posted
Even if the conclusion reached by some around here will be different than mine, Washington Post has an article that should stir interest:
Fair Use:
The Empire Builder and other “long-distance” trains also provide a glimpse at what rail travel looked like before Amtrak’s creation in May 1971.
In recent years, Amtrak has touted the idea that its most successful routes connect cities that are 100 to 500 miles apart. Earlier this spring, when President Biden announced his new infrastructure plan, Amtrak released a map showing 30 new routes, most of which fit into that range, connecting Los Angeles with Las Vegas; Savannah to Atlanta; and Madison to Milwaukee. But a half-century after its creation, the backbone of Amtrak’s national system is still its long-distance trains, ones covering thousands of miles of land, with historic names like Capitol Limited, California Zephyr and Empire Builder, all of which predate Amtrak.
The Empire Builder — the train that normally rumbles through my town every morning and every night — first connected Chicago with Portland and Seattle in 1929. The train was named after the Great Northern Railway’s founder, James J. Hill, a Canadian-born rail baron known for his industrial empire that stretched from the Midwest to the Pacific Northwest. While other passenger trains came before (the Great Northern was built in the 1890s), the Empire Builder offered travelers unparalleled comfort, with spacious sleeping cars and a dining car offering up fresh fish, lamb and prime rib. There was even a barber onboard. In that era, railroads spared no expense in trying to lure passengers aboard trains and even worked to develop attractions along their routes to entice the public to take a trip.
Articles likes this will only arouse the advocacy community wasting Congressional time with the usual array of "Bring back...." litanies.
"It's over" - and should have been forty five years ago, allowing for a "five year ease the pain transition" following A-Day.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one so far as I know outside the optimists inside the industry though Amtrak was a 5 year slide into a passenger train free rail system. It was regarded by many as a way to bail Penn Central out of passenger train losses and fund the Northeast Corridor with the thought that passenger train declines were approaching bottoming out. It was hoped by many to reduce the huge inequities in funding between air services and rail services. (Remember funding for "essential air services"?) The thought was that Amtrak could become a rail equivalent for many routes. There was also thinking that there would be serious money for station improvements and track upgrades, particularly on routes with good passenger potential but highly neglected track. (Here's looking at you Penn Central.) Think of the grunginess of many stations where a simple major clean up repair, paint, and PARKING would make a world of differene of their ambience. Think of such things things as serious catch up in maintenance and working on permanent slow orders on such routes as Chicago to Indianapolis, Louisville, Cincinatti, etc. Think of the many routes that would have 70 to 80 or more speed limits that were essentially negated by 10 to 15 mph for the last few miles into their urban areas. Many of these super slow zones could have 15 mph increased to 45 mph for a pittance compared to the cost of 10 times the distance increased from 70 to 80. Alas, outside the Northeast we ended up with near nothing more than new paint jobs on the equipment, and instead over the years since steady reduction in system capacity (again outside the northeast) and declining track capacity and speeds (again outside the northeast). There should have been a designated fund to reduce low speed zones and improve congested segments outside the northeast from day 1 of Amtrak. This could have easily been covered by the money already being spent simply making sure that the value of improvements in the northeast was equivalent to money spent, instead of if lucky around half that.
As to "bring back", we should be looking at around 4 trains per day New York to Chicago spaced to provide good service to intermediate cities, with sufficient speed up in the line so as to have a daytime City of New Orleans type service being one of them, Given the differing intermediate points, this could probably be done on both the ex NYC and ex PRR routes. Throw in eqivalent services to places like Detroit, Columbus, Cincinatti, St. Louis, etc as well. Chicago to St. Louis should also have been early in the game rather that the just now barely over thinking about it. And, oh yeah,m why such stuff as the Floridian instead of using the City of Miami route, which always had the far higher passenger loading and more reliable operation? I could go on and on but I will quit here.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem always with most railroad passenger services was the differences in quality of services and trains on the same line. It was as if an airline had one jet flight, one DC3 and and one Ford Tri-motor on a route, all at the same fare, or maybe the jet would have a higher fare. It was not like you could take a morning train or a mid day train and expect the same quality of service and equipment regardless of time.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
