passenger trains

[overall]

The american population is getting older all the time. As you get older, it gets less safe for you and others you share the road with to drive. Airplanes, with the emphasis on cramming as many passengers as possible in them, can be quite uncomfortable. A well run passenger train service would be a good travel alternative for a significant part of the population ie senior americans.

overall

[Anonymous]

It doesn't take a ROCKET sciencist to see why you can drive and fly cheaper than AMTRAK.

1. Air Traffic Controllers are paid by the FEDS.
2.Airports are heavily subsidized by local communities and the FEDS.
3.HIGHWAYS are buillt and maintained by the TAXPAYERS.

Pay for some of the cost of right of way for the rails, dispatchers and other infrastructure and see what kind of rail transportation you can get.

Don't try and tell me light rail is part of the answer.


Tom
GOD BLESS THE GREAT NORTHERN

[Anonymous]

It doesn't take a ROCKET sciencist to see why you can drive and fly cheaper than AMTRAK.

1. Air Traffic Controllers are paid by the FEDS.
2.Airports are heavily subsidized by local communities and the FEDS.
3.HIGHWAYS are buillt and maintained by the TAXPAYERS.

Pay for some of the cost of right of way for the rails, dispatchers and other infrastructure and see what kind of rail transportation you can get.

Don't try and tell me light rail is part of the answer.


Tom
GOD BLESS THE GREAT NORTHERN

[Anonymous]

DonClark [:)]

Your post in the other thread about AMTRAK should be repeated here. This thread could use some truth and facts. We seem to have a person that makes posts that contrdict each other. In one thread he sounds almost for something and then in another thread he is just totally against it. I very much like the fact that you choose to state the truth and not some half witted, hair brained nonsense.

I did enjoy your pictures and your comments. I wish some people would just stop and consider other people and that other people do enjoy rail travel. You are so right, it is enjoyable and restful. It is nice to have some room, something you do not have on other modes of transporation. It most definately is not crowded. The cost is more than reasonable. The sleeping rooms can be a little high priced--but people must consider that is a premium service and would also be very pricey on an airplane. Some people take the train because they will not fly. Some people refuse to soak this in. Others take the train because they want to enjoy themselves and the scenery. On my last trip I flew because time was an issue. It turn out that I could have taken the train and did just as well. The airplane, one didn't arrive at all, and the other one they were going to put us on was 6 hours late. All in all we arrived at our destination about 10 hours late. NOT BY TRAIN BUT BY AIRPLANE. I really don't care to hear how fast airplanes are. Things go wrong in the airline industry just as much as they do in passenger rail. People cite Amtrak as always being late, not so, I check our train from time to time just for fun, recently it was 10 minutes early. I even made a post about it. But because the airplane was late am I going to say I will never fly again. That would be pretty stupid. I will fly if I have to BUT I would much rather take the train and enjoy the ride.

Don, thank you again. Your comments are always welcome.

[Anonymous]

DonClark [:)]

Your post in the other thread about AMTRAK should be repeated here. This thread could use some truth and facts. We seem to have a person that makes posts that contrdict each other. In one thread he sounds almost for something and then in another thread he is just totally against it. I very much like the fact that you choose to state the truth and not some half witted, hair brained nonsense.

I did enjoy your pictures and your comments. I wish some people would just stop and consider other people and that other people do enjoy rail travel. You are so right, it is enjoyable and restful. It is nice to have some room, something you do not have on other modes of transporation. It most definately is not crowded. The cost is more than reasonable. The sleeping rooms can be a little high priced--but people must consider that is a premium service and would also be very pricey on an airplane. Some people take the train because they will not fly. Some people refuse to soak this in. Others take the train because they want to enjoy themselves and the scenery. On my last trip I flew because time was an issue. It turn out that I could have taken the train and did just as well. The airplane, one didn't arrive at all, and the other one they were going to put us on was 6 hours late. All in all we arrived at our destination about 10 hours late. NOT BY TRAIN BUT BY AIRPLANE. I really don't care to hear how fast airplanes are. Things go wrong in the airline industry just as much as they do in passenger rail. People cite Amtrak as always being late, not so, I check our train from time to time just for fun, recently it was 10 minutes early. I even made a post about it. But because the airplane was late am I going to say I will never fly again. That would be pretty stupid. I will fly if I have to BUT I would much rather take the train and enjoy the ride.

Don, thank you again. Your comments are always welcome.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it cost less to fly from Denver to Chicago, but have you checked the fares for flying between Omaha and Salt Lake City? Its the same in Texas. One can fly very cheaply from Dallas to Chicago with roundtrip fares as low as $250, but will find a completely different story when flying from say Texarkana and Austin and Texarkana and Springfield with fares never below $500 roundtrip. This is where Amtrak is competitive, in the smaller markets Amtrak beats the airlines in importance and in price.

On my recent yoyage on Amtrak last week I rode from Cleburne, Texas to Chicago on the Eagle, from Chicago to New York City on the Lake Shore Limited, from New York City to Washington DC on the Acela. The trains were on time for a change, Mr. Gunn must have scared the daylights out of UP, and the trains averaged about 40 mph on the Eagle with mostly single track, 60 mph on the Lake Shore Limited with mostly double track, and over 100 mph on the Acela, electrified triple/quadruple track.

The point is Amtrak got me there in two days, I doubt whether I could drive that far in two days. Flying is out of the question with my inner ear condition. But even if I flew, I would not have seen the Empire State Building or the Sear Tower. However, I am convinced that if America invested in HSR I would have gotten there in one day.

And yes Amtrak has received billions since its inception, but I will guarantee you that if Amtrak had received the same billions the airlines have received or the highways have received in subsidies, HSR would be in place today.....and I would have gotten there in one day.....

[Anonymous]

Yes, it cost less to fly from Denver to Chicago, but have you checked the fares for flying between Omaha and Salt Lake City? Its the same in Texas. One can fly very cheaply from Dallas to Chicago with roundtrip fares as low as $250, but will find a completely different story when flying from say Texarkana and Austin and Texarkana and Springfield with fares never below $500 roundtrip. This is where Amtrak is competitive, in the smaller markets Amtrak beats the airlines in importance and in price.

On my recent yoyage on Amtrak last week I rode from Cleburne, Texas to Chicago on the Eagle, from Chicago to New York City on the Lake Shore Limited, from New York City to Washington DC on the Acela. The trains were on time for a change, Mr. Gunn must have scared the daylights out of UP, and the trains averaged about 40 mph on the Eagle with mostly single track, 60 mph on the Lake Shore Limited with mostly double track, and over 100 mph on the Acela, electrified triple/quadruple track.

The point is Amtrak got me there in two days, I doubt whether I could drive that far in two days. Flying is out of the question with my inner ear condition. But even if I flew, I would not have seen the Empire State Building or the Sear Tower. However, I am convinced that if America invested in HSR I would have gotten there in one day.

And yes Amtrak has received billions since its inception, but I will guarantee you that if Amtrak had received the same billions the airlines have received or the highways have received in subsidies, HSR would be in place today.....and I would have gotten there in one day.....

[dharmon]

Probably one of the topics that has been beat to death. Passenger rail service is right for you if:

1. You are the type that also takes cruises, because it is the trip, rather than getting there that is important., or

2. You do frequent travel between destinations that are 300 miles or less apart and you go downtown to downtown, and there is relatively high speed service avilable

for the rest, passenger rail is a reminder of an era long gone. planes are cheaper and quicker.

BTW -- I love passenger trains.

[dharmon]

Probably one of the topics that has been beat to death. Passenger rail service is right for you if:

1. You are the type that also takes cruises, because it is the trip, rather than getting there that is important., or

2. You do frequent travel between destinations that are 300 miles or less apart and you go downtown to downtown, and there is relatively high speed service avilable

for the rest, passenger rail is a reminder of an era long gone. planes are cheaper and quicker.

BTW -- I love passenger trains.

[Anonymous]

TARGUBRIGHT,

Seems like you have had some pretty bad experiences on AmtraK (<--- "k" not "c")
Anyways, what exactly was wrong with your train ride?

QUOTE: I have traveled by train on Amtrac 4 times last year. NEVER AGAIN!!!!!!! From now on I fly, I drive or I walk, BUT NEVER AGAIN ON AMTRAC. I am a railfan but not a Amtrac fan. The problems I seen on Amtrac were not funding related problems.

It's hard to feel sympathetic when you give a blank statement like that.

[Anonymous]

TARGUBRIGHT,

Seems like you have had some pretty bad experiences on AmtraK (<--- "k" not "c")
Anyways, what exactly was wrong with your train ride?

QUOTE: I have traveled by train on Amtrac 4 times last year. NEVER AGAIN!!!!!!! From now on I fly, I drive or I walk, BUT NEVER AGAIN ON AMTRAC. I am a railfan but not a Amtrac fan. The problems I seen on Amtrac were not funding related problems.

It's hard to feel sympathetic when you give a blank statement like that.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

Funny thing, I did a web search for Amtrac. Nothing was found. It just doesn't exist. Well it doesn't exist here on earth anyway. I am still trying to understand how you can ride something that doesn't exist. Oh I get it, its time for the men in the white suits to come and visit the "rider".

Maybe you should try search "Amtrak" instead of "Amtrac"? Hehehe[}:)]
Passenger service is dead in this country.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

Funny thing, I did a web search for Amtrac. Nothing was found. It just doesn't exist. Well it doesn't exist here on earth anyway. I am still trying to understand how you can ride something that doesn't exist. Oh I get it, its time for the men in the white suits to come and visit the "rider".

Maybe you should try search "Amtrak" instead of "Amtrac"? Hehehe[}:)]
Passenger service is dead in this country.

[Wdlgln005]

What Amtrak has been struggling with is not enough investment over 30 years to have a viable rail transportation system. They began with old locomotives pulling 20 year old cars. I think they still are. They are lucky somebody invested in Superliners and HEP in the 80's. The F40's have been replaced but not the Superliners. Amtrak covers fewer routes. Nobody cares if the Pioneer or the Desert Wind cuts Las Vegas from the system. Haven't had an Amtrak in Nashville since the Floridian stopped. The Kentucky Cardinal was a bad joke on those people willing to sit in Indy for the regular Cardinal to arrive from the East & the hospital train from Beech Grove to arrive. Took 12 hours from Louisville to Chicago & back when you can drive it in less.

It's no way to run a railroad. Gunn seems to be the first Amtrak president to tell it like it is. Either get the 1.8bil or shut the system down. No more slow starvation to the budget gods in Washington. It's too bad there isn't enough revenue from other sources, like the mail & express to help defray the costs of running trains when few passengers may be available.

[Wdlgln005]

What Amtrak has been struggling with is not enough investment over 30 years to have a viable rail transportation system. They began with old locomotives pulling 20 year old cars. I think they still are. They are lucky somebody invested in Superliners and HEP in the 80's. The F40's have been replaced but not the Superliners. Amtrak covers fewer routes. Nobody cares if the Pioneer or the Desert Wind cuts Las Vegas from the system. Haven't had an Amtrak in Nashville since the Floridian stopped. The Kentucky Cardinal was a bad joke on those people willing to sit in Indy for the regular Cardinal to arrive from the East & the hospital train from Beech Grove to arrive. Took 12 hours from Louisville to Chicago & back when you can drive it in less.

It's no way to run a railroad. Gunn seems to be the first Amtrak president to tell it like it is. Either get the 1.8bil or shut the system down. No more slow starvation to the budget gods in Washington. It's too bad there isn't enough revenue from other sources, like the mail & express to help defray the costs of running trains when few passengers may be available.

[brilondon]

You mean that they actually have food on airplanes. Last time I flew it was BYOF ( Bring your own food ). I can't really go with two peanuts, three pretzels, two cheese things and, oh yeah, one dixie cup of orange juice.

[brilondon]

You mean that they actually have food on airplanes. Last time I flew it was BYOF ( Bring your own food ). I can't really go with two peanuts, three pretzels, two cheese things and, oh yeah, one dixie cup of orange juice.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

Someone tell me what Amtrac is. I have never seen or heard of it. I have however, ridden Amtrak. It was a pleasant ride, relaxing, nice scenery, friendly crew, definately NOT your crowded airplane, with long lines, rude screeners, body searches, seats that wouldn't fit a skinny teen, and noisey cabin. And one of many nicer things about a train over an airplane is -- you actually have a choice when it comes to food. Now try to get some real food on an airplane! Oh yeah, some people think peanuts are real food.

That sounds like a nice railroad you ride on. With good service like that, I bet every businessman wants to ride on it. That railroad is probably just rolling in the money from all the profits that they make. To bad we do not have a railroad like that, down here on Earth. For if we did it would save us taxpayers a whole bunch of money.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

Someone tell me what Amtrac is. I have never seen or heard of it. I have however, ridden Amtrak. It was a pleasant ride, relaxing, nice scenery, friendly crew, definately NOT your crowded airplane, with long lines, rude screeners, body searches, seats that wouldn't fit a skinny teen, and noisey cabin. And one of many nicer things about a train over an airplane is -- you actually have a choice when it comes to food. Now try to get some real food on an airplane! Oh yeah, some people think peanuts are real food.

That sounds like a nice railroad you ride on. With good service like that, I bet every businessman wants to ride on it. That railroad is probably just rolling in the money from all the profits that they make. To bad we do not have a railroad like that, down here on Earth. For if we did it would save us taxpayers a whole bunch of money.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

If Amtrak got enough money to invest in some capitol investments ( like a steady source of $$$ for refurbished train cars, for example), and if the DOT or Congress, allowed for some sort of RR trust fund, then Amtrak might get something going. As it is, when the US spends, via trust fund, more in one year than Amtrak has been allowed over 32 years - what do you expect? If the passenger train is to survive as a viable option in the ground transport marketplace, one has to spend money in order to make money. Amtrak has never been given the money to spend.

Just how much more money does Amtrac need??? After 30 years of Goverment funding they should at least be able to provide desent service on the trains they are currently running!!! Lets not forget the price of those tickets, It costs less to fly from Chicago to Denver than to take a train. My question is, what did they do with all the money that was given them already????
TIM A

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

If Amtrak got enough money to invest in some capitol investments ( like a steady source of $$$ for refurbished train cars, for example), and if the DOT or Congress, allowed for some sort of RR trust fund, then Amtrak might get something going. As it is, when the US spends, via trust fund, more in one year than Amtrak has been allowed over 32 years - what do you expect? If the passenger train is to survive as a viable option in the ground transport marketplace, one has to spend money in order to make money. Amtrak has never been given the money to spend.

Just how much more money does Amtrac need??? After 30 years of Goverment funding they should at least be able to provide desent service on the trains they are currently running!!! Lets not forget the price of those tickets, It costs less to fly from Chicago to Denver than to take a train. My question is, what did they do with all the money that was given them already????
TIM A

[Anonymous]

Someone tell me what Amtrac is. I have never seen or heard of it. I have however, ridden Amtrak. It was a pleasant ride, relaxing, nice scenery, friendly crew, definately NOT your crowded airplane, with long lines, rude screeners, body searches, seats that wouldn't fit a skinny teen, and noisey cabin. And one of many nicer things about a train over an airplane is -- you actually have a choice when it comes to food. Now try to get some real food on an airplane! Oh yeah, some people think peanuts are real food.

[Anonymous]

Someone tell me what Amtrac is. I have never seen or heard of it. I have however, ridden Amtrak. It was a pleasant ride, relaxing, nice scenery, friendly crew, definately NOT your crowded airplane, with long lines, rude screeners, body searches, seats that wouldn't fit a skinny teen, and noisey cabin. And one of many nicer things about a train over an airplane is -- you actually have a choice when it comes to food. Now try to get some real food on an airplane! Oh yeah, some people think peanuts are real food.

[Anonymous]

I have traveled by train on Amtrac 4 times last year. NEVER AGAIN!!!!!!! From now on I fly, I drive or I walk, BUT NEVER AGAIN ON AMTRAC. I am a railfan but not a Amtrac fan. The problems I seen on Amtrac were not funding related problems.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

I have traveled by train on Amtrac 4 times last year. NEVER AGAIN!!!!!!! From now on I fly, I drive or I walk, BUT NEVER AGAIN ON AMTRAC. I am a railfan but not a Amtrac fan. The problems I seen on Amtrac were not funding related problems.
TIM A

[brilondon]

I know that the airplane has its marits; it's faster and these days seem to be closer in price to the airplane these days with the likes of Southwest, Jetblue, Westjet and the like. If you want to travel across the country in a timely fashion you would obviously take a plane for convience sake. If you want to go from Boston to New York though, the choice should be clear. THE TRAIN. Many less hassels; no rude or non-english speaking taxi drivers who charge outrageous fares; no security like the airport (although going through Penn Station is a bit like going through the airport); right downtown to downtown service. Try going to New York on an airplane. The closest you could get is La Guardia. That airport is old and congested. Kennedy just sucks. Liberty is out in the middle of a swamp. Try to get to Manhatten during a week-day from any of these airports and it is enough to drive you insane. I realize that the train may not always be the smartest way or the most convienient way to (i.e. time of departure) travel but it still is my favourite. But I assume that I am talking with the converted and not any airplane advocates.

[brilondon]

I know that the airplane has its marits; it's faster and these days seem to be closer in price to the airplane these days with the likes of Southwest, Jetblue, Westjet and the like. If you want to travel across the country in a timely fashion you would obviously take a plane for convience sake. If you want to go from Boston to New York though, the choice should be clear. THE TRAIN. Many less hassels; no rude or non-english speaking taxi drivers who charge outrageous fares; no security like the airport (although going through Penn Station is a bit like going through the airport); right downtown to downtown service. Try going to New York on an airplane. The closest you could get is La Guardia. That airport is old and congested. Kennedy just sucks. Liberty is out in the middle of a swamp. Try to get to Manhatten during a week-day from any of these airports and it is enough to drive you insane. I realize that the train may not always be the smartest way or the most convienient way to (i.e. time of departure) travel but it still is my favourite. But I assume that I am talking with the converted and not any airplane advocates.

[Anonymous]

I like trains, don't get me wrong. I love passenger trains, too.

I just think it's unreasonable that they charge the same, or slightly more, than airlines!

[Anonymous]

I like trains, don't get me wrong. I love passenger trains, too.

I just think it's unreasonable that they charge the same, or slightly more, than airlines!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ICEtrain

With

Hi Will [:D]

You know some people just don't "get it". Being able to kick back and watch the scenery go by is very enjoyable. STANDING IN LINE FOR HOURS AT THE AIRPORT IS NOT [:(!] IT WOULD BE A TERRIBLE DISSERVICE TO MANY ELDERLY PEOPLE TO REMOVE PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE. MANY OF THEM WILL NOT FLY. A CHOICE IS BETTER THAN NO CHOICE.