posted
Whatever some around here hold with regards to the future of Long Distance trains, the first step of many suggests that Amtrak has become a $2B program. That is what the House Committee on Appropriations has "marked up" for FY19:
When I learned of this development, all I could think of was what must go down as one of the biggest Amtrak blunders of all times.
While likely attributed to "Tenderfoots in the Eagle Scouts' Troop", an answer given by Roger Lewis during 1972 when Amtrak was groveling for "a couple of hundred M", in response to the Committee's question "Sir, if we gave you a Billion dollars (remember volks, this is back in '72), what kind of railroad could you give the American people?"
"Sir, that would be more money than we could sensibly commit".
DUUUHHHHHH!
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forget route expansion. Work on bettering what you have. 1. Decent dining cars for one. At the worst, something like the California service where you have what is in essence a snack car with microwave meals. Forget this airplane style cardboard food on a cardboard plate. 2. Station improvements. Have people there at any place that has more than a couple on/offs. 3. Slow spots where there is no liklihood that the freight carrier sees any justification in making an improvement. Going 90 instead of 79 is mostly for bragging rights. You get far more out of pulling a 10 or 15 spot up to 25 or better 40 or more, and usually it is less costly. 4. For a specific, fix the access of the Texas Eagle into San Antonio so that it can go straight in and out. 5. Get off your butt and finish Chicago - St. Louis speed up like you want to use it not make a career out of building it. 6. Daily Sunset Limited. 7. Consider some second or even third trains on New York to Chicago
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak is not going to staff stations (nor should they) that have minimal ridership with online booking availabilie today. What they should initiate is something like the old traveling freight agent. Have an agent on the train that helps passengers load bags they want to check into the baggage car (paperwork for bags would be part of on line ticket purchase), assist with disabled, answer quesions, and assist the crew to insure those without tickets have the means to complete ticket sales on the train. Caretaker to open and close waiting rooms. He would be part of the OBS not operating crew so HOS not an issue.
Regarding LD train changes, route the LSL via Philadelphia/Pittsburgh and combine it with a single level CL in Phila (much as was done early Amtrak on the Broadway). Daylight service on the current LSL route. The LSL would have connections (or perhaps originate) from Boston via NEC. That would give you daily one seat ride to Chicago from all major NEC points. Upgrade the service on that train as well as the Meteor.
The Texas Chief needs to be reborn as a second daily service Chicago to KC and handle most of the TE current traffic (as well as Heartland Flyer). Other intrastate Texas service would be handled via connections between current TE Texas cities and those served via the Sunset up to El Paso. A daily Sunset is a waste of money. Keeping the SWC with Denver connections is a lot more viable than serving the likes of Del Rio, Texas and Bisbee, AZ. If the direct route into Phoenix could be resurrected, then daily LA - Tucson service might be viable.
There will be no additional LD trains, Let’s keep what makes sense and redesign the rest.
Give us at least one hot meal option and at least a plastic cup for coffee. Is that asking too much? I do like the idea of a sleeper-lounge/diner - or rather eating area. It’ll be interesting to see how it works in practice.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by palmland: What they should initiate is something like the old traveling freight agent. Have an agent on the train that helps passengers load bags they want to check into the baggage car (paperwork for bags would be part of on line ticket purchase), assist with disabled, answer quesions, and assist the crew to insure those without tickets have the means to complete ticket sales on the train. Caretaker to open and close waiting rooms. He would be part of the OBS not operating crew so HOS not an issue.
First a disclaimer: author has not checked a bag with an airline in over thirty years - overseas jaunts included - and has never checked a bag with any railroad. So for one who never goes away for more than ten days and whose motto in this life is "if you can't carry it, don't bring it", some of this discussion is esoteric.
The position of Baggageman/master has always belonged to Rules Qualified employees under Hours of Service and a class of Train employee. All crafts have made "ground breaking" concessions to Amtrak enabling the Chief to operate with about twelve employees today, as compared with the all-Pullman Super Chief having twenty when I rode it during '62.
The Traveling Freight Agent simply rode passenger trains to get from here to there and was covered by the Clerks agreement. He would Waybill cars, make Yard Checks, assess Demurrage, make collections, and otherwise be a part time agent at several stations.
All told, I think any such comparison is "apples and oranges".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually what I had in mind with the traveling freight agent analogy is rather a traveling station agent. Perhaps a passenger agent would be more accurate title. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.
He would performsome some of the duties of the station agent but his office would be the train, not the station. The AC would still be in the baggage car to receive the luggage the passenger agent would hand up. Sure it would require negotiation but I’m sure the Unions would be glad to recognize it as a OBS position if it retained some of the positions slated for elimination. Just because it hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean it couldn’t or shouldn’t be done. But then we all know Amtrak is not very innovative.
Getting to your point, GBN, most of the Traveling Freight Agents I’m familiar with traveled in a company vehicle outiffited with typewriter and paperwork. He followed the local freight and prepared waybills from the the Bill of Lading the shippers left in the box at their at their siding. I don’t recall any on CSX as they went from the local agent to a centralized agency operation in a few major cities on the Division (thanks to the cutting edge fax machines) then, when technology permitted, it was all centralized in Jacksonville in the early 90’s.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: 5. Get off your butt and finish Chicago - St. Louis speed up like you want to use it not make a career out of building it.
Mr. Harris, the longer the Chi-Stl "High(er) Speed Rail" Project that was first announced during '10, drags on, the more I'm going to think it was simply an excuse to upgrade the UP's freight line at taxpayer expense.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: 5. Get off your butt and finish Chicago - St. Louis speed up like you want to use it not make a career out of building it.
Mr. Harris, the longer the Chi-Stl "High(er) Speed Rail" Project that was first announced during '10, drags on, the more I'm going to think it was simply an excuse to upgrade the UP's freight line at taxpayer expense.
Sadly, too true. Part of the deal should have been to say goodbye to most of the freight, send it over the old C&EI. Wasn't that where it was going before the UPRR Borg took over the ex-GM&O, anyway? What needed doing? A good tie and surface and rail relay, then look at the slow spots should have been the main thing. Put back in some of the 2nd main long since removed and speed up the sidings, plus faster turnouts on them. Bumping the speed to 90 and then to 110 would be nice, but putting more effort into speeding up the slow areas really gets you more bang for your buck.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Adding fuel to the fire" is that UP has built an Intermodal Center somewhat South of Joliet and much like what BNSF has at Willow Springs.
While both are "showpieces" for what railroading is all about (and BNSF's facility has millions of eyeballs on it as I-294 passes directly over on the so called "Mile Long Bridge"), as Mr. Harris notes, the UP facility could have been built along the L&N-C&EI joint trackage. If the State, aided by ARRA09 Feddyfunds, was spending "Billiebucks" to upgrade the GM&O for passenger trains, UP freight operations on the line should have been limited to serving on-line industries. Also, as Mr. Harris notes, the GM&O "Alton Route" was double tracked until the later '60's, so the land to restore such is there.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
