When will Amtrak determine that it is a transportation system and not just a scenic railroad. Take for example, :Amtrak Extends Pacific Surfliner Service Suspension Between San Diego and San Juan Capistrano"
Where passengers in San Diego are told " No alternate transportation is available" Of course alternate transportation is available:Greyhound to LA and then cab to LA Union Station. They have passengers and obviously Greyhound has seats. Since this is such a frequent problem, make arrangements.
Amtrak should recognize that people ride the train to get from A to B. Not just to experience the thrill of slow railroading. Get them from A to B! There will be challenges but Amtrak should recognize it sells transportation and start transporting.
By the way our experience was: left San Diego on Greyhound at 3 PM, arrive in LA search for our baggage at the LA bus station, cab to LA Union Station, wait for departure of the Sunset, nice boarding and departure, wake up in Yuma, Arizona. That is 175 miles in about 15 hours for a break neck speed of 12 mph from San Diego. We found the frazzled Greyhound staff very helpful and willing to help (and get us there).
Fast, frequent, and on time.
Anything less is not useful transportation.
One train a day will never be useful transportation.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
petitnj, your experience points out what's wrong with our whole approach to transportation. Instead of thinking in terms of air vs rail vs bus, we need an integrated transportation system. When you got to L.A., why did you have to get your luggage, load it into a cab and then check it at the train station? Why weren't the bus and train depots in the same building (or at least next door to each other)? Why couldn't you have checked your bags at the bus station for your final destination and had them transferred automatically? There should also be frequent shuttle service (either bus or rail) between airports and bus/train depots, with through baggage handling.
We have to start with good bus service. Routes with the highest density should be considered for upgrade to rail. The same goes for air travel, such as is happening in the NEC. As much as I love train travel, I have to admit that its niche in the passenger transportation scheme is fairly limited.
I've ranted enough for now. Thanks for listening.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul, et. al.
Yes that is exactly what I am wondering. In San Diego, the bus and rail are close but apparently not close enough to provide integrated service. (Boston is an exception with South Station and the regional buses in the same place). I know Amtrak is just a pieced together system, but haven't they had long enough to get things integrated? (or don't they really care?)
My bet would be that it's because bus companies, airlines, and railroads view themselves as competitors rather that components in an integrated system. That is a natural side effect of capitalism and isn't likely to change unless some forward thinking individual invests across the board and makes them related companies.
Perhaps we will one day see Virgin Airlines, Virgin Railroad, Virgin Express freight and package service, and Virgin Express bus service operating out of common gateways. Are you listening Sir Richard?
Its not that they haven't had long enough its that it has a floppy, self centered, antagonistic, board of directors...and I don't mean the Amtrak board! there unfortunately is a higher power play at work.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
The thing to remember about Amtrak is that at the time it was created it was created to FAIL. It was created as a shoddy transportation medium to quiet opponents of the freight railroad desire to rid themselves of the money losing proposition. The fact that Amtrak still exists despite all the political and financial sabotage that has occurred during it life span is a testimony to it's leadership and work force and their will to survive.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Not to disparage those who need, require, or otherwise use Amtrak as a means to travel for business, I nonetheless suppose I am in the minority to posit that I don't care how slow Amtrak trains travel. I travel for the "journey" not the "destination." I can deal with the (rare) instances of missed arrival times, route temporary cancellations, motorcoach bridging, Superliner aging, etc., whereas others can not , probably for good reason. Whatever. Slow down, people!
I am grateful that we have a passenger rail system. The usual alternative is air travel, which at best is inhumane: fraught with automobile parking expense, rude agents, "knees in my chest" seat structure, seatmate cell phone conversations, peanuts, nickel- and dime-ing for every passenger comfort, stuck on the tarmac delays, harried terminals with overpriced food but without creature comforts, ad nauseum. Good grief!
BaltACD .... The fact that Amtrak still exists despite all the political and financial sabotage that has occurred during it life span is a testimony to it's leadership and work force and their will to survive.
.... The fact that Amtrak still exists despite all the political and financial sabotage that has occurred during it life span is a testimony to it's leadership and work force and their will to survive.
Also testimony to the American public who needs and uses passenger rail! And would use more if it were more available, (i.e. real, reliable, frequent, service).
BaltACD The thing to remember about Amtrak is that at the time it was created it was created to FAIL. It was created as a shoddy transportation medium to quiet opponents of the freight railroad desire to rid themselves of the money losing proposition. The fact that Amtrak still exists despite all the political and financial sabotage that has occurred during it life span is a testimony to it's leadership and work force and their will to survive.
My cat is sitting on my lap as I type this note. She is staring at the cat in your posting signature icon going around and around. She is impressed, but she says that she is definitely not coming to your house. No wild rides for her!
Amtrak exists in large part because a majority of the people's representatives in the Congress of the United States have voted more than $1.5 billion annually (latest go around) to keep it running. True, Amtrak's leadership and workforce are important contributors to its survival, but it would fall over in a minute if the federal government did not support it.
I wish more people had the attitude that travelingengineer and I do. Enjoy the journey. I'll frequently get off the interstate and drive the old highways if there is not too much congestion. It does much to un-frazzle the nerves. Unfortunately, many people are willing to be packed into flying sardine cans, just as they let themselves get sucked onto the interstate racetrack. This is just an observation, and has nothing to do with financially justifying anything.
My wife is not a good traveller and abhors four lane highways jammed with trucks. So I've learned the many back routes between Binghamton, NY and Bath, ME over the past eight years. It has given me an opportunity to check out some very interesting New England (railroad) historical sites and routes...be surprised at the bridges and equipment all over...plus enjoy the greatest scenery in the east. So instead of a nerve grinding 7 hour mash through cities and traffic jams, I often stretch things out to a 12 hour liesurely jaunt through the mountains of New York and New England and into the often hidden valley charms. Stop, breath it all in, take notes and pictures if you wish. As a rail historian or to see trains in motion, it is great! Today, in order to get down from NE my daughter in law is flying from Portland, ME to Philadelphia, PA to Elmira, NY in two one hour and fifteen minute flights and an hour and a half layover in Philadelphia! Train would have been longer Portland to Boston to Albany to Syracuse or Portland to Boston to New York to maybe Port Jervis, NY. By bus? Happy New Year. Our great transportation system is not designed to provide service except at the convenience of the carriers.
How do I interpret the following...besides determininng how screwed up and unreliable transportation in gneral, airline in particular, information works. Watching the airline flights outlined above, Portland departure was 7 minutes before the advertised with attending arrival at PHL ok. Elmira shows a 15-25 minute delay in expected arrival, PHL shows a 27 minute delay departure expected, USA says all is on time. By 10:50AM Elmira shows an expected arrival a full 12-15 minute earlier than scheduled and PHL shows the flight actually departed at 10AM, ten minutes ahead of schedule and 37 minutes ahead of the scheduled delayed departure time. How screwd up are things in the airline industry?
Yes the airline system has its moments but should not be considered comparable to the surface transportation system. Air travel is too dependent upon fuel, whose price is soon to go thru the roof. It is heavily government subsidized. It carries the mail that used to support the railroads...
Additionally, the speed of air travel over moderate distances easily makes up for any inconvenience that we have (airports away from city centers, security feel ups, crowds...).
I know there will be instances of passenger neglect (like 14 hours on a plane 70 miles from its destination), but that is due to individual employee decisions (or haste) and doesn't reflect on the system.
The question is, why can't we specify that all transit systems be integrated. Federal funds would not go to a light rail that didn't interface with local and intercity bus, Amtrak, commuter lines, and airlines?
Just as another aside: my commute last week after 17 inches of snow included a light rail trip to a short bus ride that brought me right home. The normal bus service never arrived!
petitnj ...... The question is, why can't we specify that all transit systems be integrated. Federal funds would not go to a light rail that didn't interface with local and intercity bus, Amtrak, commuter lines, and airlines? ....
......
....
Ditto!
Passenger rail was not destined to fail, regardless of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation or the National Association of Railroad Passengers. The remaining railroads after Conrail sought a way to increase profits. The quick, FALSE answer was nationalizing passenger railroads with Amtrak and dump upon Amtrak the responsibility to handle passenger rail to them.
The railroads would have survived just fine with passenger rail. They sought an easy way out with Amtrak, with the notable exception of the Sante Fe and others who held out and really knew the real solution. It wasn't the government and Amtrak, it was responsible handling of passenger railroads. Today we don't have this thinking.
Sigh.
I agree. And according to the despised (around this forum) NARP:
"Amtrak subsidizes the freight railroads. For much of Amtrak's existence, the law prevented Amtrak from contracting out most work while the freight railroads reduced their employment rolls (in some cases by contracting out), thus reducing the amount freight railroads pay into Railroad Retirement. Amtrak workers are "railroad employees." Railroad Retirement obligations-unlike Railroad Unemployment Insurance payments-are calculated on an industry-wide bias, with all companies paying the same rates. Therefore, Amtrak is subsidizing the freight railroads' contribution to Railroad Retirement; Amtrak's "excess Railroad Retirement payments" (about $150 million a year) is what Amtrak contributes to Railroad Retirement for workers that Amtrak never employed. If Amtrak were to go away, Railroad Retirement payments by the freight railroads and their employees would be increased."
I'm not sure if I follow or agree with their contention, but it is an interesting one I've never heard before.
BTW, not sure what you meant, but Santa Fe passenger service ended when Amtrak started in 1971. It did not opt out.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Santa Fe was not a hold out on Amtrak....Southern and DRGW were. The carriers who divested their operations to Amtrak didn't care if passenger service thrived or died, all they cared about was getting out from under their direct financial burden of it. The carriers that placed their passenger operations under Amtrak were seeing their operating income being sucked down the 'rat hole' of passenger losses. Amongst a host of other financial issues the losses from passenger operations was one of the big drains on Penn Central's cash flow and was a contributing factor to it's bankruptcy and the resulting formation of ConRail.
Congress is the entity that designed Amtrak to be a failure, with the collective thinking being that we will create this entity....it will last a couple of elections cycles and then collapse under it's own weight from the amounts they will have to beg from Congress to continue to operate.
As information in Railroad Retirement both the carriers and their employees pay more into it than either would under Social Security. Parties both inside and outside the industry have been trying for years to reduce both the payments and benefits for the Railroad Retirement System.
aegrotatio BaltACD: The thing to remember about Amtrak is that at the time it was created it was created to FAIL. It was created as a shoddy transportation medium to quiet opponents of the freight railroad desire to rid themselves of the money losing proposition. The fact that Amtrak still exists despite all the political and financial sabotage that has occurred during it life span is a testimony to it's leadership and work force and their will to survive. Passenger rail was not destined to fail, regardless of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation or the National Association of Railroad Passengers. The remaining railroads after Conrail sought a way to increase profits. The quick, FALSE answer was nationalizing passenger railroads with Amtrak and dump upon Amtrak the responsibility to handle passenger rail to them. The railroads would have survived just fine with passenger rail. They sought an easy way out with Amtrak, with the notable exception of the Sante Fe and others who held out and really knew the real solution. It wasn't the government and Amtrak, it was responsible handling of passenger railroads. Today we don't have this thinking. Sigh.
BaltACD: The thing to remember about Amtrak is that at the time it was created it was created to FAIL. It was created as a shoddy transportation medium to quiet opponents of the freight railroad desire to rid themselves of the money losing proposition. The fact that Amtrak still exists despite all the political and financial sabotage that has occurred during it life span is a testimony to it's leadership and work force and their will to survive.
Amtrak was designed to relieve freight railroads of passenger service costs with an eye to phasing passenger services out all together over time. It was political. The public and civil engineers/planners though otherwise and fought for the wise.
The statement Sante Fe passenger service eneded with Amtrak simply means that Sante Fe felt that Amtrak did not provide the high level of service Sante Fe did, at least not high enough to use the Sante Fe name "The Chief" for the Amtrak train forcing Amtrak to rename the train. The extension of the concept that Amtrak certainly wasn't providing the quality level of passenger service the individual railroads had been doing right along. DRGW and Southern stayed out of Amtrak for as long as they could.
The roads that stayed out of Amtrak had their own reasons for staying out. Rock Island didn't join because it was cheaper for them to continue running their remaining trains then pay the entry fee. Rio Grande pretty much wanted to be master of its own house and was willing to eat the losses involved. Southern also wanted to be master of its own house and Graham Claytor felt that Southern could run a better service than Amtrak. Remember that Claytor, as VP-Law for Southern, found a lot of creative ways to eliminate much of Southern's passenger service in the late 60's and early 70's.
It was and wasn't...all at the same time. There were two camps in the Nixon administration. Those that supported Amtrak because it they thought it would fail and the mess would be over and those that supported it because they thought it could morph into something that could cover it's operating costs. The second camp's plan was for the LD routes to be further cut and corridor services developed that would turn enough cash to cover the remaining LD routes.
What happened satisfied neither camp. LD and other non-corridor services were expanded due to political pressure. Corridor development was minimal and the losses grew.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm I agree. And according to the despised (around this forum) NARP: "Amtrak subsidizes the freight railroads. For much of Amtrak's existence, the law prevented Amtrak from contracting out most work while the freight railroads reduced their employment rolls (in some cases by contracting out), thus reducing the amount freight railroads pay into Railroad Retirement. Amtrak workers are "railroad employees." Railroad Retirement obligations-unlike Railroad Unemployment Insurance payments-are calculated on an industry-wide bias, with all companies paying the same rates. Therefore, Amtrak is subsidizing the freight railroads' contribution to Railroad Retirement; Amtrak's "excess Railroad Retirement payments" (about $150 million a year) is what Amtrak contributes to Railroad Retirement for workers that Amtrak never employed. If Amtrak were to go away, Railroad Retirement payments by the freight railroads and their employees would be increased." I'm not sure if I follow or agree with their contention, but it is an interesting one I've never heard before. BTW, not sure what you meant, but Santa Fe passenger service ended when Amtrak started in 1971. It did not opt out.
But Rock Island did. They couldn't afford the ante.
BaltACD Santa Fe was not a hold out on Amtrak....Southern and DRGW were. The carriers who divested their operations to Amtrak didn't care if passenger service thrived or died, all they cared about was getting out from under their direct financial burden of it. The carriers that placed their passenger operations under Amtrak were seeing their operating income being sucked down the 'rat hole' of passenger losses. Amongst a host of other financial issues the losses from passenger operations was one of the big drains on Penn Central's cash flow and was a contributing factor to it's bankruptcy and the resulting formation of ConRail. Congress is the entity that designed Amtrak to be a failure, with the collective thinking being that we will create this entity....it will last a couple of elections cycles and then collapse under it's own weight from the amounts they will have to beg from Congress to continue to operate. As information in Railroad Retirement both the carriers and their employees pay more into it than either would under Social Security. Parties both inside and outside the industry have been trying for years to reduce both the payments and benefits for the Railroad Retirement System. aegrotatio: BaltACD: The thing to remember about Amtrak is that at the time it was created it was created to FAIL. It was created as a shoddy transportation medium to quiet opponents of the freight railroad desire to rid themselves of the money losing proposition. The fact that Amtrak still exists despite all the political and financial sabotage that has occurred during it life span is a testimony to it's leadership and work force and their will to survive. Passenger rail was not destined to fail, regardless of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation or the National Association of Railroad Passengers. The remaining railroads after Conrail sought a way to increase profits. The quick, FALSE answer was nationalizing passenger railroads with Amtrak and dump upon Amtrak the responsibility to handle passenger rail to them. The railroads would have survived just fine with passenger rail. They sought an easy way out with Amtrak, with the notable exception of the Sante Fe and others who held out and really knew the real solution. It wasn't the government and Amtrak, it was responsible handling of passenger railroads. Today we don't have this thinking. Sigh.
aegrotatio: BaltACD: The thing to remember about Amtrak is that at the time it was created it was created to FAIL. It was created as a shoddy transportation medium to quiet opponents of the freight railroad desire to rid themselves of the money losing proposition. The fact that Amtrak still exists despite all the political and financial sabotage that has occurred during it life span is a testimony to it's leadership and work force and their will to survive. Passenger rail was not destined to fail, regardless of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation or the National Association of Railroad Passengers. The remaining railroads after Conrail sought a way to increase profits. The quick, FALSE answer was nationalizing passenger railroads with Amtrak and dump upon Amtrak the responsibility to handle passenger rail to them. The railroads would have survived just fine with passenger rail. They sought an easy way out with Amtrak, with the notable exception of the Sante Fe and others who held out and really knew the real solution. It wasn't the government and Amtrak, it was responsible handling of passenger railroads. Today we don't have this thinking. Sigh.
Yes. It was a big driver of losses on PC. The other two biggies were full crew laws and regulated rates.
PC was the 900 pound gorilla of passenger rail in the US in 1971. They had something like half of the US total.
What are the crew requirements on Amtrak today?
schlimm I agree. And according to the despised (around this forum) NARP: "Amtrak subsidizes the freight railroads. For much of Amtrak's existence, the law prevented Amtrak from contracting out most work while the freight railroads reduced their employment rolls (in some cases by contracting out), thus reducing the amount freight railroads pay into Railroad Retirement. Amtrak workers are "railroad employees." Railroad Retirement obligations-unlike Railroad Unemployment Insurance payments-are calculated on an industry-wide bias, with all companies paying the same rates. Therefore, Amtrak is subsidizing the freight railroads' contribution to Railroad Retirement; Amtrak's "excess Railroad Retirement payments" (about $150 million a year) is what Amtrak contributes to Railroad Retirement for workers that Amtrak never employed. If Amtrak were to go away, Railroad Retirement payments by the freight railroads and their employees would be increased." I'm not sure if I follow or agree with their contention, but it is an interesting one I've never heard before.
schlimm What are the crew requirements on Amtrak today?
oltmannd schlimm: What are the crew requirements on Amtrak today? Less than in 1971. They can operate many trains with one man in the cab and they are on hourly pay basis instead of time and miles.
schlimm: What are the crew requirements on Amtrak today?
As Don stated, great changes have been made, not only with being paid by hours worked instead of by miles covered (with a basic day of 150 miles for train crew and 100 miles for engine crew), but also changes have been made in terminals so that, when possible, the run from one terminal to the next takes about six-eight hours. This has greatly reduced the number of crew needed.
Johnny
schlimm I'm not sure if I follow or agree with their contention, but it is an interesting one I've never heard before. BTW, not sure what you meant, but Santa Fe passenger service ended when Amtrak started in 1971. It did not opt out.
I'm sorry, I am not sure which railroad held out as long as possible, I know that at least one did, and it was for the sake of argument to my point that nationalization of passenger rail, or so-called "railpax," was not necessarily required to save that mode of passenger transportation.
aegrotatio schlimm: I'm not sure if I follow or agree with their contention, but it is an interesting one I've never heard before. BTW, not sure what you meant, but Santa Fe passenger service ended when Amtrak started in 1971. It did not opt out. I'm sorry, I am not sure which railroad held out as long as possible, I know that at least one did, and it was for the sake of argument to my point that nationalization of passenger rail, or so-called "railpax," was not necessarily required to save that mode of passenger transportation.
schlimm: I'm not sure if I follow or agree with their contention, but it is an interesting one I've never heard before. BTW, not sure what you meant, but Santa Fe passenger service ended when Amtrak started in 1971. It did not opt out.
I'm sorry, but I think you are basing your view on a myth perpetrated by rail fans just wishing for "the good old days". If you want a definitive look at rail passenger service in the last years before Amtrak, including information on the losses sustain by the railroads, I recommend Fred Frailey's "Twilight of the Geat Trains". Much of the book includes the extensive effort by many of the railroads to maintain good service on some trains with market potential, but in spite of all, passenger service deficits continued to mount.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
It may seem counter-intuitive but the operating ratio for Santa Fe's passenger service actually went up as the lesser trains were discontinued. I can remember figures from Moody's Transportation Manual that showed the passenger operating ratio increase from around 150% in 1965 to over 200% in 1970, the last full year before Amtrak.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.