bill613aKudos to everyone involved in saving (for now) the PENNSYLVANIAN. That said it's time to get back to work on the proposed thru NY-Chicago service via the CAPITOL LIMITED.
Congressman Bill Shuster is Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He replaced Congressman John -- Holy Jihad against Amtrak -- MIca. There is reason to be cautiously hopeful.
Kudos to everyone involved in saving (for now) the PENNSYLVANIAN. That said it's time to get back to work on the proposed thru NY-Chicago service via the CAPITOL LIMITED.
If you surf around for people's actual travel experiences on a train or bus you can find a number of problems. May are very individual and have nothing to do with the carrier. But there are some generalizations.
Restrooms. Restrooms are a big area of discussion. On buses restrooms are in the rear, replace 2 seats and project out into the aisle. They are very small. On trains, which have more room, restrooms are larger. And handicapped restrooms are much larger, large enough to use with a wheel chair. However, some buses make frequent rest stops; Greyhound is a bus where frequent rest stops are mentioned and more than once. Some suggest you be sure to avail yourself of the restrooms when the bus makes a rest stop. And be sure to take a bus that does make frequent rest stops.
Fellow riders. Bus fares are cheaper and they can be a lot cheaper. The plus, or course, is the money you don't spend. The minus is that people who are looking to spend as little as possible can contain individuals who some people find less aware of privacy and other things that people who will spend more money on a fare.
Length of trip. A lot of people find a bus more acceptable for a short trip than for a long trip. Buses tend to be smaller and can be more uncomfortable which becomes more difficult as time goes on. But for a shorter trip it can be acceptable.
In short, the train costs more but can also provide a more pleasant experience. You tend to get what you pay for.
Why would I take the train instead getting their faster and at a lower price by bus? Because I enjoy riding the train, and anything over one or two hours on a bus turns it from something enjoyable to something I have to put up with! And most American do enjoy riding trains, if they are neat and comfortable and the food service is decent. A short bus ride can be enjoyable, but a long one is not for most Americans.
oltmanndWhen it comes to what goes on in his home district? You bet! You might actually have to had lived in Altoona to understand this, though.
Hey Don, You don't really need to live in Altoona or even Pennsylvania to understand pork barrel legislation or log rolling. It is simply the way some things are done in the Congress. I don't defend it but I don't think you believe it begins and ends in Pennsylvania.
oltmanndAmtrak is allowed to figure out ways to run more efficiently right now!
I know far too much about the government to argue that Amtrak or any government agency could not be improved. No doubt the things you suggest could be done. What I say and all that I say is that until we have a better provider of passenger rail service I'll stick with Amtrak.
John WR oltmanndTwo words. Bill Shuster. Biil Shuster is 1 of 435 members of the House of Representatives. A majority is 218. Do you think he really has that much power over 217 other members of the House?
oltmanndTwo words. Bill Shuster.
Biil Shuster is 1 of 435 members of the House of Representatives. A majority is 218. Do you think he really has that much power over 217 other members of the House?
When it comes to what goes on in his home district? You bet! You might actually have to had lived in Altoona to understand this, though.
John WRI don't see your point here, Don. Agencies of the Federal Government operate based on what the law is now. No agency of government would or could operate by guessing what the law might be in the future. Do you think anyone can predict what laws are going to be passed at some future date?
Amtrak is allowed to figure out ways to run more efficiently right now! They don't need legislation to figure out how to reduce costs for serving a hamburger or to improve the bottom line of the Pennsylvanian. They can hire and fire, change their food vendor, change fares, add and drop cars, change schedules, cut and add staff, pay bonuses, change salaries, reconfigure coaches, etc, all w/o any new legislation.
The problem is that they only change things when pushed from the outside.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndAs for the lower rate. Why did it take so many years and so much prodding from the outside for Amtrak to figure it out?
I don't see your point here, Don. Agencies of the Federal Government operate based on what the law is now. No agency of government would or could operate by guessing what the law might be in the future. Do you think anyone can predict what laws are going to be passed at some future date?
John
John WRThen in the middle of the sequester someone somewhere got agreement from the House to continue Federal support of the Pennsylvanian at a lower amount than before. But if Amtrak's enemies cannot even zero out the Pennsylvanian there seems to be reason to hope Amtrak will survive this.
Two words. Bill Shuster. If this had been the "Georgian" or "Nevadian" the train would have died.
As for the lower rate. Why did it take so many years and so much prodding from the outside for Amtrak to figure it out?
John WRI couldn't find any embarrassment in it.
oltmanndThere has always been a "kill Amtrak" faction. Their "go to" talking point is "subsidy per rider on the worst routes". The deficit is so large that there is danger that Amtrak could be sacrificed on the altar of compromise - more so now and the next few years than ever before.
Yes, there has always been a "kill Amtrak" faction. But Amtrak is not dead yet. Up until a couple of days ago I myself was pretty pessimistic about the survival of Amtrak. Then in the middle of the sequester someone somewhere got agreement from the House to continue Federal support of the Pennsylvanian at a lower amount than before. But if Amtrak's enemies cannot even zero out the Pennsylvanian there seems to be reason to hope Amtrak will survive this.
As far as John MIca's statements about Amtrak I read Joe Boardman's testimony (power point) to the Congress on March 5. I couldn't find any embarrassment in it.
John WRBut there are a lot of people in the country who are involved in the debate and whose views are not represented here.
Sure, but that's not the debate that counts. It's the one between Congress, the admin and Amtrak. The one that determines what happens.
There has always been a "kill Amtrak" faction. Their "go to" talking point is "subsidy per rider on the worst routes". The deficit is so large that there is danger that Amtrak could be sacrificed on the altar of compromise - more so now and the next few years than ever before.
If Amtrak can make that "talking point" go away, then they may live. I don't know if they care enough. $15 hamburgers were just fine - until Mica embarrassed them in public.
oltmanndThe high per-rider Federal subsidies for some Amtrak routes are driving the passenger rail debate.
I think what you say is true on this forum, Don. But there are a lot of people in the country who are involved in the debate and whose views are not represented here. For them I think the issue is maintaining Amtrak vs abandoning Amtrak.
If High Speed Rail should take hold it may make Amtrak irrelevant.
oltmannd I-99 was PORK, pure and simple. The worst (best?) example of what you can do if you chair the right committee. Never should have been built. US 220 was more than adequate. But, that's water over the dam, now - 20 years over the dam.
I-99 was PORK, pure and simple. The worst (best?) example of what you can do if you chair the right committee. Never should have been built. US 220 was more than adequate. But, that's water over the dam, now - 20 years over the dam.
Water over the dam perhaps. But not water coming down the mountain. There are still deposits of pyrite which cause rain to be extremely acidic. So much so that PennDOT had to build detention basins at the bottom to collect the acid and pump it into tanks. When the tanks get full the acid is hauled away by truck. I assume it is hauled over I-99. Also, while the pyrite that had not already been put under the road was picked up and trucked away not all of it could be found. So between pyrite under the road and just dispersed by the blasting acid is still being released into the soil. The problems continue.
Ordinarily, pork barrel legislation had a redeeming feature. Some people do benefit by it. In this case the people who were supposed to benefit have had their ground water (including drinking water in many cases) poisoned. It certainly gives new meaning to pork barrel legislation.
It seems there are at least three POV's in the discussions about passenger rail service, with some overlapping..
One group is those opposed to any federal or state passenger rail service, mostly because of opposition to subsidies (small government, libertarian and TP types?), irritation with the advocacy groups' diffuse messages (comparing subsidy levels, environmental benefits, serving handicapped, etc.) or not wanting passenger trains interfering with operations on freight line hosts.
A second group wants Amtrak to expand conventional passenger rail services, including LD trains, perhaps a restoration to 1950's service levels, with sleepers, diners, baggage cars (lounges, observation cars, parlor cars, etc.?). They seem rather lukewarm or dubious about the benefits of "modern" (40 year history) HSR.
A third group favors modern passenger rail services, including HSR in a mix of complementary services. Amtrak is seen as an institution encumbered with political pork, high-cost labor contracts and outmoded concepts, such as the continued purchase of baggage cars rather than coaches.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
blue streak 12. What are the actual speeds that AMTRAK is able to climb those grades with the present consists ? Further if a PHL - PITTSBURG - sleeper is ever added what would be the speeds?
blue streak 1The question is how much time can be saved around horseshoe if a second loco were to be added ??
One P42 and 6 Amfleet can make about 55 mph up the west slope. Track speed is 44 mph by timetable, with lots of 35 mph curves. Power is not a problem. You could add another 3 cars and still make track speed up the hill.
One P42 and 9 cars would be able to hold track speed up the minor grades west of Johnstown, too.
John WR But the final 18 miles of I-99 cost $389 million, almost $39 million dollars a mile. And it gets worse. The route excavations cut into pyrite, acidic rock. How acidic? The pH is similar to that of battery acid. Dealing with that alone cost $83 million. But sportsmen and environmentalists were pretty outraged. An alternative route could have been chosen that would not have resulted in environmental damage. So while the buses and cars that use I-99 are not directly subsidized the tax payers still had to come up with $389 million. $389 million dollars would pay the Pennsylvanian's 5.7 million dollar subsidy for 68 years. And it would do so without adding to the environment the equivalent of battery acid. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/us/28highway.html
But the final 18 miles of I-99 cost $389 million, almost $39 million dollars a mile. And it gets worse. The route excavations cut into pyrite, acidic rock. How acidic? The pH is similar to that of battery acid. Dealing with that alone cost $83 million. But sportsmen and environmentalists were pretty outraged. An alternative route could have been chosen that would not have resulted in environmental damage. So while the buses and cars that use I-99 are not directly subsidized the tax payers still had to come up with $389 million.
$389 million dollars would pay the Pennsylvanian's 5.7 million dollar subsidy for 68 years. And it would do so without adding to the environment the equivalent of battery acid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/us/28highway.html
I-99 was far worse than all the money spent on the Pennsylvanian.
So, my pork is leaner than your pork? It's still pork, no?
The train serves riders in central-west Pennsylvania. The state thinks the service is worth $3+M per year but not $7+M per year. I'm okay with them making that judgement.
But, the problem is bigger than this. The high per-rider Federal subsidies for some Amtrak routes are driving the passenger rail debate. There won't be much forward progress until the debate shifts. Getting the Pennsylvanian's Federal subsidy reduced (eliminated? who knows? nobody's telling) is a good step.
PS. Because dumping the equivalent of battery acid on the environment sounds so outrageous at first glance I want to add this seems to be a massive stroke of bad luck that is no one's fault. Some how the environmental impact statement missed the deposits of pyrite that caused it. On the other hand, we do have to live with the problems that were caused and that continue.
oltmannd Is the train highly subsidized? Yup. Is the bus directly subsidized? Nope.
Well Don, you are right about subsidy. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports the Pennsylvanian subsidy is $5.7 million per year. And yes, the bus is not "directly subsidized."
zugmannBecause Amtrak isn't a bus...
Maybe so. Maybe there are other reasons. I did not look into the thinking of the people who want to keep the Pennsylvanian.
oltmannd The alignment of the railroad west of Huntingdon pretty much precludes going any faster. You might get a bit more speed if you jacked the superelevation up to 6" on curves, but that would cost a bundle. It's expensive to try to maintain that much superelevation - NS is perfectly happy with 4". East of there, you the alignment would support some stretches of 90-110, but you'd have to fund a third track. (there is room for it. PRR used to have four tracks where there are now two).
The alignment of the railroad west of Huntingdon pretty much precludes going any faster. You might get a bit more speed if you jacked the superelevation up to 6" on curves, but that would cost a bundle. It's expensive to try to maintain that much superelevation - NS is perfectly happy with 4".
East of there, you the alignment would support some stretches of 90-110, but you'd have to fund a third track. (there is room for it. PRR used to have four tracks where there are now two).
Yes a third track east of Huntingdon will cost a bundle of money that will require someday a matching federal grant to get it built??
Two items
1. we need is the allowed passenger train from Altoona - Galitzin & Johnstown - Galitzin on the up grade segments. ?
2. What are the actual speeds that AMTRAK is able to climb those grades with the present consists ? Further if a PHL - PITTSBURG - sleeper is ever added what would be the speeds?
It may be the a second locomotive is now needed or will be if a sleeper is added. Of course as of now the cronic locomotive shortage precludes a second loco.
The question is how much time can be saved around horseshoe if a second loco were to be added ??
John WRGiven all of buses available between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh including Greyhound's two that make all Amtrak stops I wonder why preservation of Amtrak is so important to those who live in the area.
If it was really important, wouldn't it have more riders? (That's just as a bad a question as yours...)
Is the train more comfortable than the bus? Yup. Is the train highly subsidized? Yup. Is the bus directly subsidized? Nope. What would the ridership be if the Harrisburg - Pittsburgh fare was $80?
It's likely it's important to a some number of folk who bothered to let Bill Shuster know...
John WR Given all of buses available between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh including Greyhound's two that make all Amtrak stops I wonder why preservation of Amtrak is so important to those who live in the area.
Given all of buses available between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh including Greyhound's two that make all Amtrak stops I wonder why preservation of Amtrak is so important to those who live in the area.
Because Amtrak isn't a bus...
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
I did some shopping around for traveling between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. This is what I learned:
Amtrak runs one train a day. Travel time is about 5 and a half hours. Cost to travel tomorrow is $40. Cost to travel anytime up to June 25 is $40.
Greyhound runs 6 buses a day. Shortest travel time is 4 hours and 5 minutes. Longest is a little over 6 hours. The two 6 hour buses make the same stops Amtrak does; the fast buses do not. Cost is $21 if you buy your ticket on line and $48 if you don't.
Megabus runs 3 buses a day which take 4 hours and 15 minutes. None make Amtrak stops. Cost to travel tomorrow is $16. Cost to travel May 25 is $1.00 or $3.50, depending on the bus you take.
Clearly, to go from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh Megabus offers the best deal on the whole, the lowest cost and only a slightly longer trip than Greyhound.
However, Greyhound makes more trips. The price is more than Megabus, a lot more than Megabus 2 months out but not much more if you need to travel now or in the next few days. I am comparing price only for on line ticketing; I doubt very many would pay the extra for walk up ticketing.
Scheduling: Amtrak leaves Harrisburg at 2:25 pm. Greyhound leaves at 2:00 pm so Amtrak does not offer a scheduling alternative. Megabus has no departure between 1:30 and 2:30 pm. Of course both Greyhound and Megabus have other departures which no doubt many would find more convenient.
Don,
Greyhound operates 6 buses a day from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. The fastest take a little over 4 hours. The slowest, and there are 2 of them, take over 6 hours. These slow buses the the ones that make all of the stops that Amtrak makes; the 2 fast buses I checked buses make none of the intermediate stops.
This suggest to me that there are two routes to take, a slow route and a fast route.
You point out that both altering the current tracks to allow higher speeds and building a new, faster track are too expensive for a railroad. That suggest a somewhat difference standard was used when paved roads were built (notably I-99). But I guess that is the way it is.
One aspect, albeit a minor one, that has been ignored in this Pennsylvanian discussion, has been that of the railroad stations affected. Johnstown and Altoona have new or refurbished stations that were improved by taxpayer money. Lewistown, through the noble efforts of volunteers, looks terrific, and is light years ahead of what it was in the early 80's. I know that the Greenburg station has been improved. Even Huntingdon has added flower beds and a porta potty to improve things. I never understood the bus comparison with regards to this market. The train serves various towns and cities, that are often ignored by the mega bus. There is civic pride, in the stations, and in the fact that there is a connection to a national rail network. To snub these communities, so that a few more miles of 4 lane highway can be resurfaced, would have been woefully short sited. With regard to what John WR mentioned, yes, I think the 5 and 1/2 hour timing could be trimmed by 15 or 20 minutes. The Pennsylvanian has a solid record in terms of time keeping, so there's hope. Weather it's an over night train beyond Pittsburgh or a duplicate of the Pennsylvanian, I concur with those who believe the route should see two trains a day.
John WR I wonder if Amtrak could operate a little faster west of Harrisburg. Harrisburg to Pittsburgh is 249 miles on Amtrak's schedule. The trip takes 5 1/2 hours and the train averages about 45 mph. Of course there are several stops in between the two places. Megabus and Greyhound average about 55 mph for the same trip which takes an hour off of the total time. I used Amtrak's mileage to estimate the distance although I don't know that the mileage is really the same
I wonder if Amtrak could operate a little faster west of Harrisburg. Harrisburg to Pittsburgh is 249 miles on Amtrak's schedule. The trip takes 5 1/2 hours and the train averages about 45 mph. Of course there are several stops in between the two places.
Megabus and Greyhound average about 55 mph for the same trip which takes an hour off of the total time. I used Amtrak's mileage to estimate the distance although I don't know that the mileage is really the same
There has been talk over the years of doing an all new alignment from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh via State College. Just add money....
The biggest probleme with the Pennsylvanian is the lack of population and disposable income between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. Knocking 20 or 30 minutes off the schedule doesn't fix that.
My daughter rode The Pennsylvanian for a year from Harrisburg to Johnstown where she attended a technical school. Never once was she the only person to board at Harrisburg, it was always a line waiting to board.
I would have to purchase her ticket two weeks to a month+ ahead of time to assure she had a seat (holiday travel was 6 weeks ahead.) The ridership is there, just that the politics has it down to only one run per day. I say politics as a former recent Governor who was Mayor of a very large city some East of Harrisburg spend $$$ to upgrade rails and trains going East of Harrisburg which exploded in ridership.
Is there a market for trains West? Yes, I would say for one additional western run. Right now there is completion Westward from Grayhound, MegaBus, and a limo service out of Harrisburg. My fellow workers who need to travel to Pittsburgh would gladly take a train vs. a bus, driving or limo if there was better service like what goes Eastward.
Would like to add a little personal story with My daughter rode The Pennsylvanian for a year from Harrisburg to Johnstown where she attended a technical school. Never once was she the only person to board at Harrisburg, it was always a long line waiting to board (20+.).
I would have to add a little person story of The Pennsylvanian. When the above daughter was 5 years old, my company had me working in Pittsburgh on a financial software project for a year (1996/97). My corporate apartment was in The Pennsylvanian, the old Pennsylvania Railroad passenger station/corporate offices on Grant Street. Once a month my wife and daughter would take The Pennsylvanian to Pittsburgh, get off and go to “Daddy’s train station house” for a long weekend of the sights, sounds, trolleys and theater of Pittsburgh. It was coming full circle when she started riding The Pennsylvanian as a young lady. So much so, that now school is behind her, she asked Santa for her own Pennsylvanian train set for under the Christmas tree. Santa was very happy to drop off a package wrapped in Amtrak colors.
oltmannd Bill Shuster was involved (surprise!). Perhaps Bill found a way to supply some "bacon" (thin strips of pork).
PS. Don, What is perhaps a surprise for Amtrak supporters is that there must have been some log rolling by Shuster's same-side-of-the-aisle colleagues. I've been pessimistic about Amtrak's future but this latest turn of events makes me wonder if I have been mistaken.
Mark,
I'm the guy who say Western PA passenger rail advocates have "not totally failed" in your efforts to preserve the Pennsylvanian. I intended it as an oxymoron, stating something by saying the opposite. I agree you have been very successful.
oltmanndalthough I don't know if Amtrak is even allowed to help fund this train per PRIIA of 2008.
My sense of the situation is that Amtrak will contribute funds on the order of $3 million. I can't say how that fits into PRIIA. I would expect that at most there might be modest growth in the number of people who ride the Pennsylvanian.
Rather than having "not totally failed", Western PA passenger rail advocates would prefer to look at yesterday's announcement as much closer to having "totally succeeded". Trains.com readers are welcome to visit our website, www.wpprrail.org, to view more articles and information about the Pennsylvanian funding agreement and other issues.
Mark Spada , Western Pennsylvanians for Passenger Rail (WPPR)
Reading both articles also reveals a pretty inaccurate summary by skull as to the source of the $3.8M.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/governor-corbett-announces-steps-to-save-amtrak-service-to-pittsburgh-2013-03-21
Link to Market Watch blurb.
This plus the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette leads me to the following conclusions:
1. PA pays 3.8M. Original "cost" was 6.5M. Nobody knows where the difference comes from. Efficiencies? Fares? Federal subsidy? My guess is "all three", although I don't know if Amtrak is even allowed to help fund this train per PRIIA of 2008.
2. Bill Shuster was involved (surprise!). Perhaps Bill found a way to supply some "bacon" (thin strips of pork).
3. This is another example of Amtrak not finding a way to improve without being pushed from the outside. In this case, PRIIA of 2008.
4. I am glad this train will continue to operate.
Little known Pennsylvanian fact: When the train first started operating, the max speed for passenger trains between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg was 70 mph. In the late Conrail era into NS, there are now stretches of 79 mph. (Why 79 and not 80 mph? I don't know. It's all cab signalled.)
There is also an article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Western Pennsylvania passenger rail advocates seem not to have totally failed in their efforts to keep the Pennsylvanian.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/transportation/corbett-announces-plan-to-maintain-amtrak-service-680308/
Good News! Amtrak and Pennsylvania Gov. Corbett have reached a deal on the Pennsylvanianian west onf Harrisburg. Amtrak has agreed to pick up 3.8 million of the expense and Corbett says the rest can fit in the states transportation budget. I've taken this train numerous times, and I'm glad it remains an option in the mid and western part of the Keystone State. The info was on the Market Watch web site. It seems very creditable.
CSSHEGEWISCH East-West service out of Memphis has never been anything more than marginal, even prior to 1965.
East-West service out of Memphis has never been anything more than marginal, even prior to 1965.
Had a thru pullman late 40 -50s. Now when NS GETS the Crescent corridor from Knoxville - Harrisburg complete ( 2030 ?) then that may become a high traffic intermodal.
Historically, the first connection between the Atlantic Ocean and the MIssissippi River was from Savannah to Memphis.
John WRI'm [sure] you know that without the New Orleans to Jacksonville part of the Sunset Limited to get to Florida from Memphis you would have to go by way of Chicago which is pretty roundabout.
I am so old-fashioned that I still think it's insane that they took off the Broadway. And to name the 'replacement' Chicago -well, sort of roundabout-to-New-York after a B&O train -- without good Southern-mammy-type cooking -- well, no.
I could also say something about the lack of east-west service ANYWHERE near Memphis, but the mods say this is a family board.
Problem is that the folks AREN'T riding the through trains enough to pay their way. Or we wouldn't be having the whole Pennsylvanian argument in the first place.
You are of course right about most of the 'pork barrel' or 'road/bridge to nowhere' projects, of which there are many. But there are other aspects of the Interstate system -- I-69, for example -- that should have a higher priority than anything involved with Amtrak, including the added cars for the Acela consists (and that's sayin' something!) Other additions, in particular some of the 2-lane 'Interstate Lite" routes with extensive truck traffic going through mountains -- of which 40/81 is a particularly glaring example -- are so sadly in need of a third lane (since truck-no-passing-zone enactment appears to be dead on arrival wherever I bring it up) and here again the bang for the megabuck is extraordinarily high by any greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number metric you can provide.
Problem with the LD trains is much the same as the problem with LD trains in the years after WWII -- to run even marginally increased service (measured in 'sailing days', not even hours) involves multiple trainsets with multiple cars if you are going to run them at a maximum 79 mph -- and the situation is not that miuch better at 110, or even 125 (at which point you go straight to HSR and the LD numbers fly impossibly out the window).
It's also like the unspoken stuff about the cheap TGV. If I had a full network of LGV costed down, and a full-on PTC system giving max track occupancy also costed down, and a whole passel of 'obsolescent' trains that are still among the best in the world, also costed down, and I had lots and lots of subsidized nuclear power to make the trick work, largely costed down and with minimal effective NIMBY crap and 'enlightened' views on effective reprocessing...
... well, I could offer one hell of a discount service, too, and lots asnd lots of people would ride it. (But to get all this for the LD network in the first place would be trillions; you could STILL buy every passenger a Volkswagen and free gas and still come out ahead.
RME
Bob,
It is true that if you drive your own car you can ignore train schedules and plane schedules and go and come as you please.
But the problems you cite -- lack of service to where you want to go -- are a self fulfilling prophecy. Amtrak runs so few trains that connecting schedules are almost always a problem. Therefore fewer trains are run and the problem gets worse. I'm you know that without the New Orleans to Jacksonville part of the Sunset Limited to get to Florida from Memphis you would have to go by way of Chicago which is pretty roundabout.
My point about all of the roads (which was perhaps not very clear) is that many or most are being built in rural areas where there is little demand for them and they already have other roads in those areas. But nobody ever questions money for all these redundant roads; only Amtrak is questioned.
John WRWhat strikes me is that we are building Interstate Highways hand over fist while Amtrak is being cut back.
That may be because they serve many many many more people and communities, at many many many more effective times of day, than any conceivable Amtrak service of comparable expense will ... outside of congested corridors where most of the 'new' roads aren't going directly.
C'mon, that's not rocket science to see, even before you run numbers.
Now, in a world like 1973 where nobody gets more than a couple of gallons every other day... no, still doesn't work.
I would love to take Amtrak from Memphis to my house in Florida, but:
25 miles to the station, and the only parking protection is that the police use some of the lot to park cruisers.
Train time is about 6:08 am. Don't ask about when it gets to New Orleans.
Some ungodly layover in New Orleans; not a bad thing; I could visit Blanche in the hospital or meander over for pralines, or find some good Dixieland -- but I was going to Florida...
Connecting train wobbles around via Flomaton. Doesn't go within 30 miles of my house -- stops about 2:25 in the morning; where do I get a car with all the baggage I've had to pay for? Taxicab ride? (Assuming I can find one at that hour willing to go to Grayton Beach, while the wife and kids sit on the platform) That all by itself would probably cost alone twice what I'd pay in cost to drive rthe whole way (I got 26-28mpg indicated at 80 mph with a 12-cyllinder BMW like a parlor car on wheels, on I-78 and I-65 which are by no means flat).
Now let me mention again: there's a wife and two kids inserted in this .. excursion. Sure, my son would enjoy a ride in a sleeper. There's another $200 or so. Each.
Driving is under 500 miles -- under 8 hours with happily-timed meal stops that have a wide variety of food, and trips to see local attractions like railroad museums if I want. Southern wife brings 400 lb of all sorts of frilly stuff, makeup lights, health blenders and juicers, etc. etc. etc. -- pack it in! Need to stop for provisions for the house? There's the Wal-Mart in DeFuniak Springs (in all fairness, I could get the cab to stop there if I detrained there, but sardines in a can likely expresses how everything would fit). And... did I mention I don't have to rent a car or leave a beater down there?
Of course this is all moot because Amtrak and CSX had some kind of problem after Katrina, and the train doesn't run anywhere near where I'd be going anyway.
Don't ask the cost if trains ran everywhere people need to go, on a schedule frequent enough to be convenient for them EVEN IF YOU DISREGARD CONNECTIONS.
Multiply this, in theory, by the number of people who also don't go where the train goes, when the train goes,with more than one person in the group.
Don't misunderstand: I like Amtrak, even though I'd probably not ride it much. Just don't go trying to imply it's anywhere near as convenient than good highways under most practical circumstances...
Fox2!A quick Google search shows that each of I-11 through I-88 is either in use or planned.
According to Wiki I-11 has its number written into the law. I-22 is unclear.
What strikes me is that we are building Interstate Highways hand over fist while Amtrak is being cut back.
John WRrepeating the same digit (as in I-99) is against Federal policy (except when it is written into the law),
A quick Google search shows that each of I-11 through I-88 is either in use or planned. I don't know if the enabling legislation actually specified the I number.
There are 3 Interstate Highways designated in Hawaii, 4 in Alaska, and 3 in Puerto Rico, which isn't even a state. Is Guam next?
DeggestyIsn't it kinda hard to call a highway in Hawaii an Interstate Highway?
Johnny,
Are the Hawaiian highways interstates? They are designated "H" rather than "I."
Fox2!Except for I-5 on the west coast (and H1 on the Big Island) aren't all Interstate numbers double digits?
Fox,
I made a wrong mistake. I should have said that repeating the same digit (as in I-99) is against Federal policy (except when it is written into the law), Of course many interstates have 2 digit numbers (for example, I-95).
There are interstates with 3 digit numbers. New Jersey has I-195 and I-295. Both are within the state. However it seems reasonable to me to call then interstates as they are part of the interstate system.
Forgot about I-4. Tampa (i-75) to Daytona (I-95)
But should a road that stays in one state really be called an Interstate?
Isn't it kinda hard to call a highway in Hawaii an Interstate Highway? Or, has a bridge been built to connect Hawaii with another state?
All of my maps are packed for my moving, so I cannot check, but look at a Florida highway map; I think that there is at least one Interstate Highway in Florida that has a single digit number.
Johnny
John WR Using double digits to number an interstate is against Federal policy
Except for I-5 on the west coast (and H1 on the Big Island) aren't all Interstate numbers double digits?
schlimm It makes a convincing case for doing a reform along the lines of what some of us are suggesting. Perhaps you read it differently?
According to Brookings routes of 400 miles or less have the greatest potential for profit if they are not already profitable. I see the report itself as an analysis rather than a political statement.
One point of the Brookings Institution Report is that intercity rail routes (400 miles or less) make a profit. Of course, that does not answer the issue anti Amtrak people raise. The profit itself is, to their mind, a reason why these routes should be auctioned off to the private sector.
John WRGee whiz, Schlimm, don't you trust me for anything? The numbers you refer to are not from Slate; they are from the Brookings Institute report.
i know. That's why I said "in the report the Slate article referred to" and why I read the Brookings report and posted some figures from it. It makes a convincing case for doing a reform along the lines of what some of us are suggesting. Perhaps you read it differently?
John WR Paul MilenkovicThe subsidy issue is very simple. Whereas all transportation modes receive subsidy in some form, direct or indirect, and at some level of funding, and yes, there are different ways of ascribing the level of subsidy, by whatever accounting you use, the Amtrak subsidy per passenger mile is multiple of everything else. The problem I have with the subsidy argument is that it is not at all clear that Amtrak gets more of a subsidy per passenger mile than anything else. There is information available of many kinds of subsidy for out road system. However, these subsidies are not a line item on a the Federal budget so they tend to get overlooked. Right now Virgina's Governor Bob McDonnell proposes to levy a special sales tax of 0.8 per cent to be dedicated to highway expenses. Can you even imagine a Federal value added tax to be dedicated to Amtrak?
Paul MilenkovicThe subsidy issue is very simple. Whereas all transportation modes receive subsidy in some form, direct or indirect, and at some level of funding, and yes, there are different ways of ascribing the level of subsidy, by whatever accounting you use, the Amtrak subsidy per passenger mile is multiple of everything else.
The problem I have with the subsidy argument is that it is not at all clear that Amtrak gets more of a subsidy per passenger mile than anything else. There is information available of many kinds of subsidy for out road system. However, these subsidies are not a line item on a the Federal budget so they tend to get overlooked.
Right now Virgina's Governor Bob McDonnell proposes to levy a special sales tax of 0.8 per cent to be dedicated to highway expenses. Can you even imagine a Federal value added tax to be dedicated to Amtrak?
If you limit the scope to intercity transportation, the subsidy level is easier to figure out...and Paul is correct.
My 2 mile trips to Kroger over roads paid for primarily with property tax and sales tax are not the ones Amtrak is competing for...
I would have to use those roads to get to the train station or the interstate highway, regardless.
schlimmIf you don't believe Paul's numbers, get an Amtrak report and do the math. you will see, as in the report the Slate article referred to, that Amtrak has a large operating loss, primarily from LD services. That loss is the operating subsidy. And that does not include infrastructure capital investment from the government (which i believe is a proper government role).
Gee whiz, Schlimm, don't you trust me for anything? The numbers you refer to are not from Slate; they are from the Brookings Institute report. And, with all due respect for Paul who may well have posted the numbers from that report, I posted those same numbers myself. And when I posted the losses I put them in Red Letters. So I hope we can agree at least on what the numbers are.
The WPPR website should be www.wpprrail.org.
That should be www.wpprrail.org.
Western Pennsylvanians for Passenger Rail (WPPR) is leading the effort to save the Pennsylvanian, and while there is still much work to do, it appears that the state is listening. WPPR's website (www.wpprrail,org) has links to numerous articles, news reports, editorials and interviews (most endorsing retention of the train) that show the issue is being well covered. Also, links to statements made by state representatives plus one showing a video of the recent exchange between the state House Transportation Committee and the Secretary of Transportation illustrate that support is steadily building in the legislature to fund the train. The many letters and calls to state officials have had a big, positive impact. It's very important that residents keep contacting their legislators.
You're doggone rfight I won't be one of the celebrants. I wish I were wrong and at a certain level hope someone does prove me wrong. There is an effort going on to try to save this train but I just don't thing the State is going to listen.
If you don't believe Paul's numbers, get an Amtrak report and do the math. you will see, as in the report the Slate article referred to, that Amtrak has a large operating loss, primarily from LD services. That loss is the operating subsidy. And that does not include infrastructure capital investment from the government (which i believe is a proper government role).
John WR oltmanndShow me it's worth $50 a head subsidy to keep it going versus letting it go. And, just for the record, I will not like seeing it go. I rode it a lot, way back when... Don, I thought I made it clear that I consider Amtrak a national passenger railroad system and I think the system should not be dismantled part by part. I agree that each part does not have statistics that are identical to every other part. Where subsidy is concerned, when Alex Kummant was President he pointed out all US transportation is subsidized. The subsidy issue is extremely complex. However, to single out one mode of transportation to object to the subsidy while ignoring the subsidy to all others is not, to my mind, a correct approach. John
oltmanndShow me it's worth $50 a head subsidy to keep it going versus letting it go. And, just for the record, I will not like seeing it go. I rode it a lot, way back when...
I thought I made it clear that I consider Amtrak a national passenger railroad system and I think the system should not be dismantled part by part. I agree that each part does not have statistics that are identical to every other part.
Where subsidy is concerned, when Alex Kummant was President he pointed out all US transportation is subsidized. The subsidy issue is extremely complex. However, to single out one mode of transportation to object to the subsidy while ignoring the subsidy to all others is not, to my mind, a correct approach.
The subsidy issue is very simple. Whereas all transportation modes receive subsidy in some form, direct or indirect, and at some level of funding, and yes, there are different ways of ascribing the level of subsidy, by whatever accounting you use, the Amtrak subsidy per passenger mile is multiple of everything else.
That the Amtrak subsidy per passenger mile is the rate that it is, this condition puts a target on its back whenever and to whoever in Congress or in the White House goes on a cost-cutting path. That the Amtrak subsidy is at the level it is per unit work product is a political impediment to growing Amtrak beyond the skeleton National Network that it is.
No one is singling Amtrak out for receiving a subsidy. It is singled out for receiving a high rate of subsidy. The various "Amtrak reform" plans involving drastic reductions in the Amtrak subsidy are actually proposing to reduce the Amtrak subsidy to comparable rates as other subsidy recipients.
When that message gets across, the response is to throw up one's hands, plead ignorance, and say things like "the subsidy issue is extremely complex." Other people get exasperated by "the bickering about the Amtrak subsidy" and say "let's not beat a dead horse" and let's move on.
And someone starts a new thread about "Amtrak costs" or some such thing, and the cycle starts all over again. And I suppose those of us who point out, not the existential fact of the Amtrak subsidy, but the high rate of the Amtrak subsidy as an impediment could simply end these cycles of discussion by keeping quiet and keeping our own counsel. And discussions here and elsewhere about passenger trains can continue to be gripe fests about how "the politicians" or "the voters" are stoopid for not agreeing to a comprehensive HSR network "as they have in all those other countries, and don'tcha know it, the U.S. is getting to be pretty Third World." As has happened for the past 40 years.
And Amtrak can continue to muddle along with the level of public support it gets, doing pretty much the same thing it has been doing the last 40 years for the next 40 years, which is "not much" (1 part in 1000 of total U.S. passenger miles).
Who is suggestion "dismantling Amtrak part by part"? The thing about "high speed baggage cars" is a question about whether Amtrak should take a rare opportunity to buy brand new passenger cars and then turn around and ask their mechanical department about the greatest need (yuh, we need baggage cars and crew-dorms) to maintain the same-old same-old status-quo.
Suppose the same money went into day coaches and that the long-distance trains (cough, Silver Service, cough) made do with Amfleet conversions or rebuilds? And that the day coaches went into increasing the frequency and capacity of corridor services? Would this in any way, shape, or form constitute "dismantling Amtrak" in any way?
The thing about a "thin corridor" on this thread is that maybe the resource put into that could be used to increase frequency and capacity in places the train is in high demand?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Very nice article and thanks for sharing and telling us about this.
I rode on this route with my parents on the Pennsy heading for NYC and will never forget the conductor coming through the cars and announcing "Horseshoe Curve" and everyone moving over to the one side of the coach to watch the train go around this historic landmark. I also remember going through Johnstown and remembering stories I had read about the terrible flood.
A very scenic area and I hope Amtrak will be able to continue the route.
I ride Amtrak 42&43 3 to 4 times a year from Latrobe, Pa to Philly . my State of Pa better keep my train on, I will be one very Mad person come Oct 1, 2013.
It might have also been called the "Train to Nowhere" during its senseless existence. it ran from DC to Parkersburg, West Virginia, with a political stop in Keyser, WVA, Staggers' hometown.
aegrotatioWhat's the "Potomac Turbo," anyway?
The "Potomac Turbo" was an assignment of the UA Turbotrain to a roundtrip between Washington and somewhere in West Virginia on a curvy not-so-high speed line meant to mollify Harley Staggers, who was chairman of the House Commerce Committee at the time.
John WR Schlimm and Don, I have said everything I can say about the Pennsylvanian. Both of you disagree with me. Is there something more I can say that will make either of you change your mind? If so, let me know. But I hope you will understand if I don't hold my breath waiting. John
Schlimm and Don,
I have said everything I can say about the Pennsylvanian. Both of you disagree with me. Is there something more I can say that will make either of you change your mind? If so, let me know. But I hope you will understand if I don't hold my breath waiting.
Show me it's worth $50 a head subsidy to keep it going versus letting it go. And, just for the record, I will not like seeing it go. I rode it a lot, way back when...
And, I wouldn't count out the Shuster boy finding a little slice of bacon for his home district....
John WRI see this as an impulsive decision that has no place in operating any agency public or private.
From a 2008 law to 2013 implementation. Such an impulse!
Do you remember all the "train-offs" that occurred during the Carter admin that were done in a matter of months? This time, they have 5 years warning...
Did you know the original 403B trains were supposed to start with a subsidy boost, but then supposed to cover their operating costs and/or the subsidy moved to the state. Somewhere in the 1980s some of the 403B trains got "enshrined" in the national network. (on impulse?)
Did you know the Pennsylvanian runs with four or five 60 seat Amtfleet II coaches? Perhaps they could go with an 80 seat arrangement and cut off a couple cars and knock a bit off that $7M .
John WRWhat you describe sounds to me like the local manager(s) had their own agenda that was different from Joe Boardman's.
There agenda apparently was: "Don't bother me!"
John WRBut just because government does things in a not very good way it does not follow that if government stops doing them they will then get done in a better way.
Agree! But, that's no reason to keep doing things badly, is it? You get what you provide incentive for. Change the rules, get different results! Not ALL the rules of the game are imposed on Amtrak from outside. There are quite a few they could change on their own, internally.
The PRIIA was passed in 2008. That act of Congress required reviews and based on that, the Pennsylvanian among other trains was required to be a state-subsidized train. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided to not provide its share of funding. Therefore, the train will be discontinued. hardly an impulsive act and its origins were not with Amtrak.
schlimmJohn: Oltman's questions weren't especially complicated, but you say you aren't qualified to "decide" when you are only asked for your opinion, since none of us are deciding anything on here. However, you seem to have no hesitation in continuing to make the case for retention of a specific train, the Pennsylvanian, on two threads. What's the story?
Actually, Schlimm, as I was typing the answer to Don I was thinking about the very question you ask. Thank you for bringing the issue up.
For better or for worse the Nixon Administration and the Congress created Amtrak to operate our passenger rail system. To the extent that we have trained competent people to do that they are at Amtrak. I think we should rely on Amtrak and its people unless and until we have something better. Just as I am reluctant to second guess Amtrak I would also be reluctant to second guess my local Chief of Police when he make recommendations about speed limits and stop lights.
In the case of the Pennsylvanian, the train was put into operation many years ago based on an agreement between Amtrak and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and, since it was put in place, it has operated without being questioned. At the time it was put in place the whole train ran in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania and one part of it ran within Pennsylvania from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. That was known and accepted and within the guidelines established. Now all of a sudden and with no change in the facts Congress decides to change the guidelines. I see this as an impulsive decision that has no place in operating any agency public or private.
I hope that answers your question.
John WR But just because government does things in a not very good way it does not follow that if government stops doing them they will then get done in a better way. More likely they won't be done at all. John
But just because government does things in a not very good way it does not follow that if government stops doing them they will then get done in a better way. More likely they won't be done at all.
I believe strongly in a modern passenger rail system which by necessity needs to be financed (for infrastructure and some operations as they are initiated) by the government. But sometimes the things the government, in the form of Amtrak, does in a not very good way (running unnecessary LD trains, for example) might be wiser to stop doing. Likely it will be be better if they won't be done at all.
oltmanndThey REALLY wanted to hang on to LA and DC commuter operations. Boardman made LA an absolute "must". They got crushed on price and local mgt. apathy.
What you describe sounds to me like the local manager(s) had their own agenda that was different from Joe Boardman's.
I worked for the Federal Government for many years. In my agency, anyway, subordinates were held accountable not for producing results but for obeying orders. Furthermore, there was such a lack of transparency that often subordinates (like me) didn't even know which result was desired. The system lumbers on (often due to built in redundancy) but it is not the best way to do it.
I can't speak about Amtrak where I have no experience. But I think you have spoken about this kind of problem in government.
John WR oltmanndDoes it make sense to you that, at a period of significant growth, you would buy mostly non-revenue equipment instead of revenue equipment? And, the revenue equipment you do buy, is not to support the area of your business where there is the most growth? Don, I am reluctant to analyze Amtrak decisions at this level. Clearly there are a lot of issues involved that I cannot begin to have knowledge of. I don't want to make shoot from the hip decisions about Amtrak or anything else. This doesn't mean that I think you are mistaken; all it means is that I can not qualified to decide. John
oltmanndDoes it make sense to you that, at a period of significant growth, you would buy mostly non-revenue equipment instead of revenue equipment? And, the revenue equipment you do buy, is not to support the area of your business where there is the most growth?
I am reluctant to analyze Amtrak decisions at this level. Clearly there are a lot of issues involved that I cannot begin to have knowledge of. I don't want to make shoot from the hip decisions about Amtrak or anything else. This doesn't mean that I think you are mistaken; all it means is that I can not qualified to decide.
John WR I did find some testimony on the issue by Joe Boardman. He considers commuter contracts a mixed bag; good in some cases but bad in others. That suggests that your comments are accurate.
They REALLY wanted to hang on to LA and DC commuter operations. Boardman made LA an absolute "must". They got crushed on price and local mgt. apathy.
John WR Don, I wasn't reading Trains when the commuter contract issues were discussed and I really no nothing about them. I did find some testimony on the issue by Joe Boardman. He considers commuter contracts a mixed bag; good in some cases but bad in others. That suggests that your comments are accurate. As far as the baggage car issue I can't see a connection between posting record ridership and buying more baggage cars. Of course, if Amtrak shouldn't have baggage cars at all it shouldn't be buying new ones. John
I wasn't reading Trains when the commuter contract issues were discussed and I really no nothing about them. I did find some testimony on the issue by Joe Boardman. He considers commuter contracts a mixed bag; good in some cases but bad in others. That suggests that your comments are accurate.
As far as the baggage car issue I can't see a connection between posting record ridership and buying more baggage cars. Of course, if Amtrak shouldn't have baggage cars at all it shouldn't be buying new ones.
Does it make sense to you that, at a period of significant growth, you would buy mostly non-revenue equipment instead of revenue equipment? And, the revenue equipment you do buy, is not to support the area of your business where there is the most growth?
If your whole focus is just to run yesterday's trains tomorrow, no more, no less. Then replacing the most obsolete equipment, operationally constrained equipment makes sense. The Mechanical Dept will tell you what they need most - and they obviously did. Amtrak ordered baggage cars, diners, dorms and a few sleepers. The growth was in the coach travel!
Overmod schlimmThe reason for all this is the PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) of 2008. Section 209 of PRIIA requires that the Pennsylvanian transition to a state supported service by 2013. Future operation of the Pennsylvanian will require funding support from Pennsylvania. After all the Babeling on this topic, somebody finally brings up what the 'controversy' is really likely about. Can we please refine the discussion to the original general topic, now that we have a framework for guiding what it ought to address?
schlimmThe reason for all this is the PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) of 2008. Section 209 of PRIIA requires that the Pennsylvanian transition to a state supported service by 2013. Future operation of the Pennsylvanian will require funding support from Pennsylvania.
After all the Babeling on this topic, somebody finally brings up what the 'controversy' is really likely about. Can we please refine the discussion to the original general topic, now that we have a framework for guiding what it ought to address?
It's a policy issue. Should intra-state, intercity trains have a federal operating subsidy? Congress says "no". They used to say "yes." The argument turns on whether these trains are part of a network or not. That is, do connections to other trains have much meaning beyond the lines on the map intersecting?
In the case of this train, the answer is "a little bit". So, maybe the policy is not such a bad one. Pennsylvania can judge the value vs. cost for this service pretty accurately.
John WR But, as you have pointed out in other posts, Amtrak is beholden to the Congress and must come hat in hand every year to beg for operating funds. This has imposed a limit on the initiative Amtrak is able to take. The only difference I have with with you (and correct me if I am wrong) is that you seem to expect Amtrak to solve this problem itself. I don't see how Amtrak can solve the problem.
But, as you have pointed out in other posts, Amtrak is beholden to the Congress and must come hat in hand every year to beg for operating funds. This has imposed a limit on the initiative Amtrak is able to take.
The only difference I have with with you (and correct me if I am wrong) is that you seem to expect Amtrak to solve this problem itself. I don't see how Amtrak can solve the problem.
And, neither does Amtrak.. In fact, they don't act like it's a problem.
You and I know that they are not responsible for all of their woes, but, there a quite a few under their control that they could work on. They just don't seem to notice...or choose to ignore.
A good example is how Amtrak lost the commuter contracts that they wanted to hold. There were some good columns written in Trains about it. Nobody in Congress steered the contracts away. It was high cost and lethargic local management.
Another example is ordering baggage cars when you are posting record ridership. Nobody in Congress told them to order them.
Cal,
Distinguishing between what we want to happen and what we expect will happen is important. But it is good to know that if, as we expect, the Pennsylvanian is put down on October 1 you will not be among the celebrants.
Well, my prediction is that The Pennsylvanian is finished as of October 1. I don't want that to be the case at all but I really don't see what can be done about it since the State of PA isn't showing any inclination to take over the train. On that date certain Amtrak trains WILL be making their last runs. Case closed. again, that'snot what I want at all but our present political environment, coupled with fiscal problems at the state lever in certain states, simplw won't allow for these trains to continue. It simply CAN'T happen. I'd give anything for events to prove me wrong but unfortunately, events have immunized me to being wrong.
Overmod,
Thank you for pointing out that you were not referring to the statistics I gathered.
Schlimm,
I am aware of PRIIA but there seems to be little about it to discuss. I am unaware that I "continue to insist there is a market" for the Pennsylvanian or even that I suggest there may be a market. However, I do believe that we should have accurate information to the extent such information is available.
Your statistics were not the 'Babeling' -- what I objected to was all the discussion about Amtrak this and Amtrak that and how the public had to be served by Amtrak subsidy -- when the actual reasons for Amtrak taking the Pennsylvanian off have little to do with passenger numbers.
In essence, it's a political mandate, for Pennsylvania to pay for Pennsylvania service. We shall see how that works out with the Pittsburgh-to-Harrisburg service. (Remember, it was not long ago that we were hearing about improvement projects to lower this trip time as part of a HSR-like 'bridge' between NY/PHI and western points like Chicago... I didn't exactly take this seriously at the time, but...
John: It's really quite simple as posted above from the Amtrak site:
PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) of 2008. "Section 209 of PRIIA requires that the Pennsylvanian transition to a state supported service by 2013. Future operation of the Pennsylvanian will require funding support from Pennsylvania."
Hence, it is a done deal. Amtrak studied and does not want to continue this service. You continue to insist that there is a market for this train, for reasons unclear, when all the evidence suggests the ridership is very small west of Harrisburg. If it is really needed the political process in Western PA will exert pressure on the state legislature.
OvermodAfter all the Babeling on this topic
I went to some effort to actually gather the statistics I reported in my above posts because I like to stay as close as possible to the actual facts of the situation. I regret you regard my effort as "Babeling."
schlimmThus, it seems unlikely that very many of that 55,410 (for three months) use the Pennsylvanian to or from Pittsburgh.
The fact of the matter is that we simply don't know how many Pittsburgh boardings and alightings are to or from the Pennsylvanian, how many are to or from the Capitol Limited and how many are changing between those two trains. I cannot see any reason for assigning one half of the total number to each train although I don't have any idea of what the number is. Short of a Freedom of Information Request I don't know how to find out.
Also, to the extent that people are changing trains that is not reflected is assigning have of the boardings and alightings to each train.
As I understand you, you argue Amtrak should run trains in the best way possible to serve the maximum number of people. You also make some specific suggestions about how Amtrak could better serve people than it is now. I have no quarrel with your position and in a better situation that would be a much better way to operate Amtrak. But, as you have pointed out in other posts, Amtrak is beholden to the Congress and must come hat in hand every year to beg for operating funds. This has imposed a limit on the initiative Amtrak is able to take.
bill613aThe ridership figures I used were from the latest issue of PTJ which listed total ridership from July thru September at 55,410.
Bill,
I added up my figures from Amtrak's monthly reports. The total for July, August and September is exactly what you report, 55,410. However I don't see how it is possible to derive the number of people riding between Harrisburg and PIttsburgh from that information.
Also, if you look at the numbers you will see that they vary widely. In December, 2010 56,530 people rode the Pennsylvanian. In Februrary there were only 13,578, fewer than one quarter of the December number. The mean number of riders per month is 22,526 so July, August and September are relatively low ridership months.
schlimmSpeak for yourself. you seem to be saying all or nothing. But it isn't that the folks who post are saying no to subsidies, period. It is examining services route by route and determining which ones have higher subsidies, figuring out why, modifying the price structure or reducing the costs (sleepers, diners, baggage cars), or possibly elimination if the ridership is low.
I do speak for myself. I accept Amtrak not because I think it is the best way to run our rail passenger service but because since it was provided by the Nixon Administration it has been the only way. And I will support it until a better way is here. Not just ideas about a better way although the ideas in themselves may be very good but until we actually do have a batter way. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
If, as you propose, we do away with sleeping cars, dining cars and baggage cars I believe the number of riders will drop and the service will further erode probably to the point of the "elimination" you call for. I don't suggest that you want "elimination" but I still fear that it could happen.
bill613a The ridership figures I used were from the latest issue of PTJ which listed total ridership from July thru September at 55,410.
The ridership figures I used were from the latest issue of PTJ which listed total ridership from July thru September at 55,410.
According to official figures from the Amtrak state fact sheets, Pittsburgh, which hosts the Pennsylvanian and Capital Ltd. had only 129,372 "boardings + alightings" for the entire 2012 year. If you assumed each train accounted for half the total (likely the CL has more than the Pennsylvanian) that would be 5390/month or about 90 passengers each way per day on the Pennsylvanian. Thus, it seems unlikely that very many of that 55,410 (for three months) use the Pennsylvanian to or from Pittsburgh.
The reason for all this is the PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) of 2008. Section 209 of PRIIA requires that the Pennsylvanian transition to a state supported service by 2013. Future operation of the Pennsylvanian will require funding support from Pennsylvania.
John WR oltmanndThat's a $50 a passenger subsidy. Pretty steep. And, bus service is available everywhere on the route except Huntingdon. Don, If we are going to say that to subsidize Amtrak travel is unacceptable then we will immediately stop every single Amtrak train except the Acelas. And without the Northeast Regional Service the Acelas will lose money to so we will stop them and there will be no more Amtrak. If there is no more Amtrak there is nothing to discuss. John
oltmanndThat's a $50 a passenger subsidy. Pretty steep. And, bus service is available everywhere on the route except Huntingdon.
If we are going to say that to subsidize Amtrak travel is unacceptable then we will immediately stop every single Amtrak train except the Acelas. And without the Northeast Regional Service the Acelas will lose money to so we will stop them and there will be no more Amtrak. If there is no more Amtrak there is nothing to discuss.
I'm certainly not saying that. I'm saying the $7 M could be better spent on rail service, either by PA or by Amtrak.
Amtrak's goal should be to get the most "bang for the buck". Only then can they silence most of the critics and be able to secure some long term capital.
The Pennsylvanian is a "line on the map". There are some of us who get overly concerned about how many lines get drawn on the map to the exclusion of all else. I know that I like to look at Amtrak's map and think about all the places I can go, but I know that preserving lines may be counterproductive.
A good compromise solution would be to make the Capitol a single level train and run it through Harrisburg and Philly and shift the schedule an hour so that it hits Pittsburgh about 6 AM eastbound Westbound, you'd have to move the departure from DC up about 2 hours to keep the Pittsburgh time about the same. Yes, it would add a couple hours of running time, but it would run through denser market. Riders of LD trains aren't very time sensitive.
Cumberland, Connelsville, Harpers Ferry and Martinsburg have about 30K boardings and alightings a year - about 40 per train. The last two have MARC train service, so they can still get the train out of DC. The largest stop, Cumberland, is only an hour by car (and Bud Shusters I-99) to Altoona, so most of them could hop on the train there (there's about 15 per train - maybe Cumberland could fund a small shuttle bus like Roanoke does for the Lynchburg train). The route through PA would gain you more than you'd lose and wouldn't cost a thing to implement.
To balance the equipment, make the LSL a Superliner train to Boston. For Chicago to NY service - do "across the platform" at Albany-Rensselaer and Philly. Or, if having to service sleepers in DC is a problem, have the train go to NY (you could call it the "Broadway Limited"!) and do across the platform at Philly for the DC passengers. (You'd essentially be moving the Capitol's equipment to the LSL and the LSL's equipment to the Capitol's route.)
And, this is just me with about 15 minutes of thinking Imagine the solutions that could arise if it was several people's full time job to come up with ideas....or if the whole company had their brains engaged in improvements.
MidlandMike bill613a ... The future of the PENNSYLVANIAN revolves around it being consolidated with the CAPITOL LIMITED while maintaining its present schedule and providing thru convenient service between Chicago and NYC via Harrisburg, Philadelphia and New Jersey The Pennsylvanian is run like a compromise between a corridor train running in daytime, but with the schedule skewed to provide a "reasonable" connection time (3-4 hrs) to the long distance Capitol Ltd. I have waited longer than 4 hrs to make a reasonably priced airline connection. If the Penn was rescheduled to make tight connections to the present Capitol Ltd, you would loose many of those 400 people who don't want to arrive at Pittsburgh at midnight or leave at 5AM, all for a handful of people connecting from the Cap Ltd. How would you schedule the 2 trains? The main adjustments would be to the CAPITOL having it depart WB at 1PM getting into Pittsburgh at roughly 8:30PM and adjusting the PENNSYLVANIAN's WB departure by 30-60 minutes. EB the CAPITOL would arrive at 7AM and depart after dropping off the NY cars. The arrival and departure times out of Chicago would be determined by the schedule needed for the "dog leg" reroute via Fort Wayne. If this restructuring is done it would be similar to the LSL schedule east of Buffalo which sees all the major markets with decent train times both ways.
bill613a ... The future of the PENNSYLVANIAN revolves around it being consolidated with the CAPITOL LIMITED while maintaining its present schedule and providing thru convenient service between Chicago and NYC via Harrisburg, Philadelphia and New Jersey
...
The future of the PENNSYLVANIAN revolves around it being consolidated with the CAPITOL LIMITED while maintaining its present schedule and providing thru convenient service between Chicago and NYC via Harrisburg, Philadelphia and New Jersey
The Pennsylvanian is run like a compromise between a corridor train running in daytime, but with the schedule skewed to provide a "reasonable" connection time (3-4 hrs) to the long distance Capitol Ltd. I have waited longer than 4 hrs to make a reasonably priced airline connection. If the Penn was rescheduled to make tight connections to the present Capitol Ltd, you would loose many of those 400 people who don't want to arrive at Pittsburgh at midnight or leave at 5AM, all for a handful of people connecting from the Cap Ltd. How would you schedule the 2 trains?
About 270,000 ride the Pennsyvanian each year and of that number about 86,000 board or alight from Lewistown to Greensburg. That is about 32 per cent of all riders. And of course some boarding and alighting at Harrisburg and Pittsburgh are part of the Harrisburg and Pittsburgh traffic so I suspect that a lot more than a third of all riders use that segment of the Pennsylvanian.
In addition to the Pennslyvanian there are 13 trains Monday through Friday in Keystone service. All Keystone trains either run between New York and Harrisburg or have a connecting train at Philadelphia 30th Street. The Pennsylvanian is the 14th train in Keystone service.
Here are the boardings and alightings from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh for fiscal year 2012 from the Pennsylvania Fact Sheet:
Harrisburg 571,217; Lewistown 8,315; Huntingdon 5,837; Tyrone 3,108; Altoona 26,978; Johnstown 23,964; Latrobe 4,669; Greensburg 13,395 and Pittsburgh 129,372.
Harrisburg is from the 14 trains that stop there. Pittsburgh includes the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited.
Adding the numbers in my head there are about 86,000 boardings and alightings each year from Lewistown to Greensburg.
The data I give includes east and west bound passengers. It seems reasonable to assume the numbers are about equal but I don't know of any published data that will give this information.
Station stops west of Harrisburg are Lewistown, Huntingdon, Tyrone, Altoona, Johnstown, Latrobe, Greensburg and Pittsburgh.
If I am not mistaken, the figures you provided are for ALL riders of the train, both eastbound and westbound. So you'd have to divide by two to get a rough idea of the "Pittsburgh-to-New-York" riders vs. the 'New-York-to-Pittsburgh' ones.
This cries out for better data. Are the ridership numbers balanced for eastbound vs. westbound? How many people are connecting with the National Limited in either direction? What ARE the intermediate points where people are boarding or detraining -- Harrisburg may be a logical intermediate destination in both directions, but with asymmetry due to the Keystone service east.
Can this be extracted from published sources?
The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports 400 passengers a day ride the Pennsylvanian between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.
Bill said 300 ride the train each day. He said nothing about where they get on an off and he did not attribute that number to Amtrak. He did not say where he got the statistic.
I went to Amtrak's performance reports. These the the numbers of riders Amtrak reports for each month from December, 2012 to January, 2010 in that order:
56,530; 37,072; 18,536; 16,423; 19,392; 19,595; 19,146; 17,718; 18,582; 17,060; 13,578 and 16,765.
The total is 270,317. Dividing by 365 gives an average daily number of passengers between New York and Pittsburgh of 740.59. However, there is no way to know where these people get on and get off the train. Amtrak does publish boardings and alightings by station. However, in PIttsburgh the figures include those of the Capitol Limited as well as the Pennsylvanian and in Harrisburg there is no way to know which passengers come or go from east bound stations and which come or go from west bound stations so you cannot separate out those traveling between New York and Harrisburg from those who begin or end their journies at stations west of Harrisburg.
I calculated by mean with a paper and pencil and calculator if you want to check the calculations yourself. Amtrak's Monthly Performance Reports are available on their website.
Earlier on this thread we heard 300 ride this train daily according to Amtrak. That means Pittsburgh to Philly and all points in between. So it is unlikely 400 or even 300 are west of Harrisburg and that nthe train deadheads on to Philly.
schlimm Assuming those 400 ride all the way to or from Pittsburgh is not true. Most are between Harrisburg and Philly.
Assuming those 400 ride all the way to or from Pittsburgh is not true. Most are between Harrisburg and Philly.
The "nearly 400" is west of Harrisburg.
Yes there was. When Conrail advised Amtrak it wanted the BROADWAY & CAPITOL rerouted there was very little if any public discourse about possible alternatives. As a matter of fact an Amtrak official recently said of the 1990 reroute that they just "did it". As part of the deal Conrail paid for (IIRC $1million) a connection just east of the Cleveland station so as to avoid an in/out back up procedure.
As for the BROADWAY it was put on the ex-B&O line which with the exception of the stops at Akron and Youngstown (which hadn't had intercity rail service since 1971) there wasn't much of a ridership base. The ex-PRR line over the decades had generated good ridership out of Canton, Lima and especially Fort Wayne. IMHO the best routing would have been the ex-B&O Pittsburgh to Fostoria and then Fostoria-Fort Wayne-Chicago over the NS (ex-NKP). The ex-NKP and ex-B&O line cross at grade just past the station. Amtrak should have requested a connection similar to what the CL got in Cleveland. Of course this was an OTB solution which Amtrak seems to always have trouble with.
bill613a FYI when Amtrak started on May 1, 1971 the NY-Pittsburgh service consisted of the BROADWAY & NATIONAL LIMITEDS running combined between NY-Harrisburg and as separate trains west of Harrisburg after picking up their respective thru cars from Washington D.C. There was also a day train between NY-Pittsburgh (The DUQUESNE). IIRC within a year or two Amtrak made the NATIONAL a separate train between NY-KC and the DUQUESNE was dropped. After the NATIONAL was dropped in October 1979 the PENNSYLVANIAN began in April of 1980. The problem with the PENNSYLVANIAN IMHO is not that it is a legacy route (which it is that between July and September 2012 averaged 300 passengers per train) but that Amtrak has mismanaged the former BROADWAY NY-CHI line beginning with the less than well thought out rerouting west of Pittsburgh in 1990 and the final discontinuance in 1995. The future of the PENNSYLVANIAN revolves around it being consolidated with the CAPITOL LIMITED while maintaining its present schedule and providing thru convenient service between Chicago and NYC via Harrisburg, Philadelphia and New Jersey
FYI when Amtrak started on May 1, 1971 the NY-Pittsburgh service consisted of the BROADWAY & NATIONAL LIMITEDS running combined between NY-Harrisburg and as separate trains west of Harrisburg after picking up their respective thru cars from Washington D.C. There was also a day train between NY-Pittsburgh (The DUQUESNE). IIRC within a year or two Amtrak made the NATIONAL a separate train between NY-KC and the DUQUESNE was dropped. After the NATIONAL was dropped in October 1979 the PENNSYLVANIAN began in April of 1980.
The problem with the PENNSYLVANIAN IMHO is not that it is a legacy route (which it is that between July and September 2012 averaged 300 passengers per train) but that Amtrak has mismanaged the former BROADWAY NY-CHI line beginning with the less than well thought out rerouting west of Pittsburgh in 1990 and the final discontinuance in 1995.
John WR The article says the average is almost 400 riders for the "segment" which I understand as Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. Since there are two trains a day -- one in each direction -- I think they mean the average is almost 200 between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh on each train. Some people argue that a better connection with the capitol limited would increase the number of riders.
The article says the average is almost 400 riders for the "segment" which I understand as Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. Since there are two trains a day -- one in each direction -- I think they mean the average is almost 200 between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh on each train.
Some people argue that a better connection with the capitol limited would increase the number of riders.
Okay. I estimated 100,000 a year. 400 a day is 140,000 a year. It's not an order of magnitude difference. For $7M. That's a $50 a passenger subsidy. Pretty steep. And, bus service is available everywhere on the route except Huntingdon.
To paraphrase: "Never were so many words wasted for so few people." I believe Don Oltmann made it quite clear on the other thread that the bulk of the Pennsylvanian's ridership is Harrisburg and points east, with perhaps some from Altoona.
400 passengers per day seems pretty good! Is this a round trip figure, or an average of 200 each way? Can't help but think that additional frequencys would really grow that market.
Henry,
Arlen Specter actually road Amtrak trains. Often with Joe Biden. And he was a supporter of Amtrak in general; not just trains in Pennsylvania.
oltmanndBud Shuster directed as much pork home as he could.
I didn't intend to suggest anything different, Don. Everything I read about Representative Bud Shuster indicated he was big on sending pork home. However, I just could not find any specific reference that links him to the Pennsylvanian. John
schlimmRoutes based on political favors and pork. No Way to Run a Railroad and no way to have a modern, useful passenger service.
I agree that pork barrel legislation is no way to run a railroad, Schlimm. But neither is it a way to run an interstate highway system. In Pennsylvania that has gotten a lot more pork than Amtrak and part of the reason Amtrak finds it hard to compete is the pork for the interstate highway system.
In the US pork goes back to the days when George Washington got money for the C&O canal. I doubt it will stop any time soon.
Arlen Spector and several Representatives all also had a hand in this.
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.
A bit more about the Pennsylvanian and Bud Shuster.
The Pennsylvanian went on shortly after the route through PA lost the National Limited. That's really the train it replaced, not the long dead Duquesne.
Bud Shuster directed as much pork home as he could. He used his position power to bend things to his will for his home district. For example, when Conrail consolidated backshops, guess which shop "won"? When NS and CSX were doing their Conrail deal, in included keeping Hollidaysburg car shops open for five years. Guess why?
Federal money for a train station in Altoona, for a Railroaders Memorial Museum, a state steam locomotive, etc, etc.
A second train connecting Altoona to the east appears shortly after the National Limited comes off. I can add 2+2....
The common factor is congressional pork to appease powerful committee chairs. The Pennsylvanian started in 1980 as a state-supported daylight train between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and was a resumption of the pre-Amtrak Duquesne. It ran to Chicago from 1998 to 2003. It had nothing to do with the NYC-CHI Broadway Limited, which ran as an Amtrak train from 1971-1995. Both trains were PRR ones. The Pennsylvanian represents two problems of Amtrak: 1. Legacy routes that worked 50 years ago. 2. Routes based on political favors and pork. No Way to Run a Railroad and no way to have a modern, useful passenger service.
CSSHEGEWISCHNot unlike Harley Staggers and the "Potomac Turbo" in the 1970's.
Is there a connection between the West Virginian and the Pennsylvanian? The West Virginian (derisively called the Patomac Turbo and other names) was introduced to try new high speed technology and satisfy Congressman Harley O. Staggers. It was ultimately withdrawn.
New York to Pittsburgh rail service began long before Amtrak. Up to several years ago there was through service from New York to Chicago via PIttsburgh and there was more than one daily train. The Pennsylvanian is a reduction of long standing service on the line. I don't see a connection between these two trains.
oltmanndDo a little digging on his dad.
I did some digging but did not find a connection between Bud Shuster and The Pennsylvanian or any of its predecessor trains.
Bud Shuster was very successful with pork barrel legislation in general. In Pennsylvania his name is associated with bridges and highways including I-99 which is also known as the Bud Shuster Highway. Repeating the same digits to number an interstate is against Federal policy but at Bud Shuster's insistence the highway number was actually written into the law.
In general Bud Shuster was favorable to Amtrak. He himself said most of all he wanted to be remembered for his contribution to transportation in the United States. However, I did not find any direct link between him and any specific Amtrak route in Pennsylvania.
Not unlike Harley Staggers and the "Potomac Turbo" in the 1970's.
John WR oltmanndSchuster's dad would have found quid-pro-quo pork to keep it going. It's probably why the train managed to get from 403b status to part of the national network in the first place. Schuster will have heck-to-pay in his district if it comes off. It just happens that the Pennsylvanian, which has been slated to have its Federal money zeroed out, comes from the district of the guy who is now Chairman of the Subcommittee that oversees Amtrak. It seems like a little more than a coincidence.
oltmanndSchuster's dad would have found quid-pro-quo pork to keep it going. It's probably why the train managed to get from 403b status to part of the national network in the first place. Schuster will have heck-to-pay in his district if it comes off.
It just happens that the Pennsylvanian, which has been slated to have its Federal money zeroed out, comes from the district of the guy who is now Chairman of the Subcommittee that oversees Amtrak. It seems like a little more than a coincidence.
Do a little digging on his dad. He was the head of the same committee for years and years. Funnelled maximum pork toward his district (Altoona area). I'd bet he had quite a bit to do with the Pennsylvanian even existing in the first place.
John WR The Pennsylvanian has fairly few (400 a day) passengers between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh but those few are enthusiastic according to a February 17th article in The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. There are interviews with a several people who describe how important the train is to their lives. There are also descriptions and photographs of empty seats. Reading the article makes it seem a little less impossible for Amtrak to come up with the funds and if it doesn't the state of Pennslyvania to come up with the funds. It also mentions the fact that the House Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Bill Schuster's 9th district includes part of the Pennsylvanian's route. Whether or not the train will continue after October 1 is anybody's guess. If you've never rode over the horseshoe curve and you want to it might be a good idea to do it this spring or summer. Here is a link to the article: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/amtraks-regulars-treasure-the-pennsylvanian-675749/
The Pennsylvanian has fairly few (400 a day) passengers between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh but those few are enthusiastic according to a February 17th article in The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. There are interviews with a several people who describe how important the train is to their lives. There are also descriptions and photographs of empty seats.
Reading the article makes it seem a little less impossible for Amtrak to come up with the funds and if it doesn't the state of Pennslyvania to come up with the funds. It also mentions the fact that the House Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Bill Schuster's 9th district includes part of the Pennsylvanian's route.
Whether or not the train will continue after October 1 is anybody's guess. If you've never rode over the horseshoe curve and you want to it might be a good idea to do it this spring or summer.
Here is a link to the article: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/amtraks-regulars-treasure-the-pennsylvanian-675749/
Schuster's dad would have found quid-pro-quo pork to keep it going. It's probably why the train managed to get from 403b status to part of the national network in the first place. Schuster will have heck-to-pay in his district if it comes off.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.