cordon wrote: oltmannd wrote:Outside of the NEC and it's branches, Chicago, California and perhaps a few other places, Amtrak is almost completely invisible. I doubt 1 in 10 Altantans even know that their city is served by Amtrak and only 1 in 10 of those have any idea where the train comes from or goes to.All the more reason I would expect the media to offer the information as part of their service to the public.
oltmannd wrote:Outside of the NEC and it's branches, Chicago, California and perhaps a few other places, Amtrak is almost completely invisible. I doubt 1 in 10 Altantans even know that their city is served by Amtrak and only 1 in 10 of those have any idea where the train comes from or goes to.
All the more reason I would expect the media to offer the information as part of their service to the public.
Is the media under any obligation to be a service to the public? Are they even under any obligation to be "fair" about their reporting?
I think neither. They are about making money and historically have been about taking sides on issues. In the first 100 years or more, the media was all about taking sides politically. Nobody even expected "fair and balanced" reporting -- or even truthful reporting!
Occasionally, when Amtrak's budget battles become national news, the local paper will do a pro-passenger rail op-ed piece, but other than that, Amtrak is below the radar most of the time, even for the media.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
cordon wrote: oltmannd wrote:Outside of the NEC and it's branches, Chicago, California and perhaps a few other places, Amtrak is almost completely invisible. I doubt 1 in 10 Altantans even know that their city is served by Amtrak and only 1 in 10 of those have any idea where the train comes from or goes to.All the more reason I would expect the media to offer the information as part of their service to the public.I sent my e-mail to the Dallas Morning News. We'll see how they respond.There was a letter in today's paper suggesting the U.S. of A. should have a modern passenger rail system like those of other modern nations. Please see "We need to Get On Board."
I sent my e-mail to the Dallas Morning News. We'll see how they respond.
There was a letter in today's paper suggesting the U.S. of A. should have a modern passenger rail system like those of other modern nations. Please see "We need to Get On Board."
It'll be interesting in the next decade or so to see how many of the "other modern nations" are able to keep funding those trains.
How to fund their social services in the near future is already a major concern. Something may have to give (besides their immigration policies; that card has already been played).
DMUinCT wrote: Boston, New York, Washington, no problem! Forget about Air. Sit down and streach out in a train less than 10 years old. Clean Trains, Elite Crews. A train every hour! When you add Airport Time, the train is faster and runs in all weather.It's called ACELA by Amtrak.
Boston, New York, Washington, no problem! Forget about Air.
Sit down and streach out in a train less than 10 years old. Clean Trains, Elite Crews. A train every hour! When you add Airport Time, the train is faster and runs in all weather.
It's called ACELA by Amtrak.
*** GOOD POINT
If I was in the airport and my fly got cancelled, this would be the next thing on my mind or better yet! if I was working with the airlines and I got a bunch of mad, yelling, cussing people. I would write a big sign and hold it up and the beginning of my line that reads:"AMTRAK OR GREYHOUND!" take your pick and keep moving! cause your complaints will do nothing but aggrevate others
Trains in the Northeast Corridor are now "All Reserved", Regional trains can have "standies" at certian times, like snow storms.
The Acela is Business Class (2 & 2 across seating) or First Class (1 & 2 across seating) only, and "standies" are never allowed. All persons on-board are listed, ticked or not. Big windows, reclining seats, fold down large tables, 115 volt electrical outlets by the seats, Beer On Tap in the Grill car, they beat the Airlines in there 500 mile run.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Just for once, the media might have gotten it right.
With the number of flights cancelled and the number of people wanting transportation, filling every seat on every Amtrak train would have barely shortened the line of people waiting to use restrooms in air termini. That assumes that there is Amtrak service to start with.
In the case of my home town, site of one of the busiest airports in the country, Amtrak is something that happens a long way away in an inconvenient direction. The only alternative to flying is a road trip through some of the most desolate countryside this side of Mars - assuming that the stranded traveler can get a motor vehicle to use outside of the County limits set by most rental agencies.
If the media had even breathed, "Amtrak," thousands of strandees would have besieged the local ticket offices - only to discover that the ocean liner they needed was actually a bass boat in relative passenger capacity.
Chuck
I did not mean to suggest that we view AMTRAK as a backup to airlines or that we fund it to fill that role by buying a lot of extra equipment. I merely noted that the local media had a lot of focus on Dallas - Fort Worth Airport and discussed 1000's of people stranded and inconvenienced without once mentioning passenger rail.
I am sure from my experiences on the Texas Eagle that there were some vacancies this past week that AMTRAK would gladly have filled. My point is that my curiosity is unsatisfied because my local news media didn't say anything. And I'm wondering why they did that when AMTRAK is pretty much right under their nose in Dallas.
I will send the Dallas Morning News a short e-mail asking them.
Several years ago a fierce rain/snow storm closed almost all airports in southern New England and the New York area while I was on business in New London, CT. I changed from plane (Providence, RI, to Washington, DC) to train and had to stand in the end vestibule all the way to New York because a lot of other people did the same thing. Although tunnels in New York had been flooded, they were clear by the time my train arrived. Once I got a seat, the remainder of the trip was great.
Speaking of fuel consumption, have any of you noticed that airliners lately fly at about 400 MPH instead of 500 plus? That's what my GPS is telling me. I suspect that they very carefully take into account load and weather, etc., to optimize the flight profile for fuel use. I think in the "old days" they went for shortest flight times.
Do RRs do anything to minimize fuel consumption?
I was on the road this past week, having flown from San Antonio to Norfolk, Virginia via Atlanta. While I was on a Delta flight and not affected, a co-worker with an American Airlines itinerary was not as fortunate. They did end up being booked on a Continental flight from Norfolk to Houston, but they had to drive the rest of the way to San Antonio (approximately 200 miles). Meanwhile another Airline (Frontier) declared bankruptcy this past week, but will remain flying according to the news. I hope Amtrak was able to pick up up some passengers in areas where they have good frequency of service.
The 40 year old NARP party line on passenger trains as part of a balanced transportation system aside, what about Amtrak as an alternative?
I see three fallacies with this line of reasoning. The current airline situation is the result of FAA inspections turning up mechanical problems (possible faults in wires or wire connectors) in certain type of airplanes. What about the Talgos being taken out of service? What about the low availability of the TurboTrains and Metroliners back in the day? I am not being snarky here with "You think the airlines have problems, what about Amtrak?" My point is that all common carrier modes are regulated by safety authorities, and all common carrier modes are at risk that big chunks of transportation capacity be taken off line on account of a safety concern. I don't see trains as having any special immunity.
The second fallacy is that Amtrak or trains in general provide an alternative to the poor grade of service provided by the airlines. Without going into the accounts of Amtrak horror stories matching airline horror stories, again, customer service is one of the consideration with any common carrier mode of transportation. Again, I don't see anything inherent in Amtrak or in trains that they would provide better customer service; given that Amtrak receives direct government subsidies, there is some reason to believe that the culture and incentive systems for Amtrak may result in a somewhat lower standard of customer service than the airlines.
The final fallacy is one that Amtrak is the alternative or backstop to a major disruption of airline operations. You were not my first choice to ask to the prom, but Amy Cheerleader, who is much more sought after by all the guys than you, didn't even return my phone call, and I really think you should drop whatever you are doing, spend a ton of money on a dress you will wear once, and go out with me.
If Amtrak was that capable and that available, why was Amtrak not a first choice in place of a ride on an American Airlines MD-80? OK, it is underfunded because we placed all of our eggs in the airline basket. OK, supposing it wasn't underfunded, would it be somehow differently placed than the airline industry that it would be immune from safety concerns of aging equipment and from the indignity of employees who were not maximally sensitive to the concerns of stranded travelers?
Another telling argument the mention of "spare capacity in equipment to respond to the kind of demand this situation is likely to generate." What is is about railroad rolling stock that people believe that it makes economic sense to have large quantities of it parked in a coach yard to meet the demand of such surges? As far as I can tell, railroad rolling stock is more expensive to own and maintain than airliners (we had a thread about the staffing of Amtrak maintenance relative to a freight railroad and relative to airline maintenance needs) -- this is largely the case because of the vastly higher utilization of airline equipment owing to the higher speed of airplanes, and this was discussed in Trains Magazine already back in the early 1960s.
In the matter of comparing trains with airplanes, airplanes are cheaper to operate than passenger trains, cheaper in crew costs, cheaper in ownership and maintenance of the "rolling stock." The only cost where trains have an edge is in fuel, but even with the high cost of oil, it is only a slight advantage because current trains are far from optimized with regard to fuel economy, and the fuel cost advantage is counterbalanced by those other factors.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I did see a stand up piece from O'Hare on TV sometime Thursday in which a reporter mentioned train (not specifically Amtrak) as an alternative. The sad thing is that Amtrak does not have the spare capacity in equipment to respond to the kind of demand this situation is likely to generate.
It is too bad they don't, with all the misery airlines put their customers through, this might have been an opportunithy to win some repeat business.
In all the recent fuss about cancelled airline flights the news media, specifically, the Dallas Morning News, for one, have not mentioned AMTRAK as an alternative. For example, the Texas Eagle is an excellent work-around for someone headed for Little Rock, St. Louis, or Chicago. It gets one there the next day instead of spending the night in a motel and taking chances that the airline might have a flight available anytime soon.
Is passenger rail really so invisible or disliked that it doesn't even get a passing word?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.