posted
There has been some recent articles, in Northwest newspapers, about the possible resurgence of the Amtak Pioneer. Here is one of them from the Portland "Oregonian" (4/15/09):
posted
Richard, it should be noted the linked material is Opinion.
Be sure to review the reader's comments; there already is a difference of opinions taking shape.
From the Op-Ed:
It was a great train ride. When I last rode the Pioneer, about two weeks before the train's last run, I took the train from Portland to Salt Lake City. The trip up the Columbia was stunning, with views across the Columbia Gorge on one side, and glimpses of Multnomah Falls and other sites on the other. When we turned east, across the Blue Mountains, I saw herds of elk feeding on the sloping hills high above the tracks. Ring-necked pheasants spooked by the passing railcars rocketed out of the grass alongside the train. The seats were comfortable, the food was good. It was a great way to travel across the West.
Where do I see any mention about fufilling a need to move people in sufficient volume to enable less requirement upon additional and more costly transportation capacity (highways, airports)? That is simply what 21st Century passenger railroading is all about - not scenic excursions.
So far, no one has addressed the indirect subsidy that the UP must make to run any restored service along the line. I have addressed such on numerous occasions and that of course is the value of that "slot" that could be used to put some profit on the bottom line.
Finally a prediction; pursuant to provisions within Division B (PRIIA) of RSIA '08, a consultant will write a report - and that will be that.
disclaimer: author holds position in UNP
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
I have learned of another work holding a similar view regarding "our heritage":
Suffice to say, I hold differing views than the author, but i'm certain some here hold same.
sojourner Member # 3134
posted
Scenic excursions are part of it too, Mr Norman. The train, esp out west, is like a traveling national park. It is especially important in allowing Americans from the coasts and from big cities and from boring same old same old suburbs, not to mention tourists from abroad, to see the country as they travel. Tourism is an important industry. Saving fuel while traveling is a good idea. The aging population of baby boomers, some of whom cannot or should not be driving long distances, is another consideration. The communal experience on the trains, meeting people from all over America, is also valuable to the nation. Servicing rural areas with no other public transportation is valuable. Etc etc.
There is never just one reason to do something worth doing.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Ms Sojourner, again allow me to note that I respect your differing views from mine regarding the place of rail passenger service in contemporary society, but from one who has been following railroad industry affairs for close to sixty years (including eleven "on the inside'), there is no way in a world having numerous alternate freight and passenger transportsation resources, then and now, that continuation of the industry, as Mr. Runte holds in his previously cited work, as a regulated public utility could be justified. The industry should have been deregulated long before 1980 as it was under Staggers. Had it been so, I'm certain the 1970's 'Dark Ages", during which I was employed within, could have been minimized if not outright avoided.
But now to turn to the microcosm of passenger service (and how else could a line of business contributing maybe 10% of the revenue fifty years ago and maybe 2% today be viewed - Amtrak and all commuter agencies each about 1%). Again the only position the industry held from likely 1960 onward was OUT. By the mid-50's, the North Eastern and North Central roads had "had it', by 1965, even the most "stalwart" Western roads, such as the Santa Fe, were also ready to throw in the towel.
I'm not certain if the initiative that resulted in RPSA '70 and, under such, Amtrak arose primarily from the "can't drive/won't fly' or any of the other constituencies noted by Mr. Runte in his work. But rail passenger service was regulated and hence, the industry was not free to do as GM did to the Pontiac brand last week. Quite simply during 1970, the total discontinuance of all service would have been too much of a "cold water shower'.
While most of the roads operating passenger trains signed up (those that did not did so because the terms were unfavorable account individual reasons relating only to their property), had the offer been 'you have the choice to sign up and enjoy some benefits from doing so or you can get out NOW, I guarantee you Amtrak would have been stillborn" (possible "benefits - dubious indeed; cash flow as Amtrak pays up front, cash flow from overrides arising from assumption of liability- same as an insurance company enjoys - as well as management fees, minimization of employee protection payments under Appendix C-1, employee transportation, and a means to move Office Cars -"PV"'s- about their systems).
However, to the extent the water cooler in my office proved to be a reliable source about anything, the industry was given assurances that "live with it for five years and at that time it will at least be going, going'. It could be held that the Carter Cuts, coming some eight years into the Amtrak era, represented the first step towards that understanding. Only problem, that understanding shall we say died after the 1996 Mercer Cuts - and those cuts only addressed services that had been added, largely by political fiat, subsequent to A-Day.
All told, I'm certain contemporary railroad management considers signing up with Amtrak to be a "bad deal' and just one more case of "if you let government in, how do you get rid of 'em?" (I'm fearful of what the auto and banking industries are about to find out). Had the railroads simply stayed out, I'm certain there would be Northeast Corridor service operating over 'ward of the State" Penn Central (instead of the Conrail enabling 3R Act providing for "no passenger service' - unless being operated for another party's account, the legislation would simply said "and passenger' - how else do things work in our Wonderland-by-the-Potomac?). Regarding other services, I'm certain many would have been gone during 1976 when the five year moratorium under RPSA '70 expired - and ALL would have been gone when Staggers (dereg) was implemented.
In view of being 'duped' by RPSA '70 into joining Amtrak, it is simply no wonder that when two US roads, the KCS and the UP, made substantial investment in the State owned Mexican railway system, they simply laid down the condition precedent of NO passenger trains. Those existing, would be gone - and "don't even THINK of a Mextrak'.
Finally, even though I find little if any justification for continuing passenger trains outside of regions with sufficient population to support commuter and intercity Corridors operating over publicly owned rights of way, I do enjoy an occasional Long Distance ride; even if I am not a "passionate fanatic" about such. In fact, when it appeared that during 2008, I was not going to use Auto Train for my (almost) annual Florida journey, I took my Chicago to Denver joyride.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
Here is a web site for more information on the old Pioneer and the effort for its return:
On the map in the article, above, I see stops in Ft. Collins and Boulder, CO. I did not think the old Pioneer made stops in these two towns (?).
Richard
RRRICH Member # 1418
posted
I don't remember if the Pioneer ever stopped in Fort Collins, but the pre-Pioneer CZ did make a stop in Fort Collins, then went on to Cheyenne. In those days, the train ran in reverse from Denver to Cheyenne, then again headed forward after Cheyenne. Eventually though, the Cheyenne stop was discontinued, and the CZ made a suburban stop in Borie, which eliminated the need for the reverse movement from Denver to Cheyenne.
To my knowledge, however, no AMTRAK trains ever stopped in Boulder or Longmont.
posted