Presidential Candidates

[oltmannd]

So, when Gunn was fired, everybody else at Amtrak went back to sleep?  Now, I'm beginning to wonder exactly what Amtrak's marketing dept. does?  It shouldn't take that many of them to figure out and tune their differential pricing structure.  Isn't ANYBODY looking at the market?

[daveklepper]

The kind of problem you refer to regarding the Atlanta suburbs is the kind of problem David Gunn was just beginning to address when he was fired.  Of course a station in the suburbs needs land, contruction costs, cooperation from NS, etc., but this is the kind of problem that is fixable.

Regarding the Florida service and the Crescent in the corridor, I would not want an overnight Washington or Baltimore to New Orleans or Florida coach passenger to put up with the disruption and lack of perfect cleanliness left by a short haul corridor passenger occupying the seat before his/her boarding.   Northbound, you have a point.   In fact, I once did pull that off.   I think it was while the Flordia Special was still all-Pullman, but I rode it once Philly-NY with the conductor telling me to stay in the lounge car.

 

 

 

[oltmannd]

I think it is a lack of demand because isn't it that the lack of passengers in the late 60's and early 70's caused the railraods to want to give up their passenger service because it wasn't making a profit?

 

Also, I have no mean to be a jerk but this discussion has come a long way from the initial question regarding presidential candidates.

I think the lack of passengers started in the early 50's.  What was left by the late 60s was skin and bones.  Amtrak, at start up made an attempt, with some degree of sucess, to rationalize what was left into bare-bones network.  But, most changes to the network since have been onesy-twosy, ad-hoc nibbling around the edges.  Amtrak is still basically running that 1971 LD train network with the same stations and route timings despite 50% growth in US population and shifting demographics.

[oltmannd]

There is no market to speak of anymore for overnight business travel by train in the US.  That's why that service disappeared in the first place.   I very much doubt that one could be re-established.   Overnight travel by coach is more of a possibility but bus service tends to have control of that market due to ticket prices.

U.S. is not different from any other country in terms of travel preference.  Whether a person travels from New York to Toronto, or Berlin to Madrid, or New Delhi to Mumbay, or Minsk to Moscow, a convenient way of travel is always what it is - a convenient way of travel.  Intercity buses can never compete with trains by comfort.  Whoever claims otherwise has either never ridden a passenger train, or simply doesn't know what s/he is talking about.  It's a good question why business-oriented overnight medium-distance train services in this country have been phased out for the most part.  But it was probably NOT due to a lack of demand.  In general, the reason why passenger rail in the U.S. is inferior to its foreign counterparts has nothing to do with demand.  The problem is unwillingness of the government to share as much of the cost of train travel as it does with other modes.  Also, it can simply be something Amtrak management overlooks.  Nobody says Amtrak is perfect.  They do make mistakes.  Another change Amtrak should implement, I believe, is to make the New York-Miami and New York-New Orleans long-distance trains open to passengers who travel within the Northeast Corridor.  Currently, a train can be running 80% emply from NYC to Philadelphia, then about 50% empty to DC, until it finally fills up.  On the way back, a train can unload a good deal of its passengers in DC and Philadelphia and arrive in New York with just about 20% of its capacity.  Allowing NE-corridor passengers to ride these trains can save Amtrak a lot of money! 

You'd risk a NY to Phila passenger turfing out a more profitable NY to Charlottesville passenger.  Maybe the train should originate in DC?

[oltmannd]

I think just to preserve the existing LD network, a concerted campaign must be mounted to convince McCain that he is wrong about long distance trains in general.   He says $200 subsidy per passenger is wasteful.   But what this means is a subsidy of $1.50 per USA citizen per year, for a standby, tourist promotion, alternative, that gives additional economic and military security for the country.   Hospitals subsidize most patients and some of this is tax money.

The points to be made to McCain should include:

Handicapped and elderly access to the entire country

Boosting foreign tourism, giving visitors a chance to see the country

Rescue in times of disaster, what Minetta should have done for New Orleans

Tieing the regional systems (including commuter and high-speed), which are absolutely necessary in terms of relieving airport and highway congestion (and which McCain does approve), into a national system.

Most Americans, poles tell us, are willing to spend the $1.50 a year to have the above.   McCain should be so informed.

Which of the readers of this thread can do it?     Effectively?

OK.  That's a good list of benefits, but at what cost?  A $4.00 per household per year subsidy doesn't sound bad, until you factor in that Amtrak only carries 0.1% of all intercity trips. And, that $200/trip subsidy is the dead pig in the living room.

Now, if Amtrak were a highly productive, best in class service provider I'd be happy to state the case for Amtrak.  But, unfortunately, Amtrak has more in common with the USPS than they do UPS.

Here's an illustration of what's wrong with Amtrak. 

Why does the Crescent run on the schedule it does and stop where it does?  I'd suggest it's inertia. 

Have the cities along the route changed over the past 30 years?  You bet.  Charlotte to Greensboro is a budding corridor and Atlanta has grown five-fold over that time period.  In particular, the northern suburbs have boomed.  There are 600,000+ people in Gwinnett Co. and a similar number in the northern half of Fulton Co. that were not there 30 years ago. 

The route of the Crescent goes right through the heart of this area.  Does it stop there?  No.  Passengers have to make a nasty 20 mile ride down the six lane wide, jam-packed river of I-85 to the Atlanta station (that has lousy parking, to boot) or a long 45 minute trip up to the scummy, wrong side of the tracks, Gainesville Station.  The western suburbs of Atlata are similarly ill-served. 

Worse, yet, is that the route parallels the MARTA NE line and there is no common station stop between the two. 

Does anybody in suburban Atlanta even know that the Crescent exists?  Not many.  Most that do know, know by word of mouth from railfans.  Meanwhile, over the past 30 years, the Crescent's consist has shrunk by nearly half - and I'd bet ridership to/from Atlanta is flat, at best.

This illustrates that Amtrak is more driven by inertia than any motive to provide service or be productive. 

It's hard to be an advocate of something so badly broken. 

But, I'd rather fix it than kill it.

[daveklepper]

I think just to preserve the existing LD network, a concerted campaign must be mounted to convince McCain that he is wrong about long distance trains in general.   He says $200 subsidy per passenger is wasteful.   But what this means is a subsidy of $1.50 per USA citizen per year, for a standby, tourist promotion, alternative, that gives additional economic and military security for the country.   Hospitals subsidize most patients and some of this is tax money.

The points to be made to McCain should include:

Handicapped and elderly access to the entire country

Boosting foreign tourism, giving visitors a chance to see the country

Rescue in times of disaster, what Minetta should have done for New Orleans

Tieing the regional systems (including commuter and high-speed), which are absolutely necessary in terms of relieving airport and highway congestion (and which McCain does approve), into a national system.

Most Americans, poles tell us, are willing to spend the $1.50 a year to have the above.   McCain should be so informed.

Which of the readers of this thread can do it?     Effectively?

[Anonymous]

I think it is a lack of demand because isn't it that the lack of passengers in the late 60's and early 70's caused the railraods to want to give up their passenger service because it wasn't making a profit?

No, it was not the lack of demand.  Or, in a way it was, if you consider the availability of "cheap" airfares.  I put "cheap" in quotation mark as because nothing is really cheap or free.  Private railroads owned and maintained their own right-of-way, which was not the case with airlines (they didn't own airports and, therefore, had relatively low capital expenses).  With no other modes available, and no subsidies provided to any kind of transportation service whatsoever, private railroads had no problem paying for themselves.  As publicly funded airports started coming up, which made it possible for commercial airlines to offer low fares, the unfunded railroads were unable to withstand this unfair competition, and, even though demand still existed, it was not sufficient for the railroad companies to make profit (or even to cover the expenses).  At least theoretically, the problem could have been solved by establishing some kind of a trust fund, or any other major funding program, for railroads.  I don't know if any such proposal ever came up at that time.  But establishing Amtrak was a compromise, which, as some people thought, would not require subsidies for more than three years.  But it's a fantasy!  It's simply impossible to run a public transportation system (railroad in particular) without adequate funding.  The fact that Amtrak keeps running for already a fourth decade is largely due to the fact that demand still exists.  And even though this demand cannot be expected to make Amtrak "profitable", this demand does result in growing political support to Amtrak. 

As for presidential candidates, the bottomline is that McCain has earned the most negative reputation as a Senator with regards to Amtrak.  Hillary Clinton has much better record.  But it may or may not make a difference in terms of how each of them would behave as a President.  Anyway, Congress seems to have even more power with these issues.

 

 

[lattasnip9]

I think it is a lack of demand because isn't it that the lack of passengers in the late 60's and early 70's caused the railraods to want to give up their passenger service because it wasn't making a profit?

 

Also, I have no mean to be a jerk but this discussion has come a long way from the initial question regarding presidential candidates.

[Anonymous]

There is no market to speak of anymore for overnight business travel by train in the US.  That's why that service disappeared in the first place.   I very much doubt that one could be re-established.   Overnight travel by coach is more of a possibility but bus service tends to have control of that market due to ticket prices.

U.S. is not different from any other country in terms of travel preference.  Whether a person travels from New York to Toronto, or Berlin to Madrid, or New Delhi to Mumbay, or Minsk to Moscow, a convenient way of travel is always what it is - a convenient way of travel.  Intercity buses can never compete with trains by comfort.  Whoever claims otherwise has either never ridden a passenger train, or simply doesn't know what s/he is talking about.  It's a good question why business-oriented overnight medium-distance train services in this country have been phased out for the most part.  But it was probably NOT due to a lack of demand.  In general, the reason why passenger rail in the U.S. is inferior to its foreign counterparts has nothing to do with demand.  The problem is unwillingness of the government to share as much of the cost of train travel as it does with other modes.  Also, it can simply be something Amtrak management overlooks.  Nobody says Amtrak is perfect.  They do make mistakes.  Another change Amtrak should implement, I believe, is to make the New York-Miami and New York-New Orleans long-distance trains open to passengers who travel within the Northeast Corridor.  Currently, a train can be running 80% emply from NYC to Philadelphia, then about 50% empty to DC, until it finally fills up.  On the way back, a train can unload a good deal of its passengers in DC and Philadelphia and arrive in New York with just about 20% of its capacity.  Allowing NE-corridor passengers to ride these trains can save Amtrak a lot of money! 

[JT22CW]

I'm not sure that the overnight business traveller is a good target market for Amtrak. This business was lost to air and auto in the early 50s and improvements in speed, comfort and cost in air and auto travel since then have probably worsened the competitiveness for rail - which has no better speed and no better cost structure than it did in the early 50s. The "last stand" was the Night Owl

You noted the chief cause, that being no improvement in rail speed (actually a woersening was in the offing post-1950), in spite of the fact that there was existing technology that could improve said speeds.  And was/is it fair that the government supported the infrastructure of road and air, allowing for their speeds to be increased independently of infrastructure cost concerns?  That's a double standard right there.

[alphas]

abenm613:

There is no market to speak of anymore for overnight business travel by train in the US.  That's why that service disappeared in the first place.   I very much doubt that one could be re-established.   Overnight travel by coach is more of a possibility but bus service tends to have control of that market due to ticket prices.   

PA years ago looked into an overnight train between Philly/NYC and Pittsburgh to complement the then 2 day trips but determined that it wasn't feasible.   Then Amtrak years later dropped the Chicago/Pittsburgh/Philadelphia/NYC service because of low passenger volume past Pittsburgh and Gov. Rendell wouldn't come up with $2M Amtrak requested annually to fund theHarrisburg-Pittsburgh leg of it.   (Not all Democrats are Amtrak friendly.)   A few lawmakers, mainly Republicans representing intermediate stops in the western half of the state that aren't on or near the turnpike, objected but it wasn't enough.  You also have to keep in mind that NYC to Pittsburgh doesn't resonate in Harrisburg, but Philadelphia to Pittsburgh does.  And Phily to Pittsburgh is only 308 miles by turnpike so the express buses can make it in 5 hours unless they stop in Harrisburgh.  

 I've driven from the Valley Forge turnpike exit, main exit to/from Philly coming from/going to the west and about 20 miles from downtown Philly (for those who don't know), to downtown Pittsburgh in about 4 hours and 15 minutes, including a brief rest stop on the way.   Driving was definitely cheaper by far than taking a train--about $38 for gas and toll each way the last time I did it, probably about $45 today, and with EZay Pass I didn't even have to stop at the toll booths.  Add another $3 if you were coming from downtown Philly.   In other words, I doubt that its currently cheaper to take the train than have one person in a car driving 300 miles, even considering indirect costs.   Especially if Amtrak's subsidy is added in to the actual ticket cost.

 

[Anonymous]

Personally I wont mind a McCain presidency, I think he'd be OK.  As for Amtrak he's a supporter, and may even have enough vision to try to expand or at least overhaul the system.

Hmm, I wish this was true.  But his rhetorics so far has shown the opposite.  Surely, he doesn't mind "overhauling" Amtrak.  The only problem that it means different things to different people.  Actually, he did come up with some positive actions once in a while.  Shortly after 9-11, McCain introduced some kind of a security bill that would specifically provide funds to protect Amtrak from "railroad terrorists".  Also, during the 2002 crisis he offered an encouraging word that we must do everything possible to prevent a shutdown.  But, as far as supporting some nice pro-Amtrak legislation, it seems that under McCain it would be much harder to make it through than, say, under Clinton or Obama.  But you never know... Maybe McCain as a President would treat Amtrak more favorable than McCain as a Senator.  I hope so... But the anti-Amtrak reputation that he has made so far does not make him look as a big supporter of passenger rail.  Therefore, it is imperative to let him know that we are interested in having Amtrak.  It is also imperative to keep our legislators aware that Amtrak is important to us. 

I'm not sure that the overnight business traveller is a good target market for Amtrak.  This business was lost to air and auto in the early 50s and improvements in speed, comfort and cost in air and auto travel since then have probably worsened the competitiveness for rail - which has no better speed and no better cost structure than it did in the early 50s.

First of all, traveling 500 miles by car, especially for one person, is currently much more expensive than traveling by train.  I guess, flying from New York to Toronto, Montreal, or Pittsburgh, is unlikely to be cheaper than traveling by train.  The only reason I hear from business travelers who prefer to fly over these distances is that it saves them a day.  Now, if overnight service was available, it would have its market.  That's why I'm saying that Amtrak has to work in this direction.  Trains are already competing with planes within the Northeast Corridor.  If more overnight trains with LD-style amenities become available for distances of 500-600 miles, these trains would very well compete with planes, too.  The point here is to serve as many business travelers as possible. 
Of course, true long-distance trains (over 800 miles) are not meant to compete with aviation - they have rather different purpose.  Planes provide fast point-to-point transcontinental service, while trains serve numerous locations along the way, where airline service is not available.
By the way, since this thread is about presidential candidates (or rather about politics in general), I'm curious where most of you guys live and who your legislators are.  I live in New York, and my address is represented by Congressman Nadler.  I still have to find out if he is pro-rail.  Of course, both NY Senators are pro-rail (and, if Hillary does become President, her substitute is likely to be pro-rail, too). 
If you find out that your legislatiors don't like Amtrak, please takes special care to make them aware that you don't share their view. 

[oltmannd]

Well, the distance between Providence to Boston, or Washington to Richmond, is too trivial to bother with overnight service.  New York to Boston (or New York to Washington) may be considered, but, again, it's short enough to save a day not only with high-speed service, but with a regular four-hour daytime trip.  What I said makes sense for travel more than six-hours long.  In fact, there is one train running through the entire NEC overnight.  Although the stop in New York is not at passenger-friendly hour, passenger traveling the entire length of the route (Richmond to Boston) probably benefit from this service. 

In the relatively recent past, they used to drop a sleeper in NY and let passengers occupy it until morning.  I don't think they got too many takers as the 1st Metroliner in the AM would get you there in time for a 9AM meeting in the city.

[Anonymous]

Well, the distance between Providence to Boston, or Washington to Richmond, is too trivial to bother with overnight service.  New York to Boston (or New York to Washington) may be considered, but, again, it's short enough to save a day not only with high-speed service, but with a regular four-hour daytime trip.  What I said makes sense for travel more than six-hours long.  In fact, there is one train running through the entire NEC overnight.  Although the stop in New York is not at passenger-friendly hour, passenger traveling the entire length of the route (Richmond to Boston) probably benefit from this service. 

[daveklepper]

Flying, even first class, is not the treat it used to be when Jets first came on line.   Possibly with an expanded budget, Amtrak might try again with a Richmond and Washington and Batlimore to Providence and Boston overnight service.    And LA-SF, but that would mean SF not Emeryville of Oakkland.

[Bulbous]

The other thing beginning to happen here in Australia is that for the first time, there is talks about options for airport expansion in Sydney (the Sydney-Melbourne corridor is the third busiest air corridor in the world, at about 600 miles long). One of the options that has reared its head is the option of using high speed trains to link Sydney, Canberra (the national capital) and Melbourne, thus allowing Sydney airport to dedicate more of its capacity to the international routes and the other domestic routes.

Since the new airport was going to cost multiple billions of dollars, that same money could go on to develop the high speed rail system, which not only benefits Sydney, but also Canberra and Melbourne as well. By using short-to-medium haul high speed trains to replace those aircraft, thus freeing up slots at major airports, minimises the need for expansion or duplication of those facilities, generally at a cost that would pay for the whole of Amtrak for a couple of years at least. Multiply that by the number of new or expanded airports underway or in the planning stage (of which a lot of this is to service those short-to-medium haul corridors), and you have quite a fund there to implement a high speed train service from centre to centre.

In this case, the trains act as part of an integrated transport solution, in a capacity that they are quite well suited to. There is no need for the high speed trains to service the intermediate towns, etc, since the planes do not either. The trains will serve as a bulk mover of people (as the airlines do) between the endpoints and very selected mid-points.

[oltmannd]

I don't think it matters much whether we call LD trains "integral" or not.  They move some people (even though it's only a tiny percentage of all intercity travelers), therefore they do have place in our transportation system (although this place is far from being the most major).  And, whatever way we put it, these trains are part of national landscape (even in the areas served by one round-trip pair of trains per day).

There is another market, however, that Amtrak does not seem to be serving so much though it should.  That is, more long-distance-style overnight trains running over medium distances (about 500 miles).  For example, Amtrak currently runs a daily train from New York to Toronto.  The trip lasts from about 7am to about 7pm.  Yes, people do ride this train.  But these people are probably not business travelers.  I think Amtrak can easily run another NYC-to-Toronto train departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am - specifically for business-oriented market.  If such a train will have sleeping accomodation, large comfortable coach seats, lounge, and diner - all LD amenities - it would undoubtfully attract business people by allowing them to spend a night comfortably en-route without losing productive daytime.  The same model can work between New York and Pittsburgh.  Private companies do run overnight buses from NY to Toronto, so this approach makes a good sense.  I'll probably write a letter to Amtrak's management regarding this idea.

I'm not sure that the overnight business traveller is a good target market for Amtrak.  This business was lost to air and auto in the early 50s and improvements in speed, comfort and cost in air and auto travel since then have probably worsened the competitiveness for rail - which has no better speed and no better cost structure than it did in the early 50s.  The "last stand" was the Night Owl.

There was at least ONE business traveller who used the Maple Leaf a couple of times...me!  I used it at twice to get from Phila to London, ON, to visit EMD, back when Conrail would "ban" flying in order to try to cut back on travel expense as the year end approached.  Had to take a 5-something train out of 30th St to make connection at Penn and then hope and pray that we'd make the Aldershot connection to the Via train (we did).  The back up plan was to continue to Toronto and catch a morning train to London.

The flying ban also worked to my advantage making a round trip to Tampa to visit CSX.

As a frequent overnight business traveler (200 or so out-of-town nights last year) and certifiable train nut, the chances for me of an overnight train being a better choice than flying I think is highly limited.  I can't take the risk of being late, and the nice thing about flying is that if the weather looks bad enough that the flight might be cancelled there's lots of time to come up with a Plan B -- fly to another city and rent a car for the last leg, rent a car and drive altogether, or just cancel the meeting and substitute something else that's productive.  My total time committed to the transportation system is small with an airplane, whereas once I get on the train, I'm committed for a long time, and who knows if wherever the train might fall down there will be good cell phone service.  There's a great deal of the hinterland where cell phone service is extremely poor.  Air travel over 500-1500 mile legs is quite flexible whereas train travel is not.

Daytime corridor trips in the 100-300 mile range are often a good choice for business travel and I use them as often as I can.

If we had a huge, extensively networked, multiple-daily-departure, comprehensive rail passenger system, overnight trains would start to become viable for business travel for departures after 1800 and arrivals by 0600.  But schedule-keeping would have to be in the 99% or better range (up to one hour late is OK) to match my experience with airlines.  Out of 300-odd flights in the last two years, almost all of them two-leg and some three-leg, I have never had the airline cause me to miss a meeting.

RWM 

I was quite lucky to be able to afford a whole day down to Tampa and then a whole day back.  I took a laptop with me to do some tedious document work (converting loco specs from mainframe word processor to PC-based word processor).  (this was in the day before air-cards, et. al.)

I would occasionally risk taking the Broadway or Lake Shore to Chicago for meetings.  Timekeeping back then on Conrail made arrivals >1 hour late a fairly rare event.  Would also use Lake Shore to Erie on occasion.  5AM arrival gave good cushion for morning meetings - I would just walk up to the Holiday Inn a couple of blocks away and have breakfast.

Once took the day off and flew to Chicago in the AM.  Railfanned Roosevelt Rd then took SW Chief to KC for a couple of days of meetings there.  Overall fare was equivalent to flying, so I got no flack on expenses.

 

[Railway Man]

I don't think it matters much whether we call LD trains "integral" or not.  They move some people (even though it's only a tiny percentage of all intercity travelers), therefore they do have place in our transportation system (although this place is far from being the most major).  And, whatever way we put it, these trains are part of national landscape (even in the areas served by one round-trip pair of trains per day).

There is another market, however, that Amtrak does not seem to be serving so much though it should.  That is, more long-distance-style overnight trains running over medium distances (about 500 miles).  For example, Amtrak currently runs a daily train from New York to Toronto.  The trip lasts from about 7am to about 7pm.  Yes, people do ride this train.  But these people are probably not business travelers.  I think Amtrak can easily run another NYC-to-Toronto train departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am - specifically for business-oriented market.  If such a train will have sleeping accomodation, large comfortable coach seats, lounge, and diner - all LD amenities - it would undoubtfully attract business people by allowing them to spend a night comfortably en-route without losing productive daytime.  The same model can work between New York and Pittsburgh.  Private companies do run overnight buses from NY to Toronto, so this approach makes a good sense.  I'll probably write a letter to Amtrak's management regarding this idea.

I'm not sure that the overnight business traveller is a good target market for Amtrak.  This business was lost to air and auto in the early 50s and improvements in speed, comfort and cost in air and auto travel since then have probably worsened the competitiveness for rail - which has no better speed and no better cost structure than it did in the early 50s.  The "last stand" was the Night Owl.

There was at least ONE business traveller who used the Maple Leaf a couple of times...me!  I used it at twice to get from Phila to London, ON, to visit EMD, back when Conrail would "ban" flying in order to try to cut back on travel expense as the year end approached.  Had to take a 5-something train out of 30th St to make connection at Penn and then hope and pray that we'd make the Aldershot connection to the Via train (we did).  The back up plan was to continue to Toronto and catch a morning train to London.

The flying ban also worked to my advantage making a round trip to Tampa to visit CSX.

As a frequent overnight business traveler (200 or so out-of-town nights last year) and certifiable train nut, the chances for me of an overnight train being a better choice than flying I think is highly limited.  I can't take the risk of being late, and the nice thing about flying is that if the weather looks bad enough that the flight might be cancelled there's lots of time to come up with a Plan B -- fly to another city and rent a car for the last leg, rent a car and drive altogether, or just cancel the meeting and substitute something else that's productive.  My total time committed to the transportation system is small with an airplane, whereas once I get on the train, I'm committed for a long time, and who knows if wherever the train might fall down there will be good cell phone service.  There's a great deal of the hinterland where cell phone service is extremely poor.  Air travel over 500-1500 mile legs is quite flexible whereas train travel is not.

Daytime corridor trips in the 100-300 mile range are often a good choice for business travel and I use them as often as I can.

If we had a huge, extensively networked, multiple-daily-departure, comprehensive rail passenger system, overnight trains would start to become viable for business travel for departures after 1800 and arrivals by 0600.  But schedule-keeping would have to be in the 99% or better range (up to one hour late is OK) to match my experience with airlines.  Out of 300-odd flights in the last two years, almost all of them two-leg and some three-leg, I have never had the airline cause me to miss a meeting.

RWM 

[oltmannd]

I don't think it matters much whether we call LD trains "integral" or not.  They move some people (even though it's only a tiny percentage of all intercity travelers), therefore they do have place in our transportation system (although this place is far from being the most major).  And, whatever way we put it, these trains are part of national landscape (even in the areas served by one round-trip pair of trains per day).

There is another market, however, that Amtrak does not seem to be serving so much though it should.  That is, more long-distance-style overnight trains running over medium distances (about 500 miles).  For example, Amtrak currently runs a daily train from New York to Toronto.  The trip lasts from about 7am to about 7pm.  Yes, people do ride this train.  But these people are probably not business travelers.  I think Amtrak can easily run another NYC-to-Toronto train departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am - specifically for business-oriented market.  If such a train will have sleeping accomodation, large comfortable coach seats, lounge, and diner - all LD amenities - it would undoubtfully attract business people by allowing them to spend a night comfortably en-route without losing productive daytime.  The same model can work between New York and Pittsburgh.  Private companies do run overnight buses from NY to Toronto, so this approach makes a good sense.  I'll probably write a letter to Amtrak's management regarding this idea.

I'm not sure that the overnight business traveller is a good target market for Amtrak.  This business was lost to air and auto in the early 50s and improvements in speed, comfort and cost in air and auto travel since then have probably worsened the competitiveness for rail - which has no better speed and no better cost structure than it did in the early 50s.  The "last stand" was the Night Owl.

There was at least ONE business traveller who used the Maple Leaf a couple of times...me!  I used it at twice to get from Phila to London, ON, to visit EMD, back when Conrail would "ban" flying in order to try to cut back on travel expense as the year end approached.  Had to take a 5-something train out of 30th St to make connection at Penn and then hope and pray that we'd make the Aldershot connection to the Via train (we did).  The back up plan was to continue to Toronto and catch a morning train to London.

The flying ban also worked to my advantage making a round trip to Tampa to visit CSX.

 

[cprted]

I don't think it matters much whether we call LD trains "integral" or not.  They move some people (even though it's only a tiny percentage of all intercity travelers), therefore they do have place in our transportation system (although this place is far from being the most major).  And, whatever way we put it, these trains are part of national landscape (even in the areas served by one round-trip pair of trains per day).

There we go, now we're on the same page. Once we agree about things on a fundamental level, we can really get the meat of things and come with some creative new ideas like this one:

There is another market, however, that Amtrak does not seem to be serving so much though it should.  That is, more long-distance-style overnight trains running over medium distances (about 500 miles).  For example, Amtrak currently runs a daily train from New York to Toronto.  The trip lasts from about 7am to about 7pm.  Yes, people do ride this train.  But these people are probably not business travelers.  I think Amtrak can easily run another NYC-to-Toronto train departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am - specifically for business-oriented market.  If such a train will have sleeping accomodation, large comfortable coach seats, lounge, and diner - all LD amenities - it would undoubtfully attract business people by allowing them to spend a night comfortably en-route without losing productive daytime.  The same model can work between New York and Pittsburgh.  Private companies do run overnight buses from NY to Toronto, so this approach makes a good sense.  I'll probably write a letter to Amtrak's management regarding this idea.

Thats a great idea. Overnight service with completive prices and comfortable amenities between major centers would be great market for Amtrak.

[vsmith]

Ya hafta pity the poor republicans, they have a candidate that the very vocal far right elite wing of the party cant stand, but the "other" 70%" of the party continues to vigorously support. I call it the revenge of the moderates. I wouldnt be surprised if the far right runs Huckabee as an independant, and end up Naderize the entire republican vote. Personally I wont mind a McCain presidency, I think he'd be OK. As for Amtrak, is he's a supporter???, and may even have enough vision to try to at least overhaul the system.

Obama/Clinton are two sides of the same coin, we all know Amtrak was well supported under the 1st Clinton administration, that would continue again, but I would hope there would be a concerted serious effort to finally once and for all figure out a cohesive national passenger rail policy, and not the left over policy mess from the 1970's.

Nader this time around will just be a noise in the wind ignored by almost everyone.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it matters much whether we call LD trains "integral" or not.  They move some people (even though it's only a tiny percentage of all intercity travelers), therefore they do have place in our transportation system (although this place is far from being the most major).  And, whatever way we put it, these trains are part of national landscape (even in the areas served by one round-trip pair of trains per day).

There is another market, however, that Amtrak does not seem to be serving so much though it should.  That is, more long-distance-style overnight trains running over medium distances (about 500 miles).  For example, Amtrak currently runs a daily train from New York to Toronto.  The trip lasts from about 7am to about 7pm.  Yes, people do ride this train.  But these people are probably not business travelers.  I think Amtrak can easily run another NYC-to-Toronto train departing at 7pm and arriving at 7am - specifically for business-oriented market.  If such a train will have sleeping accomodation, large comfortable coach seats, lounge, and diner - all LD amenities - it would undoubtfully attract business people by allowing them to spend a night comfortably en-route without losing productive daytime.  The same model can work between New York and Pittsburgh.  Private companies do run overnight buses from NY to Toronto, so this approach makes a good sense.  I'll probably write a letter to Amtrak's management regarding this idea.

[cprted]

I think I'm being understood here as being somehow inherently anti-Amtrak, or anti-LD passenger rail service. I'm not, really. I support LD passenger service and the concept of Amtrak. What I'm arguing against is the idea that Amtrak's LD service is an integral part of the transportation infrastructure of North America. It is simply the one word that I am taking issue with. I'm not advocating an end to LD rail service, just trying to bring the analysis back into the realm of reality.

The definition of integral is: "necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental."

While LD passenger rail service has been an integral component of the continental transportation network in the past, those days are gone. Even if the trains are sold out, moving 400 someodd people per day along one corridor represents a drop in the bucket. Yes, the trains are certainly more important to residents of small isolated communities, but I'm talking about the big picture. If one mode represents less than 10-15% of the total travel along a specific corridor, it is hard to call that integral.

CPRTED:  You're contradicting yourself.  First you're saying that long-distance rail travel is not an integral component of national transportation infrastructure, and then you cite a long-distance rail network that is?

(Then again, I'm pointing this out to someone who called the Camelback locomotive "just silly".)

I'm not contradicting myself. My argument is that LD passenger rail travel is not an integral component of the North American transportation network. My European example was to illustrate what a rail network that is integral looks like

Apples and oranges comparisons, like I said already, do not work.  Nor are they proof of whether a transportation component is "integral" to its particular transportation network.

Comparisons are an inherently useful analytical tool, but they must be used in a meaningful manner. I’m using the comparison between mainland European passenger rail service and LD passenger in North American to illustrate my argument that LD rail travel is not integral to the continental transportation network. My reasoning is as follows:

-European passenger trains are responsible for moving hundreds of thousands of people per day, representing a majority of inter-city travel, thus; Passenger rail service on mainland Europe is integral to the European transportation network.

-North American Long Distance passenger trains move a few thousand people each day, representing a minority of inter-city travel, thus; North American Long Distance passenger service is not integral to the continental transportation network.

I’m not directly comparing the European rail transport network as a whole to the North American rail transport network. That would be ridicules, they are very different beasts. To carry on the fruit analogy, it would be like comparing apples to potatoes. What I am comparing is volume of passenger travel on each system and how that relates to the ways in which people move between cities on the respective continents to determine the relative importance of passenger rail travel.

I need to reiterate that I’m not suggesting LD trains serve no purpose, but we need to be realistic about their importance to the big scheme of medium and long distance travel.

 If people are using it (and they are), then its integrity cannot be questioned.

You’re not using the word integrity correctly. Integrity: 1 the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness; 2 the state of being whole and undivided.

What I think you mean to say is, “If people are using it (and they are), then its value cannot be questioned.”

You can question anything. Whether it be Amtrak service or some other government policy, regular critical reassessment is key to developing better services. Just because people are using Amtrak LD trains to present capacity, doesn’t mean they can’t be improved. I am willing to guarantee you that Amtrak managers and planners are constantly examining options for better routing, scheduling, and reliability. If you are not allowed to question the status quo, how can things improve?

Yes, I did call camel-backs silly looking, and they still are.

If you want to deprecate your own credibility with statements like that, go right ahead.  The facts about camelback locomotives will always fly in the face of petty appraisals like that.

I think they look silly. What does that have to do with anything? I’m not trying to undermine their importance or innovations to railways, I just think they look silly. In the same post I called the FM C-Liners ugly. I think they are. They also formed the backbone of the passenger and freight motive power on the CPR Kettle Valley Division for many years. They were integral to the CPR’s operations, it doesn’t mean I can’t think they're ugly.

[JT22CW]

CPRTED:  You're contradicting yourself.  First you're saying that long-distance rail travel is not an integral component of national transportation infrastructure, and then you cite a long-distance rail network that is?

(Then again, I'm pointing this out to someone who called the Camelback locomotive "just silly".)

I'm not contradicting myself. My argument is that LD passenger rail travel is not an integral component of the North American transportation network. My European example was to illustrate what a rail network that is integral looks like

Apples and oranges comparisons, like I said already, do not work.  Nor are they proof of whether a transportation component is "integral" to its particular transportation network.  If people are using it (and they are), then its integrity cannot be questioned.

Too many people think that North American railways are the pinnacle of everything without knowing what exists elsewhere

What exactly do you mean by that statement?  If people are on the internet, they are very much aware of "what exists elsewhere".

Yes, I did call camel-backs silly looking, and they still are.

If you want to deprecate your own credibility with statements like that, go right ahead.  The facts about camelback locomotives will always fly in the face of petty appraisals like that.

[Anonymous]

Yes, remote communities are hit hardest by passenger rail closures, but the thing about remote communities is, not very many people live there.

Apparently many enough for their Congressmen to fight for the trains serving their areas. 

If you want to look at a passenger rail network that actual moves people, look across the Atlantic. You'll notice busy railway stations like the main terminal in Frankfurt Germany typically handles 70-85 departures per hour through the day during the week.

That's true.  But the fact that most parts of our country don't have such frequent train services does not mean that the limited number of existing trains are not integral part of the national transportation system.  And the reason that we don't have such an extensive network is not because public doesn't want it (as I said before, it does), but because highway and aviation lobbies have done a "good" job.  I don't know what you mean by saying that selling out an LD train is 'inconsequential', but the fact remains the fact.  The trains are running full.  I'm not saying that they are filled by same people for the entire length of the route.  But that's exactly the point.  A flight from New York to New Orleans serves just these two cities, while Amtrak's "Crescent" serves Charlottsville, Charlotte, Atlanta, Birmingham, and many other smaller locations - all in one run!  A Chicago-to-Seattle flight does not stop in Twin Cities or many little places such as Havre MT.  But Amtrak's Empire Builder does. 

If this premise is sound, then it is incumbent on the government to run long distance passenger trains to every town and village in the country.  Just serving those along the current routes leaves out the greater part of the population.

Ideally, there would be nothing wrong with this :)  In reality, however, it's impossible for railroads (even in Europe) to cover every little spot.  Buses and cars exist everywhere in the world.  But for the lucky towns and villages that are located along the major railroad lines, it's noteworthy that many of those locations (e.g. Havre MT) are not even served by Greyhound.  Even though Greyhound serves much more locations than Amtrak, it does not go everywhere either.  And, as a private company, Greyhound is more market-based.  Therefore, Amtrak is critical at least as a public service to the locations that are not served by other transportation providers.

Amtrak relies on buses for numerous connections.  Why buses, which presumably are used by the handicapped, ill, etc., are okay to connect with the train but not as replacements for the long distance trains that are used by a tiny percentage of the traveling public.

Again, I never said that buses have no place in transportation system.  However, they only make sense for short-distance connection, but not for long-distance overnight travel. 

Also, let's look at efficiency of both modes.  Let's say an average bus carries 55 passengers and is operated by one driver.  It means, seven drivers are needed to carry 385 passengers.  To carry the same number of passengers on a train with a same level of service requires only one motorman (okay, let's say two, including an assistant) and, say, two conductors (total of four people).  Now, the level of service on most Amtrak trains is significantly higher.  Besides the dining and/or cafe cars, as well as the sleepers, which do employ extra staff, look at overall comfort of travel, even in a coach class.  I don't remember the last time I saw a running water in a bus lavatory, while train restrooms always have water and soap.  And it's much more convenient to relax and read a book on a train than on a bus.  Therefore, replacing LD trains with buses would not only be unfair, but also inefficient. 

Speaking of the comfort of service vs. "waste" of money, let's face another thing.  Do you want America to be totally unattractive and unpleasant to live in, just in exchange of a little less taxes?  I wouldn't want that!  Europeans don't want that for their countries either.  That's why they invest in trains.  So should we.

 

[IRONROOSTER]

CPRTED:  You're contradicting yourself.  First you're saying that long-distance rail travel is not an integral component of national transportation infrastructure, and then you cite a long-distance rail network that is?

(Then again, I'm pointing this out to someone who called the Camelback locomotive "just silly".)

I'm not contradicting myself. My argument is that LD passenger rail travel is not an integral component of the North American transportation network. My European example was to illustrate what a rail network that is integral looks like. Too many people think that North American railways are the pinnacle of everything without knowing what exists elsewhere.

Yes, I did call camel-backs silly looking, and they still are.

I have to agree about the European trains.  When I was stationed in Heidleburg, Germany, I would just go down to the station and buy a ticket on the next train to Frankfurt.  They ran so often I never bothered with schedules and reservations weren't needed.  Quite a contrast with Amtrak especially outside the NE corridor.

Of course Camel-backs are silly looking, that's why they are so charming. 

Enjoy

Paul 

[cprted]

CPRTED:  You're contradicting yourself.  First you're saying that long-distance rail travel is not an integral component of national transportation infrastructure, and then you cite a long-distance rail network that is?

(Then again, I'm pointing this out to someone who called the Camelback locomotive "just silly".)

I'm not contradicting myself. My argument is that LD passenger rail travel is not an integral component of the North American transportation network. My European example was to illustrate what a rail network that is integral looks like. Too many people think that North American railways are the pinnacle of everything without knowing what exists elsewhere.

Yes, I did call camel-backs silly looking, and they still are.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Comparing gallons per passenger mile (let's assume eight Amfleet IIs with 59 seats each), you've burned 0.014 gallons per passenger-mile for the plane and 0.0036 gallons per passenger-mile for the train.

This 8-Amfleet 1-locomotive train, the basis for the fuel economy projections of the Vision report, gets 278 seat miles per gallon of #2 Diesel according to numbers we agree on.  That corresponds to 250 seat miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent, which is 100 passenger miles per gallon at 40 percent load factor.  That load factor may not sound like much, but it is a reasonable assumption given fixed consists, intermediate stops, enough frequency of service at both peak and off-peak times, and so on.

Those 100 passenger miles per gallon still sound like a lot, but it is about equal to what buses achieve in intercity service, although with more cramped seats and fewer amenities.  Compare that with the 46 passenger miles per gallon average of the Amtrak system average.  Amtrak runs trains with baggage cars, crew dorm, lounge, diner, and in many cases, an 8-car train gets a second locomotive.  Many corridor trains have shorter consists and they add heavy, draggy cabbage cars for push-pull operation.

If there are corridor trains getting much more than 46 passenger miles per gallon, that means there must be LD trains getting much less than the average of 46 passenger miles per gallon (cough, Sunset Limited).

My evil plan is to dominate the world by getting mastery over oil consumption.  Amtrak is quasi-evil, it is semi-evil, it is the margarine of evil, it is the Diet Coke of evil, only one calorie -- not . . . evil . . . enough.

[JT22CW]

Face the fact that we are a nation committed to highway and air passenger travel

The nation is not "committed". The highway and aviation lobby is. In fact, public DOES want trains. That's what helps preserving them.

Long Distance travel via Amtrak is totally inconsequential and if all the LD trains were dropped overnight their loss would be noted only by railfans and the miniscule number of travelers who actually ride them.

This is false! Did you ever ride any of the Amtrak's LD trains? If you did, you would notice that they are usually filled and are often sold out. If these trains were shut down "overnignt", the impact would be felt by MILLIONS of VOTERS in remote communities where airline services are either unavailiable or unaffordable. Besides, what about those people who cannot drive? You may argue that intercity bus is the most efficient way of travel, but it is not. That's what is standing behind the political force supporting Amtrak in general and long-distance trains in particular! Nationwide rail system (presently represented by Amtrak) is not an anachronism. It's a necessary national asset.

You're BSing yourself. LD rail travel is not an integral component of the national transportation infrastructure. Yes, remote communities are hit hardest by passenger rail closures, but the thing about remote communities is, not very many people live there. Selling out a daily train that carries 200-400 people is inconsequential. If you want to look at a passenger rail network that actual moves people, look across the Atlantic. You'll notice busy railway stations like the main terminal in Frankfurt Germany typically handles 70-85 departures per hour through the day during the week. Each train is carrying between 150-750 people. There is a rail system which forms the backbone of a continental transportation network.

CPRTED:  You're contradicting yourself.  First you're saying that long-distance rail travel is not an integral component of national transportation infrastructure, and then you cite a long-distance rail network that is?

(Then again, I'm pointing this out to someone who called the Camelback locomotive "just silly".)

And I'd like to ask KCSfan, exactly when did the public get to vote on where they want their tax dollars spent? It's not like other countries are not dedicated to road transportation; indeed, the countries that are building high-speed rail networks have had highways long before the USA built its highway network.

Furthermore, abenm613's assessment of LD train ridership is correct. More trains translate to more seat-miles and subsequently to more passenger miles.

The "Vision for the Future" report of the PRWG asks for 350 billion dollars (spread over 40 years) to increase Amtrak from .1 percent of auto passenger miles to 1 percent of auto passenger miles.

This is not contained in the report, but I contacted a State of Wisconsin policy analyst associated with the project about what kind of energy savings can be expected from the proposed trains, and I was quoted a figure of about 1.7 gallons per mile for a single locomotive with eight Amfleet-style train cars, and the train worked out to be about a third of the auto fuel usage.

So spending 350 billion saves 2/3 of one percent of auto fuel usage, where autos are using roughly 50 percent of oil usage. So, an expenditure of 350 billion on trains will have 1/3 of one percent of oil use. I don't think this constitutes a meaningful contribution to reducing the need for imported oil.

I still think that trains could make a meaningful contribution, but people need to go back an sharpen their pencils to devise better plans

The error was citing automobile passenger miles. There are not many people that drive their automobiles over the distances Amtrak covers day in and day out. Try flying, where you have Boeing 737-800s and their 2.246 gallons per mile (and that's the least thirsty; bigger planes have higher fuel consumption). Comparing gallons per passenger mile (let's assume eight Amfleet IIs with 59 seats each), you've burned 0.014 gallons per passenger-mile for the plane and 0.0036 gallons per passenger-mile for the train. If you still want to go on about auto versus train, then you've got to factor in wear and tear, because the train will outlast the car (and even the plane) by far.  (And oh dear, a 40-mpg car with four people in it burns 0.00625 gallons per passenger mile, assuming optimum fuel consumption; this figure is 174 percent of the train's fuel consumption in that arena.)

I don't see the number of trains that are supposed to be running under this quoted plan. Besides, $350 billion over 40 years is a mere $8.75 billion per year.

Proponents of long distance passenger trains argue frequently that they are necessary for people who are handicapped, ill, unable to fly and unwilling to take a motor coach.

You won't catch me making statements like that. The existence of modified automobiles for paraplegic (and otherwise) people shoots holes in that. I'm one that believes that long-distance rail is viable for all people seeking a transportation alternative. However, average speeds of 40 mph are inexcusable (and caused by selective regulation of the rails versus investment in other non-rail modes; quite hypocritical), especially since a number of steam-era trains were running at average speeds of 70 mph.

MCI likes to brag that they get 148 passenger miles per gallon and that is lower than intercity trains. However, invert that figure and you're burning 0.0068 gallons per passenger mile, which is 190 percent the consumption per passenger mile of the eight-car long-distance train cited above.

[Anonymous]

Access for parts of the country for the handicapped and elderly and others who cannot fly.

Proponents of long distance passenger trains argue frequently that they are necessary for people who are handicapped, ill, unable to fly and unwilling to take a motor coach.

If this premise is sound, then it is incumbent on the government to run long distance passenger trains to every town and village in the country.  Just serving those along the current routes leaves out the greater part of the population.

Amtrak relies on buses for numerous connections.  Why are buses, which presumably are used by the handicapped, ill, etc., okay to connect with the train but not as replacements for the long distance trains that are used by a tiny percentage of the traveling public.