Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="4merroad4man"] [quote user="BNSFwatcher"] Does Amtrak make any money chartering their equipment?  I'd rather see it in its intended service, including shopping, rather than pulling some "Thomas the Tank Engine Foamers" around.  Amtrak was able to "spare" a P40 (?) to pull the silly Disney train around, and other publicity gigs, and is looking to buy new engines?  Priorities, Joe![/quote]   If priced correctly, charters are one area where Amtrak actually can turn a profit.  Even without charters, though, there has been a complete lack of numbers of equipment for existing service and protection of that service.  With all the demands placed upon Amtrak for route studies, and the need to rebuild existing equipment, plus possible alterations to existing LD services (sorry Don, don't look for discontinuances) the need for additonal equipment becomes quite evident. On the power side, the P42's are very old, older in fact than a lot of F units when they were retired, and the technology, while fine 17 years ago, could stand replacement with locomotives which are even more fuel efficient. Amtrak needs new equipment, period.  A recent article in USA Today indicates that the traveling public is disgusted with the overall hassle and privacy invasions required for air travel, and that, once again they are turning to other forms of transportation, notably automobiles and trains.  And as one person noted, driving in a car will eventually get old, by reason of cost and hassle, so those folks will look toward Amtrak as well. I feel that the only reason, in many instances, why Amtrak's ridership doesn't grow more is that the lack of equipment places a cap on it.  Yes, new equipment is a definite need, in all areas of the operation.[/quote] Last year I took the train from Taylor to Dallas three times.  I was staying in Dallas for a concert, so taking the train was feasible way to get there and back.  However, with only one train a day north and south, I am taking a risk when I take the Texas Eagle.  If the southbound train is very late, I will get home very late.  Or if it is does not run because of a derailment, lets say, I am out of luck unless Amtrak substitutes a bus.  There is no commercial transport option to Taylor.  In the future I plan to go from Temple as opposed to Taylor.  Temple at least has one bus to and from Dallas, although it connects through Waco, and it takes a long time. The key to expanded use of passenger rail in Texas is frequent, dependable, economical, safe, etc. trains.  Anything less than three trains a day is not going to work.  It does not give potential passengers enough flexibility in their travel planning.  In addition, the running time from San Antonio to Dallas, for example, would have to be reduced to make it comparable to other surface transport options.  As it is, the train takes too long.  Running long distance trains, which are used by few people, takes the policy maker's eyes off the ball.  Instead of fussing about trains that carry very few passengers, whilst eating up a disproportionate amount of Amtrak's expenses, the emphasis should be on improved train services in relatively short, high density corridors, like San Antonio to DFW. I am taking the Eagle to San Diego next week.  I love to travel by train, especially given that I can afford to go first class.  Ah, the rewards of working hard for more than 45 years and being a cheapskate every step of the way.  But I would be the first to vote to discontinue the Eagle if it meant we could upgrade the schedule from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth and San Antonio to include three or more trains a day.  Doing so would not only protect the jobs of Amtrak's employees in Texas, it would probably allow for an expansion of jobs.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag