John WRWhat we need is objective standards about transportation as public policy.
PA needs $7M to keep it running. They are having trouble finding it in their budget. That's pretty objective.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndPA needs $7M to keep it running. They are having trouble finding it in their budget. That's pretty objective.
It's also objective that 212,000 people who used the service now have to scramble and find something else because their government abandoned them.
John WR oltmanndPA needs $7M to keep it running. They are having trouble finding it in their budget. That's pretty objective. It's also objective that 212,000 people who used the service now have to scramble and find something else because their government abandoned them.
Half of them are Harrisburg and east - where, even if the the train is removed, they'll have 10 others to choose from.
The other half - the subsidy works out to $70 a head - pretty steep. As for the government "abandoning" them.... Huh? Is the government obligated to provide subsidized non-auto transport to all citizens? Just rural ones? Just ones where there is no alternate? No alternate ground transport? How would this obligation play out fairly? Why should Lewistown PA have a train while Macon GA does not?
oltmanndIs the government obligated to provide subsidized non-auto transport to all citizens? Just rural ones? Just ones where there is no alternate? No alternate ground transport? How would this obligation play out fairly? Why should Lewistown PA have a train while Macon GA does not?
Hey Don,
I didn't set up Amtrak routes or run them for over 40 years. During all of that time the Federal Government has considered the Pennsylvanian part of our national rail system. Now, what has been fair for all those years is suddenly an impossible burden on the taxpayers so the Feds will stop funding it. No possible alternative is considered. No DMU's as the run in Europe. No buses. Just stop it and ignore the problems it causes for riders. There is a word for what the Federal Government is doing to those riders and that word is "abandon."
As far as service to Macon is concerned, this is the first time I have ever heard you or anyone suggest it. Is there a need for it? If so I would be happy to hear about that need.
Have a good day despite the snow. John
Sorry but your analysis is distorted and i think the history is, too. The train started in 1980 and the bulk of the passengers are from Harrisburg east.
Between 1981 and 1983 the Pennsylvanian's equipment was turned every night to operate a second state-supported train, the Fort Pitt, which ran from Pittsburgh to Altoona. Amtrak withdrew this train in early 1983 after PennDOT declined to continue subsidizing the increased operation. At the time the Fort Pitt carried 30 passengers per day.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
John WRDuring all of that time the Federal Government has considered the Pennsylvanian part of our national rail system.
No. It started as a state subsidized train in the late 70s, sometime after the National Limited came off.
Do you have a problem with the residents of the state of Pennsylvania paying for a service that they want? You pay for the AC to Philly trains. Why shouldn't PA pay for the Pittsburgh to Harrisburg train? The state has said they have a hard time justifying the cost given the amount of service it provides. Given that there is not an inexhaustible supply of subsidy money, they'd prefer to keep funding the Keystones and drop the Pennsylvanian rather than the other way around.
It appears every Amtrak stop except Huntingdon has bus service.
There is the same need for a passenger train to serve Macon as there is for Lewistown. Almost none.
oltmannd you have a problem with the residents of the state of Pennsylvania paying for a service that they want?
Don,
For the record, I have never lived in Pennsylvania and I have absolutely no personal financial interest in public transit in any part of that state. However, I do not believe that simply because a government service benefits people in another state and not me personally I should oppose such a benefit. I believe we need to see ourselves as a national community working for the good of all rather than attacking our neighbors because they get some sort of benefit.
As it applies to Amtrak I see a national rail network of passenger service. I don't suggest that the network we now have is perfect or should never change. However, I do believe we should not hack off part here and there whenever the impulse suits us because, after all, we do not personally benefit from those parts.
I do understand that the service the Pennsylvanian now provides was at Amtrak's beginning provided by the Broadway Limited. Over the years different service has been provided between New York and Pittsburgh. When the Pennsylvanian began Pennsylvania paid 50 per cent of it and the Federal Government paid the other 50 per cent. What I now suggest is that the Federal Government should not simply decide to stop honoring its own agreement; yet that seems to be what it intends to do.
I live in a very densely populated state. Should I start to oppose Federal contributions to our interstate highway system in more rural states just because in my personal opinion too few people use those highways? After all, there are parallel state highways although often they involve longer routes and greater risk of accidents.
While there are bus routes the bus routes are not identical to the rail route and have been operating for some time. It is not at all clear that there is capacity on the buses to absorb all Amtrak passengers over night.
Lewistown is but one stop on the route. And if you believe rail service to Macon cannot be justified why, then, do you suggest it? I have not and do not propose that Amtrak should offer service between Philadelphia and Atlantic City.
With best regards, John
schlimmSorry but your analysis is distorted and i think the history is, too.
Schlimm,
I did a little net surfing and found there is a lot of history about train service between New York and Pittsburgh. I'm sure there is a lot more history that I am unaware of.
Most of all I think that as long as Amtrak is a national rail system we should take a rational policy approach to altering it. I don't suggest Amtrak is perfect as it stands but neither do I believe we should suddenly hack off parts that have existed for many years without careful consideration of all of the implications.
It is possible to argue that we should not have Amtrak at all. The Federal Government should abandon the whole system leaving others--either state governments or private companies--to pick up the parts they choose, abandon the rest and to the extent Amtrak owns equipment or land auction it off. That would get the Federal Government out of the passenger rail business once and for all.
But until that day comes I do think the Federal Government should respect the agreements it has made with other entities and maintain the service it promised back in 1970.
John WR Most of all I think that as long as Amtrak is a national rail system we should take a rational policy approach to altering it. I don't suggest Amtrak is perfect as it stands but neither do I believe we should suddenly hack off parts that have existed for many years without careful consideration of all of the implications. It is possible to argue that we should not have Amtrak at all. The Federal Government should abandon the whole system leaving others--either state governments or private companies--to pick up the parts they choose, abandon the rest and to the extent Amtrak owns equipment or land auction it off. That would get the Federal Government out of the passenger rail business once and for all. But until that day comes I do think the Federal Government should respect the agreements it has made with other entities and maintain the service it promised back in 1970.
First of all, it is certainly more productive to have reasoned discussions of various details and specifics of passenger rail service, rather than the endless go-arounds we used to have on here. That said, how is it helpful to set up a strawman? No one (recently) is calling for an end to Amtrak or passenger rail in favor of highways and air or nothing. The route segment from Harrisbug to Pittsburgh has seen several different approaches over the 40 years and none have worked out in terms of passengers served. It therefore seems reasonable to consider dropping that segment now in 2013.
But remember that Amtrak was not created for the general populous to ride trains but for the private for profit corporations and companies who owned and operated railroads at the time and forever forward. It was to relieve these entities of the so called "burden" of passenger loses with the then Republicans' hope of phasing out the service within a few years. They were ambushed by a public that wanted and wants rail passenger service so have been walking the razor edge ever since. Neither the government nor private industry rail want passenger service but people who pay taxes and elect Congressmen and Governors do.
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.
I don't know if anyone will find it persuasive but the Pittsburgh Post Gazette offers the information that about 19,000 people transferred between the Capitol Limited and the Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. Here is the link: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/brian-oneill/losing-amtrak-train-would-be-rail-awful-673737/%3Ccenter%3E/
Also, the Altoona Mirror observes that for the first time in a great many years no passenger train would be running over the Horseshoe Curve. But should we preserve a passenger train as a sort of historical museum? Perhaps that is something to think about but I don't know what the conclusion would be.
John WRI don't know if anyone will find it persuasive but the Pittsburgh Post Gazette offers the information that about 19,000 people transferred between the Capitol Limited and the Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh.
26 per train. More than I would have guessed, but you are right. Not very persuasive.
John WRAlso, the Altoona Mirror observes that for the first time in a great many years no passenger train would be running over the Horseshoe Curve. But should we preserve a passenger train as a sort of historical museum? Perhaps that is something to think about but I don't know what the conclusion would be.
Very sad to think about this one. It would be cool if there could be excursions out of Altoona up the curve around the loop at the top and then back down - at least on weekends Altoona is railfan "Mecca", after all.
schlimmThe route segment from Harrisbug to Pittsburgh has seen several different approaches over the 40 years and none have worked out in terms of passengers served. It therefore seems reasonable to consider dropping that segment now in 2013.
Agree. I think this one falls under the heading "pick your battles".
Again we have the Lionel Set trying to railroad. The Lionel Set likes to run trains and can around a Christmas tree but know nothing about railroading, marketing, and service.
henry6 Again we have the Lionel Set trying to railroad. The Lionel Set likes to run trains and can around a Christmas tree but know nothing about railroading, marketing, and service.
I call it: Crayons on a napkin playing "connect the dots". More lines is better.
Quality beat quantity in this game.
I see Amtrak as a passenger rail system that we can either keep or destroy. But that is not a "straw man" argument; it simply identifies the options available.
I acknowledge that it is not perfect and we may wish to alter parts of it. But I disagree with impulsively chopping off pieces.
henry6 It {Amtrak} was to relieve these entities {freight railroads} of the so called "burden" of passenger loses with the then Republicans' hope of phasing out the service within a few years.
Actually, Henry, I don't know that at all but I don't suggest that you are wrong. Do you have a source for your information?
I understand Amtrak was proposed by John A. Volpe, a Republican who was Richard Nixon's Secretary of Transportation. I do understand that President Nixon did have some reluctance to go along with the idea but ultimately he saw it as the best available option and supported the legislation. I don't know how the vote in the Congress went other than the fact that the legislation was approved and that Richard Nixon signed it into law.
The idea that the Nixon administration would propose legislation, have it introduced into the Congress, support it and sign it into law when in fact the administration opposed that legislation is something I find it difficult to understand. As I say, perhaps you could help me with a source.
Best regards, John
Do I understand correctly that you believe we should dismiss the needs of those who actually need the Pennsylvanian for transportation but you do sympathize with rail fans who want to ride on the Horseshoe Curve and come to Altoona?
Here is the link to the article in the Altoona Mirror: http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/568561/Retain-Amtrak-service.html
henry6Again we have the Lionel Set trying to railroad. The Lionel Set likes to run trains and can around a Christmas tree but know nothing about railroading, marketing, and service.
Henry,
The Pennsylvanian was jointly created by the Federal Government and the State of Pennsylvania. Is that what you mean by "The Lionel Set?"
Go back to news and magazine accounts of the time...histories of Amtrak, Conrail, and the like. The idea for Amtrak was in fact to relieve the Class One, private enterprise freight railroads of having to deal with passenger trains. Further, at the time, it was felt that any passenger service or company would be short lived as more people would have cars and fly so the passenger railroad would just go away. That was the plan and hopes of the Republicans, freight railroads, and the highway lobby at the time.
the "Lionel Set" I refer to are those who know how to snap some track together around a Christmas tree and run a train around. They think in terms of running trains instead of providing service, of picking up the track and putting it away when they are tired of it, aren't using it, or stumped as to what to do. They don't market, they don't provide service, because they don't understand marketing and service just put the cars on the track with a locomotive at one end and let it go.
henry6 Further, at the time, it was felt that any passenger service or company would be short lived as more people would have cars and fly so the passenger railroad would just go away. That was the plan and hopes of the Republicans, freight railroads, and the highway lobby at the time.
My own recollection is that most (but not all) freight railroads were quite willing to give up their passenger trains and didn't want to raise issues which might interfere with that. They tended to be quite until the legislation was passed so they could get ride of passenger service. However, a couple of roads held on to their passenger trains.
Certainly the highway lobby may have hoped for the demise of passenger railroads.
But the Republican party? Why in the world would the Republican party give the country something they didn't want the country to have? If they really wanted Amtrak to go away they could have simply declined to give it to the country in the first place and left passenger service up to private railroads with a proviso that would make it easy for private railroads to drop it. From my perspective for Republicans to propose and pass legislation that they really wanted to be ultimately defeated makes no sense at all for the reason you state: It might enable the public to return to riding the trains.
henry6he "Lionel Set" I refer to are those who know how to snap some track together around a Christmas tree and run a train around.
Do you refer to Joe Boardman? As I recall Fred Frailley's article included a picture of him in his office with a model train.
John WRThe idea that the Nixon administration would propose legislation, have it introduced into the Congress, support it and sign it into law when in fact the administration opposed that legislation is something I find it difficult to understand. As I say, perhaps you could help me with a source.
This notion may or may not be true. The source was Ralph Budd and it has been repeated in several places, most recently in Trains about 2-3 years ago.
The Hell with nostalgia! We have better technology and equipment today than ever. But we don't use it. So many rail enthusiasts today who don't know history. Same with railroaders who can't fathom how they used to run trains on timetables and train orders faster and more efficiently than they can a double track or even CTC system today. Go over to the Transit forum where I am about to post a lambast!
As I recall, the Nixon Administration seemed to have an understanding with some railroads that they would let Amtrak die a natural death. The 1973 Arab oil embargo changed all that. Then the 1979 Iranian revolution caused a
near repeat to occur. If it had not been for those, Amtrak would just be a footnote in history.
schlimmThis notion may or may not be true. The source was Ralph Budd and it has been repeated in several places, most recently in Trains about 2-3 years ago.
Unfortunately I can't get into Trains archive to see the article about Ralph Budd. But I certainly accept Henry's representation that he has read that Republicans did not really want Amtrak to last and I accept your own representation.
But it is axiomatic in politics that you don't have to offer the people something but having offered it and enacted it into law it is almost impossible to get it back again. For any politician on either side of the aisle to propose a program he does not want to see continue would be naïve beyond belief. And what ever else President Nixon may have been he sure was not naïve.
I have to be skeptical that any administration would propose and have enacted a program that they believed was bad for the country.
henry6 So many rail enthusiasts today who don't know history.
Has any large group of people ever known history? O tempora. O mores.
henry6 The Hell with nostalgia! We have better technology and equipment today than ever. But we don't use it. So many rail enthusiasts today who don't know history. Same with railroaders who can't fathom how they used to run trains on timetables and train orders faster and more efficiently than they can a double track or even CTC system today. Go over to the Transit forum where I am about to post a lambast!
Oh, we can fathom it, but try doing that with today's rules, regulations, and greatly reduced workforce.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.