John WR Schlimm, As I understand CJ he calls corridors "the fashion of today" in the sense that this is the direction Amtrak is heading in today and needs to head in to give us the transportation service we need. I hope I represent him fairly; I certainly think that is true. But he also believes that if we do not maintain the long distance trains, the whole national network, we will wind up losing Amtrak. If that happens we won't have to worry about corridors because there won't be an Amtrak to run corridor trains. And I believe that too.
Schlimm,
As I understand CJ he calls corridors "the fashion of today" in the sense that this is the direction Amtrak is heading in today and needs to head in to give us the transportation service we need. I hope I represent him fairly; I certainly think that is true.
But he also believes that if we do not maintain the long distance trains, the whole national network, we will wind up losing Amtrak. If that happens we won't have to worry about corridors because there won't be an Amtrak to run corridor trains. And I believe that too.
You represent that fairly.
Let me bring in what I've seen happen in places in Europe:
Whole regional networks were considered unprofitable by the national railway. So they wanted to abandon passenger traffic on those lines. In response and thanks to changes in law, the regions took over the traffic. Not unlike Amtrak, they were faced with scarce resources. So most of the traffic was abandoned, with remaining, upgraded traffic focused on a few corridors. Then a funny thing happened: Upgraded service brought more passengers, which led to service expansion. All of a sudden there was talk of reopening lines that had been abandoned for passenger traffic years before.
They are however also finding that reintroducing passenger traffic 20-30 years later is difficult and associated with large costs. Yet the regions push forward. Why? Because once people see the benefits of trains, they want them. Not just where the trains run now, but where the people who want them live. So why should we be so eager to get rid of trains that work to maybe save pennies now, when in a matter of years we'll be trying to get trains back on much those same lines? Because that will happen in the US. It is happening in corridors already.
Schlimm doesn't seem to believe that the millennials will want to take the train to go places. But their transportation habits are changing. And the generation after them will change even more in the same direction. Flying has become a real PITA. Lots of people of all ages avoid it whenever possible. Taking an LD train is not much different in time spent from driving. I can drive from my home in Arkansas to New York City in 2 long days of driving and a so-so night in some motel along the road, or I can take the Texas Eagle to Chicago, the Lakeshore Limited from there to New York. Leave 11:39pm on Wednesday, arrive in NYC 6:35pm Friday. Let's see, I can be alert all that driving time and arrive worn out or take the train and arrive rested. And that's not even a fabulous example, having to detour via Chicago on the train. But an increasing number of millennials don't even own a car, so just getting in and driving is not a real option for them.
Mainly what I'm saying is that there is a national network of trains, including those pesky LD trains. It's in Amtrak's interest to keep those trains running. Once LD trains are off a class 1, what are the chances of getting corridor trains on that class 1? We all know that slower freights bring in more revenue than faster passenger trains that also "mess up" the schedule for those slower freights.
There are LD trains that could be complemented with corridor service along their entire line. The Lake Shore Limited, The Crescent, The City of New Orleans, The Texas Eagle all run through territory that could use additional trains running part of the distance at times that are daylight hours or otherwise more convenient for particular city pairs.
Here in Arkansas, Fort Worth/Dallas - Little Rock would make a lot of sense, as would that train continuing east to Memphis (our DOT wants to add lanes on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis because the road is so crowded - would be smarter to start running passenger trains on an hour or every other hour schedule). If Tennessee was on top of it, they'd want passenger trains Memphis - Nashville(-Knoxville).
So, I'm not against corridor service. It makes lots of sense, but it shouldn't be an either or. LD trains fill a real function and so do corridor trains.
If you have one train on a route originating in Chicago, the schedule has to be set up to facilitate Chicago connections.
If you have two trains on the route, you can schedule the second train for better times where the traffic warrants. Using the Southwest Chief as an example, if you had a second frequency you could run a Los Angeles-Grand Canyon train that left Los Angeles at 9:15 AM and arrived at Williams Junction at 7:50 PM. The train would lay over 3 hours in Williams Junction, then leave for Chicago, arriving in Chicago at 10:15 AM the 2nd day following.
The current Southwest Chief schedule is good for Los Angeles - Albuquerque service.
The crux of our difference is you and others think continuing the legacy LD routes nationwide is the only way to preserve Amtrak. You think the government will sell off the NEC. Others and myself believe pruning those routes and making Amtrak a close to break even organization on operations while increasing corridors is the way to grow. For us, Amtrak's wasteful LD routes make it more vulnerable to congressional meddling.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
You (and other people here) say "we need to invest wisely." But there is a paradox here. Certainly there are arguments, in fact strong arguments, that corridor trains would be better investments of scarce dollars than long distance trains. But if Amtrak is going to make these investments Amtrak must continue to exist. And if, as I certainly believe, Amtrak becomes so fragmented that its existence is threatened or worse thee will be no possibility or corridor trains or and other Amtrak trains.
In the Republican Party Platform the one line that is identified as a candidate for cutting is the Northeast Corridor Line precisely because it is profitable and is therefore considered inappropriate for government operation. And the Democratic Party Platform does not even bother to address that issue much less oppose it. I know individual party members may take different positions but over all there is no challenge to the way Amtrak is run by either party except for that one place where Amtrak is most successful.
John
CJtrainguy In a time when we have a generation coming of age that isn't all car crazed and very interested in other forms of transportation, when flying has lost all the luster it once had and has all the appeal of a ride on the cattle truck, when Interstates are packed with cars and trucks and then some, trains are a real alternative that deserves investment and addition to frequencies and lines. Talking about what lines to cut is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Cut a line this year, then another next year and pretty soon there won't be any left to cut.
In a time when we have a generation coming of age that isn't all car crazed and very interested in other forms of transportation, when flying has lost all the luster it once had and has all the appeal of a ride on the cattle truck, when Interstates are packed with cars and trucks and then some, trains are a real alternative that deserves investment and addition to frequencies and lines.
Talking about what lines to cut is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Cut a line this year, then another next year and pretty soon there won't be any left to cut.
Are you saying 20-35 year olds are going to start flocking to the western LD trains or ride trains from the east to west coast? The answer in few words is, No, impossible to compete because of the distance. Even if trains could average 120 mph (very fast and very expensive) CHI-LA do you realize how long a ride that would be? [18 h 52 m] How many folks would elect to spend nearly an entire day, or more likely, parts of two for that trip? Only some elderly, some railfans and generally folks with a lot of time on their hands.The obvious point that you and other folks are missing is that passenger rail in the US, to be viable, needs to compete with air where it is competitive, i.e., the in the relatively short four-five hour corridors which you so nicely dismiss as " the fashion word of the day." Getting rid of the legacy LD trains, which create most of Amtrak's losses while carrying a small percentage of passengers, is not getting rid of Amtrak one route at a time. It is the only way to save Amtrak!
Illinois is doing the right thing, with the various State-subsidized routes and the CHI-StL pretty high speed corridor. The Quad Cities route might work, especially if Iowa gets on board and pitches in to Iowa City [good luck on that!]. The restored Blackhawk also has potential. Upgrading the speed on what once was a real racetrack when i was at UIUC, the CHI-Carbondale former IC route would also be a plus {good luck with CN]. Cutting off the CZ at Omaha or Lincoln and moving the route to the UP could create another corridor with potential. Yes, I am an Illinoisan and a strong proponent of modern passenger rail (and other investments in infrastructure). And like you, I believe we cannot afford NOT to upgrade. And we can afford it now as we did in the Great Depression. But we need to invest wisely.
Well said, narig01. In 1971 Republicans and Democrats came together to come up with Amtrak as a national passenger train network. Without it, there would be nothing more than commuter operations around the country. Pretty much forget about corridors, because the freight railroads would have no reason whatsoever to all of a sudden let someone start running passenger trains over 100-500 mile routes. Unless of course that someone wanted to buy the thing lock, stock and barrel.
The current Amtrak has kept trains running in the US and does actually have a network where you can travel from coast to coast. In a time when we have a generation coming of age that isn't all car crazed and very interested in other forms of transportation, when flying has lost all the luster it once had and has all the appeal of a ride on the cattle truck, when Interstates are packed with cars and trucks and then some, trains are a real alternative that deserves investment and addition to frequencies and lines.
Talking about what lines to cut is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Cut a line this year, then another next year and pretty soon there won't be any left to cut. The conversation should be about which new trains to add. Illinois seems to get that. They are pushing hard for getting the line Chicago - Quad Cities up and running. A line that should be extended all the way to Omaha along the old Rock Island main line post haste. There are plenty more corridors that should be happening today or tomorrow or really, really soon. But don't dump the current LD's just because corridor seems to be the fashion word of the day.
There's a cost to building, maintaining and even expanding a national train network. The thing is that the US can't afford not to spend the money, unless it wants to become a 3rd world country when it comes to transportation.
Since I provided the Republican Party Platform statement on Amtrak I thought I should do the same with the Democratic Party Platform. However, unless I missed something, the Democratic Platform is silent about Amtrak. If someone else can find something about the subject I would appreciate it. Here is a link to the Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform#america-works
Paul MilenkovicYou didn't attend school where the local Republicans managed to vote down all of the bond referendum ballot questions, and where the school board then furloughed English teachers so you could keep your football team that went every year to the state tournament?
I'm confused, Paul. What do the decisions of a school board have to do with rail passenger service?
John WR . . . the Republican Platform does acknowledge the loses from long distance train routes . . .
. . . the Republican Platform does acknowledge the loses from long distance train routes . . .
You didn't attend school where the local Republicans managed to vote down all of the bond referendum ballot questions, and where the school board then furloughed English teachers so you could keep your football team that went every year to the state tournament?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I was looking for some kind of Republican consensus. This is the closest thing to one that I can find. I offer it for what it's worth.
However, I don't think the Republicans are calling for privatization of long distance routes simply because they know the trains lose so much money that no private concern would operate them. But I don't think the platform reflects strong opposition to long distance routes either.
"allow private ventures to provide passenger service to the northeast corridor. The same holds true with
regard to high-speed and intercity rail across the country."
Not that party platforms have much effect, but I would read that as privatize the whole route structure. Or at least, open up ROW to various operators.
From the Republican Platform for the 2012 election:
"Amtrak continues to be, for the taxpayers, an
extremely expensive railroad. The public has to
subsidize every ticket nearly $50. It is long past time
for the federal government to get out of way and
allow private ventures to provide passenger service
to the northeast corridor. The same holds true with
regard to high-speed and intercity rail across
the country."
What strikes me is that while the Republican Platform does acknowledge the loses from long distance train routes there is no proposal to change those routes. However, in the routes which are profitable or are believed will become profitable there is a proposal to turn them over to the private sector.
schlimm In addition to eliminating or dividing up some routes into city-pair segments, Amtrak should consider cost-cutting on the service by eliminating non-essential features and raising fares to come closing to covering "above-the-rail costs."
In addition to eliminating or dividing up some routes into city-pair segments, Amtrak should consider cost-cutting on the service by eliminating non-essential features and raising fares to come closing to covering "above-the-rail costs."
In FY10, if Amtrak could have shed the long distance trains, it could have covered its operating costs (above the rail) with an average fare increase per passenger of $7.41. Clearly, the increases would vary by leg and market variables. This number assumes no service level change on any of these routes.
In FY10 the NEC had an operating profit of $51.5 million, offset by an operating loss for the other short corridor trains of $231 million.
That does sound pretty respectable, in Canada VIA Rail would be breaking open the bubbly with those types of numbers. Passenger rail in this country is in steep decline and I'm not sure there's anything that can be done to stop the bleeding, I'm mean, VIA just cut back service to Kitchener, Ontario, what's next?? less service for Toronto to Montreal??
http://www.therecord.com/news-story/2606278-via-rail-is-cutting-service-to-and-from-kitchener/
Very Bad
oltmanndI want free stuff for my town, too! Where do I sign up?
I thought you lived in the northeast, Don. Am I wrong?
Those of us who do live in the northeast between Washington and Boston really have grabbed the free stuff for ourselves. After all, this route is 431 miles long, much less than 750 miles, but there is no serious suggestion that we in the northeast should pay for it. I mean my own Governor, Chris Christie backed out of New Jersey Transit's plan to build two new tunnels under the Hundson, a plan that was many years in the making. The Feds response was to say they will come in and build it for us. And we are getting our catenary redone along with substantial repairs to the track, all paid for by Uncle Sam. Maybe I should say Uncle Sugar.
schlimm So what to do about the LD trains west of the Mississippi where they make the least sense: the Sunset, TX Eagle, CZ, SWC and EB?
So what to do about the LD trains west of the Mississippi where they make the least sense: the Sunset, TX Eagle, CZ, SWC and EB?
I think the question might better be recast to ask if there were things the train could do to better serve the market the route traverses.
For example, does it make sense for the SW Chief to serve the Grand Canyon stop (WIlliams) in the middle of the night? Would Albuquerque - LA day train make more sense? Is there a an untapped tourist market out of LA into the SW? (You should see all the RVs rented from LA that show up at the Grand Canyon!) Amtrak California markets a day train/bus trip from SF to Yosemite. How about a weekend trip from LA to the Grand Canyon or Albuquerque/Santa Fe?
You can look at Chicago/KC/(Topeka?) in the same light. The problem becomes the gap. Do you do the gap overnight or run a separate day train with though travelers going to hotels?
You can look at all the western trains in this light, I think.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Least sense to whom? Again, the EB is considered by many to fulfill a vital service in winter. The CZ\s route between Denver and Salt Lake City is certainly a tourist's high spot, and Denver-Chicago and Kansas Citu-St. Louis-Chicago are populated areas that can use some form of corridor service. The Coast Starlight performs relativelly well compared to most LD trains.
oltmanndThe problem with the Gulf Coast is that most of the travel is to/from the north. You might make a case for Mobile to NOL, but east of Mobile there's not much there.
That's why I tried to make the case from New Orleans to Mobile, Don.
And I agree it is unlikely Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama would fund a Gulf Coast rail line. I'm not able to do any objective research but I do wonder if research would show it would benefit the whole area.
There was a time when the Crescent divided at Birmingham and sent some cars down to Mobile. But that was long ago. I find it ironic that the first north south transcontinental was the Mobile and Ohio to the Ohio River where it met the Illinois Central to Chicago.
About splitting all trains into day trains ? How will they fit into the 750 mile short distance restrictions ? Wash - ATL / SAV /Pittsburg / sCLE / TOL are aall under 750 miles + ATL NOL / NYP - TOL CHI - MSP, CHI - MEM. amound other rooutes. Now NYP - ATL / SAV can meet the 750 restriction
dmikee They are mostly sold out well in advance
Er, not so much. They sell out during peak times and seasons but the overall load factor is 60% or less. You can't get a sleeper during the summer, but you can get a coach seat mid week just about any time.
You can get seat from Chicago to Emeryville for tomorrow right now.
You can get seat from Chicago to Seattle for tomorrow right now.
You can get seat from Chicago to Dallas for tomorrow right now.
You can get seat from New Orleans to Los Angeles for tomorrow right now.
You can get seat from Seattle to Los Angeles for tomorrow right now.
Tomorrow's SW Chief is sold out Chicago to LA, but you can get a sleeper from KC to LA.
I agree with you that the "middle of the night" times make the trains pretty much useless to those locations. I think the solution is to ditch the sleepers and only run trains during the day, as much as possible. Let the overnight passengers sleep in hotels
John WR schlimm"part of a transcontinental route" seems to be a loophole for lightly used intrastate or at most a four state service but instead of the states funding, it gets Amtrak to foot the bill. I wonder how many folks actually used the discontinued segment? And of those, how many rode the train to TX and the west coast? Schlimm, I don't know how many people used this route. But I do know that fewer people used it than used the route west of New Orleans. I also know that much of it ran in the late night and very early morning hours. I am not arguing that it should be restored; I am only arguing that the mayors along the route would like to see it restored. And yes, they would like to see it restored with Federal money. My own thinking is that part of this route offers a real opportunity to carry out Don's suggestion of intercity service between New Orleans and Mobile with the states served funding the service. However, I would propose that the states operate the service themselves rather than have Amtrak do it. They could acquire a married pair of mu's and shuttle back and forth during the daylight hours. They could organize it in such a way that the costs would be substantially less than with Amtrak. Today the Mississippi Gulf Coast has a lot of casinos and a much greater population working in them than it has traditionally had. I think there are enough customers to support it. But I doubt the states involved will do it.
schlimm"part of a transcontinental route" seems to be a loophole for lightly used intrastate or at most a four state service but instead of the states funding, it gets Amtrak to foot the bill. I wonder how many folks actually used the discontinued segment? And of those, how many rode the train to TX and the west coast?
I don't know how many people used this route. But I do know that fewer people used it than used the route west of New Orleans. I also know that much of it ran in the late night and very early morning hours. I am not arguing that it should be restored; I am only arguing that the mayors along the route would like to see it restored. And yes, they would like to see it restored with Federal money.
My own thinking is that part of this route offers a real opportunity to carry out Don's suggestion of intercity service between New Orleans and Mobile with the states served funding the service. However, I would propose that the states operate the service themselves rather than have Amtrak do it. They could acquire a married pair of mu's and shuttle back and forth during the daylight hours. They could organize it in such a way that the costs would be substantially less than with Amtrak. Today the Mississippi Gulf Coast has a lot of casinos and a much greater population working in them than it has traditionally had. I think there are enough customers to support it. But I doubt the states involved will do it.
The problem with the Gulf Coast is that most of the travel is to/from the north. You might make a case for Mobile to NOL, but east of Mobile there's not much there.
The notion that MS and LA would find $$ to start service from Mobile to NOL is pretty far fetched. You are talking about states that are "infra-red" and whose state budgets are really skinny.
If you really wanted to try to "connect the dots" with existing service, perhaps rerouting the Crescent via Montgomery and Mobile would make more sense. But, this is pretty far fetched, too.
The west has huge untapped opportunities for both inter-city and interstate routes to be developed. Unfortunately, Amtrak has no equipment and cannot add service. For example, the most scenic routes like the Coast Starlite and California Zephyr have at best one train a day, serving many communities in the middle of the night. They are mostly sold out well in advance. If weather (snow) delays trains, connections are impossible to make up the lost time. Riding intercity is almost hopeless since the train arrives at 2 am and gets to a major metro area by 10 am after delays from freight service. Actual trains scheduled are about 10% of scheduled service in the postwar, pre-Amtrak era. Scanty service means far fewer passenger miles and badly distorts the cost/revenue statistics.
John WR CSSHEGEWISCHIt appears that they want the "Sunset" reinstated, but they also don't want to pick up any part of the tab for operating it. It is not really up to the mayors to decide about paying for the Sunset Limited. But I imagine you are right and the states involved have not been forthcoming with any funds. On the other hand, this is part of a transcontinental route and states do not pay for other transcontinental routes.
CSSHEGEWISCHIt appears that they want the "Sunset" reinstated, but they also don't want to pick up any part of the tab for operating it.
It is not really up to the mayors to decide about paying for the Sunset Limited. But I imagine you are right and the states involved have not been forthcoming with any funds. On the other hand, this is part of a transcontinental route and states do not pay for other transcontinental routes.
schlimm The residents of the 40 cities apparently didn't notice it when it was there.
Well, Schlimm, I visited parts of the Mississippi Gulf Coast when the Sunset Limited did run. Local communities had spent money to fix up their stations and seemed to be well aware of it.
Of course, when it comes to subsidy the Sunset Limited is the most expensive transcontinental route in the country. And the Jacksonville to New Orleans segment is the most expensive part of the the most expensive route. As far as I know Amtrak has never announced the abandonment of that part o the route. For several years after Hurricane Katrina it appeared on their schedule with a note saying service was suspended there. Finally the portion was omitted all together but there still is a note about the suspension. It ends "Future service has not been determined." It seems to me Amtrak just doesn't want to spend the money to reinstate it.
Of course, Louisana, Mississippi and Alabama could get together and fund service between New Orleans and Mobile as paired cities. They could even set up their own service which would be cheaper for them than Amtrak. But they haven't.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.