posted
And once again, long distance trains are bashed. This time somebody says the equipment would be better utilized on short routes. That just strikes me as a way of dodging responsibility for capital improvements to both types of service. Why are long distance and regional routes always portrayed as competitors for resources rather than complementary services that reinforce each other?
mgt Member # 5479
posted
Surely the fact that people take the train to reach places like the two Burlingtons mentioned in the article proves the point that Amtrak's long distance routes do serve a practical purpose. In Britain some local services, usually bus routes, are subsidised either locally or by central government, because they do provide an essential service in sparsely populated areas. We were quite surprised when we first used Amtrak's long distance services by the diversity of the passengers and their reasons for using the train. There were very few tourists amongst them and most were travelling by the train because it suited their purpose best. Last years on the Empire Builder it was very evident that that train was providing a vital link between the twin cities westwards.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
I think folks forget that superliners don't do very well under catenary.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Colonel, Superliners could "do OK" serving the Midwest routes (they often do during cold "snaps') enabling what Amfleets are in the Chicago pool to be reassigned to the Corridor. The Midwest Horizons (do not have automatic doors) could be assigned to the Empire Corridor, Downeaster, and Pennsylvanian, releasing more Amfleets for NEC assignment.
I realize that such a move reducing LD capacity at a time of high demand would shove the LD's closer to oblivion and to the extent the legislative majority for funding that "expects" LD service could be adversely affected, but the onslaught of passengers "is war", and as was noted by a former Defense Secretary "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want".
Now that it is evident that $4/ga IS a resistance point, whereas $2/ga first seen during '04 or $3/ga during '06 apparently were not, if such is not enough to have elected representatives move forth with an initiative for 200 A-III's for the NECorridor, as well as additional "matching funds" through the FTA for Local intercity passenger authorities, I don't know what will be.
In closing, we should note that the 1973-74 "gas crisis" and to a lesser extent, that of 1979, was a "supply action" on the part of the instigators. All concerned knew it would be resolved - by armed conflict if necessary. But today, the parameters are different and are controlled by what Friedman taught you back in Econ 101 - "supply and demand'. For unlike thirty years ago, when the only "users" were in North America and Western Europe, there is a whole wide world out there today who are fast discovering they prefer a Bimmer 3 to a rickshaw or bicycle.
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
quote:Gilbert B Norman wrote:
Now that it is evident that $4/ga IS a resistance point, whereas $2/ga first seen during '04 or $3/ga during '06 apparently were not
I think that's a focus more relevant to commuter rail than to intercity rail. Jet fuel prices were still quite low during those periods; only of late has the price of jet fuel exceeded $3/gallon.
quote:In closing, we should note that the 1973-74 "gas crisis" and to a lesser extent, that of 1979, was a "supply action" on the part of the instigators. All concerned knew it would be resolved - by armed conflict if necessary. But today, the parameters are different and are controlled by what Friedman taught you back in Econ 101 - "supply and demand'
Friedman's "economics" (read: voodoo) ruined the USA. But that's not the main point here. The "instigators" responsible for high oil prices today are the same "instigators" who created the oil crisis of 1973. They fear no military reprisal from the USA. They may, however, have somewhat to fear from the European Union, if we among others are foolish enough to give the EU the means and mantle to take over the "world policeman" role from the US.
And speaking of the EU, the people there also like to drive. Consider the country that spawned the Autobahn. Simply because there are now 16-car ICE IIIs (not a miscount) running alongside the Autobahn on the NBS corridors (Germany's version of the LGV) does not mean a massive modal shift has taken place.
quote:PullmanCo wrote:
I think folks forget that superliners don't do very well under catenary
? I'm trying to find the comment this relates to, in this thread. I don't see it.
Superliners would "do well under catenary (wire)" depending on the overhead clearance. Metra Electric's Highliners are approximately the same height above rail as a Superliner and they depend on catenary wire.
I have not seen Superliners withdrawn from Washington Union Station, either. They are still there. The only way the Capitol Limited would lose its Superliners is if it were returned to its original route (towards New York, whether on the PRR or the B&O).
The one thing that Superliners are guaranteed to not "do well" at, no matter the overhead clearance, is a high platform.
train lady Member # 3920
posted
Until the car shortage the Cardinal ran with superliners. I know that because we rode on them.
RR4me Member # 6052
posted
It is also suspect that the the equipment, noted as old and on the edge of good repair, would serve the purpose of gaining business if it were indeed drafted into several more trips per day on short haul routes. What would more likely happen is more breakdowns, more delays and more unhappiness, and more complaining about Amtrak's abilities. Better to do it right, and give them the investment and the time needed. After all, I doubt gas prices are going to drop much.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
I'm thinking in terms of days of yore. I was told, more than once, by railfans specializing in NYC and PRR, that they didn't buy domes or doubledeckers for under catenary malice aforethought.
Even UP's ACF short domes and SF/GN's Great Domes were lower in height than Superliners.
218+51... and for that 51, you don't get it with just the Corridor states and CA. (Haven't done the math on the 218 recently...)
posted