An interesting question is what else might have been done besides Amtrak.
Subsidizing the frieght railroads to provide the service is one that was mentioned. That might have had better results on some routes. Maybe. But we wouldn't have got a solid national system and operator. But it might have kicked the can down the road for a national system to be created later on a different basis.
What if the effort to start Amtrak was more serious? Did not start with such a drastic cut to existing services? Was better funded with its own revenue stream from the beginning (wouldn't have taken much in the big scheme of things). I'm not sure the political will existed to make that happen, but things could have been different if the political players had been a little different. Amtrak's original intent was a fiction with the real idea to avoid poiltical fallout and let the trains wither in the future.
What if the railroad world had been a bit more serious in offering leadership to make trains a success? A few champions would be needed. They were few then, but one or two people could have made a read difference at that time. What if the initial leadership of Amtrak included people like John W Barriger (who was too old to have lived much of Amtrak's history). What if Perlman had figured out how to make passenger trains somewhat successful? What if Restrop had been a little older with more solid executive and political talents. What if Amtrak hadn't been basically formed out of the Penn Central Passenger department but instead out of the SCL or SantaFe passenger leadership and experts?
The problem was the big powers that controled what happened didn't really include any true passenger rail champions. Unions controlled a lot of strings but were bleeding railroads. Freight railroads wanted their problem resolved, but didn't seem to care much about making a successful rail operator that could have been a good customer (they werent taking care of their freight customers either, often). Politicans didn't want the political fallout of train-offs, but didn't have the vision either. NARP . . . well, maybe if it had been different?
Deggesty I have the impression that all passenger cars in regular service depended upon steam from engine for all heat (and some, such as Santa Fe and Southern, also depended upon steam for cooling). I wonder if, when there were through cars from the east coast to the west coast, if the non SFe cars' cooling systems gave the SFe maintenance people trouble--and likewise if the PRR and NYC crews that handled SOU and SFe passenger cars also had trouble. Maybe not.
I have the impression that all passenger cars in regular service depended upon steam from engine for all heat (and some, such as Santa Fe and Southern, also depended upon steam for cooling).
I wonder if, when there were through cars from the east coast to the west coast, if the non SFe cars' cooling systems gave the SFe maintenance people trouble--and likewise if the PRR and NYC crews that handled SOU and SFe passenger cars also had trouble. Maybe not.
That's exactly what Jim McClellan said was a problem at the start of Amtrak. Amtrak blended the fleet, moving some western cars to the NE because the PC stuff was sooooo bad. There was a lack of expertise in keeping the stuff running.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
MiningmanSomething akin to the Chase wreck would have occurred soon enough. Disabled cab signals, stoned crews, it could not go on like that.
I disagree. All the PRR/PC electrics had speed control and train stop. That is, the speed control enforced the signal aspects by requiring braking if you were over speed and the train stop feature applied a penatly brake if you didn't acknowledge.
Conrail diesel power had cab signals, but no train stop, nor speed control. If you sailed by an aspect change, all you got was an annoying whistle (maybe) until the reservior powering whistle ran out of air.
If Amtrak had not take over the NEC, the lite power would have been electrics with speed control. The crew could have been dead and the power would have stopped short of the switches. There was a cut section more than 1000 feet ahead of the interlocking signal where the signal went to restricting.
Oltmannd-- I see ( I think).
Still deliberate disabling and destruction of a cab signal and crews stoned on pot would have resulted in some kind of disaster somewhere, ...it was behaviour that could not have gone on.
However, thank you for that...makes sense what you say.
conductorchris An interesting question is what else might have been done besides Amtrak. Subsidizing the frieght railroads to provide the service is one that was mentioned. That might have had better results on some routes. Maybe. But we wouldn't have got a solid national system and operator. But it might have kicked the can down the road for a national system to be created later on a different basis. What if the effort to start Amtrak was more serious? Did not start with such a drastic cut to existing services? Was better funded with its own revenue stream from the beginning (wouldn't have taken much in the big scheme of things). I'm not sure the political will existed to make that happen, but things could have been different if the political players had been a little different. Amtrak's original intent was a fiction with the real idea to avoid poiltical fallout and let the trains wither in the future. What if the railroad world had been a bit more serious in offering leadership to make trains a success? A few champions would be needed. They were few then, but one or two people could have made a read difference at that time. What if the initial leadership of Amtrak included people like John W Barriger (who was too old to have lived much of Amtrak's history). What if Perlman had figured out how to make passenger trains somewhat successful? What if Restrop had been a little older with more solid executive and political talents. What if Amtrak hadn't been basically formed out of the Penn Central Passenger department but instead out of the SCL or SantaFe passenger leadership and experts? The problem was the big powers that controled what happened didn't really include any true passenger rail champions. Unions controlled a lot of strings but were bleeding railroads. Freight railroads wanted their problem resolved, but didn't seem to care much about making a successful rail operator that could have been a good customer (they werent taking care of their freight customers either, often). Politicans didn't want the political fallout of train-offs, but didn't have the vision either. NARP . . . well, maybe if it had been different?
Lot's of what ifs that ignore the two largest reasons for the need for Amtrak's formation: the building and completion of an Interstate Highway System and the increasing use of successful passenger jet airliners.
MiningmanStill deliberate disabling and destruction of a cab signal and crews stoned on pot would have resulted in some kind of disaster somewhere, ...it was behaviour that could not have gone on.
Yes, but just exactly what sort of disaster that might have been is the question here. I'm sure that we'd have gotten to strict whiz-quiz enforcement at some point not too much later. It was established before 1920 that the only sensible 'enforcement' of an ABS system was automatic train stop on running an absolute red, and that compromises such as forestalling really represented compromises in the ABS architecture away from what an 'absolute red' should connote. It remains true that an absolute method of stopping a train short of an impediment it can't negotiate -- whether or not its crew, or the dispatcher, or the folks at Mantle Ridge, want it to keep going; whether or not it gives the crew warning or options before it has to act -- is an important part of the PTC mandate, and has essentially been for a century.
charlie hebdoLots of what ifs that ignore the two largest reasons for the need for Amtrak's formation: the building and completion of an Interstate Highway System and the increasing use of successful passenger jet airliners.
Actually, I want to see conductorchris flesh out some of the things he's said. Exactly where would the 'revenue stream' to provide greater Amtrak service have come from in the political systems of that day? I don't see, for example, the idea of reversing the Post Office cuts that caused the last great wave of train-offs, or some revival of REA that would at least implicitly subsidize trains to a variety of intermediate stations where passenger traffic alone was not adequate.
And just how does he think Perlman could have been more successful, or tried harder than he did at NYC, to get at least the cream of passenger service to work?
I do think things might have been different with 'better' champions, or more input from passenger departments with good ideas about service (Santa Fe being a good one -- but with clear ties to an understanding of the importance of passenger service to its own shippers, something that does not easily translate to an organization like Amtrak). But that 'difference' might not have translated into any greater success than Amtrak had 'in the event'; in fact, I can easily see how someone with strict standards on passenger-service quality might have been inclined to 'pull the plug' on a national network long before now.
Something I still don't quite understand is this business about 'a successful rail operator that could have been a good customer'. About the only railroad with a half chance of integrating reasonably fast passenger trains with its evolving freight operations was ATSF, and the fuel crisis slammed any door on high-speed freight service that lack of shipper willingness to pay the cost of additional freight speed hadn't already. Just exactly where -- in a real world -- would revenues from passenger-train accommodation even cover the pain and aggravation of having to host it ... and that before we start in on the risk involved in the passenger service, its potential failure on a railroad's main, its potential wrecks, and so forth. Or the falling share and changing effective demographics of those continuing to ride passenger trains as the existing pool of equipment grew older...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.