I'm back!
Follow the progress:
http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1
QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 Both are chapter 11, and none of the airlines troubles will translate into a single extra rider for Amtrak.
QUOTE: Amtrak goes where it goes, and very infrequently.
QUOTE: Rail travel simply isn't a substitute for air travel, and never will be. Try going from Denver to Dallas on the train. How about Minneapolis to Los Angeles. How about anywhere to Las Vegas.
QUOTE: The only chance rail passenger travel has, is if airplanes run out of fuel, or simply become too expensive. Get over trying to improve Amtrak, it ain't gonna happen.
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 I think Amtrak is carrying as many passengers as they can right now. ... I am really surprised Amtrak stopped serving Houston....
QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan. On a scale of one to ten,How would you rate Amtrak's attendence rate of just how many passengers that do ride Amtrak today? Allan.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva Unfortunitly I don't think the bankruptcy (Spelling) of Northwest and Delta Airlines isn't going to increase ridership on Amtrak. Sadly people are most likely going to go with another airline in order to get fast, service in long distance travel. Now, the people might complain enough to were the government will have to give both companies money in order to satisfy the majority of the public's demand for swift, reliable service over long distances. In this case these two airlines might be allowed to merge in order to get rid of the debts and strainghten themselves out in terms of service. This will sort of be like the PRR and NYC deal. Most likely the two merged airlines will survive and grow unlike PC. Unfortunitly I don't think these two Airlines in chapter 11 will effect Amtrak at all in terms of increased profits.
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Allan- I think Amtrak is carrying as many passengers as they can right now. Their problem is equipment. I believe if they had another 10 engines and 100 cars they would be put to full use.
QUOTE: Originally posted by SchemerBob QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Allan- I think Amtrak is carrying as many passengers as they can right now. Their problem is equipment. I believe if they had another 10 engines and 100 cars they would be put to full use. Very true!! One of Amtrak's most recent stupid equipment acts is the mothballing of all of their Dash 8-40BP locomotives. They retired lots more than 10!! Amtrak used them mostly on the Auto Train because their hardware and pulling capacity was more efficiant. But they could have upgraded them (for some reason they thought they couldn't) and used them elsewhere. Hey, it wasn't very long ago that we still saw the P40s out on the long distance trains!! And if you fixed up the rest of the remaining in the series and you would have more than THIRTY locomotives!! And assign the Pepsi-Cans to trains too, BY THEMSELVES!! All Amtrak needs now are 2 engines on their long distance trains. Yet we still see three on the Southwest Chief. WHY! Sometimes it isn't even 9 cars long!! Amtrak has like, let's see. 207 P42s, 18 P32AC-DMs, 20 Pepsi Cans (now if they'd just use them), and like 30 or so P40s that they have shoved in a shed somewhere. If Amtrak would just get themselves together and fix up some of these engines we'd have a pretty nice fleet. Oh, and why should the F59s be only in California, or Washington, or North Carolina? We also have some other odball engines that COULD be used all around the system. Do the P32AC-DMs have to be kept in the northeast? NO, they could be brought out into the national system. Amtrak has 18, do they really need that many up there? I think Amtrak has got so stuck-up with their P42s (even though I like them) that they don't want ANY OTHER engine running their trains, period, except on the NEC and in California and North Carolina. Why, I haven't seen a different engine pulling any Amtrak train since 1996! NO KIDDING! Why in the world do we think Amtrak is short on locomotives? They've got plenty if they'd just get themselves together and FIX THEM UP!! It does cost money, and it may be cheaper to buy new locomotives. If that's the case, WHY DOESN'T AMTRAK DO IT? Money from the government. That's how it is. To tell you the truth, Amtrak has plenty of working engines already, they're just using the P42s for long-distance and any other train they can think of. That's why the locomotive suppy is so thinned-out. Come on, they only have 207! And then SHOVING the P40s in a closet somewhere and then REDUCING the other engines to CERTIAN REGIONS! What would happen if they brought out some other engines onto the shorter trains, or maybe even the long-distance trains? Amtrak would have more P42s to put on longer/shorter trains and everything is settled! I am really tipped off about how Amtrak has just givin up on the P40s. Upgrading them would be to expensive, they say. Well, why haven't you scrapped them yet? Security. We're keeping them just in case of an emergency. Oh, so you say that they could come out onto the tracks in an emergency. WELL WHY NOT NOW!!!!!!! We see all the little GP38s and SD40-2s on the freight railroads that have been around for DECADES and are still pretty common! Have they been updated? Probably, but PROBABLY NOT MUCH!! And the P40s are only 12 years old and Amtrak's ready to just SCRAP them!! At least when they scrapped the F40s they had a replacement all ready (The P40s!!). In the P40 case, they'res NOTHING to take their place, and NOTHING'S EVEN PLANNED to take their place, except these little stupid self propelled trainsets which I don't even think are INTENDED to take their place. CRAP!! Do you think Amtrak is really going to buy some of those? GET IT TOGETHER AMTRAK!! If you want to stick around for a few more years you have to learn to get along with what you've got!! Upgrade the P40s. Get them out on the rails again, and not just on the Auto Train either. Put a powered engine on each side of the train so you won't have to turn them around again. Use the engine's you've got. DON'T JUST SCRAP THEM WITHOUT ANY SLIGHT PLAN OF REPLACEMENT!!! If you do that, what are we going to have in a few years? Maybe one P42 and no Pepsi Cans and all the little F59s and Cabbages goofing around in the west, and Amtrak's wondering, "Gosh, what are we going to do? We don't have any locomotives for the long distance trains and we can't use the F59s or Cabbages for that." BIG LIE!! YOU CAN!! Sorry but things like this just make me irrate.[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr just saw a very brief article that said the Sunset Limited lost an average of $464.00 for every passenger that rode it and was late 95% of the time. There's a train headed in the right direction. Another Amtrak success story.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd If you're late 95% of the time, there isn't much need to publish a train schedule - it's meaningless! But, can you "afford" to be late 95% of the time? Even with this poor performance, there are still plenty of riders. So, this says something about the demand for rail travel. It also says something about the need for precise timekeeping on long distance trains. On a 48 hour trip, if you're 5 hours late, that's only ~10%. On a 300 mile drive, does it bother you much if you make it in 6 hrs versus 5-1/2? Or, if you are 10 minutes late on a one hour flight? On the other side, maybe you can't "afford" better timekeeping. In order to improve the timekeeping of the Sunset, it may require a large capital investment that won't have a positive ROI.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Again, Amtrak is at the mercy of the host railroads, in this case, mostly the Union Pacific (from Lake Charles LA, to Los Angeles CA a distance of 1776 miles). I'm sure we've all read about the meltdown of service that the UP had after their last devouring of other railroads. If they can't run the freights on time, what makes you think they care about a tennant (Amtrak) running on time? Last month I rode the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle, mostly on BNSF, and we ran pretty close to schedule most of the way, but it was more obvious that it was a fluid railroad with the Amtrak trains plugged in between the freights. All were moving at track speed, which I would estimate to be 79MPH.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.