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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Ed
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.