charlie hebdo BaltACD blue streak 1 Editorial stating Amtrak may loose congressional support if Anderson persists in eliminating LD trains. https://www.railjournal.com/opinion/has-amtrak-placed-itself-in-jeopardy Which is probably Anderson's intention. Wanna make a gentleman's bet on that?
BaltACD blue streak 1 Editorial stating Amtrak may loose congressional support if Anderson persists in eliminating LD trains. https://www.railjournal.com/opinion/has-amtrak-placed-itself-in-jeopardy Which is probably Anderson's intention.
blue streak 1 Editorial stating Amtrak may loose congressional support if Anderson persists in eliminating LD trains. https://www.railjournal.com/opinion/has-amtrak-placed-itself-in-jeopardy
https://www.railjournal.com/opinion/has-amtrak-placed-itself-in-jeopardy
Which is probably Anderson's intention.
Wanna make a gentleman's bet on that?
Never been a better! Books don't make their money off me.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
blue streak 1Editorial stating Amtrak may loose congressional support if Anderson persists in eliminating LD trains. https://www.railjournal.com/opinion/has-amtrak-placed-itself-in-jeopardy
Editorial stating Amtrak may loose congressional support if Anderson persists in eliminating LD trains.
Wow! Thanks for the report.
daveklepper Did you write a complaint to Amtrak? Why not? Which trains did you use?
Did you write a complaint to Amtrak? Why not?
Which trains did you use?
This is going to be long:
Dave, to tell the truth, it never entered my mind to write to Amtrak. I figured I had learned a valuable lesson, and would know to tip a redcap if it ever happened again.
1. We got to Chicago on the City of New Orleans. We came from New Orleans. This was before Christmas, 1989, so we knew the trains would be crowded.
2. We were late getting into Chicago, and missed the train west. I do not know the name of the train we took from Chicago to Hastings, NE. Amtrak put us up in a hotel in downtown Chicago, gave us a voucher for meals at the hotel, and paid cabfare to and from the station.
3. The train encountered some record low temperatures. By the time we reached Hastings, the temperature was 25° below zero. The toilets on the train had not worked since Iowa.
The trip back was even more interesting.
1. We traveled back to Chicago and got onto the City of New Orleans. In Memphis, we picked up a large group of football fans who were on their way to New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl.
2. In southern Mississippi, the train stopped. We were told there was a derailment ahead. We sat for several hours. Believe it or not, the train backed up to a town. We were told that had not been done before. At the town, the crew brought boxes of Kentucky Fried Chicken to give to each passenger.
3. After sitting for several more hours, we started off again. We reached a very deserted part of either Mississippi or Louisiana, the train stopped again, and we sat for hours.
4. By this time, the passengers were not happy, especially the football fans who had been enjoying adult beverages.
5. Then, all the crew disappeared. Completely. People walked up to the locomotive, and they could see no one there. There was no one from Amtrak around, it was dark, and we were in the middle of a swampy area.
6. The angry football fans broke into the cupboards and compartments of the snack car, trashing it. At this point, my wife and I and others became a little fearful. We went to a coach car and sat together with some other fearful people.
7. Some of the people saw a light in the distance. About 10 people took off walking. They returned carrying quite a few more bottles and cans for partying. No crew anywhere.
8. After hours of waiting, some Amtrak people showed up. Everyone got back into the seats, and we took off. We reached New Orleans about 3:00 a.m. Football fans were very angry and drunk. The train cars were a messy disaster.
Believe it or not, instead of being angry, we were able to tell our friends all about it at the New Year's Eve party. It got a lot of laughs, and even today my grown daughters talk about it.
York1 John
I have ridden a bus overnight many times--the last time was 35 years ago--and I have plan to never do so again. I have ridden a bus in the last few years only because I no longer drive, and I wanted to go to a place which has not had passenger rail service since 1969.
Johnny
The 11:30 am Megabus from Dallas to Houston for August 14th has four reserve seats on the first level and 16 on the second level. The price of the reservation ranges from $2 to $8. Two of the first level seats have been sold; two of the second level have been booked. The fare including a reserved seat is $11.
The $8 seats are on level two at the front of the bus. They definitely offer the best view of the roadway And if the bus is involved in a collision, the occupants of these seats, along with the driver, will be the first to feel the impact.
Greyhound has five express buses from Dallas to Houston on August 14th. The base fare is $19. The Economy Extra fare, which includes priority boarding, is $27. Reserved seats are not an option.
daveklepper Was the latter an overnight trip?
Assuming this question is addressed to me, I don't know of anyone in my active adult community that wants to ride a bus, train or plane overnight. They will do it when traveling overseas because it is the only realistic option.
Most of the people that I know don't want to sit cheek to jowl with a stranger on any conveyance. They prefer the comfort and convenience of a car. Like me, they will put up with sitting uncomfortably close to a stranger on an airplane, as an example, as a trade-off for covering long distances as quickly as possible. Or in a bus or train for the convenience of not having to drive or not being able to drive!
I suspect most of the people found overnight on a train or bus, with the exception of those in a sleeper, are either afraid to fly or don’t have any choice. They are an small segment of the population.
Talking of seating ...
In December, 1989, my family took an Amtrak trip that involved changing trains in Chicago.
Union Station was being remodeled, it was below zero outside, and there was no heat in the station. We froze standing in line to get onto the train. The train originated in Chicago.
We got into line early because we wanted to sit with our three young daughters.
When we finally got onto the warm train, we were amazed that the train was full. My wife ended up sitting in one car with one daughter two rows ahead. I was in a different car. I finally got someone to move so I could sit with the youngest. The oldest, who was nine, had to sit about 6 rows away.
I finally complained. I asked why the train was full when we were at the front of the line and the train originated in Chicago.
I was informed by a worker that the people on the train payed redcaps to get them onto the train earlier.
I wish I had known that before we stood in a freezing line for several hours. Several others who waited with us in line were very unhappy.
Yes. Both. Megabus was much better than Greyhound, and a smoother ride and quieter passengers than Amtrak coach.
So, anyone rode Megabus or Greyhound overnight?
DeggestyIs this a new practice on Greeyhound? The times I rode in the past four years I sat where I could; once I was unable to sit in a front seat because they were already in use--no seat was assigned to me.
Your ability to pick a seat is limited by how many people are on the bus prior to you boarding. That is a method of assignment based on boarding position. Southwest claims that none of it's seats are assigned (open seating)........which is well and good but try getting other than a middle seat if your in boarding position C or D. You don't have a choice then. Same is true of Greyhound, if you are boarding a bus at a continuation point in the trip and you have folks before you with priority boarding......good luck.
Megabus you can pick your seat on the internet and reserve it. It shows you each bus layout and seats available on the Internet.
Was the latter an overnight trip?
charlie hebdo Friends that ride Greyhound, Megabus and Amtrak coach say the Megabus is best, Greyhound the worst.
Last year I rode Megabus from NYC to Philadelphia to give it a go. The coach was spotless, and the ride was comfortable. I was able to reserve a seat for a few extra bucks.
I also rode Greyhound from Dallas to San Antonio. It was an express bus that took 5 hours, 5 minutes compared to 10 hours, 5 minutes on Amtrak's consistently late Texas Eagle. Because I chose the Economy Extra fare, which cost me $19 compared to $14 for the regular fare, I had priority boarding. The fare on Amtrak would have been $29.
Seats are not reserved between Dallas and San Antonio on Greyhound. However, the two front seats on the right hand side of the bus are reserve for elderly and/or mobility challenged riders.
Of the two experiences, I found Megabus to be a somewhat better experience.
Charlie, do your friends who give you the three-carrier comparison ride overnight?
CMStPnP charlie hebdo Megabus You can pick your seat on Megabus, it is assigned on Greyhound.
charlie hebdo Megabus
You can pick your seat on Megabus, it is assigned on Greyhound.
charlie hebdoMegabus
Friends that ride Greyhound, Megabus and Amtrak coach say the Megabus is best, Greyhound the worst.
daveklepper Elderly and other limited mobility who cannot fly; buses serve the same purpose? To some extent they do. However, anyone who has taken a long-distance bus trip, anything more than three hours, knows they really do not. The comfort level is less, the amount of space per seat is less, the restrooms are far less adequate, the ride as bumpy as bad track, much even most of the time. What about meal and beverage service? Greater problem to leave the bus for a roadside diner than moving to a dining café car, and most meal stops are not at places with great food. No 1st-Class service or handicapped room. But, clearly, with the freight congestion and Amtrak LDTs’ poor time-keeping and reduced meal options, they aren’t doing their job either. I believe my fix, station restaurants with home delivery, take-out service, and on-board sevice just a fraction of that business. can solve the food and beverage problem. But something drastic has to be done about so-called precision railroading’s effect on Amtrak timekeeping. Is there any LDT with decent on-time performance? How are the Florida trains doing these days? What about the Empire Builder? Which Class I does give Amtrak good service? Any?
As to meal accommodations currently available along bus routes, I personally am acquainted only with what is found between Charlottesville, Virginia, and Bristol, Tennessee--vending machines in Charlottesville and Roanoke and a stop at McDonald's at Max Meadows (near Wytheville, Virginia) Years ago, Wytheville had a nice bus station with what seemed to be a good lunch counter (I never patronized it except in the middle of the night).
How many of you have spent a night on a bus? Even an Amtrak coach seat is far more comfortable.
daveklepperWhich Class I does give Amtrak good service?
I think things have changed the last few years but the Southwest Chief on BNSF used to be fairly well handled train as well. Whenever I fly to KC and my hotel is across from KC Union Station, I can watch it arrive just before 8 and I hear it's horn while I am starting to doze off around 10-11 p.m. Typically ontime when I stop to notice. I don't check it everyday though so it could be horrendously late as well. And there is some silver lining on the LD trains being unreliable. The main impetus of the newly proposed day train between Chicago and St. Paul is that the Empire Builder has a bad schedule and has problems adhereing to the schedule due to circumstances West of St. Paul. I think if it was 100% reliable or never existed in the first place Minnesota never would have considered a suppliment to it. Again points to the fact that many LD train routes have started Corridor service initially or opened a lot of minds to it.......they havent been a complete waste of money.
MidlandMike Commuter lines like NJT recover about 30% of their costs at the farebox. Quite a bit less than Amtrak.
MikeInPlanoCiting passenger miles is a red herring. Carrying 1 passenger 3000 miles cross-country is a lot more expensive than 100 passengers 30 miles. And that 30 mile route can be covered more than once in a day using the same trainset.
That may be the case but the revenue capture opportunity of a single passenger captive on a train for 3000 miles is probably substantially higher than the group of 100 traveling a mere 30 miles. Just because you do not see Amtrak taking advantage of it doesn't mean it is not out there.
I think if you check the basic rail fare between the two groups is correspondingly cheaper as well for the shorter route because the fixed costs are lower.
Last your previous statement that buses can suppliment trains and be cheaper is based on density of passengers on the route. Had this discussion with family in Milwaukee concerning the Milwaukee trolley (The Hop). Apparently someone up there is stoking opposition to the trolley saying buses are cheaper. Actually again depends on the riders. Buses have issues in that they have a much shorter life cycle than a trolley car #1. #2 Your limited to how many passengers a bus driver can haul with one vehicle due to size and road limits. #3 fuel economy with just a moderate load of passengers the bus loses as well. Last but not least, been shown again and again that some rail passengers will refuse to ride a bus no matter if it is the only alternative. The figure is fairly decent though I do not remember what it is but I think it is at least 30% of rail passengers will not ride a bus and will seek either an automobile or an earlier termination of their trip vs riding on a connecting bus.
One more comment on how Amtrak runs long distance trains. The most cost recovery you see on a lounge car is what? Someone in the lower level selling $1 candy bars and $5 hamburgers and I can tell you at the prices Amtrak sells items in it's LD snack cars the margins are pretty slim given the salary and benefits of the person standing behind the counter. No hawking of souveniers or not much anyway, no bartender, no scheduled events in which would increase cafe sales. No it is pretty much bare bones. Someone has to pay to haul that lounge car as it consumes fuel and comes at the cost of possibly an additional coach or sleeper. Same deal with the Dinning Car. Hooking the labor intensive Dining car on a long distance train when the most expensive item on the menu was a $25 steak......if you ask me thats a total joke and now it is restricted to only sleeping car passengers? Ouch. It sounds like the crew on the LD dining car has been reduced from seven to 3-4, which I guess is an improvement but they should improve the food offerings as well as train and incent employees to upsell. Not saying the dining car will ever be profitable but Amtraks efforts to reduce the loss has been no-brainer items they should have done years ago. You probably will never see Amtrak consolidate or close most of the commissaries which has to be another financial hemmorage point.
MidlandMikeCommuter lines like NJT recover about 30% of their costs at the farebox. Quite a bit less than Amtrak.
Public commuter lines structure their fares voluntarily to maximize ridership vs cost recovery. A very large part of this reason is local commuter agencies get breaks on EPA environmental pollution requirements to the larger cities that sponsor them. If they have a mass transit system in place that carries a lot of riders. Not really sure how that all works and someone with an Urban Planning degree might be able to explain it better.
Amtrak does the same with it's LD fares or used to (hard to tell so far if those days are behind us or not). Corridor fares depends on the Corridor what Amtrak does. Chicago to Milwaukee fares for example are fixed and do not use yield management. They have only started to recently charge an extra $1-2 in fare for rush hour trains.......which is not a lot on a $50+ RT rail fare. When Amtrak took over the LD train system in the 1970's one if it's goals was to make the train more affordable to the masses and you see that reflected in the accomodations, fare structure, lack of amenities on board, onboard menu choices, lack of real First Class Accomodations, etc. What private railroad do you know of back in the 40's and 50's would only have a hamburger, a pasta selection and maybe baked chicken as the only menu options in the dining car?
You'll also notice that Public Commuter lines do almost nothing to enhance revenue, one class of service on one type of car is pretty much all you get these days. Long gone are the extra fare cars and in some cases bar cars (which were a holdover from the private railways running things earlier in the 1900's).
MikeInPlano MidlandMike charlie hebdo LD trains are an impractical means of transportation for any distance over 500-800 miles and thus used by very few people. A lot of their ridership in sleeping cars are well-off seniors taking heavily-subsidized land cruises. Sounds pretty elitist to me. LD trains haul 40% of Amtrak's passenger-miles. It meets the practical needs of those people. Where is your data to say that there are any more well-to-do land-cruisers, than people riding the train because it is physically the easiest for them? Citing passenger miles is a red herring. Carrying 1 passenger 3000 miles cross-country is a lot more expensive than 100 passengers 30 miles. And that 30 mile route can be covered more than once in a day using the same trainset.
MidlandMike charlie hebdo LD trains are an impractical means of transportation for any distance over 500-800 miles and thus used by very few people. A lot of their ridership in sleeping cars are well-off seniors taking heavily-subsidized land cruises. Sounds pretty elitist to me. LD trains haul 40% of Amtrak's passenger-miles. It meets the practical needs of those people. Where is your data to say that there are any more well-to-do land-cruisers, than people riding the train because it is physically the easiest for them?
charlie hebdo LD trains are an impractical means of transportation for any distance over 500-800 miles and thus used by very few people. A lot of their ridership in sleeping cars are well-off seniors taking heavily-subsidized land cruises. Sounds pretty elitist to me.
LD trains haul 40% of Amtrak's passenger-miles. It meets the practical needs of those people. Where is your data to say that there are any more well-to-do land-cruisers, than people riding the train because it is physically the easiest for them?
Citing passenger miles is a red herring. Carrying 1 passenger 3000 miles cross-country is a lot more expensive than 100 passengers 30 miles. And that 30 mile route can be covered more than once in a day using the same trainset.
Passenger-miles is the measure of the actual work done by a passenger train, anything else is derivative. And you think carrying a lot of passengers 30 miles is cheap? Commuter lines like NJT recover about 30% of their costs at the farebox. Quite a bit less than Amtrak.
NKP guy (Even as I write, #30 is 4 hrs. 9 min. late at Rockville, Maryland. It left Chicago only 8 min. late, but lost an hour between South Bend and Elkhart, another hour before Sandusky, and a third hour between Connellsville and Martinsburg)
daveklepper The American people, if not the previous poster, do not expecdt the elderly and handicaipped to pay for the facilities they require in public accomodation places and venues. Long-distance trains serve a number of purposes, and the American economy would suffer if they were removed. But the primary purpose is to serve the specific elderly and handicapped who cannot fly.
The American people, if not the previous poster, do not expecdt the elderly and handicaipped to pay for the facilities they require in public accomodation places and venues.
Long-distance trains serve a number of purposes, and the American economy would suffer if they were removed. But the primary purpose is to serve the specific elderly and handicapped who cannot fly.
And why can't busses serve this purpose? They're cheaper, much more flexible (compared to trains , which only operate over fixed routes), and much more efficient than trains.
Green. Red. Black.
Regarding Nos. 29 & 30, each morning about 6, just before I open my newspapers, I check my emails and look at my app asm.transitdocs.com to see how the Lake Shore Limited is doing, as well as the Capitol.
I have no numbers, only impressions from years of looking, that the Capitol Limited is not only never in Cleveland on time, it is often shown in red (up to 2 hrs. late) and not infrequently in black (over 3 hrs. late). It is almost never shown in green, in either direction.
(Even as I write, #30 is 4 hrs. 9 min. late at Rockville, Maryland. It left Chicago only 8 min. late, but lost an hour between South Bend and Elkhart, another hour before Sandusky, and a third hour between Connellsville and Martinsburg)
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo He reiterated his disappointment with riding the Capital Limited : slow, uncomfortable, sitting in sidings waiting for freight trains to pass, very late departure and arrival. He said if any option is available in the future, he will not use Amtrak LD trains. East or West of Pittsburgh? Or is he geographically challenged? West of Pittsburgh to Chicago and no more challenged than you. Years ago (1986?) I rode the Amtrak Broadway from NYC to Chicago. Same deal: rough, slow, multiple times sided, and six hours late to Chicago.
BaltACD charlie hebdo He reiterated his disappointment with riding the Capital Limited : slow, uncomfortable, sitting in sidings waiting for freight trains to pass, very late departure and arrival. He said if any option is available in the future, he will not use Amtrak LD trains. East or West of Pittsburgh? Or is he geographically challenged?
charlie hebdo He reiterated his disappointment with riding the Capital Limited : slow, uncomfortable, sitting in sidings waiting for freight trains to pass, very late departure and arrival. He said if any option is available in the future, he will not use Amtrak LD trains.
East or West of Pittsburgh? Or is he geographically challenged?
West of Pittsburgh to Chicago and no more challenged than you.
Years ago (1986?) I rode the Amtrak Broadway from NYC to Chicago. Same deal: rough, slow, multiple times sided, and six hours late to Chicago.
NS is doing their best to discourage Amtrak where the operate over NS. If you racall - a year or so ago NS was in virtual gridlock everywhere between Buffalo and Chicago - all from NS applying the wrong operating plan. While Amtraks may have gotten delayed 6 to 8 hours - NS freights were getting delayed one to two or more DAYS. NS has improved to some degree, how much is open to question.
CMStPnP Wow, Amtraks Capitol Limited is among one of the fastest and most efficiently run Amtrak LD trains I have ever been on, last rode it about 2-3 years ago, Chicago to DC. Much better than the Texas Eagle.
Wow, Amtraks Capitol Limited is among one of the fastest and most efficiently run Amtrak LD trains I have ever been on, last rode it about 2-3 years ago, Chicago to DC. Much better than the Texas Eagle. I would love to have a Texas Eagle run to the standards of the Capital Limited. My Aunt rode it and liked it as well. It was ontime when we rode it. When I worked in Detroit I would drive to Toledo to take the Capitol Limited into Chicago and Change trains to Milwaukee. It was up to an hour and 20 in faster than the regular Detroit to Chicago trains due to delays and all the stops the Chicago to Detroit trains made..........which covered the time it took to drive to Toledo from Dearborn. Plus back then the Capitol had a dome car and you could board at 5 a.m. in Toledo, and watch the sun rise. Be in Chicago at 8 or 8:30. It really hauled azz on Conrail track back in the 1990's.
daveklepper you can f1y some can't Additionally, after we arrived in Inverness we were able to see the Caledonian Sleeper, an overnight rail service between a number of points in Scotland and London (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian Sleeper). It was attached to a diesel locomotive lettered for the Deutsche Bahn--why the DB, I don't know.
you can f1y some can't
I spoke to my older friend (Princeton, class of '64) again. He reiterated his disappointment with riding the Capital Limited : slow, uncomfortable, sitting in sidings waiting for freight trains to pass, very late departure and arrival. He said if any option is available in the future, he will not use Amtrak LD trains.
I'm now getting into the ederly catagory and the last thing I want is to be stuck on a train for 1+ or 3 days each way while visiting my children & grandchildren in Fl and TX. Especially since I spend about 6 hours total traveling from my house to their nearest airport at a fraction of the price of a sleeper and a little less (sometimes considerably less) than coach fare.
I believe the best thing to ever happen to us LD traveling old folks is the SWA senior Want-to-Get-Away fares (still includes 2 free checked bags per person). I've been a RR fan for over 70 years but I also appreciate progress, convenience, and saving money.
daveklepperFor those who use it, it is working, far better than nothing, but not what it should be.
How very true.
Also: The elderly & the disabled are not "sick." I strongly object to the disparagement in John Privara's use of the term. The elderly & the disabled, to invoke a phrase from the movie "Boy's Town" and a song by the Hollies, ain't heavy; they're our brothers and sisters.
It's nice what you can do with a train AFTER you've already got the basics covered.
https://www.jrailpass.com/blog/luxury-trains-japan
https://www.jrailpass.com/blog/seven-stars-kyushu-luxury-train
From one of the websites:
Even before the advent of the shinkansen bullet train in 1964, luxury trains, often called “blue sleeper trains,” were a common sight across Japan. These trains were designed, not only as an efficient mode of transportation but as an experience in themselves. Getting there truly was half the fun.
In recent years, however, the use of luxury trains has largely given way to the rapid travel offered by the shinkansen. The last of the “blue trains” ceased operation in 2015. While some have called this “the end of an era,” luxury seekers are not to be disappointed by Japan’s all-new line up of first-class rail accommodations. Beginning in spring 2017, JR East and JR West launched two “cruise trains” for your traveling enjoyment.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/twilight-express-mizukaze-japan-luxury-train/
(AND, narrow-gauge, no less!)
For those who use it, it is working, far better than nothing, but not what it should be. I compare it to the local city transportation during the era after they ripped up the streetcar tracks and had not even thought about light rail and/or new subways.
You could use the buses, and people who remembered the better service the streetcars gave, which they did in many cities, were called old-fashioned. But the buses were a lot better than nothing.
Victrola1Wall Street Journal "Published on Jul 16, 2019 SUBSCRIBE 1.5M Amtrak’s proposals for altering or eliminating some of its long-distance train routes, in favor of more frequent service where the population is growing, is facing opposition among those who fear rural America would suffer. WSJ’s Jason Bellini reports." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-jP4vh3z_A
The first link that reads: "Wall Street Journal" takes me to Youtube. Which is a tad misleading.... is this place turning into 4chan?
Well, regardless of what it's intent WAS, NOW it ain't workin.
And, it's NEVER going to get better the way it's organized now.
The only Federal "government agency" trying to OPERATE a customer service transportation business. Passenger trains running at 1920's speeds, with 1950's service model, serving (roughly) 2% of the incorporated areas of country, with Congress as the board of directors.
Yup, sounds like a REAL winnin' combination there...
Neither of you intended hostility, so you both can let this matter rest. Yes and yes for both matters of information.
7j43k MidlandMike Amtrak's mission is to provide a service citizens will use. Funny. I thought it was to turn a profit in national passenger service.
MidlandMike
Amtrak's mission is to provide a service citizens will use.
Funny. I thought it was to turn a profit in national passenger service.
I was not specific enough in my follow-up question to this exchange. My context was how Amtrak operates now (and coincidencly, the last 40 years or so.) Originally Amtrak's function was to operate a national passenger system, and its form was as a for-profit corperation. But there was obviously mission creep after a short time, as evidenced by the fact that it has required constant subsidy. So far Congress has considered its function was more important than its form.
Also I did not ingore or deny your answer, I simply pointed out how conditions had changed.
charlie hebdo No need to get short with Mike. I don't agree with him but his post is worthwhile and factual, as was yours.
No need to get short with Mike. I don't agree with him but his post is worthwhile and factual, as was yours.
Short?
He asked a question as if it were inconceivable that there could be an answer that he didn't want:
"Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtak's creation."
I gave him the answer.
His next response was to ignore the answer and to find evidence that made it seem irrelevant.
It may well be. But that doesn't mean that the answer to his question was in such error as to be ignored.
Ed
And we have the factualy mutually exclusive aspects of Amtrak's heritage.
7j43k MidlandMike 7j43k MidlandMike Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak's creation. "In creating Amtrak, Congress sought to establish a single, FOR-PROFIT corporate entity that, with INITIAL Federal assistance..." [my caps] ("Initial", by the way, means "at the beginning". It does NOT mean "until a miracle happens".) and "Amtrak was created by the RPSA as a private, for-profit, District of Columbia Corporation..." Quoted from: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/arc/materials/legsum.pdf Ed PS: The above material is not copyrighted. Amtrak was also created "that it provide a balanced transportation system by developing, operating, and improving intercity rail passenger service. The Act also states that Amtrak will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. Amtrak thus is a corporation created by Congress to compete for the transportation business of the intercity traveller, to the end that the travelling public will have a choice of travel modes." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/700.2 Congress created an entity with multiple goals that were not necessarily mutually achivable. So they provided subsidies to keep their creation's finances at break-even. You asked a question. I answered it. Ed
MidlandMike 7j43k MidlandMike Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak's creation. "In creating Amtrak, Congress sought to establish a single, FOR-PROFIT corporate entity that, with INITIAL Federal assistance..." [my caps] ("Initial", by the way, means "at the beginning". It does NOT mean "until a miracle happens".) and "Amtrak was created by the RPSA as a private, for-profit, District of Columbia Corporation..." Quoted from: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/arc/materials/legsum.pdf Ed PS: The above material is not copyrighted. Amtrak was also created "that it provide a balanced transportation system by developing, operating, and improving intercity rail passenger service. The Act also states that Amtrak will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. Amtrak thus is a corporation created by Congress to compete for the transportation business of the intercity traveller, to the end that the travelling public will have a choice of travel modes." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/700.2 Congress created an entity with multiple goals that were not necessarily mutually achivable. So they provided subsidies to keep their creation's finances at break-even.
7j43k MidlandMike Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak's creation. "In creating Amtrak, Congress sought to establish a single, FOR-PROFIT corporate entity that, with INITIAL Federal assistance..." [my caps] ("Initial", by the way, means "at the beginning". It does NOT mean "until a miracle happens".) and "Amtrak was created by the RPSA as a private, for-profit, District of Columbia Corporation..." Quoted from: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/arc/materials/legsum.pdf Ed PS: The above material is not copyrighted.
MidlandMike Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak's creation.
Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak's creation.
"In creating Amtrak, Congress sought to establish a single, FOR-PROFIT corporate entity that, with INITIAL Federal assistance..."
[my caps]
("Initial", by the way, means "at the beginning". It does NOT mean "until a miracle happens".)
and
"Amtrak was created by the RPSA as a private, for-profit, District of Columbia Corporation..."
Quoted from:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/arc/materials/legsum.pdf
PS: The above material is not copyrighted.
Amtrak was also created "that it provide a balanced transportation system by developing, operating, and improving intercity rail passenger service. The Act also states that Amtrak will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. Amtrak thus is a corporation created by Congress to compete for the transportation business of the intercity traveller, to the end that the travelling public will have a choice of travel modes."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/700.2
Congress created an entity with multiple goals that were not necessarily mutually achivable. So they provided subsidies to keep their creation's finances at break-even.
You asked a question. I answered it.
That's pure speculation. I would agree that there would not have been the expansion, the Lake Shore, the Montrealer, the Hartland Flyer, the Sunset to Florida, the Desert Wind, the Pioneer, and others, The contraction that occured when Carter was President would have come earlier. But a national system would have remined. But that is also pure speculation, and your speculation may be right.
CMStPnP The best description above was Amtrak was created as a private company with Congress as the majority stockholder. Private companies in receivership are allowed government subsidies under our Constitution as well as politically appointed board members and that basically is what we have with Amtrak. Amtrak was created in a state of recievership with Congress as the appointed Trustee.......another way of looking at it. The NIXON administration did not want to "Nationalize" the rail passenger system at the time and that is why Amtrak is not a government agency and that participation in Amtrak by private railroads was voluntary and not forced. Idealogically, nationalization carries the tag Socialism along with it which was unpalitable to a Republican administration. Further, Amtraks creation was viewed as both sides as only temporary. The Republicans at the time viewed Amtrak as a company would fall apart in a few years anyway and didn't give it much thought beyond it being a placebo for the public at the time so that the Administration was not seen as standing by while the entire rail passenger system just collapsed into chaos. For the Northeast at least the NEC collapse would have led to a rather nasty recession for the Northeastern states. Democrats saw Amtrak as a stopgap until the company could figure out some kind of reorganization plan to put it's finances in order and once again stand on it's own feet. Thats how I remember the history.
The best description above was Amtrak was created as a private company with Congress as the majority stockholder. Private companies in receivership are allowed government subsidies under our Constitution as well as politically appointed board members and that basically is what we have with Amtrak. Amtrak was created in a state of recievership with Congress as the appointed Trustee.......another way of looking at it. The NIXON administration did not want to "Nationalize" the rail passenger system at the time and that is why Amtrak is not a government agency and that participation in Amtrak by private railroads was voluntary and not forced. Idealogically, nationalization carries the tag Socialism along with it which was unpalitable to a Republican administration.
Further, Amtraks creation was viewed as both sides as only temporary. The Republicans at the time viewed Amtrak as a company would fall apart in a few years anyway and didn't give it much thought beyond it being a placebo for the public at the time so that the Administration was not seen as standing by while the entire rail passenger system just collapsed into chaos. For the Northeast at least the NEC collapse would have led to a rather nasty recession for the Northeastern states. Democrats saw Amtrak as a stopgap until the company could figure out some kind of reorganization plan to put it's finances in order and once again stand on it's own feet. Thats how I remember the history.
Amtrak: Welfare for old-fart train-nuts living in the past.
Which is fine by me. I take a LD train once a year.
It just too bad this pathetic organization (Amtrak) is preventing any advancement of trains in the US.
Obviously, it's going to be "fixed" by people other than us. But, until Amtrak STOPS operating trains and becomes a loot distribution system (which is what the "defense" industry, airport, highway, and waterway agencies are) this conversation will continue forever.
I wonder how long those Superliners will lasts?
Error correction: 261 workdays per year did not allow for holidays. 250 per year is better. So the corridor passenger's subsidy is reduced to $2500/year.
Again, I did not mean to doubt the figures, simply pointing out that the LDTs are far more useful than just subsidy per ride would indicate, that they benefit far more people than subsidiy per ride wouild indicate.
My station restaurant scheme would not remove food service from trains but convert loss into profit. The station restaurants would provide the food instead of Amtrak commissaries, as part of a wide take-out and home-and-business delivery service, with the economies of scale involved. Food in dining cars would both be brought onboard by some passengers boarding at stations where there are these restaurants, but mostly delivered by the restaurants. stored fozen or just refirgorated as appropriate, and microwaved and served by an attendant.
Food broght onboard by passengers would be allowed in dining cars, even including use of the microwave, only if brought from the Amtrak liscensed restaurant and brought onboard with the package unopened.
There is a separate thread devoted to this.
Providing RDC service with overnight hotel stays does not provide LD transportation for elderly and handicapped who cannot fly. I think the station restaurant scheme will solve the food-service cost problem. But reducing the subsidy for sleeping accomodations still needs some creative thinking. As a last resort, I'd go for business class plus one handicapped room in each car for the truly handicapped and his or her assistant. Lots of people who cannot fly are still able to walk without a wheelchair or walker. If the room is not taken, it would be auctioned off by the conductor to those already on the train.
I'm 87, and one morning I arrived at my desk in the Yeshiva's study hall to find a walking stick across my desk. I still don't use it.
I freuently get trip reports from people who do not post here, and one most frequent Amtrak user tells me not to distribute his reports. Charlie's friend's report is the first I've heard about Superliner seats being uncomfortable. Jack May's reports have been posted. He compared Ellis' Hoosier Land with Amtrak's SWC Chi - KC, and enjoyed both.
[quote user="CMStPnP"]
"alphas No surprise, the greatest reason for LD rail & bus financal problems was the introduction of the discount airlines which brought air fares within reach of almost all the traveling public. "
"The biggest item that doomed the passenger train was loss of the mail contract and the head end Express business. "
7j43k MidlandMike When people had a choice, they chose the full service CZ rather than an RDC. Actually, some people DIDN'T have a choice, because the CZ didn't stop at every tiny town. And that is what Dave was concerned about: rail passenger service to tiny towns for old and invalid. It appears you may be asserting that hardly anyone rode the Zephyrette. If true, it would imply that my proposal to again run RDC's, would fail. So, according to you, if LD trains are pulled, then there should be NO rail service over those lines at all.
MidlandMike When people had a choice, they chose the full service CZ rather than an RDC.
When people had a choice, they chose the full service CZ rather than an RDC.
Actually, some people DIDN'T have a choice, because the CZ didn't stop at every tiny town. And that is what Dave was concerned about: rail passenger service to tiny towns for old and invalid.
It appears you may be asserting that hardly anyone rode the Zephyrette. If true, it would imply that my proposal to again run RDC's, would fail. So, according to you, if LD trains are pulled, then there should be NO rail service over those lines at all.
Some people probably didn't have a choice, but the also might not have ridden it because it did not connect east of Salt Lake, it ran at a different time of day ,it had no food over its 23 hour run, and was generally not as comfortable as a full service train
7j43k MidlandMike Amtrak's mission is to provide a service citizens will use. Funny. I thought it was to turn a profit in national passenger service. If it has to operate at a loss, perhaps subscriptions should be sold to support it. You, yourself, could buy in and do your part to support Amtrak. So could other people who want to ride it. And those who aren't interested could decline the offer.
MidlandMike Amtrak's mission is to provide a service citizens will use.
If it has to operate at a loss, perhaps subscriptions should be sold to support it. You, yourself, could buy in and do your part to support Amtrak. So could other people who want to ride it. And those who aren't interested could decline the offer.
Where was it ever stated that profit was an intent of Amtrak's creation. Even the PRIIA requires of Amtrak that only the food service cover its losses.
Maybe you would like to see a subscription service for all the thousands of programs the federal gov't supports.
Also from the PRIIA overview:
"PRIIA emphasizes that Amtrak’s long-distance routes are a vital part of the US intercity passenger rail network, and are a necessary part of the nation’s intermodal transportation system and economy [§228]."
BaltACD Is Amtrak to provide a service to the country or is it to earn a profit. It cannot do both.
This is from Amtrak's FY2018 Company Profile for the Period October 1, 2017 - September 30, 2018:
"Amtrak is a federally chartered corporation, with the federal government as majority stockholder. The Amtrak Board of Directors is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Amtrak is operated as a for-profit company, rather than a public authority."
Presumably, they know what they are about.
The argument since day 2 of Amtrak.
Is Amtrak to provide a service to the country or is it to earn a profit. It cannot do both.
daveklepper I must accept your accounting, since I don't have any basis for disagreement.
It is not my accounting. It is Amtrak's accounting for the most part. With the exception of my assumption about the percentage of capital expenses allocable to the NEC, the numbers come from Amtrak's published financial and operating statements.
daveklepper I must accept your accounting, since I don't have any basis for disagreement. My point would be that the Long Distance trains see Different People day-to-day, while the corridor and even some state-supported trains see mostly repeat riders. Thus, the subsidy Per Citizen, Per Taxpayer, the individual riding rather than each ticket or each ride, minimizes or even reverses the difference, Take an exteme case. A long distance train has different riders each day. So each rider gets a $120 (approximately) subsidy over the year. A corridor trains sees exactly the same riders each Weekday. There are 261 weekdays each year. So at ten dollars a ride, each rider gets a subsidy of $2610 each year. This is an extreme case, but illustrates the point I am making. And I believe my station restaurant take-out scheme can drastically reduce food costs and thus reduce the subsidy to the long-distance traveler.
I must accept your accounting, since I don't have any basis for disagreement. My point would be that the Long Distance trains see Different People day-to-day, while the corridor and even some state-supported trains see mostly repeat riders. Thus, the subsidy Per Citizen, Per Taxpayer, the individual riding rather than each ticket or each ride, minimizes or even reverses the difference,
Take an exteme case. A long distance train has different riders each day. So each rider gets a $120 (approximately) subsidy over the year.
A corridor trains sees exactly the same riders each Weekday. There are 261 weekdays each year. So at ten dollars a ride, each rider gets a subsidy of $2610 each year.
This is an extreme case, but illustrates the point I am making.
And I believe my station restaurant take-out scheme can drastically reduce food costs and thus reduce the subsidy to the long-distance traveler.
Whether 100 people get 1 subsidy or 1 person gets 100, it costs money. I cannot understand why you think it is ok for one, but not the other.
Your station restaurant scheme fits very well with my RDC scheme. That is, the RDC's would not offer significant food service, nor would they offer sleeping. To do that, one gets off the train and avails oneself. Much like driving. At least, on that, we seem to agree.
daveklepper Now I point out that every Amtrak rider is subsidiized, including those on the NEC, when all costs are considered.
You are correct. Every rider on Amtrak is subsidized to some extent on a fully allocated cost basis. What is unknown with certainty is the amount of the total subsidy per service line.
Assuming the NEC wears 80 percent of Amtrak's depreciation, interest, and other capital expenses, which may be a bit high, with the remainder allocated equally between the state supported and long-distance trains, the fully allocated average loss per rider in FY18 for the NEC was $10. The corresponding average loss for the state supported trains was $12. For the long-distance trains it was $138.
In FY18 the NEC had an average operating profit per rider of $43 compared to an average operating loss per rider of $6 for the state supported trains and $120 for the long-distance trains.
The operating loss for the state supported trains is understated. Amtrak accounts for the state payments as revenue. However, it is paid by the state’s taxpayers and, therefore, should be counted as a taxpayer subsidy. The average state payment per rider in FY18 was $19, which brings the average taxpayer subsidy per state supported rider to $25.
Cents have been rounded to the nearest whole dollar. Also, it is assumed that 100 percent of the losses are covered by the federal and/or state taxpayers. This may not be 100 percent correct but it is pretty close.
Gramp Here's a recent comment from a WSJ reader of the article. I think this is what it comes down to. (Don't niggle about splitting costs. All accounting is based on estimates. Decisions have to be made). "This reminds me of the United States Postal Service. On one hand you have Congress mandating the business be run a certain way and the other hand mandates the service make money. Those two things are in conflict. If Congress wants to have rural service maintained on long distance routes then they need to acknowledge that this service will probably never be profitable. These types of lines should be broken out separately in Amtrak's books. The taxpayer's can then plainly see what these rural line costs and make a more intelligent decision if it is worth it financially to keep these lines active with subsidies. Amtrak executives can then focus on keeping the shorter routes profitable and not feel like these long routes drag down the overall financial picture."
Here's a recent comment from a WSJ reader of the article. I think this is what it comes down to.
(Don't niggle about splitting costs. All accounting is based on estimates. Decisions have to be made).
"This reminds me of the United States Postal Service. On one hand you have Congress mandating the business be run a certain way and the other hand mandates the service make money. Those two things are in conflict. If Congress wants to have rural service maintained on long distance routes then they need to acknowledge that this service will probably never be profitable. These types of lines should be broken out separately in Amtrak's books. The taxpayer's can then plainly see what these rural line costs and make a more intelligent decision if it is worth it financially to keep these lines active with subsidies. Amtrak executives can then focus on keeping the shorter routes profitable and not feel like these long routes drag down the overall financial picture."
It's pretty much what Amtrak is trying to do. It's what I suggested a ways back.
daveklepper Charleli, I am zeroiing in on subsidies to Amtrak by the USA taxpayer, and in that direction: I do not believe it is only a pittance, and yes Kansas citizans certainly to help pay for Amtrak imiprovements in the NEC, just like all the other USA taxpayers. Still, interested in what made your friend uncomfortable.
Charleli, I am zeroiing in on subsidies to Amtrak by the USA taxpayer, and in that direction: I do not believe it is only a pittance, and yes Kansas citizans certainly to help pay for Amtrak imiprovements in the NEC, just like all the other USA taxpayers.
Still, interested in what made your friend uncomfortable.
The per capita balance of payment with Federal government in 2017 for a KS resident was $797. For aNew Yorker, it was negative $1217. The numbers are similar with most NEC states compared to more rural states. So please stop with the inaccurate information.
My friend said that the ride was rough, the seats in coach Superliner uncomfortable and the train was about 5 hours late,often sitting in sidingsor moving at a snail's pace. You haven't lived here for many years.
I'm thinking the LD routes are even more heavily subsidized if you take into account that the ROWs on which they operate are built and maintained by taxpaying private enterprises. Amtrak pays a pittance. Furthermore, if you think people in Kansas are subsidizing anything outside the Jayhawker province, I have a bridge for you.
What people need to remember is that this whole thread is based on a WSJ article. That has a lot of influence on the people who make the real decisions...
When all costs are considered, your analysis applies just as well to the heavily patronized multi-freuency NEC as much as it does to the Southwest Chief.
Again, why should people in Kansas and Colorado subidize billion-dollar improvments to the NEC if they cannot get even one train a day?
I answered the incorrect assumption that nobody rides. Now I point out that every Amtrak rider is subsidiized, including those on the NEC, when all costs are considered.
daveklepperThere must certainly be cases, but there probably are a lot more from the trip reports I receive, both from friends and on the website, that run sold out.
That's nice -- so they pay for themselves as a result and aren't a 'drag' on the general taxpayer base.
Oh wait ... you're telling me they don't?
Subsidizing patronage for a full train that loses money is not much more of a justification for 'privilege' than for one that runs wastefully unpatronized. It's a bit like the argument 'when we can't make a profit on margin we'll make it up on volume' except that the tacit assumption is that the IRS compels people to pay for something they don't ride and don't value. If you're going to take on that responsibility you'd better have something to tell the great majority of taxpayers that justifies their unrequested and compelled sacrifice.
I'm tempted to mention at least one way this could be handled (it is similar in many ways to a similar addressing of the abortion/choice question): let taxpayers agree to earmark some proportion of their tax to Amtrak, much as current tax policy allows a setaside for election funding. This might extend up to a fairly large percentage of actual tax payment (and include some money from expected-tax advance payment as well) earmarked very specifically for LD trains (as opposed to 'subsidized' corridors or other service expected to pay its full way) and perhaps allowing further earmarking to specific areas or trains of importance to that taxpayer. Give this an adequate time to work before relaxing (or redirecting, most probably to something like Gateway in the near term) a proportional amount of existing LD subsidization.
In other words, get the folks who want the service to continue, or who want a particular outcome at someone else's expense, to commit to providing it. (Think of it as nonrepresentative democracy in action.)
Backshop: Apparently, there are enough people who do not meet your description to provide patronage. How many posters can post instances of riding LDTs with less than 40% occcupancy at a specific point in the jouirney? There must certainly be cases, but there probably are a lot more from the trip reports I receive, both from friends and on the website, that run sold out.
Charlie, your friend who rode Amtrak from Harrisburg to Chicago: What did he find uncomfortable about the Amfleet and/or Horizon and/or Superliner coaches? Was something not working properly? Megsbus may be something special, more ccomfortable than either Greyhound or Trailways. I never complained about them when I rode them, but I certainly did not find them as comfortable as Amflleet one, let alone Amfleet two or Superliner coaches. I never ever found any Amrak coach uncomfortable for long distance service, except the non-reclining Harrisburg - Philadelophia recylced heritage coaches which fortunately rode only in their intended short-distance service.
What exactly bothered him, outside the lateness, seious enough in itself.
daveklepper 1. Bad service: For the elderly and handicapped who cannot fly, the only service, to the tourist who wishes to see the country in comfortable surroundings, the Only Service. Remove the LDTs and you have zero service for them. 2. Whar about Amerillo or Rawlins or Hinklley with no Amtrak rail service? Within a three-hour drive to Amtrak rail service, and in many cases there are Amtrak Throughway Bus connections.
1. Bad service: For the elderly and handicapped who cannot fly, the only service, to the tourist who wishes to see the country in comfortable surroundings, the Only Service. Remove the LDTs and you have zero service for them.
2. Whar about Amerillo or Rawlins or Hinklley with no Amtrak rail service? Within a three-hour drive to Amtrak rail service, and in many cases there are Amtrak Throughway Bus connections.
3. If he or she wants Amtrak around just for when he or she is sick, let he or she pay for ? Already paid for in taxes that have already made improvements in the NEC. Or: If the Connecticiut, New Jersey, Long Island, Westchester commuter to Manhattan insists on a seat instead of standing, let he or she pay for it.
CMStPnP Backshop That's why their load factors are over 90%. The load factor is meaningless these days, it is the revenue per flight vs the fixed cost of the flight. You can have a full flight and lose money because a lot of airlines dump empty seats on discount ticket resellers to get as many seats filled as possible........that doesn't mean they make money doing that, it just means they lose less money than they otherwise would have. The $1.2 Billion Delta made is spread over how many flights? Also how much was due to just flight revenue? I am sure some of their flights make money these days with the extra fees and baggage charges but I am also sure a good percentage are marginally profitable and some even losing money.....as it is with most transportation businesses. BTW, $1.2 Billion in revenue / 180 million passengers carried annually = $6.66 per passenger carried.
Backshop That's why their load factors are over 90%.
The load factor is meaningless these days, it is the revenue per flight vs the fixed cost of the flight. You can have a full flight and lose money because a lot of airlines dump empty seats on discount ticket resellers to get as many seats filled as possible........that doesn't mean they make money doing that, it just means they lose less money than they otherwise would have. The $1.2 Billion Delta made is spread over how many flights? Also how much was due to just flight revenue? I am sure some of their flights make money these days with the extra fees and baggage charges but I am also sure a good percentage are marginally profitable and some even losing money.....as it is with most transportation businesses.
BTW, $1.2 Billion in revenue / 180 million passengers carried annually = $6.66 per passenger carried.
JOHN PRIVARAIf LD passenger trains make money, let somebody COMPETENT run them. Amtrak - a government agency (quack quack) - can't run a customer service operation. NO government agency ever has or ever will. A bus will ALWAYS be cheaper than a train. Period. Run buses where they make MORE sense. BUT, trains - in congested areas - can be better than buses because buses are stuck with in the same traffic with cars. Why does this always break down between trains OR buses OR airplanes. Each has it's place in providing CONVENIENT transportation. THAT should be the goal. LD trains, running once a day, chronically late, and when NOT late - running at 40 mph average speeds are NOT convenient. THOSE trains are pathetic. As to LD servicing "small towns". Amtrak is BAD service, period. And, Amtrak serves a fraction of the urban areas in the US. There are almost 20,000 incorporated areas in the US. Amtrak says it has 500 destinations (and THAT includes their through-way buses). But, regardless, 500 is only 2.5 PERCENT of incorporated areas. It's NOT a national system, and never has been. And, due to Americans thinking trains are bad BECAUSE of Amtrak and LD trains, we problem never will get GOOD trains. LD trains are ruining ANY chance the country has for a USEFUL train system. It a pathetic joke.
Also, undermining most of your argument despite not understanding the Constitution as written, is the fact that most of the LD routes today formed the foundation of the Corridors they run on. If they are yanked as you want, what happens to the Corridor frequency you also remove that they run across? Is it replaced or left vacant? You will note that some of the corridors that started, started with just a LD train at one frequency. Note the emerging Chicago to Twin Cities corridor. Served by just one LD train but soon will have it it's own corridor train. The LD train provided both the initial interest and the motivation to try more frequencies at better schedules. Having one train on the route already made it also a lot easier and less expensive to add additional trains (ie: stations were already in place and maintained).
If LD passenger trains make money, let somebody COMPETENT run them. Amtrak - a government agency (quack quack) - can't run a customer service operation. NO government agency ever has or ever will.
A bus will ALWAYS be cheaper than a train. Period. Run buses where they make MORE sense. BUT, trains - in congested areas - can be better than buses because buses are stuck in the same traffic with cars.
Why does it always break down to a battle between trains OR buses OR airplanes? Each has it's place in providing CONVENIENT transportation. THAT should be the goal. LD trains, running once a day, chronically late, and when NOT late - running at 40 mph average speeds are NOT convenient. THOSE trains are pathetic.
As to LD servicing "small towns". Amtrak is BAD service, period. And, Amtrak serves a fraction of the urban areas in the US. There are almost 20,000 incorporated areas in the US. Amtrak says it has 500 destinations (and THAT includes their through-way buses). But, regardless, 500 is only 2.5 PERCENT of incorporated areas. It's NOT a national system, and never has been.
And, due to Americans thinking all trains are bad BECAUSE of the reputation of Amtrak and LD trains, we probably never will get GOOD trains. LD trains are ruining ANY chance the country has for a USEFUL train system.
Amtrak, in its current incarnation, is a pathetic joke.
BackshopThat's why their load factors are over 90%.
It was on CNBC in 2009 before AA was taken over by America West (USAir)
That 60 Minutes story must have been quite a few years ago. The US3 are very profitable. They have actually cut capacity in the past 10 years. That's why their load factors are over 90%. There are seldom any empty seats, even on "red eyes". Delta didn't have a profit of $1.2 Billion last year by flying marginally profitable flights. They save money on small stations with only 1-2 flights a day by outsourcing their ground staff. They even have a subsidiary that will service flights from other airlines (DGS).
I just checked the SWA website and you appreciably overstated charter rates. Coast-to-coast is $70-80,000. They even say it costs more than buying out a scheduled plane. That's because they have to assign a special crew and get the plane to your origin. Airlines just don't have spare planes sitting around. You also have to pay for the convenience of the plane meeting your schedule.
https://www.southwest.com/html/travel-tools/charter.html
alphasNo surprise, the greatest reason for LD rail & bus financal problems was the introduction of the discount airlines which brought air fares within reach of almost all the traveling public.
I think it was 60 minutes or 20/20 that did a segment on this. I wish I could find it in YOU TUBE. However, most airline routes are only very marginally profitable. A good portion of the domestic airline routes would lose money if it were not for the mail contracts and cargo hauled under the passenger compartment. Now that analysis was performed before airlines started charging for carrying baggage so it might be a little off but I am confident it is still pretty close. The TV segment zeroed in on one NY to LA route on American Airlines where some flights were only making a few hundred bucks in profit.
Most airlines succeed on flight frequency on specific routes and even then the routes are only marginally profitable per flight. You don't normally see one flight per route airline schedules anymore and I suspect thats because you need 3 or more flight frequencies and decent patronage on each flight to start to make a profit with the fixed costs of the gate and ramp. In this way the airline industry is not that much different from the LD passenger train.
If you go to Southwest Airlines Charter site they will tell you the costs of flying a Southwest 737 between two cities with a crew and ground support plus a little extra for profit. I didn't want to spend time looking but I think the Southwest estimate was approx $50,000 to $75,000 one way for a North South routing crossing most of the country North-South. So my really rough estimate would be $100 to $125k for a NY to LA flight. Do the math on the fares per seat, even using yield management you need frequency to reduce the costs per flight to make money.
The biggest item that doomed the passenger train was loss of the mail contract and the head end Express business. That created the first deep deficits a lot more widespread than passengers leaving the trains. I am not sure what happened to REA but I suspect the railroads themselves helped cannibalize that service via other offerings (TOFC) and what the railroads left UPS and Fed Ex took over with door to door service.
If an LD route comes close to breaking even on above the rails costs, keep it.
The problem with LD train routes over 6 hours between endpoints is that they became non-competitive with other modes for 50 + years and therefore irrational. But let's see if many folks are willing to pay the actual costs for sleepers and dining services, as required by law. I doubt if they are.
When freight railroads were running them in the 1950s, they did their best as a way of garnering good PR from customers, or so they hoped, even at a loss. Part of the cost of advertising and marketing. This situation has never existed with Amtrak and the freight lines dropped as much service as possible prior to 1971 because they saw no positive benefit and they are in business to make money.
You are the one talking about eliminating a service people will use (as evidenced by high load factors on LDs like the Zephyr) and replacing it with one that will drive demand for it out of business.
No. I am talking about what, if any, passenger rail service to run over those lines AFTER the LD trains are pulled for being too expensive to run.
The big complaint with LD trains is that they cost money. If they produced profit, who would want them removed?
MidlandMikeWhen people had a choice, they chose the full service CZ rather than an RDC. Amtrak's mission is to provide a service citizens will use. You are the one talking about eliminating a service people will use (as evidenced by high load factors on LDs like the Zephyr) and replacing it with one that will drive demand for it out of business.
Lost in this thread completely is the fact that Amtrak IS NOT providing the same service the Private railroads provided pre-1971. Several posters here are attempting to equate Amtrak to what was here pre-1971 but I have to say that is like comparing apples and oranges. You could clearly tell the difference between First Class and Coach on the private Class one Railroads. With Amtrak it is much harder to see that line.
Amtraks marketing and pricing for most of it's like was directed towards making the passenger train affordable to the masses. Thats how we ended up with Dining Car menus with the highest price item only being $20, it's how we ended up with a Roomette and Bedroom offering in the sleeping car priced as low as they are. Most of all that is how we ended up with a lounge car that doesn't have a bartender, etc, etc. Most importantly, Amtrak made a very poor attempt to replace the mail contracts but never really succeeded in that venture and so never replaced a chunk of revenue the former railroads had to offset some of the former costs. It's Amtrak Express feature, another poor attempt to boost revenue by attempting to replicate the former REA is also mediocre at best.
Then you also have to look at average speed of an Amtrak LD train and compare it to what existed prior to 1971. Most of Amtraks LD trains are degenerating slowly into the milk runs of past that every traveler used to hate. Stopping at almost every small town regardless of how many passengers board annually. Disappearing from all Amtrak schedules is the former flagstop as well as the long running times at night with limited stops in the middle of nowherr at odd hours past midnight.
With it's Corridor service arm, look how many years it took Amtrak to relearn that Corridor train frequency also leads to Economies of scale and a drop in fixed cost per train run on that Corridor.
So what we ended up with was doomed to Congressional handout and fairly low patronage LD network. Even with the duplication of the financial and marketing saavy of the former class I passenger train, I am not convinced the network would be profitable. I am only convinced the annual deficit of running the LD network would be significantly lower.
It looks now like Amtrak is starting to realize some of it's past mistakes made with the LD line by attempting at this 11th hour to differentiate more between Coach and First Class Sleeping Car arrangements. Perhaps we might someday see an all First Class Train like the Super Chief again or perhaps a train without any First Class section at all. Maybe even a decent revenue stream or contract outside of hauling passengers on top.
7j43k MidlandMike 7j43k IF you want to serve the various "special" people in little bitty towns along the railroad, why not have a railbus or an RDC make the entire run... Maybe we'll call it the Zephyrette. WP ran an RDC the length of their mainline, and actually called it the Zephyrette. They couldn't even fill the RDC combo. At the same time the CZ was well patronized. The Zephyrette did not last long. But, you see, we're talking about REMOVING the (Amtrak replacement for) CZ because it costs too much to run. So then the option would be no passenger service at all on the railroad. Or. Running RDC's for the few people who needed the service. You are apparently trying to make the point that there would be inadequate ridership for the RDC's, and thus that option should not be tried. And thus, NO passenger service on those routes. Ok. Ed
MidlandMike 7j43k IF you want to serve the various "special" people in little bitty towns along the railroad, why not have a railbus or an RDC make the entire run... Maybe we'll call it the Zephyrette. WP ran an RDC the length of their mainline, and actually called it the Zephyrette. They couldn't even fill the RDC combo. At the same time the CZ was well patronized. The Zephyrette did not last long.
7j43k IF you want to serve the various "special" people in little bitty towns along the railroad, why not have a railbus or an RDC make the entire run... Maybe we'll call it the Zephyrette.
WP ran an RDC the length of their mainline, and actually called it the Zephyrette. They couldn't even fill the RDC combo. At the same time the CZ was well patronized. The Zephyrette did not last long.
But, you see, we're talking about REMOVING the (Amtrak replacement for) CZ because it costs too much to run.
So then the option would be no passenger service at all on the railroad. Or. Running RDC's for the few people who needed the service.
You are apparently trying to make the point that there would be inadequate ridership for the RDC's, and thus that option should not be tried.
And thus, NO passenger service on those routes.
Ok.
When people had a choice, they chose the full service CZ rather than an RDC. Amtrak's mission is to provide a service citizens will use. You are the one talking about eliminating a service people will use (as evidenced by high load factors on LDs like the Zephyr) and replacing it with one that will drive demand for it out of business.
I have been told by university researchers that were involved in a major study of small town rural transportation that, for those not driving a car or flying, establishing government support of bus routes was the way to go. The reasons were as quoted in earlier posts: more routes, more reliable than Amtrak, more frequent service, meals aren't a problem since buses make meal/rest stops, and far less expensive to subsidize.
No surprise, the greatest reason for LD rail & bus financal problems was the introduction of the discount airlines which brought air fares within reach of almost all the traveling public. Also, most of the public now being computer literate enough to book their own travel by using the various travel programs plus individual sites [such as SW Air] to compare fares has played a role.
JOHN PRIVARARe: "The Corporation will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government" How'z that saying go.... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be Amtrak? Is that how it goes?
How'z that saying go.... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be Amtrak? Is that how it goes?
It may be a duck, however it is a ruptured duck and its parents are doing everything possible to repudiate its existance and claims to life.
CMStPnP is correct. Look it up.
Re: "The Corporation will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government"
JOHN PRIVARAAmtrak is a GOVERNMENT Agency
That would be Unconstitutional since a government agency cannot source private funds and has to exist solely upon fund appropriation by the Congress. Furthermore,...
The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, which established Amtrak, specifically states that, "The Corporation will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government"
williamsb I find it hard to believe a lot of the posters on here, is this not a forum FOR passenger trains put on by Trains Magazine?
I find it hard to believe a lot of the posters on here, is this not a forum FOR passenger trains put on by Trains Magazine?
Re: is this not a forum FOR passenger trains put on by Trains Magazine?
I'm all FOR passenger train transportation that is USEFUL to a majority of the population. The KEY concept is USEFUL TRANSPORTATION for the MAJORITY.
Having a government agency providing a CUSTOMER SERVICE product will ALWAYS be a losing proposition, ALWAYS.
Even WORSE, trying to run USEFUL TRANSPORTATION on an 1880's rail system is pointless in the 21 century.
All Amtrak LD trains are providing now is a nostalgia trip for old-farts like myself. I take the CZ or Coast Starlight once a year. It's roughly akin to camping (or a bus trip as someone below pointed out) and I ABSOLUTELY cannot see a majority of the population putting up with Amtrak levels of service.
But, it's fine for old-fart train enthusiasts in the top 20% (aka rich people who can afford the sleeping cars and don't mind fantasizing about "how good it could be, if ONLY..."). Well, "if ONLY" ain't never gonna happen.
Amtrak is a GOVERNMENT Agency. It CANNOT be improved. The railroads in this country are antiquated and cannot run 21 century passenger trains.
It's time to move on from 1950's.
Re: Bus systems are deserting rural areas for the same reasons you want Amtrak to eliminate service in rural areas.
I want Amtrak to run buses when and WHERE it makes sense and trains when and WHERE in makes sense. For the cost of running a long distance train, you can run allot of buses.
Connect the bus network to a short distance rail network connecting higher density areas. Connect the buses and trains to the airports.
Amtrak LD are useless to a majority of the population RIGHT NOW.
1) A majority of the population doesn't even have a train.
2) A majority of the population doesn't need ONE train a day.
3) A majority of the population doesn't need a train that runs at 40 mph.
Period, end of story. Amtrak LD trains - and it's supporters - are living in the 50's trying to prove the SP was wrong. The SP was right THEN, and they are still right.
Time to move Amtrak into the 21st century.
We rode Amtrak for our 50th anniversary in 2017 and very much enjoyed it. Glad we did it in 2017 though because they still had Pacific Parlor cars, nice meals on all trains and ALL well used.
Where I live buses have been done away with. Tell the lady in New Orleans who had travelled all night on a MegaBus you don't need sleeping cars, she was so looking forward to one on the City of New Orleans. We need long distance trains with sleeping cars, lounges and diners.
The Empire Builder had about 500 people on it, getting on and off all across the country.
I used to take the train from Edmonton to Prince Rupert but not any more because you have to say in hotels in Jasper and Prince George. There aren't any buses anymore and the trip takes forever now. I'd drive!
Also, we had the handicap room on every long distance train we were on. I thought it was a good service and a Great trip. Sorry for the rant but this post got me riled up, I'll leave now and go back to reading.
charlie hebdo BaltACD Amtrak is very effective in destroying their product under the guise of improving it A lot of the problems with Amtrak LD, at least with that train journey, lay with delays from dependency on freight railroads. He said a number of times his train was not moving or moving slowly. That did not occur so much prior to 1971.
BaltACD Amtrak is very effective in destroying their product under the guise of improving it
Amtrak is very effective in destroying their product under the guise of improving it
A lot of the problems with Amtrak LD, at least with that train journey, lay with delays from dependency on freight railroads. He said a number of times his train was not moving or moving slowly. That did not occur so much prior to 1971.
NS has not been receptive to operating Amtrak 'with dispatch'. Pittsburgh to Chicago is all NS.
Some railroads 'tried' to operate their passenger service as if their names and reputation were on the service, prior to Amtrak. Some railraods actively tried their best to discourage any customer from ever returning as a repeat customer.
charlie hebdo it was by plane and bus from Chicago
You should have been able to figure that one out via looking at a map.
OvermodSeems highly logical to me that there might be some 'conspiracy' to help subsidize Amtrak by routing some percentage of military orders on Amtrak trains, particularly those on routes more heavily subsidized through 'lack of riders'. It doesn't matter that this is one hand of the Government putting money into another; if it's money to the good side of Amtrak's secret ledgers, or perceived reason to retain otherwise-questionable passenger coverage, I'd be all for it, and perhaps so should we all.
The computer system searches all available means of transportation between point A and point B and finds the lowest priced means of transportaion within a travel timeframe between two points. Depends on where the recruit is comming from and traveling to that influences that answer. Some recruits live in Moosejaw, Mont. In which case if it is near an Amtrak station it would make sense to place them on a train between that point and the largest big city, where they would put them on an airplane.
Amtrak would have to be pretty lame to not have a SIGNIFICANT penalty for a railroad to delay them INSIDE their window.
That is, if Amtrak has a one hour window that is "theirs", any delay caused by the carrying railroad--big penalties.
However. If Amtrak is outside its window, nope.
Thus, just as it would prove irritating to the railroad to block the window, it would also prove irritating for Amtrak not to STAY in the window.
Since the above is so obvious and necessary, Amtrak must have it in their contracts. It remains only to find the details: the size of the window, and the various penalties.
A lot of the problems with Amtrak LD, at least with my friend's train journey, lay with delays from dependency on freight railroads. He said a number of times his train was not moving or moving slowly. That did not occur so much prior to 1971.
If not subsidized by taxpayers, then by whom?
An elderly friend recently rode the Pennsylvanian service from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, then connect to the Capital Limited to Chicago. He took this rather than Mega bus as on prior trips because they no longer have service from Pittsburgh or State College to Chicago. Train was five hours late to Chicago, uncomfortable. Next time he said he'll fly unless Mega bus is reinstated. It is more comfortable than the train and even has working Wi-Fi. So let's not assume LD service is the answer for seniors who have mobility issues. Not unless they have the bucks for a sleeper, which makes me think again this service for the infirm is really only accessible to the well-off.
7j43kSnacks and food are OK, but bring your own. When I rode the Empire Builder in 1964, there was a mother with some kids nearby. She boarded with a grocery bag. I wondered what could be in it. Why, it was FOOD. Impressed me, for one.
But there's no reason not to have a range of snacks on board, light meals brought on periodically, a coordinated service that 'delivers' orders ordered on phones or via the train's Internet connection to the train at intermediate stops. Look back over John White's history of dining cars and all sorts of cost-effective possibilities will suggest themselves to you now that the commissary/fine dining model of 'diner' service is recognized for the expense-inflating loss leader it really always was. Even the moral equivalent of Electroburgers is a possibility (and yes, I've carefully worked out the equipment, service, and provisioning for that).
Moral is not to WASTE food people won't eat, or provide service that doesn't make friends and profit. There's a lot of wiggle room shy of running a McDonald's or Burger King operation on the train (which wouldn't work) and providing reasonable refreshments quickly or meals almost 'to order' remotely.
Note that this can be expanded somewhat into providing for those situations where the train must be held out of contact with 'the outside world' for some period of time, stupid or otherwise. It also rather easily expands into appropriate reasonable accommodation of many of the needs of the elderly and infirm, although I have yet to see this more than casually discussed in the context of regional-scale passenger service.
"Work comfort"? I thought we were talking about the poor and the invalid.
We were talking about a train that actually serves all the little destination pairs between 'major stops' that could be justified for a conventional Amtrak train operating with low or zero subsidy. Dave Klepper prioritizes 'rail-grade' access and space for the elderly and infirm, and that does include quiet and dark sections as appropriate, but I don't see any reason to restrict parts of the train as a pure old-folks' home. Specifically, we've discussed that much, perhaps most, of the actual appeal of Acela trains involves improved ability to work, be entertained, etc. while on board the train, and I see little reason not to provide things like conference-table seating as an option, better connectivity without Mickey Mouse security holes, and other non-ancient 'attractions' to serve any cohort of a general American ridership (within their ability to fairly pay) -- not just ADA 'disabled'.
... yes, I am against providing seating so bad you don't want to sit in it--somewhere between a BART car and the Heywood seat I have in the next room.
A good question is exactly what kinds of seat provide the right 'mix' of comfort and reasonable accommodation vs. excessive cost or added maintenance headaches for the attendant or 'turning' staff. Note that any good system of variable tracking would let some of the seat pitch be changed for different service or anticipated load, with the overall expense of the shell, HVAC, and all the rest 'paid for in advance'. This in turn involves some careful detail design of how amenities are provided and 'harnessed' in the seat structure, but any college design student can work through that exercise for course credit.
To me, the lighting and AC are more important considerations, and the use (or more specifically the absence of abuse) of these considerations is more important than on a bargain-basement take-it-or-leave-it transportation appliance. In an age where multicolor mood-lighting schemes are increasingly provided even in cheap cars ... why not provide one-time capability and control for what people will use and, more significantly, value enough to use repeatedly?
It really might make more sense to replace the RDC concept with buses. Then, for example, they won't have to run behind a slow freight.
Part of the reason I take this so seriously is precisely because there are a great many things that you can't replace with ordinary Thruway-style buses, or even with greater amenities that could be fitted into that style of bus shell. Where the railroad has distinctive competence, it makes sense to retain its use when that can be done in a way that makes economic sense. And part of the implicit model here is that 'one train does for all' whether or not it's a 'feeder' between stops on an optimized end-to-end-critical LD train with sleepers and all that. Theoretically this can be upsized should increasing demand warrant, or conversely be 'bustituted' if it fails to deliver even marginally-justified profitability (or its special amenities are not needed) on a particular day.
Yes, I am envisioning railfans taking the "Zephyrette" from Chicago to Oakland, with stops on the way for hotels and sightseeing.
One might, in fact, take a reverse leaf from the CZ experience, and provide 'free' overnight (or longer!) layovers complete with coordinated local transportation for 'train riders' who don't care about minimum-time (such as that is!) train transportation. Some people discussing the option here don't see this as being too large a group of riders. I suspect much of the 'incredulity' relates to the quality of the layover (and the likelihood of problems of various kinds during it) rather than the documented opportunity.
I DO like the idea of luxury rail travel, which my wife informs me is not available in this country (after riding the Amtrak Empire Builder). And, it would seem, that luxury includes sleeping on a train, and eating in a diner. Both potentially very pleasant. But I do wonder why it should be a subsized service.
Or, perhaps better succinctly put, why it should be a taxpayer-subsidized service. Which is a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree on principle, considering there are so many options for funding the luxury aspects of the 'subsidy' privately. There is of course at least one awful cautionary tale here, about the need for consistent traffic: the checkered experience of Ed Ellis and 'better' sleepers on Amtrak trains. There is also the guaranteed and probably fairly effective lobbying that various unions and other government-connected folks would bring to bear if any workable 'outsourcing' of present Amtrak "service" were undertaken to a necessarily meaningful extent. Perhaps we should look at some of Anderson's actions with that general illumination.
Overmod What would be "needed" for the intermediate passenger service is a bit like a cross between the 'missions' for the SPV2000 and the prospective amenities of the Daylight Speedliner trains. Not just a bunch of upright seats with surly attendants and messed-up toilets, shoehorned between increasingly PSR'd freight traffic. Instead -- develop decent ways to provide snacks and food. Decent work comfort. Reasonable provision for 'quiet' or dark sections if no outright sleeping facilities. A schedule you can keep, ideally providing reasonable (and attended!) stations for entraining or detraining even when wee hours are unavoidable for particular origin/destination pairs.
What would be "needed" for the intermediate passenger service is a bit like a cross between the 'missions' for the SPV2000 and the prospective amenities of the Daylight Speedliner trains. Not just a bunch of upright seats with surly attendants and messed-up toilets, shoehorned between increasingly PSR'd freight traffic. Instead -- develop decent ways to provide snacks and food. Decent work comfort. Reasonable provision for 'quiet' or dark sections if no outright sleeping facilities. A schedule you can keep, ideally providing reasonable (and attended!) stations for entraining or detraining even when wee hours are unavoidable for particular origin/destination pairs.
"surly attendants" and "messed-up toilets" are unacceptable for ANY service. Except, I suppose, for Amtrak.
Snacks and food are OK, but bring your own. When I rode the Empire Builder in 1964, there was a mother with some kids nearby. She boarded with a grocery bag. I wondered what could be in it. Why, it was FOOD. Impressed me, for one.
Maybe a bit of a modification to the above: if a bar/lounge turned a profit, I'd endorse that. Of course, that probably couldn't/wouldn't happen on a single car train--but maybe on a longer one. Same for other amenities, I guess. If it breaks even or better, do it.
"Decent work comfort"? I thought we were talking about the poor and the invalid. But, yes, I am against providing seating so bad you don't want to sit in it--somewhere between a Bart car and the Heywood seat I have in the next room.
Better still to provide dedicated pathing, if not in fact passenger-priority routes ... and you may be likelier to get it with a short train that has reasonable acceleration rate and the capability of using short runaround sidings for non-fleeting 'meets'. But that's orders of magnitude more money than a really good bus service would cost to provide equivalent 'transportation service' at comparable price. I'm not saying this is preferable to a 'greater' perception of LD service, and in fact many if not most of its 'amenities' would constitute great advantage to a more conventional train makeup. But there is no future in providing bus-grade service anywhere on a railroad instead of just providing a good bus that gets the service done... especially when the cost is hundreds of millions or more to get the wretched experience that is so often Amtrak.
Better still to provide dedicated pathing, if not in fact passenger-priority routes ... and you may be likelier to get it with a short train that has reasonable acceleration rate and the capability of using short runaround sidings for non-fleeting 'meets'. But that's orders of magnitude more money than a really good bus service would cost to provide equivalent 'transportation service' at comparable price.
I'm not saying this is preferable to a 'greater' perception of LD service, and in fact many if not most of its 'amenities' would constitute great advantage to a more conventional train makeup. But there is no future in providing bus-grade service anywhere on a railroad instead of just providing a good bus that gets the service done... especially when the cost is hundreds of millions or more to get the wretched experience that is so often Amtrak.
It really might make more sense to replace the RDC concept with buses. Then, for example, they won't have to run behind a slow freight. I only suggested it because it might be the only way to keep ANY long distance service. Yes, I am envisioning railfans taking the "Zephyrette" from Chicago to Oakland, with stops on the way for hotels and sightseeing.
But it has worked so well for the Post Office and the DMV ;)
This seems to be a good opportunity for the Virgin Group to create a Rocky Mountaineer type of service out of the LD trains.
Dave, your analogy is pointless. Amtrak is not a charity.
You still haven't answered these two questions...
1. How often do you come to the US, and
2. How do you get here?
7j43kSo then the option would be no passenger service at all on the railroad. Or. Running RDC's for the few people who needed the service.
But, you see, this as presented is a Hobson's choice, and a relatively skewed one.
The "problem" is to a large degree precisely what John Privara just hinted it was: Amtrak is NOT in the business of providing 'a basic transportation service', is not particularly good at that, is certainly not cost-effective at that, and has little institutional reason to change.
Can we stop discussing ridiculous "concepts" of trains being needed for sick people or (of all things) the movement of troops (! Seriously? We might as well "discuss" the moon landing conspiracy. It's pointless)
Amtrak ruins the FUTURE of passenger trains in this country. Amtrak cannot and will not EVER be able to provide "good" LD passenger trains because Congress AND the people with a particular kind of political/morality-OCD will forever be interfering with it.
And, what is worse is: the MAJORITY of the population view the future of passenger trains through the distorted lens of Amtrak LD trains.
Amtrak is the only government agency trying to provide operational customer service. It's absolutely insane to expect a government agency to be able to do this. Government Agencies should be dispensing loot. That's why the airports and highways are so big. Dispensing loot is simple, customer service is HARD.
We need modern passenger train INFRASTRUCTURE so that others can provide the services.
1. An emergency that grounds commercial airlines, may such never occur again, may also ground other aircraft.
2. An analogy, not quite as long as the apartment hunt one:
Every Sat morning when in NYCity around 7am I helped distribute bagsof food to poor people, some probably homeless. Many came every week. But there were occasionally new faces and some who came onlyoccasionally.The food and bagging had been prepared by other volunteers and waskept overnight in a refrigorator. Uusally. there was more thanenough, with each person on line receiving only one bag. There wasalso a pile of used clothes, and anyone on the line could take oneitem. Not everyone who took food also took clothing. Most did not.Extra bags left when all on the line were given food was returned tothe frig to be used during the week by the donating community.One day. we counted, and there were just enough bags for the number ofpeople. But one case on line said he needed more than one because ofa calamity that had occurrred to him. The response was a question:"Do you want the last person on line to go without? Because today theline is longer than usual, and we have just enough for everyone." Hesaid: "But the last person on line only comes once-and-a-while, and I cine every week. And I waited longer than him." He was told: "Itis a greater sin for us to turn him away without getting anything thannot giving you all you want and may need."3. If you want rural America to support massive Amtrak investment inexpansion, catch-up-of differed maintenance, Sandy repairs, you haveto show some consideration of what rural America wants from Amtrak.And their elected representatives say they want the long-distancetrains to continue.
daveklepper ....if you tell the rural areas, if you want the minimum service you now have, you have to pay for it, they will be justified in responding, then if you want the maxium corridor service you now have, you have to pay for it, including such hings as catenary replacement, repairs of tunnels, expasion of capacity, and new euipment. The passenger loads on the existing long distance trains happen to be greater than one bus, or one diesel railcar, or even two togher, can handle.
The passenger loads on the existing long distance trains happen to be greater than one bus, or one diesel railcar, or even two togher, can handle.
Overmod charlie hebdo Amtrak now? Europe now, not 30+ years ago. I think he was supporting your general opinion, but... Seems highly logical to me that there might be some 'conspiracy' to help subsidize Amtrak by routing some percentage of military orders on Amtrak trains, particularly those on routes more heavily subsidized through 'lack of riders'. It doesn't matter that this is one hand of the Government putting money into another; if it's money to the good side of Amtrak's secret ledgers, or perceived reason to retain otherwise-questionable passenger coverage, I'd be all for it, and perhaps so should we all. Much of this thread, however, continues to dance around the elephant in the room that is the 2015 mandate requiring "profitable operation" by 2020. I don't see any wiggle room there for perceived benefits to elderly and disabled, even though there are clear avenues for funds to be provided Amtrak to improve and perhaps start toward optimizing them. Perhaps some of you can comment on how to substantiate the economic 'stakeholder benefits' of the LD trains as a whole, as opposed to neo-Balkanization into politically-willing corridors.
charlie hebdo Amtrak now? Europe now, not 30+ years ago.
I think he was supporting your general opinion, but...
Seems highly logical to me that there might be some 'conspiracy' to help subsidize Amtrak by routing some percentage of military orders on Amtrak trains, particularly those on routes more heavily subsidized through 'lack of riders'. It doesn't matter that this is one hand of the Government putting money into another; if it's money to the good side of Amtrak's secret ledgers, or perceived reason to retain otherwise-questionable passenger coverage, I'd be all for it, and perhaps so should we all.
Much of this thread, however, continues to dance around the elephant in the room that is the 2015 mandate requiring "profitable operation" by 2020. I don't see any wiggle room there for perceived benefits to elderly and disabled, even though there are clear avenues for funds to be provided Amtrak to improve and perhaps start toward optimizing them. Perhaps some of you can comment on how to substantiate the economic 'stakeholder benefits' of the LD trains as a whole, as opposed to neo-Balkanization into politically-willing corridors.
Supporting or differing doesn't matter.
It seems to me Amtrak doesn't serve basic training camps or large military facilities very well today, so counting on a military subsidy seems a forlorn hope.
The 2020 deadline is likely taken less seriously than the debt ceiling. That said, Amtrak will likely be able to show Congress a neutral balance sheet if LD services are drastically curtailed or modified.
Then those services for the elderly handicapped folks and undeserved areas could be a separate subsidy line item apart from rational services, if Congress saw it as socially needed.
charlie hebdoAmtrak now? Europe now, not 30+ years ago.
Amtrak now? Europe now, not 30+ years ago.
Even when I went for basic at Ft. Leonard Wood 50 years ago, it was by plane and bus from Chicago. And the number of inductees was much higher back then.
I was speaking strictly about the military not caring about American passenger trains. It was in reply to Dave's stating "And a military expert, and believe this may be happening, who advises Trump not to veto, may have the opinion that Amtrak's long-distance trains should be kept around to serve in emergencies". They may ship individuals to Basic that way, but it's not a national resource needed in case of emergency.
I'm well aware of Marines riding on ships in ARGs, they are members of an MEU.
BackshopAlso, the military doesn't care about passenger trains.
I would disagree with that statement. It depends on the rail transportation system and country. The military used a lot of mixed passenger trains in Europe during the 1980's where they couple the passenger cars to the flatcars carrying the equipment. Similar to the Auto-Train concept the troops move with the equipment. They do not do this as much anymore in Europe because the realignment of the bases put most of the training areas within a much shorter driving distance. They could not do this in the United States of course because the distances are greater and lets face it both the train dispatching and rail speed limits are fairly poor. Within the United States though the Army at least is still using Amtrak to move troops, you may not realize it and it might not be on a large scale but to and from Basic Training posts they use Amtrak. My Nephew went through initial training in 2007 and more than one of his cohorts had travel orders via Amtrak.
BackshopThe military flies troops everywhere.
Again, if you tell the rural areas, if you want the minimum service you now have, you have to pay for it, they will be justified in responding, then if you want the maxium corridor service you now have, you have to pay for it, including such hings as catenary replacement, repairs of tunnels, expasion of capacity, and new euipment.
The average 1920s train did not have air-condiitoning or reclining-seat coaches. Come off it. Long distance trains today are far more comfortable.
Charlie, you know perfectly well that I am NOT saying more people, more citizens, use LD trains than corridior trains. But on one train vs another train, defintiely, yes. i am in no position to obtain the specific statistics, even if Amtrak would provide it. But any long distance train obviously have almost zero repeat ridership one day to the very next day, where as most corridor trains possibly half the ridership is repeat one day to the next day. Sure, I don't have statistics, but personal observation from anyone riding the trains fan come up with the same answer.
From what most of us undrstand, with Amtrak created under the Nixon administation, most believe it was creted specifically to put the long distdance trains painlessly out of business. So you have the real mission in mind that the Nixon Administration intended. Hats of to you for that. But the stated legal mission statement is to oprovide a National System. Remove the LDTs and you no longer have a Nationlal System.
I think people who actually ride the trains and contribute to this forum will back me up on my statements concerning ridership.
7j43kIF you want to serve the various "special" people in little bitty towns along the railroad, why not have a railbus or an RDC make the entire run... Maybe we'll call it the Zephyrette.
Exactly. But, it's a #HECK# of a lot cheaper to run subsidized "throughway buses" on rural routes, than 1920's passenger trains waiting in sidings for 5 mile long freights running at 30 mph on single track lines with alignments from the 1880's.
Run the trains where they can serve the MAJORITY of the population in a way that is USEFUL to modern people (meaning: people in the 21st Century, NOT the early-20th century). And, run the buses where having trains isn't viable.
Amtrak should be running passenger trains for the 21st century, NOT the 19th century. They aren't competing the stage-coaches anymore.
Sundial time? Balt may be referring to how train schedules were published before the adoption of standard time.
For instance, it was possible to travel, in one day, from Bristol, Virginia, to Chattanooga, Tennessee, with a change from one road to another in Knoxville. However, if you simply looked at the published schedules, you would say, "Impossible!" for the schedules showed the train from Bristol arriving in Knoxville after the train for Chattanooga departed. But--the ET&V operated on Bristol time, and the ET&G operated on Knoxville time, which is a few minutes later than Bristol time.
Indeed, in the 1850's it was possible to travel from Norfolk, Virginia, to Memphis, Tennessee, changing from one road to another in several places--as I recall, the changes were in Petersburg, Roanoke, and Bristol in VIrginia, and in Knoxville and Chattanooga in Tennessee. The greatest difference on local times on any one road was between Chattanooga and Memphis; as I recall the Memphis and Charleston operated on the same sun dial all the way. (I do not have my copy of the 1851 or so Guide that shows these schedules here--it is in a box at my daughter's house, and I will not ask her to look for it, for she does enough for me already.)
BaltACD Sundial Scheduling!
Sundial Scheduling!
Please define.
JOHN PRIVARARural areas should have good bus systems. The congested urban areas should have good train and plane services. The buses should feed that train system, the trains should connect to the airports. The entire system - together - should be as fast a possible, and as convenient as possible for a MAJORITY of the population (you know, like how most of the 1st world countries are doing it NOW).
Bus systems are deserting rural areas for the same reasons you want Amtrak to eliminate service in rural areas.
Dave's argument is ridiculous, but I give him credit for originality at least. It's not worth commenting on THAT "concept" anymore than someone wanting the government to run a scheduled Ocean-Liner services for the old people. Good try, but, really, grasping a straws...
Amtrak needs to get out of LD cruise train business, which it has shown (and the railroads in the 1950's DID show) is worthless to the majority of the population. What the majority of the population needs is: good public TRANSPORTATION, widely available, regardless of what mode it is.
Rural areas should have good bus systems. The congested urban areas should have good train and plane services. The buses should feed that train system, the trains should connect to the airports. The entire system - together - should be as fast a possible, and as convenient as possible for a MAJORITY of the population (you know, like how most of the 1st world countries are doing it NOW).
As an old-fart myself, the LAST thing I'd want is a RANDOM SMATTERING of old-farts in the country relying on a 1920's passenger-train if they get sick. It's an insane argument. The LD trains should have been eliminated decades ago. If a company wants to run a sight-seeing tourist train, let them do so.
Ideally, Amtrak would be providing the INFRASTRUCTURE to support a modern passenger rail and bus system. INFRASTRUCTURE, not operations. Then franchise out the routes to whoever wants to run the trains and buses; because after 50+ years now it's pretty obvious that Amtrak is incapable of providing good service. But, as an INFRASTRUCTURE provider, they should be capable of spending loot with the same uninhibited enthusiasm that the airport and highway people do now.
7j43kIF you want to serve the various "special" people in little bitty towns along the railroad, why not have a railbus or an RDC make the entire run, instead of a big old passenger train? Then said people can get on and off in their little town. And get on and off in a big city so they can catch the plane or bus for the long distance part (if needed/desired). Then: no food service. no sleepers. no lounge. no services personnel. Two employees: engineer and conductor/baggageman. Essentially a Greyhound bus on rails. THAT can't be that expensive. Maybe we'll call it the Zephyrette. And it would make every stop where there was a flag station (flagstop). Thus a cost effective method to serve those along the railroad who need rail transportation. Ed
Then: no food service. no sleepers. no lounge. no services personnel. Two employees: engineer and conductor/baggageman. Essentially a Greyhound bus on rails. THAT can't be that expensive. Maybe we'll call it the Zephyrette.
And it would make every stop where there was a flag station (flagstop).
Thus a cost effective method to serve those along the railroad who need rail transportation.
Ahh Yes! Sundial Scheduling!
IF you want to serve the various "special" people in little bitty towns along the railroad, why not have a railbus or an RDC make the entire run, instead of a big old passenger train? Then said people can get on and off in their little town. And get on and off in a big city so they can catch the plane or bus for the long distance part (if needed/desired).
In spending OPM - Amtrak needs to continue the present LD 'network'. Where it views that 'corridor opportunities' will support higher frequency service between designated end points that are intemediate to the LD service - negotiate with the serving carriers to provide the service. There are those that actually use the LD trains from Origin to Destination as well as intermediate locations to intermediate locations and also intermediate locations to final destinations.
Balkanizing service to only intermediate O-D pairs is in fact killing the overall product.
Of course the death of Amtrak is what many want so they can 'save' 10 mills on their federal tax liabilities.
Miningman Didn't figure you to be a "let them eat cake" guy Charlie. I'm with Dave
Didn't figure you to be a "let them eat cake" guy Charlie.
I'm with Dave
That's nasty and erroneous name-calling. Dave is wanting some elitist approach to serving the small minority of the elderly, handicapped etc. who happen to live near an Amtrak LD route. He has no data to support his contentions. I think Amtrak should serve the greatest number of people in ways where rail passenger service makes sense. LD trains are an impractical means of transportation for any distance over 500-800 miles and thus used by very few people. A lot of their ridership in sleeping cars are well-off seniors taking heavily-subsidized land cruises. Sounds pretty elitist to me.
Dave, you still haven't addressed the majority of people in the US (old, young, handicapped, ablebodied) that Amtrak doesn't serve.
Also, the military doesn't care about passenger trains. Freight trains are very useful, but passenger ones are useless. Ever hear of CRAF? The military flies troops everywhere. Trains and ships are just for heavy equipment. How many years has it been since you've been in the States? Things change...
I am a pragmatist and prefer evidence, hopefully hard empirical data.
You made a claim and you were wrong. Now you claim more more people ride LD trains than corridor trains. Let's see your evidence.
I believe in democracy in which government strives to serve the most people with the least waste, i.e. the greatest good for the greatest number.
Amtrak's mission statement, to provide transportation, does Not specify all its potential markets. It does not specifiy for able-bodied only, for long-distance, or tourists, for corridor only, or any such limitation. It is my Opinion that its long-distance trains are most useful for the elderly and handicapped who cannot fly. Amtrak historically has addressed this market with the handicapped room on the ground floor of the Superliner sleepers. But the owners of a hotel at the gateway to a national park regulalry served by Amtrak would be of the opinion that its long-distancd trains are primarily to serve tourists. And a military expert, and believe this may be happening, who advises Trump not to veto, may have the opinion that Amtrak's long-distance trains should be kept around to serve in emergencies.
Obviously corridor trains have greater ridership. But the facr that most of this ridership is repeat ridership, often even commuter ridership, means that the reduced patronage of the long-distance trains actually involves a greater number of People, of US Citizens paying taxes. If the Grandpa and Grandmother are deprived of their yearly trip to see their children and grandchildren, why should they wish to subidize the corridor commuter?
If you deprive the small town of the benefit they get from the subsidy (I don't use the train, bur I want it to stay in case i need it!), why should they agree to subsidize the big city.
And a two-hour car or bus trip to connect with a comfortable long-distance train is not the same as a more-than-a-day bus or car trip for an handicapped and/or elderly person who cannot flyl.
Charlie, please look up the definition of "ideologue," or "ideolog." Do you wish to be one?
Do you reallyl wish to deprive many people from the privilege of visitng the entire continental USA?
When Grandma and Grandpa cannnot make their trip, the children miss solmething tooi.
daveklepper But the primary purpose is to serve the specific elderly and handicapped who cannot fly.
But the primary purpose is to serve the specific elderly and handicapped who cannot fly.
daveklepperthe primary purpose is to serve the specific elderly and handicapped who cannot fly.
In which Amtrak-related legislation or organizational mission statement has it ever said anything remotely like that?
Victrola1 Wall Street Journal "Published on Jul 16, 2019 SUBSCRIBE 1.5M Amtrak’s proposals for altering or eliminating some of its long-distance train routes, in favor of more frequent service where the population is growing, is facing opposition among those who fear rural America would suffer. WSJ’s Jason Bellini reports." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-jP4vh3z_A
Wall Street Journal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-jP4vh3z_A
The mission should be to serve the most people possible given limited resources. If rural towns that are a ghost of what they were want LD train service, let them actually pay for the above wheel costs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.