Helping Amtrak Survive

[kenneo]

Some good ideas here. Good job while I was gone.

Rode the Paris-London Chunnel Train while I was gone, and the only way you can tell if you are going fast (in excess of 150 MPH) is by counting the poles going by. Well, you can't, because you are going too fast! Missed the opening of the BR end of the high-speed by a couple of weeks, so was treated to the "old" route between the Chanel and Waterloo. Several times the roadbed was so rough that the suspension system bottomed out. Not a pleasant experience.

How about a discussion on overnight schedules using current routes and speeds? Think, perhaps, of the businessman in Chicago riding overnight to New Youk or Washington, doing his business during the day, and then riding back that night. The Broadway and 20th Century made the NY-Chicago run in 18 hours or less.

Businessmen will abandon air for rail. Between Seattle and Portland, Amtrak operates Talgo train sets with business class cars. Train is faster than air and faster than auto, connects directly to mass transit at each end. Business Class is full and sells for a 50% sur-charge. The entire service, which includes Talgo's and standard cars and operates between Vancouver, B.C. and Eugene, OR., operates with a $11 per passenger subsidy. The Talgo is our version of "high-speed", but it really does the curves here in hte Pacific North West. Average speed between Portland and Seattle is nearly 1/3 faster (3 hours

Same situation with the Capitols in California between the Bary Area and Sacramento.

Amtrak advertises these services on radio, TV and in the papers.

Don Clark and Tim Arguebright --- comments on the suggestion?

[kenneo]

Some good ideas here. Good job while I was gone.

Rode the Paris-London Chunnel Train while I was gone, and the only way you can tell if you are going fast (in excess of 150 MPH) is by counting the poles going by. Well, you can't, because you are going too fast! Missed the opening of the BR end of the high-speed by a couple of weeks, so was treated to the "old" route between the Chanel and Waterloo. Several times the roadbed was so rough that the suspension system bottomed out. Not a pleasant experience.

How about a discussion on overnight schedules using current routes and speeds? Think, perhaps, of the businessman in Chicago riding overnight to New Youk or Washington, doing his business during the day, and then riding back that night. The Broadway and 20th Century made the NY-Chicago run in 18 hours or less.

Businessmen will abandon air for rail. Between Seattle and Portland, Amtrak operates Talgo train sets with business class cars. Train is faster than air and faster than auto, connects directly to mass transit at each end. Business Class is full and sells for a 50% sur-charge. The entire service, which includes Talgo's and standard cars and operates between Vancouver, B.C. and Eugene, OR., operates with a $11 per passenger subsidy. The Talgo is our version of "high-speed", but it really does the curves here in hte Pacific North West. Average speed between Portland and Seattle is nearly 1/3 faster (3 hours

Same situation with the Capitols in California between the Bary Area and Sacramento.

Amtrak advertises these services on radio, TV and in the papers.

Don Clark and Tim Arguebright --- comments on the suggestion?

[Anonymous]

Amtrak does not leave a bad taste in my mouth. I think we do need high speed trains like in the northeast corridor.The congress and senators don`t give a damn about passenger service. But I do. If we want efficent passenger service for amtrak, we must change the inferstructure of the system and get people to run amtrak like it should, when main line railroad run their passenger service 50 years ago. It`s unfortune that some people would like to see passenger amtrak service to shut down completely. So if your not the solution for helping amtrak to survive, your mainly the part of the problem.

Reginald Smith

[Anonymous]

Amtrak does not leave a bad taste in my mouth. I think we do need high speed trains like in the northeast corridor.The congress and senators don`t give a damn about passenger service. But I do. If we want efficent passenger service for amtrak, we must change the inferstructure of the system and get people to run amtrak like it should, when main line railroad run their passenger service 50 years ago. It`s unfortune that some people would like to see passenger amtrak service to shut down completely. So if your not the solution for helping amtrak to survive, your mainly the part of the problem.

Reginald Smith

[Modelcar]

....Overall from start to present....The major airlines [as a whole], have not made money according to figures from several sources. They bleed money just as other types of people transport do. No guarantee their service will be making money in near future either.

[Modelcar]

....Overall from start to present....The major airlines [as a whole], have not made money according to figures from several sources. They bleed money just as other types of people transport do. No guarantee their service will be making money in near future either.

[Anonymous]

Since railroad employees had their own retirement fund before Social Security started, they are not part of Social Security. Therefore, Amtrak's retirement benefits of $280 million is significant. And when Amtrak was created, Amtrak has funded former private passenger railroad employees retirements too. Thus salaries were $1.387 billion, resulting in a salary reduction of $13,000 down to $63,000.

Since Amtrak has to deal with union employees keep these numbers in mind. A journeyman electrician earns similar. Truck drivers earn this number. Surely, Amtrak engineers, conductors, and mechanics should earn similar. However, I will agree this salary number appears too high for cooks, attendants, and tellers. On the long distance routes, Amtrak employees work away from home up to four days a week on the railroad. You are not going to find many employees with families working away from home, half a continent away, for minimum wage.

Also keep in mind most of Amtrak employees work base are in the northeast corridor, California, and Chicago: some of the most expensive places to live in America. It is one thing to live in Texas and look at these salaries, it is another thing to have to live in the New York City area and live on these salaries....

[Anonymous]

Since railroad employees had their own retirement fund before Social Security started, they are not part of Social Security. Therefore, Amtrak's retirement benefits of $280 million is significant. And when Amtrak was created, Amtrak has funded former private passenger railroad employees retirements too. Thus salaries were $1.387 billion, resulting in a salary reduction of $13,000 down to $63,000.

Since Amtrak has to deal with union employees keep these numbers in mind. A journeyman electrician earns similar. Truck drivers earn this number. Surely, Amtrak engineers, conductors, and mechanics should earn similar. However, I will agree this salary number appears too high for cooks, attendants, and tellers. On the long distance routes, Amtrak employees work away from home up to four days a week on the railroad. You are not going to find many employees with families working away from home, half a continent away, for minimum wage.

Also keep in mind most of Amtrak employees work base are in the northeast corridor, California, and Chicago: some of the most expensive places to live in America. It is one thing to live in Texas and look at these salaries, it is another thing to have to live in the New York City area and live on these salaries....

[Anonymous]

There are many good points in this forum. I just checked out the AMTRAK website. It seems to me that just looking at the numbers it is a black hole. The thing that bothered me most was the salaries and benefits. The total listed on the line was 1,667,293,000. AMTRAK employs about 22,000 people (a fact stated on the website). That's almost $76,000 per year per employee!! That is also asuming that everyone is full time. I wonder how top heavy the payrole is. Obviously the top is very over paid. Scrap the hole thing and start over. Look at abandoned lines that could easily convert to high speed. Start with the larger communities and rebuild the network. Get it out of the hands of government. Gov spending would have to jump start it, just like the gov jump started the trucking industry with the interstate highways. Just imagine the rail network in this country if it was matched to the highways. In the mean time maybe mixed passenger /freight is the answer, I understand the ups train takes priority over all. Hook up a passenger car. With all the delays with AMTRAK schedules, AMTRAK seems to be considered last in terms of when and how the trains move.

[Anonymous]

There are many good points in this forum. I just checked out the AMTRAK website. It seems to me that just looking at the numbers it is a black hole. The thing that bothered me most was the salaries and benefits. The total listed on the line was 1,667,293,000. AMTRAK employs about 22,000 people (a fact stated on the website). That's almost $76,000 per year per employee!! That is also asuming that everyone is full time. I wonder how top heavy the payrole is. Obviously the top is very over paid. Scrap the hole thing and start over. Look at abandoned lines that could easily convert to high speed. Start with the larger communities and rebuild the network. Get it out of the hands of government. Gov spending would have to jump start it, just like the gov jump started the trucking industry with the interstate highways. Just imagine the rail network in this country if it was matched to the highways. In the mean time maybe mixed passenger /freight is the answer, I understand the ups train takes priority over all. Hook up a passenger car. With all the delays with AMTRAK schedules, AMTRAK seems to be considered last in terms of when and how the trains move.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jamesedwbradley

I wonder why, if long-distance service is "dead", the trains are still full ! I'd like to see the LDSs survive, but Amtrak probably should concentrate (1) 300- to 500- mile corridors like many in Midwest, Northeaset, and Southwest, plus Chicago-St. Louis-K.C.-Omaha, Omaha-Denver, Denver-Salt Lake, Salt Lake-Las Vegas-L.A.) and (2) more car-carrier (Auto)-Trains. I don't understand why these have not been extended nationwide; they had great success in Europe. A good case can be made for NY-Florida servic, too. ( I hope a special case can be made to continue Empire Builder due to the severe weather it encounters - yet look, it's on-time record is fourth in nation ! )
It looks like a single transcon line plus corridors and the NEC is about the best we can expect to settle for with the current national climate, deficits, hunger & shelter needs, elderly, etc.
James E. Bradley Hawk Mountain Chapter N.R.H.S.

I agree- thirty some-odd yearsa ago there was daily service from Fort Worth-Dallas to Colorado Springs-Denver on the Fort Worth and Denvef City- Colorado &Southern.
At least during summer tourist season and winter ski season, wouldn't it be wonderful to drive your auto onto an Auto-Train, enjoy a fine meal in the diner, entartainment in the club car, a restful night's sleep, and wake up the next morning with the Rockies in view on the left side on the train? And there ought to be at least two trains- one day and the second overnight.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jamesedwbradley

I wonder why, if long-distance service is "dead", the trains are still full ! I'd like to see the LDSs survive, but Amtrak probably should concentrate (1) 300- to 500- mile corridors like many in Midwest, Northeaset, and Southwest, plus Chicago-St. Louis-K.C.-Omaha, Omaha-Denver, Denver-Salt Lake, Salt Lake-Las Vegas-L.A.) and (2) more car-carrier (Auto)-Trains. I don't understand why these have not been extended nationwide; they had great success in Europe. A good case can be made for NY-Florida servic, too. ( I hope a special case can be made to continue Empire Builder due to the severe weather it encounters - yet look, it's on-time record is fourth in nation ! )
It looks like a single transcon line plus corridors and the NEC is about the best we can expect to settle for with the current national climate, deficits, hunger & shelter needs, elderly, etc.
James E. Bradley Hawk Mountain Chapter N.R.H.S.

I agree- thirty some-odd yearsa ago there was daily service from Fort Worth-Dallas to Colorado Springs-Denver on the Fort Worth and Denvef City- Colorado &Southern.
At least during summer tourist season and winter ski season, wouldn't it be wonderful to drive your auto onto an Auto-Train, enjoy a fine meal in the diner, entartainment in the club car, a restful night's sleep, and wake up the next morning with the Rockies in view on the left side on the train? And there ought to be at least two trains- one day and the second overnight.

[Anonymous]

And for those who think the bus is an alternative, think again because Greyhound has been in bankruptcy court for years. It won't be long before rural America has no scheduled public transportation. For example, the little town I live in Texas has lost its once weekly scheduled bus service, along with a lot of other small rural towns along US Highways 377 and 281 from Fort Worth to San Antonio. The once weekly service wasn't adequate, now it don't exist.

Most of the airlines and buses actually turning a profit are the charters, traveling to major vacation locations with cherry picked routes. Providing a scheduled daily service to rural America is not profitable, even the airlines have almost eliminated small towns and cities.

[Anonymous]

And for those who think the bus is an alternative, think again because Greyhound has been in bankruptcy court for years. It won't be long before rural America has no scheduled public transportation. For example, the little town I live in Texas has lost its once weekly scheduled bus service, along with a lot of other small rural towns along US Highways 377 and 281 from Fort Worth to San Antonio. The once weekly service wasn't adequate, now it don't exist.

Most of the airlines and buses actually turning a profit are the charters, traveling to major vacation locations with cherry picked routes. Providing a scheduled daily service to rural America is not profitable, even the airlines have almost eliminated small towns and cities.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TARGUBRIGHT

There is no profit in rail travel. Why take a train that could take 12 hours to get to your destination when flying will get you there in 4? The profit out look is far better for airlines then for rail. Rail travel is not convenent. The rails do not go to every city. The price for a train ticket is not cheaper then a air ticket. (Rail tickets can be more expensive and in most cases are.) I believe long distance rail travel is dieing and should be allowed to do so.
TIM A

I think passenger rail travel will return with improved on-time performance and expanded service routes. Rationale for this statement is: air pollution resulting from changes in climate and increased personal internal combustion vehicles is approaching dangerous levels. This week in the Fort Worth-Dallas metroplex, the weather forecasters warned of a Purple Level in air pollution. There remains only one higher level of significantly dangerous pollution. At least in this area, rail transportation, both commuter long-distance, appears to me to be the only equitable solution to attack the pollution problem. Furthermore, If Amtrak and regional rail transportation authorities would follow European models and increase service and expand routes AND aggresively advertise, I think the traveling public would respond favorably to safe, quiet, enjoyable, and scenic passenger rail transportation.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TARGUBRIGHT

There is no profit in rail travel. Why take a train that could take 12 hours to get to your destination when flying will get you there in 4? The profit out look is far better for airlines then for rail. Rail travel is not convenent. The rails do not go to every city. The price for a train ticket is not cheaper then a air ticket. (Rail tickets can be more expensive and in most cases are.) I believe long distance rail travel is dieing and should be allowed to do so.
TIM A

I think passenger rail travel will return with improved on-time performance and expanded service routes. Rationale for this statement is: air pollution resulting from changes in climate and increased personal internal combustion vehicles is approaching dangerous levels. This week in the Fort Worth-Dallas metroplex, the weather forecasters warned of a Purple Level in air pollution. There remains only one higher level of significantly dangerous pollution. At least in this area, rail transportation, both commuter long-distance, appears to me to be the only equitable solution to attack the pollution problem. Furthermore, If Amtrak and regional rail transportation authorities would follow European models and increase service and expand routes AND aggresively advertise, I think the traveling public would respond favorably to safe, quiet, enjoyable, and scenic passenger rail transportation.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TARGUBRIGHT

Who will ride it?? The businessmen will not. Time is money to them, even with high speed rail, trains are still slower. Businessmen do 60% of all the everyday travel. Without there support high speed rail will not make it. The airlines have the business traveler locked in. High speed rail is not going to attract them back. Long distant rail travel is dead. let it die and save us taxpayer's some money.
TIM ARGUBRIGHT

Who would ride it? Have you been thru an airport lately? It takes 2-3 hours (!) just to get thru security at LAX lately and there's a similar bottleneck at San Diego, San Francisco and every other airport. and thats STANDING IN LINE TIME. no sitting in the lounge sipping a gin and tonic, Then you get herded onto an airborne greyhound bus, at least the bus has windows. By the time you get from parking lot to parking lot in San Francisco can be 6 hours, London to Paris on the Eurostar is 2 hours if my memory serves me right and Paris to Lyon was 2 hours. A similar 150 mph system could carry me to SF in 2 hours.

Who would ride it, ME! and so would a lot of other people who are SICK TO DEATH of the crappy airline service in this country.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TARGUBRIGHT

Who will ride it?? The businessmen will not. Time is money to them, even with high speed rail, trains are still slower. Businessmen do 60% of all the everyday travel. Without there support high speed rail will not make it. The airlines have the business traveler locked in. High speed rail is not going to attract them back. Long distant rail travel is dead. let it die and save us taxpayer's some money.
TIM ARGUBRIGHT

Who would ride it? Have you been thru an airport lately? It takes 2-3 hours (!) just to get thru security at LAX lately and there's a similar bottleneck at San Diego, San Francisco and every other airport. and thats STANDING IN LINE TIME. no sitting in the lounge sipping a gin and tonic, Then you get herded onto an airborne greyhound bus, at least the bus has windows. By the time you get from parking lot to parking lot in San Francisco can be 6 hours, London to Paris on the Eurostar is 2 hours if my memory serves me right and Paris to Lyon was 2 hours. A similar 150 mph system could carry me to SF in 2 hours.

Who would ride it, ME! and so would a lot of other people who are SICK TO DEATH of the crappy airline service in this country.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it will take some time to build the high speed rail lines. It took DART seven years to build its 23 mile starter line in Dallas, half of the time was spent doing the engineering and drawing up the plans before any construction began. Therefore, it is imperative that we get started... the sooner the better...

But as Kay Bailey Hutchison has noted, the plan must be national in scope. Frankly, she is getting frustrated attempting to improve service in Texas. Mr. Gunn's five year plan left the nation with crumbs, all of Amtrak's efforts are spent only improving the infrastructure of the northeast corridor. Well, that ain't good enough...

As I have repeated there is no support in Congress for just a northeast corridor railroad. It is about time Amtrak got that message loud and clear. The citizens and taxpayers of Texas want to know why trains go over 100 mph in New York and go 30 mph in Texas?

Here is Kay Bailey Hutchison speech in full:

http://hutchison.senate.gov/speec347.htm

She isn't even advocating what I consider high speed rail. She is advocating something like 100 mph using the current trainsets and engines. But 100 mph would get someone from Dallas to Chicago in 11 hours, better than the 24 hours it takes today.... from Dallas to San Antonio in 4 hours, better than the 9 hours it takes today...

She is actually taking the cheap route: improving some 23,000 miles of the freight railroads tracks to something what they should be already... I believe we would be better off if we got off the freight railroad tracks and spent some more funds for 7,000 miles of dedicated passenger high speed rail.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it will take some time to build the high speed rail lines. It took DART seven years to build its 23 mile starter line in Dallas, half of the time was spent doing the engineering and drawing up the plans before any construction began. Therefore, it is imperative that we get started... the sooner the better...

But as Kay Bailey Hutchison has noted, the plan must be national in scope. Frankly, she is getting frustrated attempting to improve service in Texas. Mr. Gunn's five year plan left the nation with crumbs, all of Amtrak's efforts are spent only improving the infrastructure of the northeast corridor. Well, that ain't good enough...

As I have repeated there is no support in Congress for just a northeast corridor railroad. It is about time Amtrak got that message loud and clear. The citizens and taxpayers of Texas want to know why trains go over 100 mph in New York and go 30 mph in Texas?

Here is Kay Bailey Hutchison speech in full:

http://hutchison.senate.gov/speec347.htm

She isn't even advocating what I consider high speed rail. She is advocating something like 100 mph using the current trainsets and engines. But 100 mph would get someone from Dallas to Chicago in 11 hours, better than the 24 hours it takes today.... from Dallas to San Antonio in 4 hours, better than the 9 hours it takes today...

She is actually taking the cheap route: improving some 23,000 miles of the freight railroads tracks to something what they should be already... I believe we would be better off if we got off the freight railroad tracks and spent some more funds for 7,000 miles of dedicated passenger high speed rail.

[Anonymous]

There is a reason for that negative attitude!! Have you traveled on Amtrak lately?? The last trip I took on Amtrak (and I mean the very last trip) was about 7 months ago. The employee's acted as if I was there to serve them!!
TIM A

[Anonymous]

There is a reason for that negative attitude!! Have you traveled on Amtrak lately?? The last trip I took on Amtrak (and I mean the very last trip) was about 7 months ago. The employee's acted as if I was there to serve them!!
TIM A

[Anonymous]

I would like to suggest that if one is interested in insuring the future of rail passenger service, the best route to take is joining the rail advocacy groups like NARP and the state/regional rail advocacy groups. I for one am digusted with the negative attitudes shown by "railfans" towards Amtrak and other railservice providers.

[Anonymous]

I would like to suggest that if one is interested in insuring the future of rail passenger service, the best route to take is joining the rail advocacy groups like NARP and the state/regional rail advocacy groups. I for one am digusted with the negative attitudes shown by "railfans" towards Amtrak and other railservice providers.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it would take some years to build a high speed rail network such as I proposed. It won't be built overnight. Neither do aircraft carriers, (7 years). As I said, the plan would have to be detailed. For example, DART in Dallas has taken over 10 years to build, and DART has more lines planned that won't be built for another 6 years....

I suggested in an earlier post that we start linking cities with a metropolitan populations of over 5 million first, then extending the lines to cities with a metropolitan populations of over 2 million. Along these lines other cities, much smaller than a million, and as far low as cities of 100,000 in population will be linked....

But the plan has to be national in scope, without a national plan there would be no political support. For example, today there isn't much support outside the northeast corridor to fix its infrastructure. And that is the problem..... The money is there, in a two and a half trillion budget, it is a matter of priority......

[Anonymous]

Yes, it would take some years to build a high speed rail network such as I proposed. It won't be built overnight. Neither do aircraft carriers, (7 years). As I said, the plan would have to be detailed. For example, DART in Dallas has taken over 10 years to build, and DART has more lines planned that won't be built for another 6 years....

I suggested in an earlier post that we start linking cities with a metropolitan populations of over 5 million first, then extending the lines to cities with a metropolitan populations of over 2 million. Along these lines other cities, much smaller than a million, and as far low as cities of 100,000 in population will be linked....

But the plan has to be national in scope, without a national plan there would be no political support. For example, today there isn't much support outside the northeast corridor to fix its infrastructure. And that is the problem..... The money is there, in a two and a half trillion budget, it is a matter of priority......

[Anonymous]

I remember getting on the Twin City Zephrys, 400, Hiawatha, and going to Chicago in
five and half hours from St. Paul.

Remember the fastest trains in the worl at one time were these very trains until the japanese. and europeans got into the picture.

When the railroads bailed out of the passanger business and what eventually turned into Amtrak all safety controls (ATS,ASC.) went by the wayside so that trains were restricted to 79mph. The Northeast Corridor is about the only area were this equipment is still in use.

Tom
Retired Snake
God Bless the Great Northern

[Anonymous]

I remember getting on the Twin City Zephrys, 400, Hiawatha, and going to Chicago in
five and half hours from St. Paul.

Remember the fastest trains in the worl at one time were these very trains until the japanese. and europeans got into the picture.

When the railroads bailed out of the passanger business and what eventually turned into Amtrak all safety controls (ATS,ASC.) went by the wayside so that trains were restricted to 79mph. The Northeast Corridor is about the only area were this equipment is still in use.

Tom
Retired Snake
God Bless the Great Northern

[Anonymous]

Those are good questions. I think I will ask my Senators the same Questions.
TIM A