I know there is a lot of concern and discussion regarding the future of AMTRAK. I'm very interested in how you feel about the future of AMTRAK. Will it, or should it, survive? What is, or should be, the role of AMTRAK in servicing the transportation needs of America?

I was disappointed with the level of service I experienced during my trip. When I consider what the trip cost, I do not think I received a great value for my dollars. Personally, I'd consider the experience to be slightly above that of a Greyhound bus trip.

Maybe my expectations were skewed by reading the travelogues of those having an emotional or sentimental attachment to rail travel. I met some interesting people, but it was not what I'd consider a memorable trip (the destinations were fun, but the "getting there" was nothing to sing the praises of).

I say all this to make this point - if a member of Congress was sitting beside me on this trip, I would've had a difficult time convincing him of the viability and desirability of AMTRAK. I do not understand who AMTRAK considers their "market" - their timliness makes it impractical for business travel (outside of the Northeast corridor), their service and comfort level will never make the "comfort travel" end of the spectrum. Would I be correct in assuming that their target is the "cattle car" transportation market - moving large numbers of travellers long distances?

I challenge you - give me logical reasons for continuing AMTRAK. No flaming, please. I'm looking for serious, thoughtful discourse here.

As for why Amtrak should survive, I think you need a national transportation network based on rails, as well as other means of transport. There are a large number of people who can't or won't fly, but who also don't want to drive or take the Greyhound. At least on a train you can get a lot more room than flying or Greyhound! The attraction of being able to get up, walk around, buy a snack, have a meal, etc is also enticing.

Scenery is also important. There are sights you couldn't see from a car, and certainly not from a plane at 30,000 feet. You didn't appear to be impressed with your scenery, although the east is not as scenic as the west to be fair.

I'm sure others will come up with more ideas!

A properly funded and managed national rail system might not have all of the warts that you saw on your trip. Consider that the previous management did not spend any money on maintenance. As for the employees, I'm amazed that so many of them function as well as they do. Their company has been under funded from the outset. Imagine that your employer was coninually on the brink of bankruptcy...

A truly viable rail system is possible. I agree with you that the current system is troublesome. People ride the train either because they really want to, or because they have no choice. I would love to see a system with good equipment, good on-time performance, and more than one train per day.

Cheers,

I agree, that the employees with an attitude should be fired or at least retrained. In fact I put in a complaint with Amtrak about one such employee. I happened to be on the same train with this person again, and their attitude was much improved.(Perhaps this person went to retraining).

Amtrak does need funding to rebuild some of their aging fleet of cars. VIA is an excelent example. It is really a problem though, that, when otherwise usable cars are siting in Beach Grove waiting for minor repairs.(I'm not talking about some of the heavily damaged cars, but the ones with simple truck or other problems)

Will Amtrak survive? Yes. Public opinion polls consistently show strong support for Amtrak, in the 60-80% range. When it comes down to their votes, the politicians can't ignore that.

Should it survive? Absolutely. Aviation and highways can't do it all in an increasingly crowded nation. Plus, in this crazy world, it seems prudent to keep the rail option available in the event of another national emergency.

Trains are also extremely fuel efficient. The energy consumed per passenger mile is the lowest for any vehicle known to man, even below motorcycles! (Source http://www.bts.gov/publications/nts/html/table_04_20.html ) Its a great way to thumb you nose at imported oil.

Then there is the matter of infrastructure cost. It is my understanding that a mile of train tracks typically costs about one-fifth as much to build as a single freeway lane, yet has the potential carry several times as many people and goods. (Perhaps someone can help with the specific numbers.) This reduces environmental impacts of transportation, and is more cost effective. State transportation planners, who are on the front lines of dealing with traffic congestion, understand this. The politicians in Washington who provide the money, don't.

In order to be truly practical, Amtrak, indeed all rail systems in the US must have to have the tools to grow and improve. Instead, our rail infrastructure is shrinking at an alarming rate. Under these conditions, Amtrak is in no position to improve passenger service for the benefit of the nation.

And the sad state of the nation's rail infrastructure prevents not only growth, but also prevents Amtrak's existing trains from performing at their best. The top speeds of today's long-distance trains are about 30% slower than top speeds of passenger trains in the 1940s! Back then 90-110 MPH was common. Today, very few Amtrak trains get above 80MPH.

So, yes, Amtrak should survive, but the status quo is no longer acceptable. Amtrak must be improved to have any real value for this country. If we lose it, the cost of recreating it from scratch would be enormous.

I could go on and on. For further reading I will refer you to the plan outlined by NARP which you can download in PDF format at http://www.narprail.org/plan.htm It is somewhat long, but it is easy for the layman to understand, and makes a very convincing case for rail upgrades. Another good source of information is the United Rail Passenger Alliance at http://www.unitedrail.org Look for the Selden Plan.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

The Del Monte Club Car

Since freight trains don't travel faster than 70 mph, it wouldn't really make good economic sense for some private railroads to install signal systems beyond CTC (which the FRA imposes a top speed limit of 79 mph on). Railroads, as noted above, don't get any money from the federal government for infrastructure or signaling maintenance, and they wouldn't be willing to pay out-of-pocket to allow Amtrak's trains to run at 90 mph (speed limit for cab signal systems) or 110 mph or faster (usually requiring PTS or ACSES).

The FRA are still a strong factor against efficient rail service themselves. Most passenger locos are now non-compliant with new Tier I crashworthiness standards (including the venerable P42DC), and to travel faster than 125 mph on "shared-use" tracks (both freight and high-speed passenger), your locomotive has to pass the extremely stringent Tier II crashworthiness specifications...which make the train and locomotives generally twice as heavy as your average TGV.

If you want a basis for comparison when it comes to funding, then consider that for 2002, the highways got $22 billion...while on average per year during its existence, Amtrak usually gets about $767 million. (and that's to run passenger service within the entire 48-state region...is that enough money?) Now your highway and air lobbyists will then come in with the argument that all the tax money spent on highways and airports are collected directly from sources of direct use (e.g. gas tax, tax on plane tickets, etc.)...but consider that between 1941 and 1962, rail passengers were also taxed on tickets, but none of the funds were dedicated towards rail infrastructure; all railroads currently pay 4.3¢ per gallon on diesel fuel for locomotives, which goes right into the general fund; private railroads also pay high rates of tax on their property (infrastructure, stations), in addition to which, some states actually tax railroads on number of tracks on ROW plus weight of rail used (which is why a lot of ROWs that can support multiple tracks usually get cut down to one track).

As to your question of what to do now, I think we need a complete rethinking of our national rail policies. David Gunn is on the way towards making that clear when he called for a rail trust fund earlier this week. Has any Amtrak official ever asked for that before?

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

Many will disagree, but it is my firm conviction that the only place that intercity passenger rail travel can be deemed essential is the Boston-Washington Northeast Corridor. As noted here, no one has ever made a dime hauling people, as the airlines since 911 have clearly lost more $$$ than they ever made since Orville and Wilbur. As a result, public funding of the Corridor, definitely for infrastructure and likely for "farebox", will be continually necessary.

There is simply no practical means to obtain funding for the Corridor other than at Federal level. A nine state regional authority simply will not work, regardless how essential the service is. Some 45 years ago, when it became evident that public funding of mass transportation was inevitable, a Tri-State Regional Transportation Authority was proposed for the New York area. It never went anywhere; result, each state has their own agency (I will acknowledge that Connecticut's is a bureau within their Dept of Transportation) and each has widely divergent operational philosophies.

With the lure of "Feddybucks" out there, how would nine states ever come together anywhere other than at the Federal trough? Since in order to obtain Federal funding, the "booty" must be spread around. So, therefore, you have the National System currently operated by an organization named Amtrak (disguised as a Corporation, but really a government agency), which ever so conveniently crosses well more than half the legislative jurisdictions and drops a "crumb" or two of economic activity along the way (a train here, a job there). Thus the National System is there to ensure continued Federal Funding of what is essential - the Corridor.

As this thread's originator noted, Congress Members do not wish to get mail, be it "E" or "snail", from constituents talking about their lousy train ride. Thus it is not in the interest of keeping the Corridor funded to allow the service elsewhere to deterioriate. However, I do not forsee any significant expansion of the National System, with either new routes or increased frequencies over existing ones, anytime soon - the legislative majority is already there!.

It is a simple factoid of life that the policital, cultural, educational, financial, and economic centers of our country are concentrated within that 450 mile "strip" known as the Corridor. Had these centers somehow been dispersed, there would simply be no intercity rail passenger service today.

Increasingly dangerous, overcrowded highways. Increasingly dangerous, overcrowded skies. Air pollution. Finite oil resources. Global warming.

And without being paranoid about it, let's not forget the possibility that (in post 9/11 America) future emergencies could require the moving of large numbers of citizens out of harm's way quickly, efficiently, and by land.

Amtrak already knows how to do that, routinely transporting over 30 million people on its passenger and commuter trains each year.

And as a sidebar to the original message poster, dclm:

Sorry to hear your first train trip was a drag. Even rail addicts sometimes find themselves on bland trains. As others have noted, there's a big difference in scenery between east and west.

There's also the time factor. The Southwest Chief and Empire Builder, for example, take two nights to travel their entire route (three nights for the eastern/western Sunset Limited). There's simply more time to lose yourself in the rhythm of the trip.

In comparison, the "one night" eastern trains like the Capitol Limited, Lake Shore Limited, and Three Rivers are more cut-and-dried. The ride is shorter. The service can be perfunctory and rushed.

The single-level eastern trains also lack a Sightseer Lounge, so passengers stay glued to their coach seats or hidden away in the sleepers. It's a chillier, less "friendly" experience -- more like riding a commuter train.

Try taking the Capitol Limited or Cardinal back to Chicago some day. Spend an extra night there so you don't get "train-lag." Then board the California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, or Empire Builder heading west. Or take the northbound Coast Starlight from L.A. to Seattle.

Do it in summer when the days are long. It'll change your mind.

Don't forget that there is also a West Coast, just as economically important, as has recently been proven.

After all, I believe it should be noted that Mr. Helfner resides in New Jersey and I in Chicago.

If the 450 mile "strip" I noted earlier were in fact from Sacramento to San Diego and traversing only one state, then a regional authority would be feasible and likely exist. However, the "flip side' is that there would not be a national rail passenger system in place.

However, I gladly note that one of the major "plusses" of the RPSA 1970 was Section 403(b) that, where local initiative is in place to fund passenger trains, the national system operator is not only compelled to operate that train if properly remunerated, but also has the "institutions' in place to operate that train. It would simply be unreasonable to expect the Class Ones, having exited the business almost 32 years ago, to maintain those institutions systemwide "just in case" a local jurisdiction had a passenger train initiative.

California has clearly put the provisions of 403(b) to greater use than has any other jurisdiction.

quote:

---

Many will disagree, but it is my firm conviction that the only place that intercity passenger rail travel can be deemed essential is the Boston-Washington Northeast Corridor.

---

Gilbert, with all due respect, count me among those who disagree.

You made some interesting points about how the national system provides political support for the NEC, and I don't disagree with that. However, I don't believe that the national system exists solely for that reason. I think there are valid reasons for a national system with or without the NEC.

You say that only the NEC is "essential," but I am curious, how do you define the word as it applies to rail service? On the surface that appears to be a concept that can be objectively defined, but in practice I think it will vary significantly from person to person.

For example, I would consider it essential to have a truly national system because of its inherent energy efficiency. If we ever get stuck with a major oil shortage (perhaps the result of war), it will be essential to have a way to get from here to there without using much energy per passenger mile. (In this regard, trains are the best performers, even beating out motorcycles by a slim margin). Others may define "essential" in ways that neither you nor I have thought about.

Therefore I don't think that should be the sole criteria to justify national passenger trains. I think it is equally important to consider whether there is a market for the service, regardless of whether it is considered "essential" by some definition or another.

I believe there is a significant latent demand for more trains, both regional and long-distance. We know that almost all new regional trains outside the NEC have vastly exceeded ridership projections. And we know that Amtrak can fill LD trains that are far from perfect and serve a very limited nimber of destinations. These facts suggest they could fill a lot more trains if the services lived up to their potential. That alone should justify the expansion of both of LD trains and regional services.

Now some would argue that LD trains are just for tourists. I don't believe that. But even if it is true I ask, what's wrong with that?

Tourism is a huge part of our national economy, and if these trains support tourism, more power to them. If someone rides a train to a leisure destination, the community where the train travelers spend their money may very well consider the train to be essential to their local economy. Which brings me back to the question posed above. How do you define "essential?"

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

First a little more "deep background" on myself. I hope it goes without saying "I like trains". My most recent Feb 02 trip Chicago-Orlando had "more positives than negatives"; I fully intend to use the "LD" mode in the future, however an upcoming trip next month to New York will be in the "not so Friendly Skies" (first since 911 for me). The "choice" of the air transport mode was only made to salvage an otherwise forfeited air ticket (ORD-SMF-ORD accont time constraints) that, if not done, my Scotch ancesters would look down from on high and say "NONO".

Well, so much for all that.

There is no question whatever there is demand for more new rail services . Acela has its problems, but public acceptance is not one of them. Multiple frequencies are indeed a plus; the Downeaster has proven that.

But demand in itself does not equate to essentiality. Mr Toy asked for a definition of essential. Keeping the West Coast Ports open was clearly deemed essential; however, by that standard, I can only reiterate my earlier point that "essential" meand Corridor and nothing more.

Naturally, everyone has ideas as to how our governments should spend our money; some are even "pro bono publico". Case in point; wouldn't some "real" public funding of the Performing Arts increase attendance at "live" events, of course it would!, but that is simply not on the page, so the $90 per ticket "going rate" (as well as ever-persistent "begathoning")will prevail and new venues will be a mere "trickle'.

Unfortunately, our honeymoon with surpluses was all too brief.

I would simply add that all routes are valuable, and even necessary. NE corridor is important, but has nothing over somewhat new NW Vancouver/Seattle route, or SW Chief, or Empire Builder, etc. All have served a purpose historically and can't be tossed off on a whim.

Just returned from Everette to MSP roundtrip. Couldn't have been nicer. Deluxe bedroom wasn't disturbed by Al-Qaida. Breakfast in Glacier wasn't either. Sunrise against peaks was worth price of admission.

I'm the son of former FRA president. The rails are in my blood. I can tell you that while the rails are suspect now for attack, we can't let this stuff change our attitudes. If we do, they achieved their objective, right?

Book a trip. Tip those that serve you well. Disregard those that don't.

Watch the scenery, as only Amtrak can provide. Read Stephen Ambrose's book about the building of the trans-continental rail before you complain about your trip.

Come to grips with the fact that around 10,000 people died every year around the turn of the century from rail accidents before you complain about a cold meal or being a few minutes late to a station.

Realise that rail travel, even with threats from Arab nare-do-wells is still much safer, and scenically far superior to any of the alternatives.

I hope the airlines survive. There are lots of folks who like that sort of thing. Spoken by a former fixed wing and sailplane pilot, I would add.

But there's nothing like seeing America by rail.

Choooo-choooo-cho-choooo.

Frank