Helping Amtrak Survive

[Anonymous]

I agree, travel distances is a problem. But how long is too long? The Northeast Corridor is 450 miles. Yet, very few ride it all the way....

Recently I flew to Chicago, for the first time in 11 years, to attend my son's wedding. Getting to the airport took an hour, I waited 2 hours before the flight departed, another 20 minutes wasted while the long que of airliners took off, a two hour flight, another 15 minutes wasted circling the airport to land with another long que of airliners, and worst of all, 15 minutes to debark the aircraft, another15 minutes for my luggage to arrive, and then an hour to my sons house. Total time was 7 hours and 5 minutes.

You will notice that it would take 6 hours to travel to Chicago by high speed train. Since the station is closer to my home and my son's home, add an hour to the 6 hours, and I will be there in the same time as I flew....7 hours or so. There is no need to get to a station 2 hours early. Usually I arrive around 10-15 minutes early to catch a train. So add another 30 minutes..... I can debark a train in 30 seconds...

So 900 miles begins to looks better.....

But as you said, many will be getting off in Oklahoma City, Kansas City, St. Louis, and possibly Springfield before the train gets to Chicago.... Unlike airliners, train routes are linear. And probably as many will get on in those cities as got off.....

[Anonymous]

I agree, travel distances is a problem. But how long is too long? The Northeast Corridor is 450 miles. Yet, very few ride it all the way....

Recently I flew to Chicago, for the first time in 11 years, to attend my son's wedding. Getting to the airport took an hour, I waited 2 hours before the flight departed, another 20 minutes wasted while the long que of airliners took off, a two hour flight, another 15 minutes wasted circling the airport to land with another long que of airliners, and worst of all, 15 minutes to debark the aircraft, another15 minutes for my luggage to arrive, and then an hour to my sons house. Total time was 7 hours and 5 minutes.

You will notice that it would take 6 hours to travel to Chicago by high speed train. Since the station is closer to my home and my son's home, add an hour to the 6 hours, and I will be there in the same time as I flew....7 hours or so. There is no need to get to a station 2 hours early. Usually I arrive around 10-15 minutes early to catch a train. So add another 30 minutes..... I can debark a train in 30 seconds...

So 900 miles begins to looks better.....

But as you said, many will be getting off in Oklahoma City, Kansas City, St. Louis, and possibly Springfield before the train gets to Chicago.... Unlike airliners, train routes are linear. And probably as many will get on in those cities as got off.....

[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.

[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.

[wabash1]

As long as gas prices are cheap and most every home has 2 cars or more and you can come and go as you please amtrac will never make it. when i get into my car and go when i want and do as i please i dont haft to amend my schedual to a railroad when gas goes to $5.00 a gal and i am going more than 500 miles then i might fly or take a train but until then travel by car is cheaper and people wont do anything that halts thier plans

[wabash1]

As long as gas prices are cheap and most every home has 2 cars or more and you can come and go as you please amtrac will never make it. when i get into my car and go when i want and do as i please i dont haft to amend my schedual to a railroad when gas goes to $5.00 a gal and i am going more than 500 miles then i might fly or take a train but until then travel by car is cheaper and people wont do anything that halts thier plans

[Anonymous]

The reason why driving your car is cheaper, is because you ain't paying a toll to drive along our fine interstate highways. When you have to pay a toll of $2 to go 50 miles, that 900 mile trip can get expensive, add another $38 in tolls besides the gasoline. And most of us can't drive that far without falling asleep, so add a motel/hotel room to the charge card. Plus dinner, lunch and breakfast. Then add the $20 to fill your gasoline tank three times to get there and three times to get back, and you could have riden Amtrak for less..... and you won't be tired when you get there....

With high speed rail, you would get there, 900 miles in 6 hours. How long does it take to drive at an average of 60 mph with stops, 900 miles? The answer, 15 hours..... Once the high speed train blows your doors off alongside the interstate, you might think like the Europeans, and ride the train.....

[Anonymous]

The reason why driving your car is cheaper, is because you ain't paying a toll to drive along our fine interstate highways. When you have to pay a toll of $2 to go 50 miles, that 900 mile trip can get expensive, add another $38 in tolls besides the gasoline. And most of us can't drive that far without falling asleep, so add a motel/hotel room to the charge card. Plus dinner, lunch and breakfast. Then add the $20 to fill your gasoline tank three times to get there and three times to get back, and you could have riden Amtrak for less..... and you won't be tired when you get there....

With high speed rail, you would get there, 900 miles in 6 hours. How long does it take to drive at an average of 60 mph with stops, 900 miles? The answer, 15 hours..... Once the high speed train blows your doors off alongside the interstate, you might think like the Europeans, and ride the train.....

[Anonymous]

Don, everything you have said so far makes good sense. And you have mentioned were funding can be sought. Have you thought about one other factor, TIME. A high speed rail network would take years to build. Do you really believe congressmen and Senators would commit to something that could not be finished before there time in office is up?? You are going to have to convince some very important people to make a very expencive investment into the future. And all these important people will be asking the same question: "If we build it, will they come".
TIM A
[ I hope I am not Annoying you ]

[Anonymous]

Don, everything you have said so far makes good sense. And you have mentioned were funding can be sought. Have you thought about one other factor, TIME. A high speed rail network would take years to build. Do you really believe congressmen and Senators would commit to something that could not be finished before there time in office is up?? You are going to have to convince some very important people to make a very expencive investment into the future. And all these important people will be asking the same question: "If we build it, will they come".
TIM A
[ I hope I am not Annoying you ]

[Anonymous]

"If you build it, will they come"

Yes. I'd tell you to look at a domestic airline schedule in France, except that I couldn't find you one. High-speed rail increases travel between cities at a nearly unbelievable level. The TGV stole half its customers from the airlines, pretty much eliminating intercity air travel between these cities, and created the other half. The Calais-Paris-Lyon route corresponds roughly to Chicago-St.Louis-Kansas City, except that Calais and Lyon are much smaller than Chicago and St. Louis, and thus more traffic will be expected on the American line. In addition to this, the railroad isn't burned into the French psyche as it is the American one. We are a nation of railfans and will ride the train whenever it is practical for us to do so. The Acela makes 5% on investment. It shouldn't. It shouldn't have the ridership it has with all its troubles.

Tim, if we build it, we'll come. Don't worry.





As for the Congressmen being concerned with re-election, we could start building the line in Milwaukee and start 117-MPH service to Chicago by the end of the year, and to St. Louis by election 2004 if we're allowed to pull the train with old "E" units until a new fast passenger diesel arrives.

[Anonymous]

"If you build it, will they come"

Yes. I'd tell you to look at a domestic airline schedule in France, except that I couldn't find you one. High-speed rail increases travel between cities at a nearly unbelievable level. The TGV stole half its customers from the airlines, pretty much eliminating intercity air travel between these cities, and created the other half. The Calais-Paris-Lyon route corresponds roughly to Chicago-St.Louis-Kansas City, except that Calais and Lyon are much smaller than Chicago and St. Louis, and thus more traffic will be expected on the American line. In addition to this, the railroad isn't burned into the French psyche as it is the American one. We are a nation of railfans and will ride the train whenever it is practical for us to do so. The Acela makes 5% on investment. It shouldn't. It shouldn't have the ridership it has with all its troubles.

Tim, if we build it, we'll come. Don't worry.





As for the Congressmen being concerned with re-election, we could start building the line in Milwaukee and start 117-MPH service to Chicago by the end of the year, and to St. Louis by election 2004 if we're allowed to pull the train with old "E" units until a new fast passenger diesel arrives.

[Anonymous]

Very interesting article in the Chicago Sun Times today. "Republicans demand more money for Amtrak." by Laurence Arnold. Four Senators on the Senate Commerce and Transportation commitee announced a 6 year plan to provide 60 BILLION dollars to help Amtrak. "The reason that Amtrak is always coming up short and running to congress to say "We need more money" is because we have starved them to death," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex) the bills author. "Amtrak has been a stepchild in the national transportation system" he added.
The 4 Republicans Senators Hutchison, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Conrad Burns of Montana and Olympia Snowe of Maine-represent states outside Amtraks busy corridors. They have adopted the motto "National or Nothing". Under there plan, for every one dollar spent on the busy corridors, 4 must be spent elsewhere. They hope to expand rail service through out the nation and not just in the busy corridors.
This may sound good to some people but if this bill goes through it would mean cut funds for high speed rail.
TIM A

Source: Chicago Sun Times news section pg.30 Thursday July 31 2003
Written by: Laurence Arnold from AP

[Anonymous]

Very interesting article in the Chicago Sun Times today. "Republicans demand more money for Amtrak." by Laurence Arnold. Four Senators on the Senate Commerce and Transportation commitee announced a 6 year plan to provide 60 BILLION dollars to help Amtrak. "The reason that Amtrak is always coming up short and running to congress to say "We need more money" is because we have starved them to death," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex) the bills author. "Amtrak has been a stepchild in the national transportation system" he added.
The 4 Republicans Senators Hutchison, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Conrad Burns of Montana and Olympia Snowe of Maine-represent states outside Amtraks busy corridors. They have adopted the motto "National or Nothing". Under there plan, for every one dollar spent on the busy corridors, 4 must be spent elsewhere. They hope to expand rail service through out the nation and not just in the busy corridors.
This may sound good to some people but if this bill goes through it would mean cut funds for high speed rail.
TIM A

Source: Chicago Sun Times news section pg.30 Thursday July 31 2003
Written by: Laurence Arnold from AP

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Tim:
I saw the same article by Don Phillips (akaThe Potomac Pundit) in the Washington Post. I have 2 questions for each of the Senators. 1.) When was the last time you took the train gbetween Washington, DC and your home state? 2)How many time have you taken a train between Washington, DC and your home state?

Does this sound like the old vaudeville question,"When did you stop beating your wife?"

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Tim:
I saw the same article by Don Phillips (akaThe Potomac Pundit) in the Washington Post. I have 2 questions for each of the Senators. 1.) When was the last time you took the train gbetween Washington, DC and your home state? 2)How many time have you taken a train between Washington, DC and your home state?

Does this sound like the old vaudeville question,"When did you stop beating your wife?"

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[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]

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 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]

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]

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.

[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.