Here's a quiz question:
Found this headline on line: "AMTRAK'S RIDERSHIP POSTS GAIN OF 25%; 2 Million People Used Rail System in June, the Highest Total for a Month in Unit's History"
Guess the year.
Winner gets to ask the next question. No research allowed....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CG9602 wrote:Last year ?
Nope.
oltmannd wrote: CG9602 wrote:Last year ?Nope.
Twenty Oh Six??
al-in-chgo wrote: oltmannd wrote: CG9602 wrote:Last year ?Nope. I think many will be surprised at the answer - particularly the under 45 crowd.... Twenty Oh Six??
oltmannd wrote: CG9602 wrote:Last year ?Nope. I think many will be surprised at the answer - particularly the under 45 crowd....
I think many will be surprised at the answer - particularly the under 45 crowd....
Hint. Dem. Prez at the time.
oltmannd wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: oltmannd wrote: CG9602 wrote:Last year ?Nope. I think many will be surprised at the answer - particularly the under 45 crowd.... Twenty Oh Six?? Nope. Hint. Dem. Prez at the time.
Nineteen ninety-two?
al-in-chgo wrote: oltmannd wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: oltmannd wrote: CG9602 wrote:Last year ?Nope. I think many will be surprised at the answer - particularly the under 45 crowd.... Twenty Oh Six?? Nope. Hint. Dem. Prez at the time.Nineteen ninety-two?
Nope. Wrong prez.
Nineteen seventy-eight?
al-in-chgo wrote: Nineteen seventy-eight?
No. One of the same conditions that's driving ridership now was driving it hard that particular year, too.
CG9602 wrote:1974.
No. Prez Ford was a Republican. But a good guess based on the previous clue....
CG9602 wrote:1979
Correct! The height of the second round of oil price hikes - regular unleaded was going for $1.25 a gallon in the northeast and there were lines, again.
There was also a United strike and it was just before the Carter era train-offs (Floridian, NC Hi, Champion, Hilltopper, Shenendoah, Nat'l Ltd., etc.)
Still, if you inflate that ridership by the growth of population since then, Amtrak should have 30M riders today.
There was a big drop in ridership during the Downs era (late Bush, early Clinton regime).
If ridership had a peak in 1979 owing to high gas prices, and there were "Carter era train discontinuances", what accounted for discontinuing trains in the aftermath of high gas prices? Was there pressure on the Federal budget?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote: If ridership had a peak in 1979 owing to high gas prices, and there were "Carter era train discontinuances", what accounted for discontinuing trains in the aftermath of high gas prices? Was there pressure on the Federal budget?
Key phrase is "accounted for," and in terms of Amtrak it's politics over pragmatism, or (IMHO) the public welfare. Most Presidential administrations (not all) have been hostile to Amtrak and sway enough important Senators to get the cuts through.
Pity, because now that the family auto is really a pain in the wallet for l-d trips, there are ever so many routes Amtrak ran at one time between the late seventies and the mid-nineties that it simply doesn't serve any more. Paying a host road is only one factor in the cost of opening up a new line to Amtrak service.
The Defense Department has thrown away five Billion dollars on the "Osprey," a failed attempt at a VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft that has never been in service but has killed some of its pilots all by itself. That amount of money could jack up Amtrak's funding by half again as much for ten years! So when you're talking Amtrak routes efficacy often gives way to power politics and reducing the budget on the backs of the riders while other areas are sacrosanct. I'm not mentioning any names so this isn't really politix.
Yes. The economy was not too well in the mid to late 70s and most of the trains that came off were ones that were quasi-political dogs that were put on after May 1, 1971.
I was rather shocked to find that ridership was so high at that time - although I've always had a sneaky suspicion that the LD trains have not kept up with population growth along their route. They are, in effect, continuing a slow death that started 60 years ago.
oltmannd wrote: Paul Milenkovic wrote: If ridership had a peak in 1979 owing to high gas prices, and there were "Carter era train discontinuances", what accounted for discontinuing trains in the aftermath of high gas prices? Was there pressure on the Federal budget?Yes. The economy was not too well in the mid to late 70s and most of the trains that came off were ones that were quasi-political dogs that were put on after May 1, 1971. I was rather shocked to find that ridership was so high at that time - although I've always had a sneaky suspicion that the LD trains have not kept up with population growth along their route. They are, in effect, continuing a slow death that started 60 years ago.
The problem with todays long distance trains is not the ridership but the shortage of equipment and lack of sleeping car space. The last four times I have booked on Amtrak long distance trains they have told me sleeping car space was sold out on those particular dates even though I booked two months in advance. In each case I was able to buy sleeping car space after boarding in each incident. The problem seems like Amtrak is doing their best to discourage ridership if everyting is sold out and that is really not the case. In the old days they had one coach assigned to short trippers those that were only traveling between intermediate points. In that way other passengers were not disturbed when passengers got off in the middle of the night somewhere. Another problem with the eastbound CZ is that many passengers only book travel from Oakland and Sacramento to Reno and the coaches leave Reno half empty. And many passengers who have tried to book on that train to go further east have been turned away due to the Reno traffic. I'm not an accountant but that certainly seems like they are running a train half empty across Nevada to Salt Lake City before really finding additional passengers and that doesn't make economic sense. The same thing happens often with the Coast Starlight. Often times between Los Angeles and Oakland the train completely sold out and any hope of additional passengers at Ventura, Santa Barbara and any other intermediate stops is lost.
I truly believe that a shortage of equipment is the problem. If the coast line could accomodate 22 car Daylights at one time then additional Superliners is whats needed. I have yet to see a Superliner equipped train with more than ten or twelve cars. The old cars operated by the Railroads were no longer than Superliners and the new power should certainly be capable of pulling additional cars. These gas price increases are only going to get worse so wake up and smell the coffee. Additional airlines are in financial crisis due to fuel increases so flying is not going to be the option it once was. Watch more and more airlines shut down.
The government has played with Amtrak for far to long it is now time to get serious and by the equipment needed.
Pity, because now that the family auto is really a pain in the wallet for l-d trips, there are ever so many routes Amtrak ran at one time between the late seventies and the mid-nineties that it simply doesn't serve any more. Paying a host road is only one factor in the cost of opening up a new line to Amtrak service. The Defense Department has thrown away five Billion dollars on the "Osprey," a failed attempt at a VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft that has never been in service but has killed some of its pilots all by itself. That amount of money could jack up Amtrak's funding by half again as much for ten years! So when you're talking Amtrak routes efficacy often gives way to power politics and reducing the budget on the backs of the riders while other areas are sacrosanct. I'm not mentioning any names so this isn't really politix.
The family "outlaws" want to come up from North Carolina this summer, and they are thinking day coach to DC and sleeper the rest of the way on Amtrak. The family minivan transports them at 1250 BTU/passenger miles -- Amtrak averages at 2700 BTU/passenger mile -- more than double the energy per passenger. If the four of them wanted to cram into their Camry, they are doing 717 BTU/passenger mile, nearly 4 times more energy efficient than Amtrak. So how is Amtrak supposed to be more cost effective for that trip than driving apart from the government footing the bill for Amtrak's fuel bills?
As to the money spent on the Osprey, it is a military aircraft with a very specific military misson, and unfortunately our brave men and women in uniform sometimes lose their lives carrying out military missions, in peacetime as well as in time of war. So long as we are talking about President Carter and what happened to Amtrak, there was this matter of the Iran Hostage Crisis and the failed helicopter commando raid to attempt the rescue of our diplomatic personnel hostages. The outcome of that failed raid had an effect on the general economic climate affecting Amtrak, and the requirements for the Osprey (essentially a very long range helicopter) came out of that crisis.
Whether 5 billion on the Osprey is wasted compared to the 30 billion spent on Amtrak since its inception, the 10 billion of Lautenberg-Lott if it ever gets anyone's attention in the House, or the 350 billion of the Vision plan is really hard to say in the grand scheme of things. All I know is that the Amtrak appropriation is one of many competing demands for Federal money, and I don't think it is very politically astute of the advocacy community to think that everyone whom we could persuade to support trains shares our particular views on Defense policy or any other segment of the Federal budget.
As to not having enough sleepr space on LD trains, granted, the problem is not one of ridership. The problem is one of hundreds of dollars in Federal subsidy going to each sleeping car passenger. So we say Congress should step up to the plate and allocate more money for sleeping cars. That's right, Congress has an obligation to spend other people's money on Superliner or Viewliner sleeping cars. At least with the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, there are a whole lot of people who have trouble affording expensive drugs that are keeping them alive, so we socialize this expense by taxing working young people. Don't know the rationale for taxing working young people so retired people with time on their hands can find sleeping car travel more affordable and more available.
passengerfan wrote: oltmannd wrote: Paul Milenkovic wrote: If ridership had a peak in 1979 owing to high gas prices, and there were "Carter era train discontinuances", what accounted for discontinuing trains in the aftermath of high gas prices? Was there pressure on the Federal budget?Yes. The economy was not too well in the mid to late 70s and most of the trains that came off were ones that were quasi-political dogs that were put on after May 1, 1971. I was rather shocked to find that ridership was so high at that time - although I've always had a sneaky suspicion that the LD trains have not kept up with population growth along their route. They are, in effect, continuing a slow death that started 60 years ago.The problem with todays long distance trains is not the ridership but the shortage of equipment and lack of sleeping car space. The last four times I have booked on Amtrak long distance trains they have told me sleeping car space was sold out on those particular dates even though I booked two months in advance. In each case I was able to buy sleeping car space after boarding in each incident. The problem seems like Amtrak is doing their best to discourage ridership if everyting is sold out and that is really not the case. In the old days they had one coach assigned to short trippers those that were only traveling between intermediate points. In that way other passengers were not disturbed when passengers got off in the middle of the night somewhere. Another problem with the eastbound CZ is that many passengers only book travel from Oakland and Sacramento to Reno and the coaches leave Reno half empty. And many passengers who have tried to book on that train to go further east have been turned away due to the Reno traffic. I'm not an accountant but that certainly seems like they are running a train half empty across Nevada to Salt Lake City before really finding additional passengers and that doesn't make economic sense. The same thing happens often with the Coast Starlight. Often times between Los Angeles and Oakland the train completely sold out and any hope of additional passengers at Ventura, Santa Barbara and any other intermediate stops is lost. I truly believe that a shortage of equipment is the problem. If the coast line could accomodate 22 car Daylights at one time then additional Superliners is whats needed. I have yet to see a Superliner equipped train with more than ten or twelve cars. The old cars operated by the Railroads were no longer than Superliners and the new power should certainly be capable of pulling additional cars. These gas price increases are only going to get worse so wake up and smell the coffee. Additional airlines are in financial crisis due to fuel increases so flying is not going to be the option it once was. Watch more and more airlines shut down.The government has played with Amtrak for far to long it is now time to get serious and by the equipment needed.
..but there were plenty of coach seats to be had, right? And Amtrak has plenty of spare coaches - particularly Amfleet I and II. Some are stored unservicable but were put there for lack of ridership to fill them. Coach ridership on LD has not kept pace with population growth. Fair statement?
So, you're in favor of a subsidy to go out an purchase sleepers? If their incremental revenue covered their capital and operating cost, Amtrak could get them now - with commercial paper.
I have a problem with a gov't subsidy for the middle/upper middle leisure passengers. I just can't see the "common good" in that.
In 1979 Amtrak had just about the same amount of equipment they do today. They had the full orders of Amfleet I and II, plus the first batch of Superliners and a smallish fleet of HEP Heritage rebuilds. The power was all F40s and the AEM7s had nearly all been delivered.
I really dislike those old Metroliner-shells called Amfleets. For one thing, the A/C and heating were developed for the East Coast. In the East, a good cold day is 20 degrees Fahrenheit. In the Midwest it's five below. In the East, a muggy day is 85 degrees. In the Midwest it's 95 degrees.
Also, I find them cramped and too "airlinish."
Considering that they were developed over forty years ago, isn't anyone else building coaches that are structurally sound, durable and [dare I say it] a pleasure to ride? - al
Cramped in which direction? If the problem is not enough elbow room, aren't Amfleet cars the same width as Heritage streamline cars? If the problem is seat pitch, leg room, that is a question of the tradeoff regarding how many seats Amtrak is going to provide for a given amount of money spent on coaches, locomotives, and fuel. If the issue is the low, curved ceilings, that is probably a question of styling. Back in the day of the Northeast Corridor Demonstration project, that airliner styling was regarded as modern and attractive to non-railfan customers.
I have heard gripes about the Horizon cars on the Hiawatha, and as far as I can tell, they are slab-sided with AAR Streamliner roof profiles and don't have the jet cabin look. I have ridden a Comet car with 5-across seating and the inboard bearing style trucks, and I found the seating pleasant and the ride smooth. The gripe I heard was that "Horizons are just commuter cars." Are they badly maintained and allowed to lapse into shabbiness on account of the higher mileage in corridor service? Is the expectation for a 95-minute coach ride on a limited express train one of a 52-seat "chair car" seating density instead of whatever higher density they have on Corridor Horizons?
So Don, if Amtrak has a number of Amfleet cars on the dead line so they don't have to pay inspection costs on them, does this offer a 3rd avenue for states considering expanding state-contribution corridor train service? California bought their own Surfliner cars at considerable expense. Illinois used the political muscle of its Congressional delegation to scare up cars; Wisconsin used an astute WisDOT guy to tell Amtrak they had an extra car in the pool to get a 5-car Hiawatha.
The purchase-your-own-cars-with-Caltrans-money is the expensive option, the beg-borrow-steal cars is the cheap option. Could there be a middle ground of a state coughing up rehab money to get themselves some trainsets of Amfleet cars to get something like, say, the 2nd Minneapolis-Chicago train our local advocacy group is lobbying for?
Are the Amfleet II coaches also Ex-Metroliner cars? I thought they were built as normal coaches not M.U. cars.
I did have my suspecions that the Amfleet Is were ex Metroliner.
Bapou wrote: Are the Amfleet II coaches also Ex-Metroliner cars? I thought they were built as normal coaches not M.U. cars.I did have my suspecions that the Amfleet Is were ex Metroliner.
IIRC the Metroliner-type coaches that were not self-propelled or part of a twinset m.u. were simply pulled behind a high-speed motor (AEM-7, is that the name of the most successful model?). My hunch is that most of them were built as non m.u. but I suppose it isn't impossible that some of them were ex-two-m.u. Metroliners. OTOH I know NEC Metroliner service in the Eighties was hauled by AEM's and the like and this is pre-Acela, when the Metroliner was the fastest scheduled thing. Assuming Amtrak had taken reasonably good care of the (by then) fifteen-year-old original Metroliner rolling stock, I don't see why non-propelled units, or cab cars with pan down, couldn't have been used.
A good question and I also wanted to ask, who made the most recent non-self-propelled "Amfleet" cars. According to a book about PATCO's Lindenwold Hi-Speed Line, Budd did not bid on that project, secure in the fact that Amtrak would give them anothe big order or two to build Am-shells. But the orders didn't go to Budd, the book avers. To whom then?
al-in-chgo wrote: Bapou wrote: Are the Amfleet II coaches also Ex-Metroliner cars? I thought they were built as normal coaches not M.U. cars.I did have my suspecions that the Amfleet Is were ex Metroliner. IIRC the Metroliner-type coaches that were not self-propelled or part of a twinset m.u. were simply pulled behind a high-speed motor (AEM-7, is that the name of the most successful model?). My hunch is that most of them were built as non m.u. but I suppose it isn't impossible that some of them were ex-two-m.u. Metroliners. OTOH I know NEC Metroliner service in the Eighties was hauled by AEM's and the like and this is pre-Acela, when the Metroliner was the fastest scheduled thing. Assuming Amtrak had taken reasonably good care of the (by then) fifteen-year-old original Metroliner rolling stock, I don't see why non-propelled units, or cab cars with pan down, couldn't have been used. A good question and I also wanted to ask, who made the most recent non-self-propelled "Amfleet" cars. According to a book about PATCO's Lindenwold Hi-Speed Line, Budd did not bid on that project, secure in the fact that Amtrak would give them anothe big order or two to build Am-shells. But the orders didn't go to Budd, the book avers. To whom then?
Ithink some routes including the Vermonter got ex Metroliner cab cars to go with their Amfleet cars, or there were Amfleet cab cars. I have seen a pic but don't know type of car which it is.
Whether traveling by car or train is a better financial deal depends on how many are traveling and the type of car that they drive. It also depends on whether a rent car will be needed at the destination.
Outlined below are car vs. train examples for a trip from San Antonio, Texas to Little Rock, Arkansas and return. It is 1,186 road miles and 1,342 train miles from San Antonio to Little Rock and return. The estimated driving time, which would be all interstate highway, according to MapQuest, would be nine hours and one minute. Another two hours probably would be required for pit stops and meal breaks, thereby bringing the car trip time to 11 hours. The scheduled train time is 16 hours and 34 minutes.
The car trip assumes a typical car that costs 34.81cents per mile to operate. This is the full cost, i.e. consumables, maintenance, depreciation, etc. It also assumes that the driver obeys the speed limit, and it includes an extra ten per cent to account for driving around Little Rock. If the car cost twice what I paid for my typical car, or is not driven as long as I estimate, or requires extraordinary repairs over its life, then the numbers could change significantly. The train travel assumes coach class.
The cost to drive solo would be $454, plus estimated meals costs of $36, which assumes the meals are consumed in fast food restaurants, i.e. McDonalds, Burger King, etc., for a total outlay of $490.
The solo train fare would be $170. If six meals are eaten in the dinning car or the lounge car (the dinning car on Number 22 is not open leaving San Antonio), with eggs and coffee for breakfast, a sandwich for lunch, and pasta for dinner, it would cost another $115 for a total tab of $$285.
The cost to drive with a partner and two children between 2 and 15 would be $454 or perhaps a bit more because of the additional weight. Meals taken at the same fast food restaurants would add another $144 to the cost, which would bring the tab to $598.
The cost to take the train with a partner and two children, as per above, would be $636, plus the cost of the meals in the dining car, which would add another $228 to the tab. The total cost would be $864.
Meal expenses could be reduced by packing meals and drinks to be consumed at one of the many roadside picnic areas in Texas and Arkansas or in the coach or lounge car.
Depending upon the destination in the Little Rock area, or whether someone might meet the train travelers at the station in the middle of the night, the train rider(s) may need to rent a car. Depending on the dates of travel, i.e. weekdays vs. weekends, this could add another $49 to $21 per day in rent car fees for a compact car.
In summary, the train is a better deal than driving for a solo traveler. Advantage train: $205. But driving is a better deal for the family. Advantage car: $266. The figures would change if a rental car is required for the train passenger(s).
Even if gasoline hits $5.00 a gallon, which it will eventually, the advantage would likely remain with the car for a family of four in situations similar to the one outlined above. This is what killed the long distance passenger train; together will the preference of the business traveler for air travel. Moreover, unless there is a dramatic change in the cost of operating the family buggy, attracting families to corridor rail or any form of commercial travel will remain a challenge.
A Squadron of Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys has deployed to the Iraq War Zone and is performing the mission for which they were designed. In addition, Bell Textron is designing a civilian version of the aircraft, which means that they have received enough interest from potential civilian operators to proceed with the development of a civilian prototype.
No Amfleet I and no Amfleet II cars were ex Metroliner shells. All were built entirely new. The only Metroliners that have been reused have been used as cabcars. Others were scrapped, some are simply unused, but all single-level Amtrak cab-cars that are not exFPH-40's are ex-Metroliners. And they are not Amfleet I or Amfleet II but cabcars.
When properly maintained. Amfleet cars can give an excellent ride on half-way decent track and a reasonable ride on deterioriated track. But lightwieght inside-frame air-bag trucks probably require a lot more maintenance than the heavy traditional drop-equalizer MCB-type trucks on conventional lightwieght passenger equipment. The Amfleet I cars rode better than the Metroliner MU equipment when they were new.
While they may not be up to ideal climate control for midwestern summers and winters, they were an improvement over the remaining rebuilt P-70's and New Haven 8200's and postwar lightweights that they replaced, even when the New Haven's equipment was new. Why? Because of steam leakage from the front to the rear of the train. I recall a Merchants Limited on a very cold winter evening when the front cars were toasty and the rear cars cold.
daveklepper wrote: No Amfleet I and no Amfleet II cars were ex Metroliner shells. All were built entirely new. The only Metroliners that have been reused have been used as cabcars. Others were scrapped, some are simply unused, but all single-level Amtrak cab-cars that are not exFPH-40's are ex-Metroliners. And they are not Amfleet I or Amfleet II but cabcars.When properly maintained. Amfleet cars can give an excellent ride on half-way decent track and a reasonable ride on deterioriated track. But lightwieght inside-frame air-bag trucks probably require a lot more maintenance than the heavy traditional drop-equalizer MCB-type trucks on conventional lightwieght passenger equipment. The Amfleet I cars rode better than the Metroliner MU equipment when they were new.While they may not be up to ideal climate control for midwestern summers and winters, they were an improvement over the remaining rebuilt P-70's and New Haven 8200's and postwar lightweights that they replaced, even when the New Haven's equipment was new. Why? Because of steam leakage from the front to the rear of the train. I recall a Merchants Limited on a very cold winter evening when the front cars were toasty and the rear cars cold.
Point well taken. I still wonder, though, who built the Amfleet generations of cars if not Budd? And who built the coaches for Amtrak's Chgo - Milw run? - a.s.
The Amfleets are all stainless-steel Budd manufacture. Budd invented the "shot-welded" all stainless steel railroad passenger car. The shot welding is some kind of arc welding technique that joins stainless steel without ruining the alloy structure by the heating of conventional welding. This technique was used on the articulated Pioneer Zephyr and on the later non-articulated "streamlined" passenger cars of Budd manufacture. Budd came out with a prototype "next generation" after the streamliner, contemporaneous with the more exotic late 1950's experimentals (Train-X, Talgo) called Pioneer III. The Pioneer III was an ultra lightweight 85 foot coach, with a Spartan interior and low ceilings that you would not like, which introduced those inside roller bearing trucks that Amtrak does not like on the Amfleets.
The Pioneer III design, although of higher weight, carried over to a generation of East Coast MU cars. The United States Department of Transportation Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project used a 4-car set of Pioneer III MU cars as their test train for the NY-DC corridor. I understand they were regeared for higher speed; I saw a picture of them in a back issue of Trains at the Historical Society, and they look like they got a semi-streamlined cab treatment in the style of the later Metroliner. The Trains article recorded their record 150 MPH test run, but it seems with the regearing they were quite underpowered and took a long time to accelerate to that test speed.
The Metroliner was also based on Pioneer III, but it was higher powered to maintain specs on acceleration up to 150 MPH that added greatly to the weight. It also had more conventional style trucks, which rode quite harshly (I rode a Metroliner and while the ride wasn't bad, it was rather stiff) because the Pennsylvania Railroad didn't want anything to do with those Pioneer III inside roller bearing trucks. (I have heard anecdotes that Amfleets will ride well on routes that Superliner II's jounce around on). The Metroliner introduced that curved sided "jet airliner" cabin profile -- that may have helped a tiny amount with weight and streamlining, but it was probably largely styling. It also introduced those rifle-slit windows. The rounded cabin you don't like was probably styling; those windows a lot of people hate are the reality of the Northeast and a lot of other places where young people throw rocks at trains and there is not much you can do about it.
The Horizons are Bombardier of Canada. In their Comet commuter car version, they have the Pioneer III truck, but Amtrak bought theirs with a journal pedestal equalized and swing hanger truck that goes back to the streamliner era. Like the Pennsylvania railroad, they too have "issues" with the Pioneer III and other truck designs (such as Superliner I); the Superliner I truck is after European experience with controlling hunting at high speeds by using an automotive-style radius rod instead of a journal pedestal to keep the axles square with the truck.
Thanks! I'm posting another question in TRANSIT that has to do with commuter rail. - a. s.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.