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.
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.
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?"
Best regards, John
Don,
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
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.
Schlimm,
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 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.
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmSorry but your analysis is distorted and i think the history is, too.
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.
With best regards, John
oltmannd you have a problem with the residents of the state of Pennsylvania paying for a service that they want?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Alan F oltmannd $8M to keep the Keystones running for 1.3M riders and $7M to keep the Pennsylvanian alive for a 100,000 or so riders. Hmmm..... FY2012 ridership on the Pennsylvanian was 212 thousand. This is for passengers getting on or off west of 30th Street. Passengers taking the train between 30th St and NYP are counted as NEC passengers. Also, ridership on the Pennsylvanian is NOT declining, just slow growth the past 4 years. Total passenger count in Pittsburgh is down a bit, but that could be due to some small fall-off from the Capitol Limited. From the Amtrak Monthly reports, the Pennsylvanian ridership for the past 5 fiscal years was: FY08 200,999 FY09 199,484 (FY09 was a down year for Amtrak systemwide due to the recession) FY10 203.392 FY11 207,422 FY12 212,006 Ticket reveniue for the train is up more than ridership in the recent monthly reports, so Amtrak may be able to ask for a smaller subsidy than the FY12 loss numbers.
oltmannd $8M to keep the Keystones running for 1.3M riders and $7M to keep the Pennsylvanian alive for a 100,000 or so riders. Hmmm.....
$8M to keep the Keystones running for 1.3M riders and $7M to keep the Pennsylvanian alive for a 100,000 or so riders. Hmmm.....
FY08 200,999
FY09 199,484 (FY09 was a down year for Amtrak systemwide due to the recession)
FY10 203.392
FY11 207,422
FY12 212,006
Ticket reveniue for the train is up more than ridership in the recent monthly reports, so Amtrak may be able to ask for a smaller subsidy than the FY12 loss numbers.
I would assume the Phila-Hburg portion of the schedule would be kept. The red ink bleeding occurs west of Hburg.
Just because you seem to have little evidence of a need to have a train running between two points doesn't justify invoking the conspiracy card.
henry6But the real crux is that Pennsylvania services are being sloughed off to the state by Amtrak legislation. Amtrak is following Congress's orders to make the states pay for the train inside their borders even if they begin or end their trips out of any given state.
Exactly. The issue is not whether this service is needed. The issue is simply doing whatever it takes to get rid of Amtrak. It's an ideological position that goes back to the days of Andrew Jackson. Government should not be involved in internal improvements. Period.
What we need is objective standards about transportation as public policy.
But the real crux is that Pennsylvania services are being sloughed off to the state by Amtrak legislation. Amtrak is following Congress's orders to make the states pay for the train inside their borders even if they begin or end their trips out of any given state. Clever these Japanese putting in such legislation that is only now being understood! All states are being asked to kick in to Amtrak so that Amtrak doesn't get the bill. It is sneaky but seemingly effective overlooking the need and the charge that the US Government's Congress be in charge of regulating interstate commerce, or at least defining it in terms of dollar support.
oltmannd To be fair to Pittsburgh, you need to look at the metro area. But, then again, if true, where are the suburban stops? (other than Greensburg) Altoona area has some sprawl to it, too. I'd bet the "metro" Altoona is holding steady around 60k. Johnstown is just dead.
To be fair to Pittsburgh, you need to look at the metro area. But, then again, if true, where are the suburban stops? (other than Greensburg)
Altoona area has some sprawl to it, too. I'd bet the "metro" Altoona is holding steady around 60k.
Johnstown is just dead.
henry6 the intermediate Philadelphia's, Harrisburg's, Altoona's, Johnstown's, etc are the reasons for trains more than the end points.
There is a paradox here Henry. As Schlimm points out, populations in places west of Harrisburg to Pittsburgh is declining. But the number of Amtrak riders has increased over the last 2 years. (Statistics for a longer period of time are not available).
Might it perhaps be a good idea to look into the increase in Amtrak riders? Might we want to consider better scheduling? Might we want to consider operating the service with a couple or 3 DMU's as they do in Europe and Canada? Might we want to consider that the increasing number of riders shows a limited but real need for the service? We're not interested in any of this. All we want to do is to shut it down.
Whether a state-subsidized service or Amtrak or a private rail, we still need to prioritize how to invest in equipment and services.
schlimmGood example of priorities. Spend the money where it does the most good. Simple cost-benefit analysis. same with baggage cars, game cars, exercise cars, diners, sleepers. etc.
I don't see this as a particularly good example of priorities, Schlimm. The Federal Government will provide no money for either Philadelphia to Harrisburg service or Harrisburg to Pittsburgh service. It looks to me like John Mica's "Holy Jihad against Amtrak" has won.
schlimm I believe the trouble lies in outdated notions of where markets are. That route is based on a time long gone. Even a simple, cheap market analysis looks at demographics. Look at the populations of the places served: Johnstown 1940 66,668 −0.5% 1950 63,232 −5.2% 1960 53,949 −14.7% 1970 42,476 −21.3% 1980 35,496 −16.4% 1990 28,134 −20.7% 2000 23,906 −15.0% 2010 20,978 −12.2% A steady decline to 1/3 of what it once was. Altoona: 1940 80,214 −2.2% 1950 77,177 −3.8% 1960 69,407 −10.1% 1970 63,115 −9.1% 1980 57,078 −9.6% 1990 51,881 −9.1% 2000 49,523 −4.5% 2010 46,320 −6.5% Steady decline, though not so bad. Pittsbugh 1940 671,659 0.3% 1950 676,806 0.8% 1960 604,332 −10.7% 1970 520,117 −13.9% 1980 423,938 −18.5% 1990 369,879 −12.8% 2000 334,563 −9.5% 2010 305,704 −8.6% The problem is looking at passenger rail as though we were still in the 1940's or 1950's. To do so ignores the dramatic changes in where people live now, 60+ years later.
I believe the trouble lies in outdated notions of where markets are. That route is based on a time long gone. Even a simple, cheap market analysis looks at demographics. Look at the populations of the places served:
Johnstown
A steady decline to 1/3 of what it once was.
Altoona:
Steady decline, though not so bad.
Pittsbugh
The problem is looking at passenger rail as though we were still in the 1940's or 1950's. To do so ignores the dramatic changes in where people live now, 60+ years later.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.