Acela units come from Montreal and so does most of the stuff that Bombardier sells. Other locomotives come from GE in Erie PA so really, it is alot easier for the "War on Terrorism" to have better mass transit systems and conserve/reduce on hard-to-obtain fuel from those same countries you are essentially trying to stop. Militarily speaking, it is hard to achieve victory if you are continuing to give funds to the enemy to build up on troops and buy black market arms.

Uhh..Okaayyy

What?.....You disagree?

Why if so?

[dharmon]

Developing passenger rail corridors for commuter and short haul intercity is a good idea. If done in a manner which is inexpensive, efficient and most of all convenient to the rider is good. Relieves traffic both on the ground and in the air. Long haul passenger travel is the vacation. As for rationing and trying to cut off demand. We are not fighting an all out national economy war of the likes of WWII. These dark fantasies of yours of global war and the end of days are just that. As I recall we don't get a whole lot of oil from Iran or Afghanistan. I'll give you credit for strategic schoolhouse thinking, but so far the tanks and planes haven't ground to a stop because of a diminished national oil reserve.

So do Canadians, with a vastly superior passenger rail system, ride the train from Montreal to Calgary or fly? Taking the family for a week's vacation to see dear Aunt Millie, do they fly or ride? Does Mr. Jones going there for a 1 day meeting fly or ride?

[jeffhergert]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

From the Lionel Board (of all places) on AOL

"On February 7, the Amtrak Reform Council, established by Congress to determine if Amtrak could support itself, presented to Congress and the White House, its proposal to reorganized the system.

ARC recommended Amtrak be replaced with a series of independent corridor-based entities. The first of those, and one that is already well on the way to spinning off Amtrak is the Washington-Oregon Cascade system.

California has similar plans for its three routes - Pacific Surfliner, Capital and San Joaquin Daylight service. California already funds 30% of all Amtrak operations nationwide, with revenue earned from state sponsored routes. California purchased new locomotives and Alstom built bi-level cars and continues to upgrade the system within its borders, purchasing right of way from BNSF and UP and leasing back trackage rights to the freight carriers. If money from Amtrak California were only vouchered to California trains, the Golden State rail system would enjoy an operating ratio below 1.0.

The hard cold fact of the matter - Only twelve states currently support Amtrak with state subsidies for trains operated within their region: Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. Those twelve states stand to gain from the ARC's breakup plan. The other 38 states will be sucking eggs unless their citizens demand that their state government climb aboard the passenger railroad train. Won't do any good to write to the White House or Congress. Writing to your governor and state assembly is a more effective plan.

Its all over for the Northeast Corridor except for the crying. Nobody wants the NEC, because it is a mess. The boondoggle of Acela drained all the money that should have been used to upgrade the infrastructure and purchase conventional rail equipment. The states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland could have helped, but they didn't. What's next for the NEC? I don't know.

Long distance trains will be put up for bid. Freight railroads and other entities can bid on the trains, either piecemeal, or all together. Its doubtful most of the long distance trains will survive.

XOXOXO

Tina Hot Mail"

Iowa provides a subsidy to Amtrack[%-)] News to me here in Iowa.
Seems whenever a new service is proposed that would go thru Iowa, the State's position is, "fine with us as long as you don't expect us to pony up any cash."
Jeff

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon
Business travellers by and large do not travel by rail across the country.

This is true, though not for want of trying.
As for return on investment...whose investment? Rail service is a 'consumable item'; what would be left over in the way of dividends? I ride the train because I think I get good value for the money. Suppose I ride the Coast Starlight to Oxnard. While in Oxnard, I buy lunch, plus a couple newspapers, plus some drinks or film at a local drugstore. Every little bit helps the local economy, no?
Later in the day I return south on a Surfliner. I would not have made this trip if the train was not there.
I suppose some taxpayers would argue that the train took me away from where I normally would have been that afternoon, and just diverted my where I normally spent money (though I picked up film just to get pictures of the trains).

The southern section of the "UP Coast Line" was out of commission, Amtrak-wise, for a few weeks. For those Santa Barbara businesses (hotels, restaurants, stores) that depend on rail travelers, sales were off 20% or more in some areas while rail travel was out.

I realize that none of this makes much of a difference to most folks. But I do think there are other areas where rail travel positively impacts local businesses...

[bbrant]

QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S.

This is addressed to those of you that consider Amtrak a failed business or a theft of the taxpayer's money. The problem you face is that a majority of the voters in this country consider Amtrak to be a public service. They don't care that Amtrak doesn't cover its costs. They've had 34 years experience with that fact, and if it hasn't fazed them yet, when, seriously, do you expect that it will?

I'm not seeing a plan from those of you who want to get rid of Amtrak. You've got to have a plan. Doubling and redoubling the vehemence of your arguments is not a plan.

OS

Here's a plan - end the corporate welfare and let Amtrak make it or break it like any other private business. Isn't that why we're posting in this topic to begin with?

[csxengineer98]

as far as troop trains..like someone already said...them days are gone...the last time mass troop movements have been done by rail was WW2....when air trainsportation as we know it now was still 20 years away....the jet age changed all that.....since the 50s with the build up of the cold war...the millitary and goverment contractors have build bigger and bigger transport aircraft that are more then enough to be able to handle larg troop movements... and they would be able to move them faster then by a train....any of you ever see the C5 galaxy.... just to name one of a fleet of larg military transport aircraft in the inventory... also..as stated above..should that still not be enough to handel the millitarys needs... im sure that they would lease civilan jumbo jet aircraft to fill what ever need they have...or should it be a realy bad emergancy just invoke a commondearing of the aircraft to meet the needs for what ever time is required....now if you want to talk about muitions movements... such as tanks and other suport type equipment... depending on to where they are needed..and exactly how soon... movement by a larg convoy of millitary highway trucks would still be faster then the train....you have to take into consideration the time to load and unload such equipment....should you have to move it in bulk fast..... the time consumed by first trucking it to a rail loading location... the time consumed by unloading it from the truck...then reloading it to the railcars....building the train...getting the train off and running to point B...then have time consumed agin to unload it... and then load it back to a truck..then take the truck to where ever it is needed...(this would be a case of a in the US boarders millitary emergancy).....and just think of the time used if it has to be loaded onto a transport aircraft and then flown to the thearter of battle...when..with the truck convoy..you save about 5 extra steps and wasted time by just trucking them to the airport or to the area that they are needed in the continental US....the only time you see millitary equimpment moved by rail is when it is a non time sensitive movement..such as equipment that is returning from someplace for overhall or major repairs....larg movements of equimpent moves between millitary insulations where time is not a major issue...
csx engineer

[Anonymous]

Mr. Brant: That's exactly the plan advanced by David Stockman. Didn't work. I'll try one more time to see if this thread is anything more than a rant.

How do you propose to convince the U.S. public to drop their support for Amtrak? And why do you think your proposal will be successful this time?

OS