Having said that, however, my major complaint with Amtrak is late trains. Not lateness per se, but the fact that the company seems to have no contingency plans whatsoever to deal with problems when they arise.

Case study: I was recently scheduled to leave from Chicago on the eastbound Lakeshore Ltd, departure time 7:00 PM. Because of snow in the east, the westbound Lakeshore was almost seven hours late arriving in Chicago, thus postponing the departure of my train til 11:00 PM. Amtrak claimed that the same equipment had to be used for both the west and eastbound trains, and it would take five hours to get the incoming train "ready" for its departure to the east.

Huh?? Five hours?? To refuel, restock the diner, and maybe do a little housekeeping? And when the company knew that the westbound train would be that late, why couldn't they simply assemble new equipment, or at least new engines, in Chicago? At a major hub like that, at least some replacement equipment must have been available.

When we finally did leave the station, we sat in the Chicago yard for over an hour, waiting for a green light, or so we were told.

Seems to me that with a little advance planning, coupled with a modicum of hustle, these delays could be shortened, or even avoided altogether. But the attitude of Amtrak personnel generally ranges between apathetic and more apathetic.

I've had similar experiences on other train trips with delays and lateness, problems which seemed eminently avoidable.

While it would've seemed like a pain in the ass at the time, Amtrak could've anulled the westbound Lake Shore at, say, Gary, Indiana, and bussed out the remaining passengers. Concurrently, they could've bussed you guys in from Chicago, and turned the train at Gary to head back east. While no one likes being bustituted, timeliness is the priority in situations such as this, where there are lots of people making connections. So, something like that would've been the better solution overall. Or, it would've been at least SOME solution. That's absurd they held you for an hour in the yard. A lot would improve if all those little kinds of problems would be avoided.

I have a friend whose family is Swiss. He tells me that in Switzerland the trains always run on time. This may sound silly, but maybe Amtrak should seriously consider hiring a few Swiss guys to handle their operations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MLC:
Mr. Toy, you should also ask what sort of subisidy the Swiss government provides fo such excellent service. I suspect it is several billion US dollars a year.

---

It is my understanding that most, if not all European countries heavily subsidize their rail services. Certainly Amtrak could do wonders with similar benefits. But the motivation to provide good service goes beyond funding. It also requires a professional "can-do" attitude, which our American culture seems to lack when it comes to trains.

<< [Amtrak] has devoted its efforts to developing a mail express business, which is profitable ... >>

"Allegedly profitable" I believe is more correct. I know of no one who has obtained the secret figures from Amtrak, showing capital and operating costs of doing that business as well as loss of passenger business due to the stretched schedules and lost time in terminals because switching took longer than scheduled. I know of no one who has obtained any of the income figures, either.

And then there's the loss of the good will of the host railroads to even consider such service (even though the freight roads weren't handling it).

quote:

---

Originally posted by MPALMER:

The European nations seem to view rail subsidies more like investments.

---

That's how I look at it, but Congress doesn't see it that way. It would seem its members think the service has no value unless it is "profitable." I wonder if the airlines would be profitable if they had pay build and maintain their own airports with their ticket revenue.

quote:

---

Also, how does one make Amtrak more "relevant" to the public at large?

---

An important question. Most people I talk to say they would love to take the train "if I had the time." I think convenience is the key. Rail has a natural convenience factor in that most service goes from downtown to downtown (or close to it) instead of to a field many miles from town. Amtrak should play up that angle, as well as the relaxation factor. California's Capitol Corridor route has succeeded in conveying this image and ridership is growing rapidly.

Stations need to be attractive, clean, visible and have ample parking. So many stations, especially in the big cities, are hidden away in the scary neighborhoods (Emeryville, CA comes immediately to mind.)

I also think Amtrak needs more rail feeder lines to support the main lines. I don't like the idea of taking a long bus ride to catch a train (and neither does anyone I talk to). An hour on a bus would be OK. Two hours would be the most I could tolerate. Any more than that would be a waste of time. It would be easier to drive.

Of course this all could be done if the money was available. Without the funding we will continue to have a second class rail system.

I travelled Deutsche Bundesbahn (Die Bahn), British Rail, and Swiss Rail quite extensively when I was stationed in Europe from 83-87. Lots of first class travel, lots of Trans-Euro-Nacht time.

The European nations seem to view rail subsidies more like investments.

OK, gang. HOW MUCH LAND belonging to the Historic AT&SF, UPRR, CB&Q, GN, MILW, SP, and NP was US Government subsidy for construction of the railroads??? LOTS. Remember, Lincoln WAS a railroad lawyer.

Also, how does one make Amtrak more "relevant" to the public at large?

1) By marketing EXPRESS shipments. Folks, go look at a public timetable of the Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, or Santa Fe before 1967!! Until the US Post Office Department and USPS eliminated the Railway Post Office, a goodly chunk of RR passenger business was high speed express shipments.

Amtrak woke up and smelled the market.

Now, dropping back to RELEVANCY... does anyone recall the longer distance trains in Europe? DB InterCity's or overnight D-Zugs?

Folks, the longest intra-national night run I remember was just barely 12 hours, and the longest INTERNATIONAL run (including a ferry trip at night) was barely 16 hours).

Contrast that with LSL, which even at its fastest (20th Century Limited), is a 16 hour run.

Sorry for the rant, but we are revisiting history here.

Also, how does one make Amtrak more "relevant" to the public at large?

1) By marketing EXPRESS shipments. Folks, go look at a public timetable of the Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, or Santa Fe before 1967!! Until the US Post Office Department and USPS eliminated the Railway Post Office, a goodly chunk of RR passenger business was high speed express shipments.

Amtrak woke up and smelled the market.

Hindsite is always 20-20. At the time the land was granted to the railroadsmost of it was worthless. The land was granted to encourage settlement, and it bacame valuablve as people moved westward. And, maps appearing in middle twentieth century history books greatly exagerate the amount of land granted to the railroads.

Recall also that laws were passed in Congress that also granted 40 free acres to anyone that wanted to settle on the land. Such laws greatly encouraged settlement of the western portion of this country. So the free land was availabe to citizens as well as the railroads.

As you point out, prior to AMTRAK, most passenger trains hauled mail and express. Under most circumstances, this traffic enabled the passenger service at least to cover its direct costs. When the railroads lost this business they also wanted out of the business of hauling passengers, since this was inherently unprofitable.

As the private railroads found out, AMTRAK also cannot hope to cover its costs hauling only passengers. The Congressional mandate, however, to be profitable has compelled AMTRAK to be a service that primarily hauls mail and express and only incidentally passengers. One needs only to observe the consists of such trains as the Three Rivers and Pennsylvanian to arrive at this conclusion.

Also, how does one make Amtrak more "relevant" to the public at large?

1) By marketing EXPRESS shipments. Folks, go look at a public timetable of the Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, or Santa Fe before 1967!! Until the US Post Office Department and USPS eliminated the Railway Post Office, a goodly chunk of RR passenger business was high speed express shipments.

Amtrak woke up and smelled the market.

Hindsite is always 20-20. At the time the land was granted to the railroadsmost of it was worthless. The land was granted to encourage settlement, and it bacame valuablve as people moved westward. And, maps appearing in middle twentieth century history books greatly exagerate the amount of land granted to the railroads.

Recall also that laws were passed in Congress that also granted 40 free acres to anyone that wanted to settle on the land. Such laws greatly encouraged settlement of the western portion of this country. So the free land was availabe to citizens as well as the railroads.

As you point out, prior to AMTRAK, most passenger trains hauled mail and express. Under most circumstances, this traffic enabled the passenger service at least to cover its direct costs. When the railroads lost this business they also wanted out of the business of hauling passengers, since this was inherently unprofitable.

As the private railroads found out, AMTRAK also cannot hope to cover its costs hauling only passengers. The Congressional mandate, however, to be profitable has compelled AMTRAK to be a service that primarily hauls mail and express and only incidentally passengers. One needs only to observe the consists of such trains as the Three Rivers and Pennsylvanian to arrive at this conclusion.