Who cares if passenger rail disappears ?

[cabforward]

if long-haul pass. service appeals to taxpayers, politicians, etc., why hasn't construction started? if hi-speed rail is important to our transportation infrastructure, why hasn't construction started?

is the vision in this area confined to railfans? is there noone else who can understand the importance of pouring concrete to begin this leap forward?

the answer is market appeal.. it sells everything anyone ever purchased.. we all use soap, right? does it matter what brand we buy? not really.. why do we buy certain brands and not others? market appeal.. the price, the color, the shape all contribute to the appeal of the product..

this applies to presidential elections, tv sets, and mass transit..

people have to want to use a product before they spend their money..

people do not care to use long-haul pass. service because it doesn't appeal to them.. i have already discussed the reasons for r.rs. lack of appeal.. and there are hundreds more.. unless/until an idea is presented to its audience in an appealing manner, it will not sell, period..

promises of better this-and-that will not motivate people to demand better rail service.. the govt. promising to do something carries no weight with the public.. there is no trust, no credibility in the govt..

a promise to build a better rail system will not impress anyone except bidding contractors and politicians in areas where work would take place..

a promise to make america as well-connected as the nec would carry no weight with 90% of voters.. voters do not care about improving conditions in another part of the country.. and they really don't care to pay taxes to provide better rail service between chicago and omaha..

due to planes and cars, railroads have become a local issue, or 500 miles of where you are..

someday, 500-mile links of rapid rail systems may be a reality.. but a mere plan that would be agreeable to everyone concerned won't happen this year or this decade or the next..

americans will not travel in large numbers unless they believe there is a substantial payoff.. airlines serve this need with speed.. cars serve this need with privacy and luxury..

how do trains serve this need? well, railfans like them, retired r.r. workers like them, kids like them.. gee, how can we improve those numbers? maybe if every supporter would persuade 2 people to write their congressman and we offer a special prayer to the 'super chief', we will get our wish, in less than 100 years!!

in the meantime, if you want to know what pass. trains were like in the old days, find someone who rode them.. if you want to ride a luxury train, buy a ticket on the orient express.. it leaves paris every day..

that's the only way you, your children and your grandchildren will get close to a terrific (though expensive) ride..

everyone discussing pass. trains should realize they are talking about pie-in-the-sky.. it's a dream, and that's all it its..

if it's fun to discuss pass. trains and how they could be better, that's one thing.. don't fool yourself into believing it might really happen.. that is a practical joke on yourself..

if govt. would spend the money, if politicians would see the need, if people would understand, if designers of hi-speed rail would explain to skeptics how it improved their transportation..

many years ago, i read a saying that sums it up..

if we had some ham, we could ham and eggs, if we had some eggs..

if amtrak had the money, it could present a case for a transit plan, if it had a plan..

[cabforward]

if long-haul pass. service appeals to taxpayers, politicians, etc., why hasn't construction started? if hi-speed rail is important to our transportation infrastructure, why hasn't construction started?

is the vision in this area confined to railfans? is there noone else who can understand the importance of pouring concrete to begin this leap forward?

the answer is market appeal.. it sells everything anyone ever purchased.. we all use soap, right? does it matter what brand we buy? not really.. why do we buy certain brands and not others? market appeal.. the price, the color, the shape all contribute to the appeal of the product..

this applies to presidential elections, tv sets, and mass transit..

people have to want to use a product before they spend their money..

people do not care to use long-haul pass. service because it doesn't appeal to them.. i have already discussed the reasons for r.rs. lack of appeal.. and there are hundreds more.. unless/until an idea is presented to its audience in an appealing manner, it will not sell, period..

promises of better this-and-that will not motivate people to demand better rail service.. the govt. promising to do something carries no weight with the public.. there is no trust, no credibility in the govt..

a promise to build a better rail system will not impress anyone except bidding contractors and politicians in areas where work would take place..

a promise to make america as well-connected as the nec would carry no weight with 90% of voters.. voters do not care about improving conditions in another part of the country.. and they really don't care to pay taxes to provide better rail service between chicago and omaha..

due to planes and cars, railroads have become a local issue, or 500 miles of where you are..

someday, 500-mile links of rapid rail systems may be a reality.. but a mere plan that would be agreeable to everyone concerned won't happen this year or this decade or the next..

americans will not travel in large numbers unless they believe there is a substantial payoff.. airlines serve this need with speed.. cars serve this need with privacy and luxury..

how do trains serve this need? well, railfans like them, retired r.r. workers like them, kids like them.. gee, how can we improve those numbers? maybe if every supporter would persuade 2 people to write their congressman and we offer a special prayer to the 'super chief', we will get our wish, in less than 100 years!!

in the meantime, if you want to know what pass. trains were like in the old days, find someone who rode them.. if you want to ride a luxury train, buy a ticket on the orient express.. it leaves paris every day..

that's the only way you, your children and your grandchildren will get close to a terrific (though expensive) ride..

everyone discussing pass. trains should realize they are talking about pie-in-the-sky.. it's a dream, and that's all it its..

if it's fun to discuss pass. trains and how they could be better, that's one thing.. don't fool yourself into believing it might really happen.. that is a practical joke on yourself..

if govt. would spend the money, if politicians would see the need, if people would understand, if designers of hi-speed rail would explain to skeptics how it improved their transportation..

many years ago, i read a saying that sums it up..

if we had some ham, we could ham and eggs, if we had some eggs..

if amtrak had the money, it could present a case for a transit plan, if it had a plan..

[Anonymous]

Frankly, I am not that much of a supporter for Amtrak. I would prefer to have private industry build the high speed railroad tracks, and operate them. But I do know this, the government will have to get involved to remove the obstacles: such as the nimby organizations, to force people to sell real estate at a reasonable price, and sell and back the bonds.

Ten years ago, TGV wanted to build the Texas triangle high speed trains, but they needed the help of the state government to back and sell the bonds. NO ONE HAS FIVE BILLION DOLLARS BURNING A HOLE IN THEIR POCKETS! Approximately 400 miles of double track electrified high speed rail would have been built at $12 million a mile is 4.8 billion dollars. The route was Dallas to San Antonio alongside I-35, with a branch from Temple to Houston alongside State Highway 6.

The only problem is by Texas law the selling of bonds must be approved by the electorate. At that time the state DOT was prohibited to sell bonds. Texas' turnpikes at that time were built by the North Texas Turnpike Authority, a commission brought about by a state constitutional amendment, which was passed by the voters in the early 1950s. Even today it is limited to selling only $1 billon worth of bonds, or debt. As we speak, the North Texas Turnpike Authority is building the new George Bu***urnpike around the northern suburbs of Dallas. However, since it is limited to a certain amount of debt, it has taken over 10 years just to get from State Highway 78 to I-35E. It is being built several miles at a time, which generate revenue to pay off some bonds, so that they can sell more bonds to build more of the turnpike. Eventually, in thirty years time, this turnpike might surround Dallas.

It is the same with DART. DART after selling its limit of bonds, again $1billion, was able to build a short starter line. As a few years went by, DART was able to build some more of the line to Plano. With federal appropriations the line to Garland was extended. SO IF THE FEDS CAN FUND INTRACITY LINES, WHY NOT INTERCITY LINES TOO?

So, do you see the picture? Either Amtrak or some other federal government funds the construction through appropriations, or the state sells and backs bonds to fund the construction. NO NEW CORPORATION WILL BE ABLE TO SELL THE BONDS BECAUSE NOBODY WILL BUY THEM!

A year ago you could purchase a airline ticket from Paris to Marsailles, but not today. TGV has finally reached Marsailles, and the airlines have abandoned the Paris to Marsailles fllights. Why?

PEOPLE ENJOY RIDING TRAINS, ESPECIALLY FAST TRAINS! The seats are wider, with much more leg room. One can get up and buy a snack or a drink at the time when one is hungry or thirsty, not when the airlline stewardess gets to you. And what is best about the train is the large number of doors, usually two per car in each both directions, the getting on and getting off of a train is so much faster than an airliner, which have only one door. Unless you are flying first class, it can take up to 20 minutes to embard and disembark a jet. Not so with a train, you will be off in less than a minute. On top of this luxury, one can stand up on a train and walk the train at any given time to stretch their legs and sit without seat belts. Unfortunately, airlines still have the stay seated and seat belt signs.

Oh yes, when the fast trains are here, you will have to make a decision whether to fly to Chicago from Dallas one day, or somewhere else of 900 miles. Six train hours will look good in the future when the airlines expect you to arrive three hours early to get through security instead of the two hours today. AND JUST WHO DO YOU THINK IS PAYING FOR THE AIRPORT SECURITY? Yep, the feds. The feds took this service over after the airlines FAILED to do the job properly.

The problem with fast trains is there comes a point of no return, long distances. Yes, the airllines will always win the long distances wars with trains. But trains easily win the 300 mile distances, compete well with the airlines at 500 miles, and lately, with the increased time at airports screening through security, in the future trains can compete well with the airllines up to 1000 miles.

And it is easy to catch the train. Carry your one piece of luggage and catch a commuter train or bus to the station, and catch a train. No need to park a car. If the bus isn't handy, call a cab. The price will be far less to take a cab to the station for most people than to ride a cab to the airport in the hicks.

However, I will agree with you on one thing. Slow trains are a thing of the past, and no one really wants to support the slow trains much more. We want to go fast, just like they do in Europe. And we don't like to fly, the airlines have treated us so poorly in the past packing us in their airlines like sardines...not to mention that a rain storm often leads to delays and other missed flights. It takes a flood or a mountain of snow to stop the train.

[Anonymous]

Frankly, I am not that much of a supporter for Amtrak. I would prefer to have private industry build the high speed railroad tracks, and operate them. But I do know this, the government will have to get involved to remove the obstacles: such as the nimby organizations, to force people to sell real estate at a reasonable price, and sell and back the bonds.

Ten years ago, TGV wanted to build the Texas triangle high speed trains, but they needed the help of the state government to back and sell the bonds. NO ONE HAS FIVE BILLION DOLLARS BURNING A HOLE IN THEIR POCKETS! Approximately 400 miles of double track electrified high speed rail would have been built at $12 million a mile is 4.8 billion dollars. The route was Dallas to San Antonio alongside I-35, with a branch from Temple to Houston alongside State Highway 6.

The only problem is by Texas law the selling of bonds must be approved by the electorate. At that time the state DOT was prohibited to sell bonds. Texas' turnpikes at that time were built by the North Texas Turnpike Authority, a commission brought about by a state constitutional amendment, which was passed by the voters in the early 1950s. Even today it is limited to selling only $1 billon worth of bonds, or debt. As we speak, the North Texas Turnpike Authority is building the new George Bu***urnpike around the northern suburbs of Dallas. However, since it is limited to a certain amount of debt, it has taken over 10 years just to get from State Highway 78 to I-35E. It is being built several miles at a time, which generate revenue to pay off some bonds, so that they can sell more bonds to build more of the turnpike. Eventually, in thirty years time, this turnpike might surround Dallas.

It is the same with DART. DART after selling its limit of bonds, again $1billion, was able to build a short starter line. As a few years went by, DART was able to build some more of the line to Plano. With federal appropriations the line to Garland was extended. SO IF THE FEDS CAN FUND INTRACITY LINES, WHY NOT INTERCITY LINES TOO?

So, do you see the picture? Either Amtrak or some other federal government funds the construction through appropriations, or the state sells and backs bonds to fund the construction. NO NEW CORPORATION WILL BE ABLE TO SELL THE BONDS BECAUSE NOBODY WILL BUY THEM!

A year ago you could purchase a airline ticket from Paris to Marsailles, but not today. TGV has finally reached Marsailles, and the airlines have abandoned the Paris to Marsailles fllights. Why?

PEOPLE ENJOY RIDING TRAINS, ESPECIALLY FAST TRAINS! The seats are wider, with much more leg room. One can get up and buy a snack or a drink at the time when one is hungry or thirsty, not when the airlline stewardess gets to you. And what is best about the train is the large number of doors, usually two per car in each both directions, the getting on and getting off of a train is so much faster than an airliner, which have only one door. Unless you are flying first class, it can take up to 20 minutes to embard and disembark a jet. Not so with a train, you will be off in less than a minute. On top of this luxury, one can stand up on a train and walk the train at any given time to stretch their legs and sit without seat belts. Unfortunately, airlines still have the stay seated and seat belt signs.

Oh yes, when the fast trains are here, you will have to make a decision whether to fly to Chicago from Dallas one day, or somewhere else of 900 miles. Six train hours will look good in the future when the airlines expect you to arrive three hours early to get through security instead of the two hours today. AND JUST WHO DO YOU THINK IS PAYING FOR THE AIRPORT SECURITY? Yep, the feds. The feds took this service over after the airlines FAILED to do the job properly.

The problem with fast trains is there comes a point of no return, long distances. Yes, the airllines will always win the long distances wars with trains. But trains easily win the 300 mile distances, compete well with the airlines at 500 miles, and lately, with the increased time at airports screening through security, in the future trains can compete well with the airllines up to 1000 miles.

And it is easy to catch the train. Carry your one piece of luggage and catch a commuter train or bus to the station, and catch a train. No need to park a car. If the bus isn't handy, call a cab. The price will be far less to take a cab to the station for most people than to ride a cab to the airport in the hicks.

However, I will agree with you on one thing. Slow trains are a thing of the past, and no one really wants to support the slow trains much more. We want to go fast, just like they do in Europe. And we don't like to fly, the airlines have treated us so poorly in the past packing us in their airlines like sardines...not to mention that a rain storm often leads to delays and other missed flights. It takes a flood or a mountain of snow to stop the train.

[cabforward]

when a govt. runs the r.r., they spend all the money they want.. tgv in france, and whatever they call it in japan, are govt. operations..

they can do whatever they want, they are in charge.. they own the bank, they print the money..

here, not true, o.k.? private r.rs. run freights, govt. runs pass.. they share freight's r-o-w, o.k.?

private r.rs. will not sell another pass. ticket in the present universe..

that leaves just the govt.. not csx or bnsf, not a group of r.rs., not a whiz-bang co. from mexico city..

the only way long-haul pass. will work here is if it is handled by the govt., just like in other countries, o.k.?

the problem is, other countries have always handled their r.rs.. here, private r.rs. handle freight, will never give it up, and resent the presence of amtrak on their r-o-w, o.k.?

the only r-o-w amtrak can use is private freights', because they used to run pass. trains on the same tracks they use for freight service now..

american taxpayers & politicians will never support building r-o-w just for amtrak, read my previous posts..

texas' secret behind their building of transit lines is just that, they are transit lines.. the feds support transit lines because crowded cities want them, the product is pre-sold.. noone will draw a supportive crowd arguing against transit, o.k.?

rail pass. service in america is dead for service over 500 miles.. amtrak will not be running the cross-country trains in 10 more years, the inflationary cost is too great, the benefits are too small, o.k.?

europe and other areas of the world can operate cross-country rail because they are in charge.. their word trumps anything the opposition can say..

the golden rule: 'he who has the gold, makes the rules'.. o.k.?

here the gold is split between the govt. and private freights, o.k.?

public sentiment, brainstorming of ideas and lists of advantages enjoyed if we would go with someone's plan don't count..

we will never have hi-speed rail as other countries do because we aren't like other countries.. their govts. have always run all their trains, their govts. can spend whatever they want, their govts. don't have to fight the hundreds of state, city, county govts. & govt. agencies to get permission to acquire r-o-w as we do, o.k.?

our govt. is not like any other, our legal structure is not like any other, our division of freight & pass. service is not like any other..

that means we can have no expectation of modeling pass. r.r. like any other, o.k.?

[cabforward]

when a govt. runs the r.r., they spend all the money they want.. tgv in france, and whatever they call it in japan, are govt. operations..

they can do whatever they want, they are in charge.. they own the bank, they print the money..

here, not true, o.k.? private r.rs. run freights, govt. runs pass.. they share freight's r-o-w, o.k.?

private r.rs. will not sell another pass. ticket in the present universe..

that leaves just the govt.. not csx or bnsf, not a group of r.rs., not a whiz-bang co. from mexico city..

the only way long-haul pass. will work here is if it is handled by the govt., just like in other countries, o.k.?

the problem is, other countries have always handled their r.rs.. here, private r.rs. handle freight, will never give it up, and resent the presence of amtrak on their r-o-w, o.k.?

the only r-o-w amtrak can use is private freights', because they used to run pass. trains on the same tracks they use for freight service now..

american taxpayers & politicians will never support building r-o-w just for amtrak, read my previous posts..

texas' secret behind their building of transit lines is just that, they are transit lines.. the feds support transit lines because crowded cities want them, the product is pre-sold.. noone will draw a supportive crowd arguing against transit, o.k.?

rail pass. service in america is dead for service over 500 miles.. amtrak will not be running the cross-country trains in 10 more years, the inflationary cost is too great, the benefits are too small, o.k.?

europe and other areas of the world can operate cross-country rail because they are in charge.. their word trumps anything the opposition can say..

the golden rule: 'he who has the gold, makes the rules'.. o.k.?

here the gold is split between the govt. and private freights, o.k.?

public sentiment, brainstorming of ideas and lists of advantages enjoyed if we would go with someone's plan don't count..

we will never have hi-speed rail as other countries do because we aren't like other countries.. their govts. have always run all their trains, their govts. can spend whatever they want, their govts. don't have to fight the hundreds of state, city, county govts. & govt. agencies to get permission to acquire r-o-w as we do, o.k.?

our govt. is not like any other, our legal structure is not like any other, our division of freight & pass. service is not like any other..

that means we can have no expectation of modeling pass. r.r. like any other, o.k.?

[f14aplusfl]

I'm no expert... but trains make a lot less noise than airports. And people complain about the noise from the airports (why they chose to live by one is beyond me). The government is willing to give billions to aid airlines and security that should have been considered in the first place and not a dime to Amtrak. The airport terminals some of you glorified owe their design (well nature of it) to the great tra9ins stations of America, namely Grand Central Station in NYC. Yeah, we won't have passenger trains like the ICE, TGV, and the Acela trainsets are a joke (now the HHP-8 locomotives are better). If anything, the US should invest in cars and locomotives and updrading and expanding the infrastructure to make the high speed rail possible. Not just for passengers, but also frieght. Think about it. A container ship loaded with bannas docks and they put it on some hotshot intermodal frieght from LA to Chicago, it'll get there in two days....but what about one day, half a day, etc..... the same we can do with passengers... it oughta be both. Remeber LCD (lasss than a carload) consists and passenger trains from my understanding were the priority trains of any railroad. Like the NY Central's Pacemaker (I might thave that one wrong) LCD service, for priority/perishable cargoes. Als we need to have pride in having passenger trains, like the Pennsyslavaina RR had for their blue ribbon fleet of trains. I doubt many Americans have pride in Amtrack, muchless the trains themselves or know if it exists. Like I asked my class of 32 fellow students, i'm the only one that has ridden a train beyond toursit trains, commutter rail, and rapid transit. And that was on Amtrack.

Also I think (but won't happen) that if there was competition between two RRs like the New York Central and Pennyslavainia did with their 20th Century Limit and the Broadway Limit, respectively, over practically the "same" route; service would be better, and the same for speed, competition can be very much a motivator in doing something, whatever it is.

[f14aplusfl]

I'm no expert... but trains make a lot less noise than airports. And people complain about the noise from the airports (why they chose to live by one is beyond me). The government is willing to give billions to aid airlines and security that should have been considered in the first place and not a dime to Amtrak. The airport terminals some of you glorified owe their design (well nature of it) to the great tra9ins stations of America, namely Grand Central Station in NYC. Yeah, we won't have passenger trains like the ICE, TGV, and the Acela trainsets are a joke (now the HHP-8 locomotives are better). If anything, the US should invest in cars and locomotives and updrading and expanding the infrastructure to make the high speed rail possible. Not just for passengers, but also frieght. Think about it. A container ship loaded with bannas docks and they put it on some hotshot intermodal frieght from LA to Chicago, it'll get there in two days....but what about one day, half a day, etc..... the same we can do with passengers... it oughta be both. Remeber LCD (lasss than a carload) consists and passenger trains from my understanding were the priority trains of any railroad. Like the NY Central's Pacemaker (I might thave that one wrong) LCD service, for priority/perishable cargoes. Als we need to have pride in having passenger trains, like the Pennsyslavaina RR had for their blue ribbon fleet of trains. I doubt many Americans have pride in Amtrack, muchless the trains themselves or know if it exists. Like I asked my class of 32 fellow students, i'm the only one that has ridden a train beyond toursit trains, commutter rail, and rapid transit. And that was on Amtrack.

Also I think (but won't happen) that if there was competition between two RRs like the New York Central and Pennyslavainia did with their 20th Century Limit and the Broadway Limit, respectively, over practically the "same" route; service would be better, and the same for speed, competition can be very much a motivator in doing something, whatever it is.

[cabforward]

you are living in a dream world.. why would two r.rs. compete for pass. traffic? what's the incentive? the admiration of the public? what could possibly make it worth their while to put in pass. trains when they could make 4x the money with freight?

you make it sound like, if we just ask them, they would fight to get in the doorway to ask us to allow them to run pass. trains just to make us happy..

really, what is that?

i'd really like for someone to respond to the arguments i have posted..

why would r.rs. run pass. trains instead of freight? they cut engineers off from loco cabs.. they're working conductors @ twice the responsibility as engineers and don't pay them a dime extra.. why would they spend $$ on pass. service?

r.rs. lost money on nearly all pass. runs when service was at its peak, but the freight side paid for it, so it balanced out, and they still made money..

the world is different in 2003.. and you're saying, golly, i bet the same r.rs. who couldn't wait to drop pass. service would now compete to return pass. service to the way it was..

have you read any news bulletins about the r.rs. being interested in running pass. trains? why is that?

you are failing to consider the 'cause-and-effect' aspect of the issue.. for a business to do something, there has to be a reason, a motivation, a payoff concept..

r.rs. make good money hauling reight, and they bend over backwards to do it.. this impresses customers and hopefully attracts interest from those who have not shipped by rail..

the motivation for pass. service is what? to provide adequate service, lose only a little money, so they can attract more people who want to ride and help the r.r. lose a little more money? are there many people who believe that?

[cabforward]

you are living in a dream world.. why would two r.rs. compete for pass. traffic? what's the incentive? the admiration of the public? what could possibly make it worth their while to put in pass. trains when they could make 4x the money with freight?

you make it sound like, if we just ask them, they would fight to get in the doorway to ask us to allow them to run pass. trains just to make us happy..

really, what is that?

i'd really like for someone to respond to the arguments i have posted..

why would r.rs. run pass. trains instead of freight? they cut engineers off from loco cabs.. they're working conductors @ twice the responsibility as engineers and don't pay them a dime extra.. why would they spend $$ on pass. service?

r.rs. lost money on nearly all pass. runs when service was at its peak, but the freight side paid for it, so it balanced out, and they still made money..

the world is different in 2003.. and you're saying, golly, i bet the same r.rs. who couldn't wait to drop pass. service would now compete to return pass. service to the way it was..

have you read any news bulletins about the r.rs. being interested in running pass. trains? why is that?

you are failing to consider the 'cause-and-effect' aspect of the issue.. for a business to do something, there has to be a reason, a motivation, a payoff concept..

r.rs. make good money hauling reight, and they bend over backwards to do it.. this impresses customers and hopefully attracts interest from those who have not shipped by rail..

the motivation for pass. service is what? to provide adequate service, lose only a little money, so they can attract more people who want to ride and help the r.r. lose a little more money? are there many people who believe that?

[joho2486]

As many have noted, you want high speed trains in the U.S. I just went on a trip to Europe that included a high speed TGV ride from Lyon to Paris. There are quite a few hinderances that keep high speed rail from becoming a reality. Here are some that really keep the high speed rail from becoming a reality:

1. Bush Administration - With a Texas man comes cattle and oil. While one doesn't factor in much, the other probably was a minor assurance of taking Iraq. With this administration also means more towards airplanes and cars, and not to trains (Not to mention trying to split up Amtrak).

2. Politicians - With so many politicians being paid by the oil companies to support bills that keep mpg standards low, many don't want to anger the source that normally keeps them in office.

3. Amtrak - With David Gunn in the house, the order at Amtrak is much better. However, is there someone like him that could run Amtrak, and is much younger? Once Gunn leaves, Amtrak will return to the "Warrington" days.

4. Northeast Corridor - While there is a grade-separated line for the most part between Washington and Boston, the cities in between are too close to achieving high speed (Washington to Baltimore; about 50 miles, every other city pair from Baltimore to Philly, and from Philly to NY, and even NY to Beantown less than 300 miles at best). Everyone is saying that the NEC is the best place for high speed trains. The NEC is best for about 110 mph trains that are very frequent (one every 30 minutes) and reliable. That will draw more riders, because the top speed of 150 is hardly even achieved. The best area to try to get high speed rail is in California, between LA and SF, and between LA and Sacramento. The next best area to try is in Texas, as someone has already mentioned, from Dallas to Houston, and from Dallas to San Antonio. Other city pairs include Vancouver-Seattle-Portland, Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Detroit, Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati, and Philadelphia-Pittsburgh.

5. (and final one) FRA buff standards - I hate to say it, but the European style trains are much lighter than our trains. Part of that is due to the fact that buff standards aren't as stringent as ours are. True, one can say that our buff standards still allow our trains to go higher speed, but the realization that going high speed means safety will always be compromised, even when the signaling system is the best (PTC). I remember going about 85 mph (130 kph) in suburban Paris and Lyon where there is no cab control; just lineside signals. You can't do that in the U.S., where the fastest you could go is 79 mph on CTC. Yes, lives will be lost, but when PTC makes a train stop when it exceeds its authority, the rails will be ultra safe, meaning that the buff standards can be relaxed somewhat.

I think I've said enough; how about your word?

[joho2486]

As many have noted, you want high speed trains in the U.S. I just went on a trip to Europe that included a high speed TGV ride from Lyon to Paris. There are quite a few hinderances that keep high speed rail from becoming a reality. Here are some that really keep the high speed rail from becoming a reality:

1. Bush Administration - With a Texas man comes cattle and oil. While one doesn't factor in much, the other probably was a minor assurance of taking Iraq. With this administration also means more towards airplanes and cars, and not to trains (Not to mention trying to split up Amtrak).

2. Politicians - With so many politicians being paid by the oil companies to support bills that keep mpg standards low, many don't want to anger the source that normally keeps them in office.

3. Amtrak - With David Gunn in the house, the order at Amtrak is much better. However, is there someone like him that could run Amtrak, and is much younger? Once Gunn leaves, Amtrak will return to the "Warrington" days.

4. Northeast Corridor - While there is a grade-separated line for the most part between Washington and Boston, the cities in between are too close to achieving high speed (Washington to Baltimore; about 50 miles, every other city pair from Baltimore to Philly, and from Philly to NY, and even NY to Beantown less than 300 miles at best). Everyone is saying that the NEC is the best place for high speed trains. The NEC is best for about 110 mph trains that are very frequent (one every 30 minutes) and reliable. That will draw more riders, because the top speed of 150 is hardly even achieved. The best area to try to get high speed rail is in California, between LA and SF, and between LA and Sacramento. The next best area to try is in Texas, as someone has already mentioned, from Dallas to Houston, and from Dallas to San Antonio. Other city pairs include Vancouver-Seattle-Portland, Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Detroit, Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati, and Philadelphia-Pittsburgh.

5. (and final one) FRA buff standards - I hate to say it, but the European style trains are much lighter than our trains. Part of that is due to the fact that buff standards aren't as stringent as ours are. True, one can say that our buff standards still allow our trains to go higher speed, but the realization that going high speed means safety will always be compromised, even when the signaling system is the best (PTC). I remember going about 85 mph (130 kph) in suburban Paris and Lyon where there is no cab control; just lineside signals. You can't do that in the U.S., where the fastest you could go is 79 mph on CTC. Yes, lives will be lost, but when PTC makes a train stop when it exceeds its authority, the rails will be ultra safe, meaning that the buff standards can be relaxed somewhat.

I think I've said enough; how about your word?

[cabforward]

mr joho,

some references in your post i cannot follow..

your first sentence says, you want hi-speed trains in the u.s.. are you speaking of people generally, or me in particular?

me, i couldn't care less either way.. i am just arguing a position based on what i have seen in the media and what i have understood from history..

whatever happens to amtrak, r.rs. in general, or any aspect of trans., means nothing to me, except that it proves me right or wrong..

you are wrong about the bush presidency being indifferent to r.rs.. he is no better or worse than many pres. before him..

the last prseident who made any significant decisions about amtrak, as far as i'm concerned, was nixon.. he signed the bill authorizing the installation of amtrak..

you talk of oil interests keeping r.rs. from becoming more important as a means of trans.. maybe you're right, but it seems there is always a need for a product that can be made from oil.. the market is there, and will be there for the foreseeable future..

the media have recently reported the development of hydrogen autos.. hydrogen gas is injected into a pressurized tank.. range is approx. 200 miles.. the predicted cost of a new hydrogen car today, is approx. $40-60,000..

seems to me exxon would have a lot to say about losing a piece of the market to a hydrogen-based fuel, whose only 'exhaust' is water.. how did 'big oil' miss that one?

you talk of the nec and cities out west having connections.. o.k., that's supports what i said.. pass. service under 500 miles is a probable development.. this distance is 'local' in terms of transportation discussions.. i have written positively of transit lines in each post..

fra buff standards- what is that? never saw it before..
you say theirs are lighter than ours, o.k.. you're way past me here..need clarification..

european-style trains- what is that? are you referring to trains in europe, or trains that are designed to look like european trains?

i lived in germany in the 60s as a military dependent, and rode trains often.. the economy of europe has changed in 40 years, but european rail has changed very little..

that there have been few negative changes in pass. service is an outstanding testament to european commitment to providing train service everywhere in their domain..

service is on time, r-o-w & rolling stock is maintained, service is frequent to the point of being convenient and the standardization of rules, fares and mutual assistance is remarkable, considering the differnces in culture, language, etc.. this true everywhere except in spain.. spanish gauge is 5 ft.. there is no interchange of eqpt.. the people are extremely friendly, however, and the interruption of changing trains is aminor issue..

[cabforward]

mr joho,

some references in your post i cannot follow..

your first sentence says, you want hi-speed trains in the u.s.. are you speaking of people generally, or me in particular?

me, i couldn't care less either way.. i am just arguing a position based on what i have seen in the media and what i have understood from history..

whatever happens to amtrak, r.rs. in general, or any aspect of trans., means nothing to me, except that it proves me right or wrong..

you are wrong about the bush presidency being indifferent to r.rs.. he is no better or worse than many pres. before him..

the last prseident who made any significant decisions about amtrak, as far as i'm concerned, was nixon.. he signed the bill authorizing the installation of amtrak..

you talk of oil interests keeping r.rs. from becoming more important as a means of trans.. maybe you're right, but it seems there is always a need for a product that can be made from oil.. the market is there, and will be there for the foreseeable future..

the media have recently reported the development of hydrogen autos.. hydrogen gas is injected into a pressurized tank.. range is approx. 200 miles.. the predicted cost of a new hydrogen car today, is approx. $40-60,000..

seems to me exxon would have a lot to say about losing a piece of the market to a hydrogen-based fuel, whose only 'exhaust' is water.. how did 'big oil' miss that one?

you talk of the nec and cities out west having connections.. o.k., that's supports what i said.. pass. service under 500 miles is a probable development.. this distance is 'local' in terms of transportation discussions.. i have written positively of transit lines in each post..

fra buff standards- what is that? never saw it before..
you say theirs are lighter than ours, o.k.. you're way past me here..need clarification..

european-style trains- what is that? are you referring to trains in europe, or trains that are designed to look like european trains?

i lived in germany in the 60s as a military dependent, and rode trains often.. the economy of europe has changed in 40 years, but european rail has changed very little..

that there have been few negative changes in pass. service is an outstanding testament to european commitment to providing train service everywhere in their domain..

service is on time, r-o-w & rolling stock is maintained, service is frequent to the point of being convenient and the standardization of rules, fares and mutual assistance is remarkable, considering the differnces in culture, language, etc.. this true everywhere except in spain.. spanish gauge is 5 ft.. there is no interchange of eqpt.. the people are extremely friendly, however, and the interruption of changing trains is aminor issue..

[Anonymous]

Let's not get too small about distances. While the original TGV line went from Paris to Lyons, that line has been extended to Marsailles, with plans to expand from Marsailes to Barcelona, where Spain is building and built a line to Madrid and Seville. Italy has built a line from Rome to Milan, and is building with the French a line west of Milan to Lyons through the Alps. France, Belgium, and the Netherlands have built a line north of Paris to Amsterdam, and a line from Lille to the chunnel to London, well the British are building from the chunnel to London. France has started construction of a line east of Paris to Strastbourg, where the Germans are building a line from Frankfurt too. Germany has already built a line from Frankfurt to the Ruhr, from the Ruhr to Amsterdam, from the Ruhr to Hannover, from Hannover to Hamburg, and are building a line from Hannover to Berlin. Germany has plans to build south from Frankfurt to Munich, and down to Venice eventually. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SEVERAL THOUSAND MILES OF HIGH SPEED RAIL CONNECTIVITY IN EUROPE EVENTUALLY. The Paris to Lyons line is now tripled what it once was. TRIPLED! So the 300 mile line, with its advantages of air travel, is and has been extended in Europe.

Any high speed rail plan in America that will have any support in the Congress and among the American people will have to AT LEAST connect the northeast corridor to Chicago (the midwest), to Florida (the southeast), and to Texas, not to mention a line on the west coast in California. It is approximately 450 miles from Boston to Washington DC. It is approximately the same distance from Washington DC to Atlanta, and the same farther south to Miami. Yes, the east coast line will be long. Its about 800 miles from Philadelphia to Chicago along the !-76, I-80 route. It is less than 100 miles from Toledo to Detroit. Its around 900 miles from Dallas to Chicago along I-35, I-44, and I-55. Its another 250 miles to Houston and 300 miles to San Antonio. Its around 800 miles along I-20 from Dallas to Atlanta, and about the same from Houston to Jacksonville. One of these routes should be built, not both in the South, but which one is preferreable I will leave to the engineers and the politicians. What Amtrak is missing in its routes today is a line from the Midwest to Florida, Its only 650 miles from Chicago to Atlanta. There are two possible routes for the west coast, a shorter 450 mile line following I-5, or a longer 600 mile route following the former US Hwy 99 through Fresno and Bakersville. The same here, let's let the engineers and politicans choose which route is best. The Portland to Vancouver route already have Talgo trains, but some money could be spent to make these trains go faster.

The major population centers would be connected. Here are some of the cities included on this 7,000 mile network. Boston, New York City, Philadelphis, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston; New Orleans, Mobile, Tallahasse, or Shreveport, Jackson, Birmingham; Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Richmond, Washington DC, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Lousiville, Nashville, plus Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, possibly Albany, Bufallo, Toronto, Montreal, not to mention San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, even as far as Sacramento, plus Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. What large towns are missing, such as Norfolk, Memphis, Columbus, Cincinnatti , Denver, and Phoenix could be eventually be built at a later time. These added cities would be about another 1,500 miles to build.
EVERY STATE EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IS INCLUDED, EXCEPT FOR VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND MAINE, AND DEPENDING WHETHER A LINE IS BUILT TO DC FROM PITTSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA COULD OR COULD NOT BE INCLUDED!

I see no need to build high speed rail over the Rockies, but either the former UP line in Wyoming or the Santa Fe line would be best for costs. I see no need to maintain daily service on the transcontinentals; once, or even twice a week service would do, possibly by private firms. The best scenery is already being served by the Colorado Ski Train west of Denver already. The same could be said of the service between Sacramento and Portland.

Recently I have seen a lot of satellite photos of the Northeast blackout, and photos at night of the llights before the blackout. There is no doubt that America has the population density enough for high speed rail between the Northeast to the Midwest to Texas to Florida, and from the Midwest to Florida, and in California. I have compared these lights to the Europeans satellite photos lights too. No doubt in my mind. The satellite photos showed the lights....the density....

Costs. The 7,000 mile plans can be built for the costs of two years of DOT spending, i.e., subsidies to highways and airports. I call for a moratorium on federal subsidies to highways and airports for two years. We won't miss it in the long run, and we would surely enjoy the new high speed rail network built instead.

No doubt about it. Vision and insight is needed, along with a proper sense of priorities.

Who will ride the fast trains? You will, once the fast train blows your doors off your car on the interstate.

[Anonymous]

Let's not get too small about distances. While the original TGV line went from Paris to Lyons, that line has been extended to Marsailles, with plans to expand from Marsailes to Barcelona, where Spain is building and built a line to Madrid and Seville. Italy has built a line from Rome to Milan, and is building with the French a line west of Milan to Lyons through the Alps. France, Belgium, and the Netherlands have built a line north of Paris to Amsterdam, and a line from Lille to the chunnel to London, well the British are building from the chunnel to London. France has started construction of a line east of Paris to Strastbourg, where the Germans are building a line from Frankfurt too. Germany has already built a line from Frankfurt to the Ruhr, from the Ruhr to Amsterdam, from the Ruhr to Hannover, from Hannover to Hamburg, and are building a line from Hannover to Berlin. Germany has plans to build south from Frankfurt to Munich, and down to Venice eventually. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SEVERAL THOUSAND MILES OF HIGH SPEED RAIL CONNECTIVITY IN EUROPE EVENTUALLY. The Paris to Lyons line is now tripled what it once was. TRIPLED! So the 300 mile line, with its advantages of air travel, is and has been extended in Europe.

Any high speed rail plan in America that will have any support in the Congress and among the American people will have to AT LEAST connect the northeast corridor to Chicago (the midwest), to Florida (the southeast), and to Texas, not to mention a line on the west coast in California. It is approximately 450 miles from Boston to Washington DC. It is approximately the same distance from Washington DC to Atlanta, and the same farther south to Miami. Yes, the east coast line will be long. Its about 800 miles from Philadelphia to Chicago along the !-76, I-80 route. It is less than 100 miles from Toledo to Detroit. Its around 900 miles from Dallas to Chicago along I-35, I-44, and I-55. Its another 250 miles to Houston and 300 miles to San Antonio. Its around 800 miles along I-20 from Dallas to Atlanta, and about the same from Houston to Jacksonville. One of these routes should be built, not both in the South, but which one is preferreable I will leave to the engineers and the politicians. What Amtrak is missing in its routes today is a line from the Midwest to Florida, Its only 650 miles from Chicago to Atlanta. There are two possible routes for the west coast, a shorter 450 mile line following I-5, or a longer 600 mile route following the former US Hwy 99 through Fresno and Bakersville. The same here, let's let the engineers and politicans choose which route is best. The Portland to Vancouver route already have Talgo trains, but some money could be spent to make these trains go faster.

The major population centers would be connected. Here are some of the cities included on this 7,000 mile network. Boston, New York City, Philadelphis, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston; New Orleans, Mobile, Tallahasse, or Shreveport, Jackson, Birmingham; Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Richmond, Washington DC, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Lousiville, Nashville, plus Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, possibly Albany, Bufallo, Toronto, Montreal, not to mention San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, even as far as Sacramento, plus Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. What large towns are missing, such as Norfolk, Memphis, Columbus, Cincinnatti , Denver, and Phoenix could be eventually be built at a later time. These added cities would be about another 1,500 miles to build.
EVERY STATE EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IS INCLUDED, EXCEPT FOR VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND MAINE, AND DEPENDING WHETHER A LINE IS BUILT TO DC FROM PITTSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA COULD OR COULD NOT BE INCLUDED!

I see no need to build high speed rail over the Rockies, but either the former UP line in Wyoming or the Santa Fe line would be best for costs. I see no need to maintain daily service on the transcontinentals; once, or even twice a week service would do, possibly by private firms. The best scenery is already being served by the Colorado Ski Train west of Denver already. The same could be said of the service between Sacramento and Portland.

Recently I have seen a lot of satellite photos of the Northeast blackout, and photos at night of the llights before the blackout. There is no doubt that America has the population density enough for high speed rail between the Northeast to the Midwest to Texas to Florida, and from the Midwest to Florida, and in California. I have compared these lights to the Europeans satellite photos lights too. No doubt in my mind. The satellite photos showed the lights....the density....

Costs. The 7,000 mile plans can be built for the costs of two years of DOT spending, i.e., subsidies to highways and airports. I call for a moratorium on federal subsidies to highways and airports for two years. We won't miss it in the long run, and we would surely enjoy the new high speed rail network built instead.

No doubt about it. Vision and insight is needed, along with a proper sense of priorities.

Who will ride the fast trains? You will, once the fast train blows your doors off your car on the interstate.

[Anonymous]

Number of trainsets to provide around 2 hour service along high speed routes listed above averaging 150 mph.
450 miles, three trainsets, one and a half in each direction.
600 miles, four trainsets two in each direction.
900 miles, six trainsets three in each direction.

To keep this in perspective, Amtak operates six trainsets on each of its transcontinental lines today, and has four trainscontinental routes (joining the Texas Eagle with the Sunset Limited. This provides due to the slow speed once daily service in each direction, sometimes in the middle of the night. Whereas with high speed rail there could be up to six daily stops in each direction on the 900 mile routes every two hours.....

You tell me if this is enough service. Not quite the 30 minute service of the northeast corridor, but far better for the rest of the nation....

[Anonymous]

Number of trainsets to provide around 2 hour service along high speed routes listed above averaging 150 mph.
450 miles, three trainsets, one and a half in each direction.
600 miles, four trainsets two in each direction.
900 miles, six trainsets three in each direction.

To keep this in perspective, Amtak operates six trainsets on each of its transcontinental lines today, and has four trainscontinental routes (joining the Texas Eagle with the Sunset Limited. This provides due to the slow speed once daily service in each direction, sometimes in the middle of the night. Whereas with high speed rail there could be up to six daily stops in each direction on the 900 mile routes every two hours.....

You tell me if this is enough service. Not quite the 30 minute service of the northeast corridor, but far better for the rest of the nation....

[Anonymous]

Don,
I think it is wrong to compare Europe rail travel to our situation here in the States. Lets not forget fuel for automobiles in European countries it very expensive as compared to what we pay in our country.
I believe the big question concerning rail travel in our Country is, IF YOU BUILD IT, WILL THEY COME.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

Don,
I think it is wrong to compare Europe rail travel to our situation here in the States. Lets not forget fuel for automobiles in European countries it very expensive as compared to what we pay in our country.
I believe the big question concerning rail travel in our Country is, IF YOU BUILD IT, WILL THEY COME.
TIM A

[Modelcar]

....Yes they would it we could build and maintain a system like Don lays out. I wi***he discribed system could be built but getting a consensus among politicans and all other necessary people to provide the money seems unsurmountable. It is just a fact we spend most of our available tax money on war making machines and trying to police and nation build the world that the money pot is always dry. Europe is [spending money] modernizing and we spend money to protect their interests. We're not even keeping up our Interstate Highway system as we should.

[Modelcar]

....Yes they would it we could build and maintain a system like Don lays out. I wi***he discribed system could be built but getting a consensus among politicans and all other necessary people to provide the money seems unsurmountable. It is just a fact we spend most of our available tax money on war making machines and trying to police and nation build the world that the money pot is always dry. Europe is [spending money] modernizing and we spend money to protect their interests. We're not even keeping up our Interstate Highway system as we should.

[joho2486]

Dear cabforward,

To clarify some points (and probably unclarify other points), the high-speed trains are for everyone. Once you ride a high-speed train (TGV, Eurostar, ICE, Shinkhausen, AVE, etc.), you'll agree that there is much more legroom than any coach seat on an airplane. As I have mentioned, I rode the TGV this summer between Lyon and Paris.

The remark about the presidency is somewhat correct. Reagan didn't want Amtrak, but he never tried to split the company up. However, the idea of splitting up Amtrak into a train-operating company and an infrastructure idea is very flawed. Britain tried it already, and it failed miserably; with on-time performance plummeting, deterioration of equipment, and disagreement over MOW windows and capacity improvements. Keep Amtrak the way it is; remember, when you don't own the tracks, you can't provide flexibility in train scheduling.

Buff standards are the minimum requirements that a train car must take in a collision without failing structurally, and basically what keeps train cars from crumbling up like a paper ball in a crash. Recently, there was a debate between the FRA and Amtrak over buff standards with the Talgo trainsets that operate in the Pacific Northwest. The FRA grandfathered those trainsets. The buff standard, I believe, is around 800,000 pounds, or the weight of about two SD40-2s. Also, when VIA, the national passenger service in Canada, bought the Nightstar equipment from Britain, the big story was that the buff standards were too light compared to Canada and the U.S., and that the cars would have to be reinforced structually. You do remember that the freight trains are much lighter over in Europe, right? When I visited Germany, I saw a lot of trains, but most were only about 20-30 cars long with one electric engine. That's the reason the buff-standards are lower in Europe; the trains are lighter in metric tonnes.

Finally, what I meant from European-style trains is more of the articulated trainsets, electrified rail-lines strictly for passenger trains, and more frequent and reliable service. Right now, two of those parts exist in the NEC (electrified lines and frequent service), though the frequent service depends on which section of the NEC is in discussion.

[joho2486]

Dear cabforward,

To clarify some points (and probably unclarify other points), the high-speed trains are for everyone. Once you ride a high-speed train (TGV, Eurostar, ICE, Shinkhausen, AVE, etc.), you'll agree that there is much more legroom than any coach seat on an airplane. As I have mentioned, I rode the TGV this summer between Lyon and Paris.

The remark about the presidency is somewhat correct. Reagan didn't want Amtrak, but he never tried to split the company up. However, the idea of splitting up Amtrak into a train-operating company and an infrastructure idea is very flawed. Britain tried it already, and it failed miserably; with on-time performance plummeting, deterioration of equipment, and disagreement over MOW windows and capacity improvements. Keep Amtrak the way it is; remember, when you don't own the tracks, you can't provide flexibility in train scheduling.

Buff standards are the minimum requirements that a train car must take in a collision without failing structurally, and basically what keeps train cars from crumbling up like a paper ball in a crash. Recently, there was a debate between the FRA and Amtrak over buff standards with the Talgo trainsets that operate in the Pacific Northwest. The FRA grandfathered those trainsets. The buff standard, I believe, is around 800,000 pounds, or the weight of about two SD40-2s. Also, when VIA, the national passenger service in Canada, bought the Nightstar equipment from Britain, the big story was that the buff standards were too light compared to Canada and the U.S., and that the cars would have to be reinforced structually. You do remember that the freight trains are much lighter over in Europe, right? When I visited Germany, I saw a lot of trains, but most were only about 20-30 cars long with one electric engine. That's the reason the buff-standards are lower in Europe; the trains are lighter in metric tonnes.

Finally, what I meant from European-style trains is more of the articulated trainsets, electrified rail-lines strictly for passenger trains, and more frequent and reliable service. Right now, two of those parts exist in the NEC (electrified lines and frequent service), though the frequent service depends on which section of the NEC is in discussion.

[PNWRMNM]

I care and I want them gone.

Since 1901 the US Government has been totaly anti-railroad, despite the fact that the economy was then totaly dependent upon them.

The Govt bleed the carriers dry with rate regulation and empowred the unions to strangle them with high wages and restrictive work rules. That is why the Govt. took the railroads over during WWI. Note the first thing they did was increase rates 25%, which that had forbade the owners from doing.

Amtrak cut half the service the day they took over. Kill the beast. Let the states take over the NEC, they are the big useres of it anyway.

No one is going to build high speed lines in this country for decades. The only way is to start from scratch. That means no Amtrak.

Mac

[PNWRMNM]

I care and I want them gone.

Since 1901 the US Government has been totaly anti-railroad, despite the fact that the economy was then totaly dependent upon them.

The Govt bleed the carriers dry with rate regulation and empowred the unions to strangle them with high wages and restrictive work rules. That is why the Govt. took the railroads over during WWI. Note the first thing they did was increase rates 25%, which that had forbade the owners from doing.

Amtrak cut half the service the day they took over. Kill the beast. Let the states take over the NEC, they are the big useres of it anyway.

No one is going to build high speed lines in this country for decades. The only way is to start from scratch. That means no Amtrak.

Mac

[Anonymous]

There is a very good article in the Sunday Chicago Tribune today. (24 AUG 03). There is a sentence in it, that I found very surprising." Americans are taking to rails in record numbers." Amtrak carried 2.2 million passengers in July the busiest month ever. (About 35,000 passengers a day. Mostly in the Northeast Corridor.)
In that article Mr. Gunn say's "Lets not indulge in this fantasy of self-sufficiency. This is a public service. Let's get on with it."
Maybe Amtrak has someone in charge who is not a dreamer, but a do'er.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

There is a very good article in the Sunday Chicago Tribune today. (24 AUG 03). There is a sentence in it, that I found very surprising." Americans are taking to rails in record numbers." Amtrak carried 2.2 million passengers in July the busiest month ever. (About 35,000 passengers a day. Mostly in the Northeast Corridor.)
In that article Mr. Gunn say's "Lets not indulge in this fantasy of self-sufficiency. This is a public service. Let's get on with it."
Maybe Amtrak has someone in charge who is not a dreamer, but a do'er.
TIM A

[edblysard]

Thats what I have said all along.
Forget trying to make money at it, its a public service, or a public utillity.
The frieght roads were right when they shed themselves of it, it dosnt make money, hasnt since the twenties, never will.

But here a thought.
How often has the price of gasoline jumped up and down in the last three months?
Did you really notice?
Most didnt, they just filled up and went on with things.
Add a penny or two the the gas tax, which most folks would never even notice, and all the funding for a nationalized passenger service is there.

I ride the train, not because I am a railroader, nor for the "romance" involved.
I ride because the flight between Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth used to take about 2 hours total on Southwest, but now takes almost 8, and I can drive both ways in that time.

Because if something goes wrong, the most the train can fall is around 18 feet, instead of 10000 feet.
But mostly because it gets me there in the time frame I need it to, with out the hassle.

Unless the federal goverment takes over the entire airline industry, and runs it like a military operation, what you get now is a good as it will ever be!
And what we have now is worst than bad.
Options are running out, along with time.
Our national population is growing much faster than anyone had plannned, we are running out of time and space at a alarming rate.
Choices?
Build more, wider interstates?
You already know that would take so long that by the time it ever got finished, it would be obsolete.
Bigger airplanes,?
We are out of space to land the ones we have now!

You couldnt pay me to fly into JFK, or LAX.

So how do you sell railroad travel to the general public?
Well, Ike did a great job with the interstate as a national defense project!
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Thats what I have said all along.
Forget trying to make money at it, its a public service, or a public utillity.
The frieght roads were right when they shed themselves of it, it dosnt make money, hasnt since the twenties, never will.

But here a thought.
How often has the price of gasoline jumped up and down in the last three months?
Did you really notice?
Most didnt, they just filled up and went on with things.
Add a penny or two the the gas tax, which most folks would never even notice, and all the funding for a nationalized passenger service is there.

I ride the train, not because I am a railroader, nor for the "romance" involved.
I ride because the flight between Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth used to take about 2 hours total on Southwest, but now takes almost 8, and I can drive both ways in that time.

Because if something goes wrong, the most the train can fall is around 18 feet, instead of 10000 feet.
But mostly because it gets me there in the time frame I need it to, with out the hassle.

Unless the federal goverment takes over the entire airline industry, and runs it like a military operation, what you get now is a good as it will ever be!
And what we have now is worst than bad.
Options are running out, along with time.
Our national population is growing much faster than anyone had plannned, we are running out of time and space at a alarming rate.
Choices?
Build more, wider interstates?
You already know that would take so long that by the time it ever got finished, it would be obsolete.
Bigger airplanes,?
We are out of space to land the ones we have now!

You couldnt pay me to fly into JFK, or LAX.

So how do you sell railroad travel to the general public?
Well, Ike did a great job with the interstate as a national defense project!
Stay Frosty,
Ed