I was wondering could somebody tell me why all the rr companies abandoned their passenger services. Does anyone think we will ever see a rise of the "old" passenger service again. I would love to travel on Union Pacific or Southern Pacific, or the Rio Grande Lines?
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak was formed to "relieve" the freight railroads of their unwanted and unprofitable passenger service. It is not likely they would now want to reverse that, especially since they have much less capacity now due to plant reductions.
Of course you can ride Amtrak on the lines of SP (Starlight, Sunset,Zephyr and others) Rio Grande (Zephyr) UP is also available on the Eagle but not the transcon except for relatively small pieces
posted
well, what is going to happen if Amtrak shuts down? From everything that I keep hearing on the news it doesnt look good for them. What will happen if they close their doors?
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The high density areas will probably keep some passenger traffic. The rest will just disappear, just like all the others before them. There could be a "Last Minute" restructuring. As I've said before the energy crunch might be a blessing in disguise for Amtrak...it sure helped during the mid and late 70's.
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
so you are telling me that if amtrak shuts down, it will be the end of traditional passenger service? Meaning no cross country routes or anything like that? Are the passenger railroads just going to cease to exist except for commuter routes?
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not too easy to answer, but briefly, passenger rail lines succumbed to the convenience/privacy of autos, speed of planes, cost of high tare weight and of the generous space-per-person typical of modern trains; also, all passenger traffic is seasonal - a June Sat. will teem with people compared to a January Tuesday! Railroads got disillusioned starting 1920s when people deserted locals; worse 1950s with superhighways and jet planes when they deserted crack streamliners; last straw was the Post Office's "sectional center" system, actually a throwback to the "sorting post offices" of early 19th century, with ZIP codes and machine sorting added. Railway Post Office (sorting) cars were dropped thru the 1960s. Only "niche' markets now, alas!
Posts: 57 | From: Allentown, PA, USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly, this wasn't always the case. When Amtrak formed in 1971, a very few railroads chose not to join - most notably the previously mentioned D&RGW (the Rio Grande), the CRI&P (the Rock Island) and the Southern. All three were, curiously, openly hostile toward passenger trains prior to Amtrak, and the reasons for them not joining were different - Southern had eliminated all but the most basic service, so they could afford to run the few passenger trains that remained (they were afraid, rightfully so, that if they handed their trains off to Amtrak that quality would drop off considerably, and they didn't want named trains that people associated with their railroad to be anything less than the best) the Rock Island was broke so they couldn't afford the entry fee to join Amtrak, and the Rio Grande was concerned about the provision in the law that created Amtrak that essentially forced the joining railroads to allow as many trains as Amtrak chose to run over their system - and Rio Grande wanted to maintain complete control over their own lines, which go through one of the most scenic areas of the country. (They said to Amtrak "no thanks" only five days before operations were to begin - Amtrak's first schedules had trains running "through the Rockies, not around them" - and the route had to be hastily changed to UP's "Overland" route between Denver and Salt Lake City.) A fascinating book on the last days of the private passenger railroads is called Twighlight of the Great Trains. I have read it and it is absolutely fascinating. Since Amtrak's creation, Southern ceded operations of the "Sothern Crescent" to Amtrak in 1979 (now called the "Crescent", although none of Southern's equipment is used today), and the Rio Grande ceded the "Rio Grande Zephyr" to Amtrak in 1982 (at which point the "San Francisco Zephyr" became the "California Zephyr" and the cities along the "Overland" route lost passenger service). Rock Island went bankrupt in 1980. This ended any regularly scheduled passenger service by a private company in the U.S. Incidentally, all of the companies that continued passenger operations in the post-Amtrak era lost money on them.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seem to recall that one line through Utah (maybe the Desert Wind perhaps?) remained mildly profitable and ran under private ownership until the late 1980s or early 1990s when Amtrak took it over. That was big news when it happened. It was on CNN and several other national news programs.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
So, What Will YOU Do When Amtrak Shuts Down and discontinues cross country service?
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StonewallJones: So, What Will YOU Do When Amtrak Shuts Down and discontinues cross country service?
The question should be "if" not "when". While this is a very real possibility, I don't consider it a high probability.
Polls have shown a fairly high level of public support for Amtrak. State governments are also looking to Amtrak to relieve the problems their transportation planners are facing. Many cities and towns served by long distance trains, especially those not near a major airport, depend on their trains to bring in tourists (Glenwood Springs, CO is a good example of a tourist town with no airport). Then there's the senior citizens and others who cannot fly for health reasons. Individually these groups don't have much clout, but taken together, a whole lot of people would be put out if the long distance trains were shut down.
If Congress were to pull the trigger and take Amtrak down, its members will have to answer to these people. That will put many members of Congress in a bind. Sure, some won't care, but others will. Add to that the fact that some influential Republicans are big Amtrak supporters.
If Amtrak goes down, it won't be without a messy political fight. It's easy for lazy members of Congress to criticize Amtrak, but unless they can come up with something better, Amtrak's opponents aren't likely to have much credibility when it comes down to the wire.
Our job is to keep the pressure on so they won't be able to kill Amtrak's long distance trains quietly, under the mistaken belief that nobody will miss them.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
Congress has given amtrak until 2003 to break even for once in its 30 year history. Why do you think that after all this time of being in the red amtrak is suddenly going to figure it out and get back on track, so to speak. Congress wont give amtrak the financial funds it needs TO break even. Amtrak has been set up to fail since its inception and more likely than not in a few years it will be gone. Maybe only then will we ALL realize just how important and special nation wide passenger service is.
Thanks everybody
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stonewall Jones From What I Have Seen on The Amtrak News on Amtrak .com That The House Panel Supports Full Funding For Amtrak On June 12. They Had Marked up Legislation Fully Funding The Bush Administration's And Amtrak's request of $521 Million, Scored at 100 Percent, For Fiscal Year 2002. If Passed By The House And The Senate This Year, The Appropiation Will enable Amtrak to continue to Make Key infrastructure investments in Passenger rail Service while Maintaining The Lowest Level of Federal Operating Assististance in the Company's History.
Amtrak President George Warrington has Said That They Applaud The Committee's Action, And Look Forward To Continuing to Work With Congress And The Bush Administration To Invest in a Revitalized Passenger Rail System That Helps Meet The Nations Transportation's Needs.
Amtrak Has Reduced it's Federal Operating Assistance From $318 Million in Fy 1999 To A Projected $59 Million This Year And A Projected $40 Millionin Fy 2002. on a Glide Path to it's Elimination in 2003. in the first 6 Month's of The Current Fiscal Year Amtrak Served 11.3 Million Passengers, up 7 Percent Over The Same Period in Fy 2000. Ticket Revenue, At $ 564 Million was up By 12.2 Percent Over The Previous Year's Period.
Now Amtrak's Guests enjoy Satisfaction-Guaranteed Service in More Than 500 communities in 45 States Througout a 22,000Mile Route Sytem. That's it
posted
I have to agree with Mr. Toy. While it is possible Amtrak as we know it today could face the end by 2003, I find it unlikely. Lately, I've grown increasingly concerned, but Amtrak has faced very similar crisis' before. In fact, in 1980 everyone was convinced the Reagan administration would kill Amtrak. This battle went on for several budget years, as I recall, with Amtrak just squeeking by.
The real question is how Amtrak will survive - with a mandate (and budget!) to operate a proper, modern passenger rail system, or just barely enough money to merely keep "limping along". Long-distance trains do face a greater danger (some more than others), but operations in the Northeast Corridor, Chicago, North Carolina, Washington state, and California are probably safe. However, Amtrak still faces the possibility of a restructuring along the lines of the suggestions (many of which have already been discredited) of the Amtrak Reform Council.
Along those lines, there was a mid-80's proposal for Amtrak to sell the Northeast Corridor, under the argument that it was costing too much to maintain and improve. The ARC has made a similar argument recently, but Amtrak needs to control it's own tracks. For evidence, look at freight train interference across the nation to long-distance trains (the Sunset at Houston was nearly six hours late the other day).
quote:Originally posted by DC2001: Amtrak needs to control it's own tracks. For evidence, look at freight train interference across the nation to long-distance trains (the Sunset at Houston was nearly six hours late the other day).
The idea that Amtrak needs to control its own tracks doesn't really make sense to me, any more than the idea that airlines need to control their own airports. In fact, I tend to agree with those who say that Amtrak's financial and management commitment to the NEC is indeed dragging it down.
Turning over the NEC tracks to an infrastructure authority, much like port authorities that run airports, makes perfect sense to me. Amtrak would no longer have the financial burden of maintaining and upgrading it. Furthermore, It would not be in the hands of freight companies, so that comparison isn't valid.
In fact, I think state infrastructure authorities should take over all of the tracks in the country and let any operator run trains on them. Then we would have true transportation infrastructure parity, as the founder of this website advocates. But that ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 06-26-2001).]
posted
I'll agree the Northeast Corridor is a financial drain on Amtrak. My point really hinges on how you define "control", and I contend that Amtrak needs to retain day-to-day control of the tracks (dispatching, scheduling, etc). Some form of "port authority" might work, by relieving Amtrak the cost of maintenance and upgrading, but there are problems with this. Besides, rather than create (and fund) a new agency to manage the corridor, why not just give Amtrak the same subsidy? Proper track maintenance is going to cost about the same, whethor it's performed by Amtrak, a state agency, or someone else.
[This message has been edited by DC2001 (edited 06-27-2001).]
posted
Well even if somehow amtrak manages to get funding past 2003, they have so many things that need to be fixed its hard to imagine how they will have enough money to keep themselves standing. There are run down stations, cars, engines, even track in some areas that need to be fixed or even upgraded. Ive heard from so many people on other train forums that the one of the things that they would really like to see is an upgrade in the engines, to bring something like the old flair that people had for the old days back. Simply put, what a lot of people have been saying is that just changing the amtrak logo is not enough to bring in people.
What do you guys think? What would you like to see amtrak add/change?
Thanks
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honest information of delays/train status. ("We apologize for the delay. We need a replacement locomotive, and it will be at least 45 minutes before we can depart")
Reliable air conditioning in coaches.
Expanded business class (people are willing to pay).
Freedom to advertise individual trains & routes.
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I'm in favor of expanded routes (usually they are just resuming service over a line that had passenger trains in the past). Example: Los Angeles-Las Vegas.
Continuing replacement of engines is useful too. It has been several years since I have been stuck behind a "dead" engine, but it does happen.
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
well I was thinking more along the lines of engines being more colorful. I guess Im just suck on engines of old like rio grande's and santa fe's. But the amtrak ones just seem bland.
As far as the expanded routes, they need to do something..anything at this point
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I'm also in favor of expanded routes. Examples Chicago to Florida Route, Montreal-Washington, Chicago, Twin Cities,to SOuthern Dakota,and Southern Montana Route to Seattle, Chicago-Houston Route, and Los Angeles-Miami.
Posts: 136 | From: Biloxi,MS,USA | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kent Loudon: In order of preference: 1. Ride charters, such as American Orient Express. ...
Well if you can afford it, go for it, but it is more of a luxury trip than it is a practical means for a point to point trip Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
[/b][/QUOTE] Well if you can afford it, go for it, but it is more of a luxury trip than it is a practical means for a point to point trip[/B][/QUOTE]
You mean to tell me that people actually take Amtrak just for TRANSPORTATION?
Posts: 75 | From: Somerville, NJ USA | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im going to take your comment as meant to be a funny response. If, however, it was meant to be rude or insulting then we are going to have a problem, needless to say there is no place for it on this board. I will apologize in advance if you feel you have been treated disrespectfully by my previous posts. It was not my intention.
I would like to get back on topic if we could.
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would sure help amtrak out a lot if they could get permission from the some of the freight lines to use their tracks. That could open up new lines everywhere.
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In (a serious) response to a previous post, people do use Amtrak for transportation. It serves many cities that lack regular air service. On a recent trip a woman was traveling from her son's place in New Jersey to her home near Prince, West Virginia. She probably could have flown, but would have had to drive to Charleston first. Amtrak will never be a major player in large western cities (Phoenix, Denver, etc.). But for many smaller cities it is a viable option, and a potentially enjoyable one too.
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak does not offer the routes, speed or frequency of service that business travelers need. The Southwestern US has several choices in low cost short hop airlines (Southwest, America West) and people have grown accustomed to traveling that way in spite of the crowding. Tourists help fill the planes/trains but business travelers pay the bills.
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
man I just wish I could have lived 100 years ago just for the chance to ride the rails the way it was meant to be.
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StonewallJones: man I just wish I could have lived 100 years ago just for the chance to ride the rails the way it was meant to be.
Complete with cinders and NO air conditioning ? Fifty years ago would be fine with me!
Posts: 75 | From: Somerville, NJ USA | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anything but the dull watered down gray version of today would be fine with me
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak needs to control it's own tracks as long as the freight railroads continue to control their own tracks. The NEC corridor a financial drain on Amtrak? It's one of the few places were lots of people actually TAKE the train. Take the NEC away from Amtrak and just watch Amtrak disappear tommorrow. The NEC is just about the only place in this country (with California and the Pacific Northwest catching up) were people actually THINK of passenger rail as a viable option. Amtrak needs that. Take the NEC away from Amtrak and leave it with only the long distance routes and it will die for sure.
[This message has been edited by 20thCenturyLimited (edited 10-21-2001).]
Posts: 134 | From: New York, New York USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although it is getting increasingly difficult to travel by ship, it is still possible to get to Europe from the USA (from Boston at present, but normally New York)aboard Cunard's splendid vessel: the Queen Elizabeth 2. There are also several companies which carry passengers on their container ships from Canada and the USA to Europe, Africa, South America, etc. Several times per year there are re-positioning voyages on many cruise lines, which provide for trans-Atlantic travel. All world cruises accept passengers on a "point A to point B" basis. Whilst these voyages are certainly not as convenient as daily air service, it is possible to get around a great deal of the world by sea and rail. I know people who never fly; one friend has seen more of the world by ship than most people have by air.
Posts: 216 | From: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes I realise all that. Trust me. I love Ocean Liners. But who has the time and money to travel to Europe by QE2 roundtrip on a regular basis? That's two weeks in transit on the ship portion of the journey alone (especially since they slowed down the crossing from 5 to 6 days), not to mention train travel time to New York if you don't live in New York. And yeah sure you can book SOME but not all Point A to Point B travel on the QE2's world cruise. Not ALL Point A to Point B travel is permitted. I know, becuae I get those World Cruise brochures every year. Traveling on the QE2 is one of my life dreams. So you spend a Gazillion dollars to get from somewhere in the middle of the country to get to Los Angeles by train so you can pick up the QE2 on her way to Australia, your chosen vacation destination. A Gazillion dollars and how much TIME? Then how do you get back? Try to find a cargo vessel that takes on passengers? I know they exist, I've sought out that information too. But SOOOOOOOOO impractical to live your whole life never flying. Only the wealthiest people with the most free time on their hands could do it that way and it would get rather tedious. I mean, come on, this is NOT 1937 (when, once again, if you DID have the money and time, it would be much much more practical and comfortable). I'm not the most confident of flyers, and I will use an alternate form of transportation like a train or ship if I can, but I also realise you have to fly to see Australia, Japan, the Far East and every other overseas destination on a practical basis. Especially if you want to return more than once. "I'll never get on a plane" just strikes me as so....naive. Don't get me wrong I LOVE train travel and have a big passion for the great Ocean Liners of yesteryear (the Normandie is my favorite) but to say you will never fly.....? That doesn't seem to be living in reality....
[This message has been edited by 20thCenturyLimited (edited 10-22-2001).]
Posts: 134 | From: New York, New York USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Expanded routes are they way to go I think. The question is can amtrak ge tthe funding needed to do this?
Posts: 62 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebradley: last straw was the Post Office's "sectional center" system, actually a throwback to the "sorting post offices" of early 19th century, with ZIP codes and machine sorting added. Railway Post Office (sorting) cars were dropped thru the 1960s. Only "niche' markets now, alas!
Well spoken. Truthfully, look at the makeup of first class traffic up to 1968, when the fledgling US Postal Service discontinued all their Railway Mail Service AND in-transit mail storage contracts. There were whole trains, scheduled on the employee and public timetables (thus First Class) that served the mail, express, and perishable markets. As I recall, if you dig through historic train numbers, the ATSF California Limited, once the premier train on the line, and the UP Los Angeles Limited, again once a premier train on the line, were the all-stops mail and express trains.
Amtrak took as its legislative charter the remnant of passenger service ... BUT at the time in the 70s, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the railroads did not have a business model that supported high-end scheduled, advertised, "elite" freight traffic. Had that been part of the founding charter, Amtrak would not be where it is today.
Just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.
John
------------------ The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations
posted
The debate rages on, while most of the country yawns. History around the world has proven time and again that passenger travel in the auto and jet age does not pay. The model that all continents/countries with successful rail travel use is government subsidy justified by the response of the citizens supporting those particular governments.
In fact, they do it because they think it is the right and logical thing to do, not from a justifiable economic model. In the USA, it will not happen unless a majority of our legislators at the Federal level take the same mind set as Europe or Japan. Obviously, it is not happening quickly, if at all.
On the other hand, there is sufficient strong national and regional support to keep hope and the fight alive. But it has not jelled into a consensus, thus we muddle along with a bleeding system that we can't quite dismantle, and can't manage to properly run. I agree with above comments in that I sense the backlash to AMTRAK's demise is sufficiently feared by the political structure that its crash will not come soon despite the dire predictions. Time will tell.
Posts: 1 | From: Akron, OH, USA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
