Obviously this a long way from anything actually happening.
"The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held an all-day hearing October 29 to consider “Investing in Infrastructure: The Road to Recovery.” There was a bipartisan consensus that the federal government, having helped out Wall Street, now needs to help Main Street by giving states funds for ready-to-go projects that will put construction workers back on the job and not require a state match. With less than a week to go before Election Day, there was a small turn-out of legislators, with Ranking Member John Mica (FL) and Candice Miller (MI) the only Republicans.
The witnesses included Amtrak Chief Operating Officer William Crosbie, whose PowerPoint presentation identified $410 million in “immediate capital needs.” The $130 million identified for rolling stock included $71 million to put 69 Amfleet cars back into service. Coupled with funds Amtrak already has budgeted to return 12 such cars, this would put all 81 parked Amfleet cars back in service. Among the long-term items identified were: about $300 to replace 75 baggage cars and 25 Heritage diners, and about $52.5 million for 15 new single-level sleepers to expand capacity on New York-based long-distance trains. "
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's quite a wishlist......but I concur that they have great need for new single-level diners and sleepers.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: Nothing for Superliners there.
I guess the current fleet is adequate
-------------------- Matt Visit gallery for photos of our train layouts Posts: 579 | From: San Bernardino Subdivison | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting how there is no mention of what is REALLY needed; 200 new "A-III's". Forty additional Acela Coaches would be nice, but a "luxury" in austere times.
I realize this is hardly the "mainstream" thought at a travel oriented, as distinct from public policy oriented, railforum such as ours here, but it appears the fixation with a product (NARP I can understand; after all their best interests are served with a national constituency) that was to have been dead and buried. or so the railroad industry to my best knowledge was told, within ten years after A-Day simply will not die.
Again I should note, although I "was there" on A-Day, I was hardly "high up" enough to participate in the "join up" decision making process. But knowing railroad management to the extent I did on A-Day, if anyone envisioned that there would be Long Distance trains chugging about forty years later over Class I Rights of Way, then I think the "joiners" would have been limited to the "desperates" such as Penn Central (the EL was already "out"), C&NW, IC, and my MILW Road.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for imagination sake, most people will agree that the AT&SF and SCL were among the most 'passenger-friendly' railroads remaining by 1970. I suspect that this is because they had quite a niche market ferrying passengers from cold places to warm places.
The SCL in particular had quite a franchise because their trips maxed out at about 28 hours.
I wonder how it would have played out for Long-Distance passenger trains had Santa Fe and Seaboard opted to continue operating their own passenger trains and not join Amtrak?
Where would we be today and how would we have gotten here?
I have my own suspicions but I'll hold on to those for a little longer.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman, it is surprising that the wish list is weighted towards LD service given all the hype on corridor trains. I'm especially surprised at the non revenue baggage cars. I would think adding a baggage section to a few coaches would be a lot cheaper (maybe even call them combines).
David, interesting idea. I think SCL etc would have continued to run good trains - up until the losses mounted and a management change said 'let's get out of the passenger business'.
But, that said, I wonder if a new administration might make a deal with the railroads - you take over day to day train operations and the government will give you tax breaks that will make you whole, while maintaining a centralized reservation, equipment maintenance function. At one time I think one of the railroads floated that idea - maybe NS. I'll bet train performance would improve. Oh yes, to pay for it the income tax reduction would only apply to those making less than $20,000 (sorry, couldn't resist a political comment on election eve).
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe I have reported here in the past that I had learned both SCL and ATSF were on the fence with regards to signing up.
I once learned that "the lights burned late' at 500 Water and then-CEO Prime F Osborn was personally involved in the decision making process. Apparently SCL was "making book" on the trains and the equipment, with SAL having had cars delivered during 1956, was relatively new and well maintained. However, reportedly they were concerned that the interchange at Wash, or even Richmond depending on which way then-independent RF&P went, would be broken. Direct through service to the Northeast quite simply is paramount, as Amtrak once considered a Superliner equipped Capitol-Star but dismissed such when they evaluated the loss of patronage if Northeast passengers had to change at Wash (remember not everyone is a railfan; most could care less about what kind of car they ride).
I further learned Santa Fe reportedly almost stayed out account access to Chicago Union Station. They were concerned that under the 1919 Agreement regarding access by tenant roads, that they would be stung for a portion of the debt service without reaping any benefits such as air right revenue from 10, 120, & 222 Riverside Plaza, They took one look at Section 4.4 of the May 1, 1971 Agreement which basically allowed a terminal company to pass all of the cost of their "fiefdom" (and believe you me they had 'em) to Amtrak - especially when they were to be the sole user (albeit not the case at CUS). They thought Amtrak, or any sane party, would simply say "unconscionable" and have those provisions voided.
No doubt, 4.4 was why Amtrak made quick exits from the various mausoleums about the System in rather short order. Obviously their decisions to return to the likes of KC, Cinci, Richmond were made on the strength of more favorable access terms than 4.4.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by amtraxmaniac: No mention of Superliners. An eastern US bias. Go figure.
Of course. Remember, most of the "opinion makers" and "people with opinions that matter" tend to hang out in the northeast, except of course the Hollywood contingent, who probably couldn't find LA Union Station unless it was being used as a movie set. Everything in between is just unimhabited flyover country. We had a (no longer present) misplaced Bostonian in the office here in San Francisco that referred to Salt Lake City as being part of the near Pacific Ocean Far West.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't see how that could be pegged as such in particular. The Capitol Limited originates in the east and terminates in Chicago. The Auto Train does not leave the eastern seaboard.
Not to mention that at one time, almost all of Amtrak's fleet was single-level and had a greater compatibility with the eastern network (this link illustrating the many observation cars, in particular). I'd argue that the move towards Superliners was intended to put a rift between east and west (mostly), and that a move back to single-level would heal that rift to a far greater degree.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see it as a bias as all. I see it as a prioritization of needs. The baggage and Dining cars operating in the East are all a minimum of 50 years old. There are not sufficient single level sleepers to cover needs. I don't think the rest of the country is forgotten, it is just first things first.
Posts: 332 | From: Long Island, NY USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
