The U.S. Senate just passed the stimulus package by one vote. The President will be signing the
stimulus package next monday. Amtrak will recieve $1.3 billion dollars with the passage of the
stimulus package.
Well it's a step in the right direction. Now maby Amtrak will be able to fix and upgrade some of it's older equipment. Or maby evan buy some new. Hope we see some more of this $$$ come our way again sometime soon.
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
If I recall correctly, Illinois has about $100 million in unmet obligations to freight railroads for capacity improvements related to expanded services, needs $50-$60 million for new services to Dubuque, IA and the Quad Cities (Moline, IL), and needs $40 million for cab signals for the Chicago - Saint Louis Corridor for 110 mph service.
Sen Richard Durbin also wanted Amtrak to repair cars at Beech Grove for the new Illinois services and elsewhere.
I agree with bubbajustin that the best use of any "additional" federal dollars would be to rehab older coaches and get them up to running specs, especially in the NEC, which gives every indication of being saturated -- to the point of turning prospective passengers away. That should probably take care of money from this particular spending allocations.
Second up on my agenda would be to improve track conditions (track itself, fewer gated crossings, higher degree of signaling and so on) -- and thus raise the classification to get the highest federal speed limit permissible -- on corridor routes.
In an article in the 2/21 Wall Street Journal the head of Amtrak said not to expect any improvements of any kind with the money so don't hold your breath. Amtrak has become the rolling version of the Post Office in my opinion.
I hope Amtrak does not waste this 1.3 Billion.
Hadn't Amtrak been receiving about $1 billion a year anyway?
Is this the annual apprpriation or extra?
This is intended to be extra at least for now. Secretary LaHood has indicated additional money will also be forthcoming in the regular budget process, but of course that may be subject to change as the budget is developed.
I certainly hope that more passenger cars will be rehabed.
I have photos that I took back in the 1980s and early 90s when Amtrak's Silver Star was running 12 to 15 cars long on the Tampa to NY run! Today, demand for seats and sleeper space is still high but due to equipment shortages, 8 cars ( sometimes 11) is the typical consist. That's pretty sad.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
I just have one question that maybe Sam 1 or some of the others might be able to answer.
The Government nationalized passenger trains in 1971 and they went to h*** now in 2009 there is serious talk about nationalizing some banks and they will probably go to h***. What is the difference?
Al - in - Stockton
But remember, the key point that plagued Amtrak was that it was expected to become self-sufficient after a number of years. Totally ridiculous and unrealistic as the majority of the freight railroads worked hard to dump thier passenger trains, yet this was the mandate. Had president Nixon and congress taken a more "Europeon" attitude, Amtrak would have been treated as a viable alternative that would receive permanent funding year to year with developments of key corridor's as the goal.
AntonioFP45 But remember, the key point that plagued Amtrak was that it was expected to become self-sufficient after a number of years. Totally ridiculous and unrealistic as the majority of the freight railroads worked hard to dump thier passenger trains, yet this was the mandate. Had president Nixon and congress taken a more "Europeon" attitude, Amtrak would have been treated as a viable alternative that would receive permanent funding year to year with developments of key corridor's as the goal.
The expectatioin of self sufficiency was based on the notion that they could roll-out new short haul corridors and cut back on the LD trains. The short haul was supposed to produce a small net operating profit to cross subsidize the few remaining LD services.
Politics never allowed that to happen. It wasn't just Nixon. In fact, the opposite happened. Instead of expanding into corridors, the system map added more single trains thru and to low density locations
They did try, at least a bit. Once Amtrak got a real president, (Reistrup), one of the first things they did was place an order for the single, largest number of passenger cars in US history, 492, double vestibuled, day coaches. (and cafes).
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
passengerfan I just have one question that maybe Sam 1 or some of the others might be able to answer. The Government nationalized passenger trains in 1971 and they went to h*** now in 2009 there is serious talk about nationalizing some banks and they will probably go to h***. What is the difference? Al - in - Stockton
The banking system is the keystone for the economy. If it collapses, the economy, which is say our way of life, will go down with it. The government has no choice but to fix it, although according to the Administration nationalization is not in the cards at this point.
Amtrak is a nice to have in a nation with excellent air and highway systems. Technically, the government did not nationalize it. It formed a quasi private corporation that issued stock to the railroads that bought into it, if I remember correctly. Of course, in reality it is a government entity.
In retrospect, the government take over in 1971 of intercity passenger rail via Amtrak was a mistake. The market place should have been allowed to dictate the outcomes. Had Amtrak not been formed most intercity trains would have gone the way of the stagecoach.
The NEC might have survived with a modest investment of government money. It serves a high density regional corridor where people are used to taking the train. Oh, did I fail to say by the state governments benefit by the regional NEC?
Penn Central had upgraded the service before the formation of Amtrak. I think it got a little government money to do so. Other corridors might have surfaced as the nation grew and became more congested in the process.
But remember, the key point that plagued Amtrak was that it was expected to become self-sufficient after a number of years. Totally ridiculous and unrealistic
So I take it that the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is totaly ridiculous and unrealistic?
I actually read some of the literature I was handing out at the Madison Model Railroad Show last weekend, and the projections are that the MWRRI would need an initial infusion of 7 billion for 3000 route miles, but after that, it would operate at a small profit. And the proposed fares are little different from current Hiawatha fares. Yes. Really.
So instead of spending 2 billion/year on 4 billion passenger miles and collecting 1 billion/year in fares, the MWRRI would spend .5 billion/year on 2 billion passenger miles/year and collect about .5 billion/year in fares.
Of course that is only operating -- not the initial capital infusion, but what the hey, that is pocket change for the highways.
But think of it. If Amtrak could have been breaking even on operating costs, the 1 billion/year in 2000 dollars for operating subsidy could have provided the seed money for 4 MWRRI's for a total of 12000 route miles handling double Amtrak's current passenger miles.
That is what Sam is trying to tell us -- the half billion/year in LD operating subsidies do not seem like much, but if it could have been allocated to building up corridors on the MWRRI model, who knows what we would have today.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sam1 passengerfan I just have one question that maybe Sam 1 or some of the others might be able to answer. The Government nationalized passenger trains in 1971 and they went to h*** now in 2009 there is serious talk about nationalizing some banks and they will probably go to h***. What is the difference? Al - in - Stockton The banking system is the keystone for the economy. If it collapses, the economy, which is say our way of life, will go down with it. The government has no choice but to fix it, although according to the Administration nationalization is not in the cards at this point. Amtrak is a nice to have in a nation with excellent air and highway systems. Technically, the government did not nationalize it. It formed a quasi private corporation that issued stock to the railroads that bought into it, if I remember correctly. Of course, in reality it is a government entity. In retrospect, the government take over in 1971 of intercity passenger rail via Amtrak was a mistake. The market place should have been allowed to dictate the outcomes. Had Amtrak not been formed most intercity trains would have gone the way of the stagecoach. The NEC might have survived with a modest investment of government money. It serves a high density regional corridor where people are used to taking the train. Oh, did I fail to say by the state governments benefit by the regional NEC? Penn Central had upgraded the service before the formation of Amtrak. I think it got a little government money to do so. Other corridors might have surfaced as the nation grew and became more congested in the process.
That's an interesting question - what if no Amtrak?
I'm fairly certain the NEC would have wound up very different. Amtrak was a tenant on PC from 1971 to 1976 and PC was still running a lot of freight under the wire. The Metroliners were reportedly making a few bucks over cost - fares were much, much lower than they are today, adjusted for inflation. (e.g. a Philly to NY coach ticket was $5.25, $6.25 for the Metroliner in 1976), So maybe they keep running for a while under Conrail.
With the formation of Conrail, it would have been pretty much status quo for the NEC for a short while. When Conrail pushed hard to get out of being a commuter operator, they'd likely have sold off portions of the NEC to commuter agencies. NJT would have gotten the corridor from NYP to Newark, Conn DOT would have gotten NYP to NH. MBTA would have gotten Boston to the RI state line. Connecticut would have also had to pick up the NH to RI piece, lest it be abandoned and Conn and Mass would have probably had to subsidize the purchase of the NEC in RI - RI would likely have opted out. From Newak south, Conrail would have kept the NEC as it's a better freight route than the one they cobbled together from the LV and RDG, and business south from Perryville to Alexandria was actually pretty good unitl Amtrak chased most of it away.
The spectre of the power change to 60Hz from 25Hz would have obsoleted the Conrail electric fleet, and being very short of capital, Conrail would have pushed hard to drop the wires from Wilimington south to DC. Del and MD would have likely opted out of any investment to keep the juice flowing - little benefit to their citizens and no vested interest in outcome.
By then, the original Metroliner equipment would have been in need of replacement and, with the catenary down south of Wilmington, someone would have to step in with some $$ for new equipment. If the Feds did, it would have to allow for an engine change en route - most likely in Philly. Perhaps the Feds would even have spent a bit more to lay down some good ties and rail on one or two tracks on the route, like they did in 1966 for the original Metroliner project - who knows?
What would the NEC look like today? Lots of commuter trains and pretty good, 100 mph track from NYP to Trenton. Not so good from Trenton to Wilmington because getting money to keep tracks beyond class 4 just ain't something SEPTA would ever fund and class 4 is all Conrail needed. South of Wilimingon - one 100 mph track running diesel hauled Metroliners dodging lots of daylight intermodal and coal - and 3 or 4 box car trains a day.
Maybe a dozen "Metroliner II" trains running on 3:30 scheduled each way between NYP and DC and a half dozen NYP to Boston trains running on 4:30 schedules with a constant fight over who is going to pay what to keep the RR in shape east of NH to the RI/Mass line.
What we know is that Penn Central hoisted the Metroliners between New York and Washington from 1969 to 1971. The service stared on January 16, 1969, nearly 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak, with some funding provided through the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965.
The best time from New York to Washington was 2 hours and 59 minutes. By the summer of 1969 the service was hoisting at least four round trips per day, including one non-stop, and they were apparently well patronized, thanks in part of a strike at Eastern Airlines that shut down the shuttle.
The rest of the story is largely speculative, including my premise that it could have survived. It could have survived. And it could have collapsed for some or all of the reasons cited. The operative word is could. No one knows!
Frankly, had the states served by the NEC not been willing to put up the money to help support the NEC or the market would not support it, it should have been allowed to die. No one knows whether they would have or would not have. Having lived in the New York area for years, I came to realize that they are much better at regional cooperation than most other areas of the country where I have lived. And I have lived in seven states as well as DC and four other countries.
I worked in the electric utility industry for more than three decades. When I started it was a regulated monopoly that functioned like a government agency. It had no competition. By the time I retired a couple of years ago it had become a competitive business. The waste, prior to competition, was mind blowing. It took competition to weed it out. This is the reason that I favor fair market competition, especially when it comes to the operation of commercial transport services, as opposed to having the government perform the service.
Asking a taxpayer in Texas to pay for a train in New York is as unfair as asking the New Yorker to pay for trains in Texas, especially given that they are regional transport solutions.
We disagree on this issue.
Interesting question and answer. I see the possibility that states would want more regional services and routes than for the focus of a national system. A Northeast Compact might have come together more quickly.
I don't know why Rhode Island wouldn't cooperate with Massachusetts and Connecticut. Providence would want service to Boston, New Haven, and New York, but the line might be single-tracked initially. My guess is that cab signals would be retained.
Connecticut and Massachusetts might separately or jointly in through services provide at least a pair of trains each to Springfield, MA.
Philadelphia, PA - Harrisburg, PA would be maintained, as would a pair of Pittsburgh, PA - New York, NY day trains. It's quite possible a pair of Scranton, PA - Philadelphia, PA round trips might be restored.
New Jersey would want the Atlantic City, NJ service, and possibly a Cape May, NJ - New York, NY train connecting with PATCO.
You write off Delaware; but restored service Dover, DE - New York, NY might be the political price for continued Wilmington and Newark, DE service.
Maryland would want to connect Baltimore with Washington, DC and New York, NY as an adjunct to commuter services. A Cumberland - Washington, DC round trip and a pair of Cumberland - Baltimore round trips also might be desired in addition to commuter services.
Virginia almost certainly would want to maintain service from the north to Richmond, with branches to Roanoke, and to Newport News.
Quite possibly the Turbo Train or Xplorer/Daniel Webster may have become a sizable fleet with curvy routes everywhere.
It's interesting to speculate on whether the wires would come down south of New York, at least on segregated freight tracks, for double stack clearances. Then one might wonder whether the inevitable Auto Train might go to Oak Island or Jersey City, NJ.
In the Midwest, Illinois would have stayed with a train each from Carbondale, Quincy, Rock Island, Peoria, and Dubuque, and a pair of Chicago, IL - Saint Louis, MO trains. The same problems might have befallen the Peoria, Rock Island, and Dubuque trains. Ridership on the Clinton trainwas not that bad; but for some reason, this was not picked up then, so I doubt that it would have been in the no Amtrak scenario.
With support from the Fox Valley in preserving at least a couple Green Bay round trips through West Bend, Wisconsin and Illinois might have joined in supporting 4-6 Milwaukee - Chicago round trips via the North Western. A pair of Madison - Milwaukee round trips were possible in addition to the Cannonball commuter train to Watertown.
Perhaps there would be some horse trading that could have kept more corridor service going. The states along the NEC are very parochial when it comes to spending their money on trains. NJ and Conn know that the economic engine that drives their states is NYC, so being connected to NYC is paramount. Similar for MD and Wash DC, and RI and Boston.
I can't think of a good reason for Conn to spend much staying connected to Boston, nor Delaware staying connected to NY or DC. The bulk of the benefit of keeping these stretches of track going are would accrue to those living outside the state (DC to Philly and NY passengers) and states have a difficult time justifying spending their money in another state. You should have heard the howl in NJ when NJT decided to build a maintenance facility in Morrisville PA! (even though the benefits were all for NJT passengers)
Outside of that, it gets really squishy. The best examples I can think of are how poorly the NY-Albany and Phila to Harrisburg service faired given the uneven support by just one state - even when they had Amtrak as a partner to carry some of the load. NY got off to a good start upgrading the Hudson line with equipment and improved track, but then has spent the last 20 year sputtering along. PA pretty much left the Harrisburg line to rot until the upgrade of the past few years. (Actually, this route would have been kept in much better shape had Conrail owned it. It is a much better route from the west to Phila and NY than the RDG - LV route Conrail had to resort to)
Another example is the Downeaster. ME and MA are carrying the whole load for this service even though NH gains a good chunk of the benefit. Negotiations to date have been fruitless.
If Conrail had gained ownership of the corridor, you can be sure that it would have good amounts of freight on it today and, unless they could find someone to pay for it, the wires between Edgemoor Yard in Wilimington and Bayview in Baltimore would have been history.
I'm pretty sure you could snake the Autotrain up to North Jersey, even today, without having too many clearance issues to deal with. You go take the freight route (now CSX) from Alexandria to New Carrolton, then the NEC up to Phila. The highline around 30th St. to the connection at Zoo to West Falls. Then a short stretch on SEPTA to the old RDG Short Line. Another short stretch of SEPTA to West Falls, then the old Crusader/Wall Streeter route to North Jersey. Why, the old Jersey City terminal would even make a good location for the terminal!
Of course, if Conrail owned the NEC, the RDG from West Trenton to Bound Brook would likely not exist today and the NEC from Edgemoor to DC and Zoo to Newark would be cleared for stacks.
Sam1 What we know is that Penn Central hoisted the Metroliners between New York and Washington from 1969 to 1971. The service stared on January 16, 1969, nearly 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak, with some funding provided through the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965. The best time from New York to Washington was 2 hours and 59 minutes. By the summer of 1969 the service was hoisting at least four round trips per day, including one non-stop, and they were apparently well patronized, thanks in part of a strike at Eastern Airlines that shut down the shuttle.
SAM: Sorry but the only Eastern strike during that time was July - August 1966. Metroliner service was not that good after the strike.
blue streak 1 Sam1 What we know is that Penn Central hoisted the Metroliners between New York and Washington from 1969 to 1971. The service stared on January 16, 1969, nearly 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak, with some funding provided through the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965. The best time from New York to Washington was 2 hours and 59 minutes. By the summer of 1969 the service was hoisting at least four round trips per day, including one non-stop, and they were apparently well patronized, thanks in part of a strike at Eastern Airlines that shut down the shuttle. SAM: Sorry but the only Eastern strike during that time was July - August 1966. Metroliner service was not that good after the strike.
"During the prolonged labor strike at Eastern Shuttle many passengers defected to the Metroliner service." This sentence was taken from a Wikipedia article on the Metroliner. The author may have been incorrect.
According to another post on this subject, the Metroliner covered its out of pocket operating costs, which is the case for the Acela and NEC regional trains. The NEC is the only passenger rail service in the U.S., outside of a few tourist operations, as well as three of the other corridors trains, that covered its operating costs during FY 2008. The NEC covered its operating costs and made a substantial contribution to the capital costs associated with the NEC.
The key point is that the Metroliner was up and running approximately 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak. It lends creditability to the argument that an NEC might have survived the dismemberment of passenger rail if the government had not taken it over through the formation of Amtrak.
Those who think that corridor rail would not have emerged, as the nation grew, might want to keep these examples in mind. Trinity Rail was implemented between Dallas and Fort Worth without any help from the federal government or Amtrak. And next month commuter rail will begin operating in the Austin area, again with no help from the federal or state governments.
SAM: That strike in July - August 1966 was EAL, UAL NWA, National, and one other (maybe Western). Maybe the Metroliner got more patronage duing the 1971 and/or 1974 oil shortages or a controller's slowdown that also occurred. My source doesnt remember the actual dates.
Metroliners started running in 1969. By the early 70s, there was hourly service in both directions.
Parochialism is a two-edged sword: it can be a force for rail service oriented to local area needs.
At least we agree Jersey City would be a good terminal for Auto Train.
The worst part of New York - Albany is lack of access and absence of intermediate populations and destinations. The Hudson cuts off access from the west; and much of the east side is bluffs and private estates north of MTA territory. I would imagine a pair of Niagara Falls - New York round trips in addition to an Albany commuter round trip politically driven by Upstate New York. A separate round trip to Toronto would allow a later Buffalo - New York train in conjunction with Via. A Schenectady - New York train would be a possibility. Similarly a Montreal - New York round trip was likely, perhaps combine at Albany with the Schenectady train. An additional Ticonderoga - New York commuter round trip might be possible.
Sam1 blue streak 1 Sam1 What we know is that Penn Central hoisted the Metroliners between New York and Washington from 1969 to 1971. The service stared on January 16, 1969, nearly 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak, with some funding provided through the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965. The best time from New York to Washington was 2 hours and 59 minutes. By the summer of 1969 the service was hoisting at least four round trips per day, including one non-stop, and they were apparently well patronized, thanks in part of a strike at Eastern Airlines that shut down the shuttle. SAM: Sorry but the only Eastern strike during that time was July - August 1966. Metroliner service was not that good after the strike. The key point is that the Metroliner was up and running approximately 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak. It lends creditability to the argument that an NEC might have survived the dismemberment of passenger rail if the government had not taken it over through the formation of Amtrak.
The Metroliner/TurboTrain NEC project that started under the Johnson admin. was entirely Federally funded. The equipment was developed, tested and purchased with Federal funds. The track upgrades between NY and DC (mostly ties and welded rail) were Federally funded. I am not sure if the Feds underwrote any operating losses or participated in any operating profits, however.
HarveyK400 Parochialism is a two-edged sword: it can be a force for rail service oriented to local area needs.
Agree. And, what's determines what's local is a function of largely arbitrary and historical political boundaries- which tend to sub-optimize allocation of resources.
I'm not sure we were meant to take literally the Metroliner's 1969-1971 schedule of D.C./Union to NY/Penn in two hours, 59 minutes. The train was often late (sorry, I have no stats on how late). Also, the points used in the electrical system got blasted often, which suggests that the original Metroliner was overstrained and the trainsets were at heart, as critics have claimed: souped-up M.U's. The possible top speed of 120 mph came about, it seems, from Lyndon Johnson's insistence that "his" American train had a rated top speed as fast as the Japanese bullet trains of that era.
It was not unusual to see the (then) thirty-year-old GG-1's hauling stranded Metroliner cabs in for service -- enough, at least, that non-RR specialists noted the "art deco" type of motor hauling the "no locomotive" Metroliners.
(Budd's design for the coaches themselves was innovative and lasted - well, no one knows yet, but Amtrak is using 35-year-old Metroliner "shells" as its Amfleet series of coaches on non-Acela NEC runs.)
But in a relatively few years, after Metroliner's debut, it was no longer a distinct, dedicated trainset but just another fast train, pulled by an electric locomotive, and carrying nonpowered coaches. I wonder how many of the original mid-1960s Metroliner cab cars were left by the time the Acela came on board as the special fast train it indeed is. I do remember that because of cracks in the wheels, Acela service was temporarily out of service (this was about eight years ago IIRC), and frequent Metroliner service was temporarily reinstated -- but by then, was anyone seriously claiming that the substitute train service could go DC/NY in under three hours with either one stop or a handful?
I do agree that the Metroliner's fare was astonishingly cheap by today's standards. For that matter, Eastern got the ticket price of its shuttle down to $19 for several years. - a.s.
I would argue that the national system focus on a long distance network consumed resources and short-changed more viable regional services. This seems to have been a political price and compromise that also provided the right of access on railroads. The ICC and state CC's might not have enabled restoration of service; but likely would have allowed the continuation of existing passenger services under public agencies without subsequent legislation.
AL: My source tells me that the Eastern shuttle weekend fare in 1967 for a while was $12.88 collected on board.
Paul, I was referring to Amtrak as a "whole". A transcontinental rail passenger network expected to become self-sufficient.......yes that is ridiculous. Labor, liability issues, equipment maintenance, infrastructure maintenance (stations tracks-mainly the NEC), costs of operating on privately owned freight lines, security costs......................there's no way that with Amtrak's bueracratic laden structure that it could achieve self-sufficiency whether it's in 1971 or 2009, unless Amtrak was to be scaled back to a few short and medium distance markets that have proven viability, such as the NEC, Midwest Region, Michigan lane, Texas corridor, Amtrak California, and the yet to be developed Florida corridors. Florida had an excellent passenger rail network up until 1970 - now good portions of that are "bike trails".
It's too bad that so many rail lines (yes due to high maintenance and low profit service) have been ripped up, never to return. Lines that today would have been perfect for sustained 90mph+ Amtrak service. Can't remember the source, but years back I read of a study that suggested that had Amtrak been formed in the late 1950s, we would have likely had a much more dynamic rail passenger service today. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20.
I'm very pro-Amtrak and certainly don't want to see the LD trains disappear. Reality is that until the traveling U.S public undergoes a major change in attitude towards rail travel (far greater than current trends) Amtrak will continue to be a political hot potato with the stigma of carrying approximately 1% of long distance travelers. A far cry from what we had up until the early 1960s.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.