Amtrak funding

[Anonymous]

Elvis,

You 'da man!

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Don:
I think you are on the right track regarding the long distance trains and high speed rail being a competitor to air travel. Your city pairs or corridors make sense as far as ridership goes. However, new trackage for high speed trains will be needed, as well as TGV type trains which can cruise at 180 - 190 mph, or which can average 150 mph. One of the problems I see with a Los Angeles-San Francisco high speed rail service (assuming a route down the Central Valley is used - it's shorter)is how to get the trains over the mountain ranges separating the San Fernando and the Central Valleys. You would certainly need electrified trains such as the TGV's for Los Angeles - San Francisco service because of the long distance and the high speed that would be needed to make the portal - portal travel time competitive with air.

[Anonymous]

And I wanted to add to the previous post that the Talgos and the trainsets the Cascades are using would make great examples for other states to emulate for their locals. However, I want Amtrak to use TGV Thalys electrified trainsets. Let Amtrak run the electrics, let the locals run the Talgos...

Another scenario. Someone in Memphis drives a couple of hours to Birmingham Alabama, catches the Thalys to Atlanta, waits an hour, and catches another Thalys to Washington DC. He should be able to leave Memphis at 8 am, arrive in Birmingham at 10-11 am, catches the Thalys at 11 am, arrives in Atlanta at noon, and catches another Thalys at 1 pm and arrives in DC before 6 pm. Not bad for a days journey. Keep in mind he can ride the Acela and be in New York City before 10 pm......Frequency and high speed rail will sell.......if not just for curiosity......

[Anonymous]

I thought I have already said the equipment Amtrak operates other than the Acela and Cascade trains were obsolete. This might be a nautical term, but pay them off. TGV Thalys is the trainset to buy. They average over 160 mph. By golly, no need for an expensive long drugged out study. And, by the way, they are single deckers. Who is using old track. I want brand new high speed rail tracks, electrified too. It is unsafe to operate a train at 150 mph on tracks run by freight railroads. Do them a favor, and their dispatchers a favor, keep the passenger trains on dedicated track. No need to stop every 400 or so miles for thirty minutes to refuel.....Stopping to refuel for such a long length of time will kill the speed average. Load passengers at stations and depots, there will be fewer, in 3 to 5 minutes. No need to stop at every hick town.

I only been as far south as Jacksonville on the Silver Meteor. I know the Sunset Limited runs into Orlando, I don't know what the height restrictions are below Orlando, but I have read the problems lie in the area from Washington DC north to New York City, probably bridges and tunnels. But new track and single level cars should not be a problem....

As I said before in other threads, $120 billion will build a 4,000 mile system, a parallegram east of the Rockies with a slash, and a line between Oakland and Los Angeles, which comes to the same figure DART is spending and what the Texas DOT Trans Texas Corrridor plans to spend on double tracked, electrified, high speed rail: about $20 million per mile. One might think this is expensive, but the Texas Turnpike Commission is spending $428 million for 5 miles of 6 lane turnpike.....Ahhhhh, the 6 lane turnpike comes to $85 and a half million per mile.....Weeeeee!

[Anonymous]

Yeah, Don. Course, GN and NP served Spokane late at night too.... poor suckers up there in the Inland Empire, no wonder they never got any more powerful than they did. I mean, second fiddle, and to Portland!!!

Only thing is, there are a lot of sleepers still on the system, AND those Superliner cars aren't perfect for what you propose- they'd work but not well. What the heck are we gonna do with them all?

There's a lot of capital cash locked up in them, but without a market to sell them to they're useless to tap for new equipment capital. It's not like a car you can take to the dealer and trade in.

Course, there is the option of rehauling them. CalTrans uses similar cars for it's surfliners & such.... maybe the sleepers could be refitted to lounge-coaches. And the diners could convert to Bistro/Cafe cars with a smaller staff and scaled back menus. A little re-upholstery, new carpets and lights, maybe some electrical and phone jack plugs for internet access... make it really convenient.

Oh- you said deploy a train Atlanta-Miami. Are the clearances high enough for Superliners on that route?

As for poor Salt Lake... I think they're gonna get the short end of the stick on this one- they're just one the way to no where slow. MAYBE they could work into an extended Idaho system, but that's a big maybe.

[Anonymous]

I never thought of that. I have ridden the Sunset Limited and Empire Builder trains, and neither have the 37 tunnels the California Zephyr has. But I think Colorado could fund a local as well, if we funded high speed rail from Chicago to Denver. I have seen the ski train in Denver.

The biggest advantages of a high speed rail network will be frequency. Imagine what the 18 trainsets Amtrak uses on the hotel trains, Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief each have 6 trainsets, as does the longer distacne but every other day Suset Limited, could do with frequency on the other lines today.

Look at how many trainsets it would take to achieve a frequency of every two to three hours on these high speed lines I proposed. Its 900 miles from Dallas to Chicago. Today the Eagle consumes 4 trainsets, with the same 4 trainsets averaging 150 mph, we could have a frequency of every three hours in between Chicago and Dallas instead of a daily going in each direction. With 6 trainsets, an additional 2 trainsets, we could have a frequency of every two hours. The same can be said of the others. For example, with two trainsets Chicago to Minneapolis would achieve a frequency of every two hours. With four trainsets Atlanta to Miami would achieve a frequency of every two hours. With six trainsets New York City to Chicago would achieve a frequency of every two hours. Are you getting the picture?

As I said, we would not need any sleepers any more. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to choose which train to take to get to Chicago in about 5 hours time from Dallas: the 8 am, the 10 am, the 12 noon, the 2 pm, the 4 pm, and the 6 pm everyday instead of what Amtrak delivers today, a train arriving 3 hours late in Dallas in both directions........

Almost half of Amtrak's service today is in the night hours. Look at what time Amtrak arrives today in Spokane, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Charlotte, Cleveland on the Lake Shore Limited, etc., etc...

[Anonymous]

Don:

I do agree on the airport land issues. We have the same problems up here in Portland. PDX is hemmed in by industry and our only other airport is Hillsboro, too tiny to compete. There was talk of adding a new airport to the south, but the truth is, no one wants to have it near them, much less pay for it.

Hotel trains as you term them don't make sense- if they have a run longer than about 18 hours. Shorter than that, they might work, as Via has done between Toronto & Montreal/Quebec City. But if you can't make them 18 hours (or pref. 12,) and run them overnight, they can't compete.

Seattle's train (Cascades Service) isn't quite as sophisticated as TGV, or as expensive. But is does work very well. Spanish built Talgo sets, they work on existing track without major investment, which makes them attractvie for other corridors.

A Talgo set was scheduled for use in the LA-Vegas route, which is still held up pending it's EA from Ms. Whitman.

I also believe that the Chicago/Midwest corridor plans were looking at Talgos as well. They are certainly cost effective, especially as catenary does not need to be installed to support them.

As for piercing the Rockies? Well, Denver makes sense for a population based selection. But as far as easy crossings, the ATSF cuttoff through N. Texas, the UP line through Wyoming, and the GN line through Marias make the most sense, each being the best grades in their class. Indeed, the old GN route is the lowest crossing. However, each are plagued with lower populations.

I kind of expect the Raton route will be chosen, despite it's gradient, as it will be surplus from a freight point of view, and it will allow a Denver-Peublo-Albequeque-El Paso corridor to emerge.

[Anonymous]

Ed:

That joker who posted the $8000/car figure- was me! And BTW it was a figure for Chi-LA, from a Trains article on express intermodal.

Not sure where you are going with that table tho- maybe I'm just dense today. 2k pass x $160 = $320k; 1k pass x $320=$320k, etc....

Are you saying $320k is the cost of operations? If so, on what train?

Using your stats, I get the following:

For 500 passengers. If the average sleeper holds 20 people, you'd need 25 cars. 25 x $8k=$200,000/500p = $400 per ticket.

Now that is making a big assumption- that $8k per car will sustain Amtrak/passenger operations cost. We have not factored in locos, much less non revenue generating cars like diners, plus any staff there might be.

And if I'm Elvis you're Roy Orbison.

[Anonymous]

I almost agree. However, there has to be a vision, a long term plan, much like the interstate highway system. The keystones will be the major population centers of the Northeast (New York City/Washington DC), the Midwest (Chicago), Florida (Miami/Orlando/Tampa), and Texas (Dallas/Houston), and of course California (Oakland/Los Angeles). Transcontinentals won't survive, they cannot compete with the airliners. Since Seattle already has a TGV train, it will have to make do with it. Of course, Seattle will want the faster engines and electrified track eventually.

Yes, it will take time, but 20-25 years is not unreasonable. Start in California, Florida, Texas, and the Midwest, eventually, tie them together. Improve the Acela tracks on the northeast corridor, and viola, it will be accomplished. Furthermore, don't stop, keep building slowly like the Europeans...

The Rockies are another problem altogether. It would cost as much to put one line in west of Denver as the rest of the network. I also do not see where we would attempt to put high speed rail anywhere else throught the Rockies.

I suggest we kill the daily hotel trains, and concentrate keeping passenger trains on the routes earmarked for high speed rail. Amtrak as it exists today will not survive for long. For starters, other than its Acela trainsets and the Cascades trainsets, its equipment is obsolete compared to the Europeans. If were going to capitalize Amtrak with new trainsets, it might as well be TGVs, or nothing.

DOT has a problem, which will show its ugly face in the not to distant future. Our major airports are running out of real estate to put in new runways and terminals. The airport building boom will soon exhaust the available real estate. Some major airports are already out of airspace, see New York City. The closest a new $7 billion major airport for New York City would more than likely be at least 100 miles from Manhattan, and DOT will have to fight the NIMBY effect.....

Maybe it won't happen in this decade, but someday in the future, when we cannot build anymore airports anywhere near a major city, high speed rail will flourish.

[Anonymous]

Obviously, Amtrak is bidding too low....

[Anonymous]

You have not seen the light. Go to Europe and see the light.

So many have posted that the range for high speed rail is 250 miles, the distance from Paris to Lyons. However, TGV has extended that line northward to Calais where new construction from the Chunnel to London started this year, and even further north soon to Amsterdam, and southward to Marsailles, within the next ten years you should be able to go futher west and south all the way to Seville, and further east of Marsailles to Milan and Venice and south to Rome....TGV and ICE have built high speed track from Paris to Brussels to Hanover, beyond the Ruhr, and are building high speed track all the way to Berlin. ICE has plans to build high speed track from Stuggart thru Munich to connect with the Italian high speed track near Venice. Notice that the EU is building a high speed rail network, a big box with extensions. While ours might be slightly larger in mileage, the same ideal will work here in America. One needs to see the vision.

Now lets look at some distances of the high speed rail plan between the major hub cities in America, and a few cities inbetween. Starting from Texas, the distance from Dallas to Houston is 250 miles (ideal distance), the distance from Dallas to Atlanta is 790 miles (not so ideal), the distance from Dallas to Chicago is 930 miles, the distance from Boston to Washington DC is 440 miles (see we already have Acela high speed rail running further than 250 miles already on the northeast corridor), the distance from Washington DC to Atlanta is 630 miles, and the distance from Atlanta to Miami is 660 miles, the distance from Atlanta to Chicago is 710 miles, the distance from Chicago to New York City is 820 miles, the distance from Chicago to Cleveland is 350 miles, the distance from New York City to Pittsburgh is 390 miles, the distance from New York City to Toronto is 500 miles, the distance from Chicago to Minneapolis is 410 miles. Please notice I built a parralegram, a near box, with a Chicago to Atlanta slash along with extensions to other possible major cities.

A high speed train averaging 150 mph, well below TGV's average, could get you to Chicago from New York City, some 820 miles, in less than 5 and a half hours. The same average speed could get you from Chicago to Dallas in a little more than 6 hours. One can easily catch a train in Dallas at 8 am in the morning and be in New York City at 8 pm in less than 12 hours...that is if one wanted to go that far! Someone can get to Miami from Washington DC in 8 and a half hours. There will no longer be any need for sleepers.

Yes, airliners can beat these times in the air, but considering that Amtrak asks people to arrive a half an hour early, whereas the airliners asks people to arrive at least 2 hours early, and with delays in taking off and landing, and sometimes waiting for a gate, not to mention up to an hour to get your luggage, the high speed train can be competitive in the hauls between these hubs..... The 6 hours to Chicago from Dallas is not in question, but the 12 hours to New York City from Dallas is. However, many may choose to get off in Saint Louis, or Cleveland.

As for the funding, the misguided Senator Hollins plan to upgrade the freight track at $5 billion a year over 10 years could accomplish our goal with dedicated track for high speed passenger rail in 20-25 years. The DOT spends more on airports and highways each year.

While it might cost twice as much, putting passengers on dedicated high speed track is far safer than running passenger trains at 150 mph on freight track with very long slow freight trains running at 50 mph.

DOT has a real problem, lately they have been reconfiguring runways and building terminals there ain't any space left to build more runways and terminals at most of our major airports, much less any airspace at some. i guess we could start building major airports at $7 billion each, the price of Denver's new airport, 100 miles out of cities centers, because it will be close to impossible to build them anywhere near their urban sprawl, or suburbs.....The results of the NIMBY effect. So add another 2 hours just to get to an airport.

[Anonymous]

Elvis,

Do you remember the fellow who posted a while back stating a double stack car had to generate $8000 on a coast to coast run to make a profit for the railroad? Assuming a typical stack train is 40 cars (probably way too low) how many passengers and what ticket price would break even for a coast to coast trip?
Some candidates for price & passenger combinations:
2000 passengers . . . $160 ticket
1000 passengers . . . $320 ticket
800 passengers . . . $400 ticket
640 passengers . . . $500 ticket
500 passengers . . . $640 ticket
400 passengers . . . $800 ticket
320 passengers . . .$1000 ticket
It appears from this that you just can't get enough people on a train to make a profit. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Oh, thank goodness it was hypothetical. The late Pioneer was and is such a can of worms even today here.... our delegation actually tried to get Amtrak to re-innaugurate this train a few years back as a Boise-Portland run.

Agh! I made darn sure my reps knew that trying to add another train while Amtrak is going bust, and in a small density corridor, was a bad bad mistake.

I tell you. I don't like mixing politics into this TOO much, because often partisan choices are emotional- I know people on both sides who I agree with, and the other way around too. It can get in the way if we only pay attention to affiliation.

Unfortunately that is often how Congress is. Sure would be nice to get Amtrak out of that and keep them from making it another porl barrell election football.

Did I mention: Agh!

(Hold onto your seats this fall!)

[Anonymous]

Well I'd love to see it make a profit. But I'd be content at seeing a system that just pays it's costs. Heck, think of those airline ticket online brokers- the train ticket could fluctuate based on the current costs of the system.

OK maybe not.

Either way, yeah, I'd love to go back and ride the CZ or the EB of the Superchief- the old pre Amtrak, 1940s and 50s trains.

Well at least we still have Via. Er, well, you know what I mean!

[Anonymous]

Alexander the non rep.from AZ. Finally a man who understands.I agree with you on a mental level but my heart is sad that long distance pass rail is a losing financial burden on we the tax payers.Distances to vast,crew maning to large(operating crews,dining car crews,sleeper attendants,coach attendants)ticket prices even if at a make even return would be so high no one would ride,at the wim of the fgt. RR's.Where the cities are large and close it does make sense and is a necessity.Do we as citizen tax payers want to fund a long distance system that will never run at a profit?Thats the question we all have to answer.

[Anonymous]

Oh brother! I didn't propose a Chi-Portland train! I just used it as a hypothetical example.Read what is written.As far as the rest you've written I agree.When these kind of things are posed outside of the rail cummunity their recieved with little enthusiasm.Never be enough of an outcry here in Colo.

[Anonymous]

Ok, Disclaimer- I am not a McCainiac! However, read on:

A. It seems that we all agree long distance passenger rail cannot support itself- can't even break even- unless it's luxury cruise like AOE, and in that case we don't need the FedGov involved.

B. It also seems we agree that the percentage of ridership on long distance trains is so low it does not significantly affect either air or road travel.

C. Additional agreement: passenger rail can and does make significant contribution to reduced congestion in all modes in dense corridors, both as commuter and as medium distance trains between city pairs, ie Boston-NYC, NYC-Philly/Baltimore/DC, LA-SF, PDX-SEA, etc....

D. It seems most of us agree Amtrak missed the ball in some corridors which had potential of joining the above, esp. Dallas-Houston, and others.

NOW- let me advance an idea that you may or may not hate me for. Disclaimer- I am not a McCainiac, do not particularly care for the man. But:

Since the long distance trains don't pencil out and aren't significant contributors to transport flow, eliminate them.

Then, take their funding, and invest in in both existing and new corridors. Since these systems have a relatively high success rate, expand these corridors as ridership levels increase.

Theoretically, ridership is a reciprocal pattern. IE if you get 1000 people SF-LA, and maybe 200 would also like to go to Pheonix, then if you increas the SF-LA ridership to 5000, you should have 1000 people who want to go to Pheonix, and enough to justify adding that route to the corridor.

(BTW those numbers are just to illustrate the point. I think more than 1000 are needed!)

Eventually multi-corridor regional systems will develop, and bump into each other, until a passenger can, if so inlcined, ride from one end of the coast to another.

Granted, these systems would not be the same as riding one train CHI-LA, but then most people don't want to anyway. And granted, this means we would have to make do with much smaller systems for some time, as expansions would take decades to close the gap, but it would be much easier to gulp HSR costs in small bits than in one big lump.

I am safely stationed in the caboose, so you can now fire away. It's steel and they tell me bullets won't go through it, but I did buy it second hand.....

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Well the trains you propose- Portland-Chicago- aren't competitive anyway so they wouldn't be the core business of a new passenger system that is rationalized based on ridership.

Your points on Colorado and an intra state system? Well if you don't like that policy, then take it up with your Leg or Governor.

Guess what? Here in Oregon the situation is the same, precisely. We have only one intra-state route (not counting the Starlate)- a daily Portland-Eugene Talgo train, 100% courtesy Amtrak and Feds. Why not two? Because our Leg doesn't make it a priority.

Well fine! If that's how the people in the state feel, then no trains. If we really need them that much then we'll have to get worked up about it and get on the phone to the state captiol.

What I'd ask is, if there isn't enought outcry by the populace of Colorado (or Oregon) to produce trains, then why should the rest of the country pay to build us or you a system?

That's like someone not fixing their own roof, because they're too cheap, and then expecting the city to come by and pay to have your roof fixed for your own good. Hey, if i want raindrops on my head then that's my problem. And if Oregon and Colorado don't want passenger trains, then that's our problem. Don't make it Rhode Island's problem too.

[Anonymous]

Wkhey,

Sounds like we agree on more than I thought. I guess you know how deeply I think AMTK is in trouble because they don't appear to even want to consider going it alone without the government.

I think the best scenario I can come up with involves AMTK cutting service temporarily on almost all long haul service. They could offer a charter passenger service for groups that can afford it, like a bunch of boy scouts on the west coast needing to get to the east coast for a summer jamboree. It appears there is inadequate demand for regular scheduled long haul passenger rail service. AMTK could build on their apparent success in the NEC when demand is adequate to make the commitment.

I remember a few years back when AMTK was offering summer passes for a modest price. If I had the vacation time, I would have bought two and toured the country. I imagine that would have opened my eyes about AMTK. I have heard many complaints about their service. - Ed

[sooblue]

After posting my last reply it occurred to me that in some spots Amtrak needs to by-pass the the "mess" and lay new routes and place depots in the outskirts of major towns and let light rail convey the riders into city centers. This will upset probably everyone but I see transportation hubs marrying air, rail, bus and light rail togeather complimenting rather than fighting each other.
I know..What's the color of the sky in your world
sooblue!
Things are going to change as we run out of what we have taken for granted for a century or more.
If not in our day than in our kids day so we should get it done so they have time to tweek it for the better.

[sooblue]

Thank you for giving me a better picture of the way it is. I agree with you that the Amtrak of today is a pain in the butt. BNSF trains shouldn't have to get out of the way or stop enroute for Amtrak trains yet Amtrak trains still need to have priority in a commuter setting. Long distance cross country travel maybe just equality is needed. At any rate if Amtrak was given real support by all of us the money would be there for Amtrak funded improvements like double tracking and passing sidings and maintanence.
I really don't know the costs for such things BUT
I do know that this Nation is capable of great things. We are a people who are MORE than able to accompli***he impossable and we have ALWAYS been up to the task financialy when pressed.
I do wi***hat it wouldn't take a pearl Harbor to modivate us though.

[Anonymous]

Ed,
Looks like a accounting nightmare.Who gets what for how much,when,where,how,etc.
Your illustration of the N.Y.-Florida train is precisely the point I've made in other messages.Its nothing but a cruise ship on rails.Doesn't do anything of significance for the states or local cummunities it travels through.The same can be said for most of the long distance AMTK. trains.
I don't know what the solution is,thats why we're discussing these matters here. What I do believe is that most states will bauk at providing funds for passenger rail.Sad Do we as a nation want long distance pass. rail? Everybody wants it but nobody wants to pay.You'll have to convince me that LONG distance pass rail can run at a profit.I really don't think it can .Either in the private sector or state or fed. run.

[Anonymous]

Mr.Clark,
Amtk does not pay for the operation of the trains you mentioned.The state agencies put out a bid for the operation of such trains.AMTK was the low bidder.The state agencies pay for the entire cost of operating those trains including crew cost and also pays AMTK for providing the crews and maintanece of those trains in certain situations where the states don't have a mechanical dept.
I would love to see deadicated high speed rail but where is the money going to come from?The CB&Q once ran a test train from Denver to Chi. to see how fast they could do it.Took 12hrs.That was back in the 30's.Pretty sad when you think that record is still standing some 60-70 years later.

[Anonymous]

Don,

I agree that if AMTK is going to upgrade to HSR then they should build their own R/W. My question is, who's going to pay for that? I think the users should pay for it. But it appears that everyone agrees that is not economically viable. So some say let the government pay for it. But the government is me, and you and everyone else whether they visit this website or not. Most folks, when they hear the cost, would not want to shoulder the burden.

I am not so sure that AMTK would be better if it were only in the long haul business. Then there would be scheduling conflicts between AMTK and the local commuter systems. The old railroads ran commuter trains, along with long haul passenger and freight trains. They were able to coordinate schedules and provide service with much less technology than we have today. I also think that if you break the long haul and NEC commuter type service apart, then AMTK becomes pollitically unviable at the Federal level. As soon as the NEC people have to pay for their portion of AMTK without outside contributions, AMTK is dead at the Fed level. BTW, the same works in reverse too. If the Feds only supported the NEC and the long hauls had to go it alone, AMTK would be dead at the Fed level as well.

But your idea has merit. I think it should be reorganized into Regional and National profit centers. Have the regional profit centers work out the commuter stuff with the states/regions and have the National profit center deal with Congress. But a significant majority of the costs are going to have to be paid by the users directly or AMTK is not going to survive. Their over-reliance on government will insure they never walk on their own.

I still can't see AMTK having enough demand to provide regular scheduled long haul passenger service. They might be able to operate charter or excursion trains from time to time, but I just don't see the demand for the long haul ever being great enough to pay for the construction and maintanence of the R/W. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Wkhey,

I usually am involved with DOT, state and Fed level but sometimes Army Corps of Engineers.

Your questions regarding states demanding certain schedule accommodations illustrates my point about government involvement not being a healthy thing. In my view, AMTK would lay out a plan to a region of states. These states would be given statistics or other data illustrating the benefits of AMTK and they would be asked to contribute a specific share of the cost, with the balance to be paid directly with tickets. The states would be able to negotiate with AMTK and AMTK with the states. If the states want more, AMTK asks them to pay more. If the states want to pay less, AMTK lists what would have to be reduced from the service to reduce costs. If one state wants to have service to another state (city) where that state is not interested, the states would have to work it out on their own. If the states are unreasonable then AMTK walks away and does it the best way they think on ticket revenues alone. Unless the states want to bear a high percentage of the cost to run a specific train on a specific schedule, the states don't get much say in the schedule. That is a decision AMTK should make based on demand and equipment availability. As for changing trains, that is also part of AMTKs internal affairs. If a state is not getting any service then it doesn't pay anything to AMTK even if AMTK track goes through their state.

I see this last point as highly significant and it is why I also see AMTK as a regional carrier right now. AMTK goes from the NEC through the south to Florida. The service in the south is modest. Most people traveling that corridor are comming from north of the MDL and not getting off until they get to FL. I think most southern states would not be interested in paying much into AMTK when in their state portion it is only conveying people through the state, same as your Colorado example. Incidently, a state can't tell AMTK that it can't come in. That is a violation of the US Constitution. But the state can't make a train stop at a given city either.

Let me know what you think of this stuff. - Ed

[Anonymous]

As I have posted on another thread, Amtrak should concentrate all of its resources on a national system of long distance trains. However, commuter rail systems, very short lines, should be funded locally or at the state level. For example, Dallas Area Rapid Transit and the T's Trinity Railway Express are operated and funded at the local level.

While the state of California and Washington are paying for its local service, Amtrak is operating them but shouldn't. These states should be operating this service. It is the same in North Carolina.

Amtrak operates a lot of locals out of Chicago, but shouldn't. The states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan should be operating and paying for these local trains.

As for the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak should be operating its long distance trains to Florida (thru Atlanta), and Chicago, and New Orleans, but some of the short locals should be operated by the states of New York, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. I could name several trains that Amtrak should not be paying for and operating.

Which finally brings us to the Acela trains. Since this train has the most modern equipment in the nation, so far, Amtrak should be operating them now, but should attempt to unload these locals too in the future.

Amtrak should be a national system of long distance trains, preferrable high speed. Amtrak should not be funding or operating trains of short duration, let the states do this.

From a Texas perspective, Texas should build and operate a high speed rail lines in the triangle of Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. However, Amtrak should build and operate high speed rail lines from Dallas to Chicago, and Dallas or Houston to Atlanta. With Amtrak running trains north and east from Texas linking to other Amtrak trains running east of Chicago to the New York City area, and/or linking to locals not operated by Amtrak out of the Chicago area to Detroit, Inidanapolis, and Milwaukee, possibly even Minneapolis. The same can be said of the high speed Amtrak train to Atlanta linking to other Amtrak trains to Florida and up the east coast to New York City area, plus locals out of Atlanta to Savannah, Mobile, Charleston, and Nashville.

As for Colorado, Amtrak should operate a high speed train from Denver to Chicago, pick your choice whether through Omaha or Kansas City. However, I have noticed that there is a local ski train already operating to the slopes. Maybe Colorado coud pay for and operate a local from Cheyenne down to Pueblo.

While the locals might not necessarily be high speed, the longer distance Amtrak trains should be of high speed.

The FRA has a map at its web page of future high speed rail improvements along existing track. You can find it at
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rdv/hsgt/states/index.htm

You will notice some gaps between Buffalo and Cleveland, Cleveland to Pittsburgh, jacksonville to Orlando, Atlanta to Birmingham, Houston to San Antonio and Dallas(which I find unbelievable), Tulsa to Kansas City, Little Rock to St. Louis, even Lousiville to Nashville to Atlanta or Birmingham. Notice that the state of Ohio would rather connect Cincinniti to Cleveland thru Columbus than connect to Buffalo or Pittsburgh which I find distrubing. There are no plans currently to build high speed rail west of Kansas City and Minneapolis, except on the west coast. Obviously, there won't be any high speed rail lines over the Rockies, or the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada. Fill in the gaps of teh long distance trains with high speed rail, and do as I suggest above. Amtrak should not be running and paying for any trains that aren't high speed rail. Its just I rather have Amtrak on its own rails....Running high speed trains on tracks with slow freight in my opinion is UNSAFE!

[Anonymous]

You paint a sick picture when trains are sitting at sidings waiting for a higher priority train to pass, and not necessarily an Amtrak train. Think about it from Amtrak's point of view. Amtrak pays the railroads to run our nation's passenger trains down their tracks with priority. Amtrak, a government agency, is owned and operated by the American people. The government does provide the dispatching service for the airlines, and at one time the Panama Canal. When the government dispatched the Panama Canal, cruise ships were provided priority over cargo. If the railroads cannot provide adequate dispatching, the government should take it over! It could not possibly cost as much as the FAA.

The Texas Eagle and the Sunset Limited lately have had a lot of dispatching problems with the Union Pacific. Amtrak brought out car 10001 and hitched it to the back of them so that one of their vice presidents could see for himself the problems. The Eagle and the Limited on time arrivals were so low recently, at 20 percent, that this was the number one complaint from passengers. Guess what, the trains ran pretty much on time the whole length of car's 10001 journey.

So why does these trains run so poorly when car 10001 isn't hitched on to the back of the Eagle and Sunset Limited? Obviously, the trains can run pretty much on time, if the railroad dispatchers wanted them to. If I was the president of Amtrak, or even the Secretary of Transportation, if a raillroad deliberately slowed my passenger trains as badly as the Union Pacific has delayed the Eagle and Limited, I would take over that railroads dispatching, and pay the dispatchers what they deserved, civil service G-3 pay....the bottom of the barrel.....

[Anonymous]

Give me a break! AMTK dispactchers! What a laugh.I for one don't want AMTK dispatching my FRT.train.Or do you propose two dispactchers,one for frieght and one for AMTK sitting at the same console.Who pays for the AMTK dispatcher?Pays plenty for running their trains ?Not hardly.When you have a single track running at almost near capacity at times ONE train that requires all ather trains to get out of its way does create a tremendous traffic nightmare.All those trains sitting at various points along the subdivision all sit longer account the first trains to go after AMTK passes are the priority trains which cause the other trains to sit longer waiting for them to pass and so on and so on.Their have been situations where every siding has been filled for 90 miles waiting for AMTK to pass.No place for anyone to go.Don't have to tell what happens when AMTK encounters a mechanical delay think you can figure out what it causes.

[Anonymous]

This sure is a nice senario you pose.We all get along we all agree type of situation.What happens when one state balks at wanting to join such set-up?Lets say we're talking about a train from say Chicago to Portland. All the states agree to cooperate except say Idaho.OK we'll run it through another state say Utah.But Utah says not interested.What do we do in that type of situation? I do know for a fact that Colorado's DOT studied running trains in this state and came back with the findings that it wasn't feasible until the population grew significanly.Another words no funds for inter-city rail in this state for the forseeable future.If Colorado didn't want to pursue their own in state rail network don't think they'd be interested in funding a train that runs through their state that wouldn't really make much of a differance to their economy.Keeping all our mountain roads in shape and plowed in the winter for the skiers,which this state relies upon for alot of their revenue,and eats up a good deal of their alloted budget is more of a priority than pass.rail.I for one don't want to see my state taxes raised to pay for a passenger rail system that makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Most regional systems don't run end to end trains, so at any city in a city pair- Vancouver/Seattle, Seattle/Portland, Portland/Eugene, you DO have to transfer trains, and that is on today's amtrak.

However, the issues you bring up re scehduling would not be a major concern for most systems, as the distance/frequency would ensure that most trains would run at peak demand times.

True though that there are difficulties with this now. Portlanders cannot ride to Vancouver BC in one day because W-DOT has not yet funded the extension of the afternoon Bellingham train to Vancouver. Argh!

But I know that I am not saying that the states run the system, only contribute to the funding. Look at the relative successes of both PNW and California Corridors, and applaud not DC but the WA and CA Leg's for funding this.

The actual passenger railroad authority could be multi state easily. In many places it would have to be.

This does mean that certain states will have to cooperate to get these systems running, so pressure on your governors is also a must. Good regional inter-state relations are a must, and are not unworkable at all.