posted
First of all, ShaLeah, I hope you are not reading this on your honeymoon. Wait until you get back. You have more important things to do now.
Now, under this other thread http://www.railforum.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/001510.html you made several comments that really should be covered under a different topic heading. So I'll start that here. I'd like to address several of the points you made.
quote:We will never have a successful rail system until passenger trains gain priority over freight. .... I think it's sad that this nation puts travelling tomatoes ahead of travelling people.
I don't like to make this an either/or issue. Freight railroads provide an essential service to this country. Furthermore, freight and passenger trains coexisted quite well many years ago. But today the infrastructure isn't up to it. What is needed is to improve the infrastructure so that passenger trains can coexist peacefully with freight.
quote:How can we make passenger service a priority? Just a couple thoughts.
a. Fine rail owners for allowing freight ahead. .... Maybe if the US goverment made it as illegal to do that as they have made it illegal to carry a pair of hair cutting scissors onto a plane cargo hold, we can avoid some of the biggest of Amtrak problems, delay related hassle.
As I understand it, Amtrak trains are legally supposed to get priority, but it has never really been enforced. However, Amtrak does impose financial penalties on the host railroads for late trains. Amtrak also pays incentive rewards for on time trains. I don't have the latest figures, but in 2001 UP paid Amtrak $1.2 million in penalties. BNSF received a whopping $12 million in on time incentive payments. David Gunn says BNSF thinks of Amtrak as a "profit center," and he wishes other railroads would adopt the BNSF attitude.
But there seems to be a huge difference in the corporate culture of BNSF and UP. UP just doesn't seem to care.
The worst thing we could do is instutionalize an adversarial arrangement between Amtrak and the freight railroads. Both sides need to come out winners or nobody will be happy.
quote:b. Make all trains consistent in everything from food, uniforms, service standards, equipment and ammenities.
Absolutely!!! I might take exception to the equipment standard, just because there are different regional needs, but otherwise you are right on. I think David Gunnn is on the same page.
quote:c. This nation needs to slow down. In my opinion, what makes train travel unattractive to people is not the travel itself but how long it takes to get there. You can fly from NY to LA in a few hours, why take a train that can take days? You only get so much vacation, most people don't want to spend half of it on a train getting there. Those of us who like the train don't feel that way, until we learn as a nation to slow down a bit, I'm afraid we'll remain a minority.
On slowing down: Train travel isn't for everyone or for every trip. But I have a theory that as the baby boom generation grows older that will happen. People like myself are looking for more relaxing ways to travel, and see the country.
On the time it takes to travel cross country: Most long-distance train trips average between 800 and 1,100 miles, depending on the route. East-west trains tend to have longer averages than north-south trains. Most people won't take a three day cross country train trip unless they really want to. But Amtrak is very practical for travel across three or four states, even big states, on a one or two day trip. Out west people don't think twice about driving that distance, so Amtrak is a credible, faster and cheaper alternative to driving because you don't have to stop for motels.
quote: d. Large cities -need- to adopt a rail system for their commuters. NY, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, all very active in train travel, other large cities, Pittsburgh for example, Atlanta, Miami, those cities rely more on buses than trains. If we can get people to trust us to get them there short distance, they will inevitably follow in their long distance.
I've always believed that long-distance and regional trains are complimentary services that are more successful together than either would be alone. They feed passengers to each other, and as you suggested (and I had not previously considered) successful regional services may very well encourage people to try long-distance.
quote:e. We -need- to have express service across the country in order to appeal to the group of people who want to get there faster....
I hate to say this, but if people are in a hurry to get across the country, the fastest train in the world won't be able to compete with a plane.
quote: I would not hesitate to take a train from NY to Portland provided it only stopped at MAJOR cities, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland or Toledo, Chicago and on west, without stopping at those smaller stations along the way. A lot of time is killed at these small station stops, as long as it takes forever to get from point A to point B on the rails, we're not going to get too popular.
Those small town stops are only about 5 minutes or so. They don't really hinder a train's progress by much. But they do generate a fair amount of business. These are the places that often need rail service the most because the air alternative is either very expensive or nonexistent.
quote:f. People need to stop driving all over the place. Yeah, that'll happen.
Won't happen. I'm not among those who want to get everyone out of their cars. There's a place for planes, cars, and trains. I support personal choice, and I believe trains should be an available choice.
quote: g. I know I'm dreaming on this one but I'd like to see all rails, all across the land, be property of the US government or the state they go through, take them out of private ownership.
Definitely won't happen. Not in the foreseeable future, anyway. But public-private partnerships hold some promise. There are a lot of ways we can make the existing setup work to everyone's advantage if the country is willing to make the effort.
Take care.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
The underlying raison d'etre for the highway system is national defense. I think rail's ability to move many many more people than roads can be used to bolster Amtrak's neccessity, even if that's not the key aspect of our personal agendas.
Dave
Posts: 284 | From: Ithaca, NY USA | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"National defense" was a ruse to get the highways built using public money. Consider that WWII's war machine was kept rolling by the rails, not the roads.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On BNSF if AMTK is 2hr in the picture we go into the sidings and get out of the way as far as the train running late let's say UP handed the train off to BNSF late BNSF could delay the train and not pay for it because the rule says if the train is 30 seconds off it's time the Freight RR are not responable for further delays.
------------------ LOOK LISTEN LIVE BEFORE CROSSING RR TRACKS
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: "National defense" was a ruse to get the highways built using public money.
Old highway maps (late 50s/early 60s) refer to the Interstate system as necessary for National Defense. Not sure if it was a ruse; maybe they really believed that?
As for today, the trucks (motor carriers) are better at lobbying for funds. Maybe it is better called groveling? Special interests or not, that is the way to get taxpayer funding for projects...
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Make all trains consistent in everything from food, uniforms, service standards, equipment and amenities" quote ShaLeah.
"Absolutely!!!" quote Mr. Toy, with a possible exception to standardizing equipment due to pragmatic regional needs.
Maybe I'm out of tune with the choir around here, but I'm not a big fan of standardization. Certainly there needs to be service standards that all passengers can expect on any Amtrak train. But I don't like the current trend toward eliminating those little things that once made each train unique.
I miss the regional variations in the diner menus. That national menu last year was the ultimate in "consistent" food on each train, but I don't recall many folks raving about that change. I'd miss the Parlour Cars on the Coast Starlight if they were eliminated to bring about equipment standardization. I miss the availablility of regional micro-brews and variety of train-specific souvenirs in the lounge cars, and those amenities like fresh flowers and a chocolate on the pillows in the sleeping cars.
I'm a big fan of David Gunn's regime, but I feel centralization of control might have been taken too far. Sure, I understand much of that can be attributed to budget realities. But I'd like to see some movement toward decentralized decision making and a return to a little less uniformity.
I've boarded 14 trains this year, and have heard a number of comments from Amtrak employees about what they would do to improve service and amenities if they had the authority. They're working on the front-lines, and they are in an excellent position to pick up on ways to improve service and amenities. My thought is: give them more discretionary authority.
For example, why couldn't each long-distance train be given a discretionary budget for each unit (diner, lounge, etc.)? So, if the lounge car attendants feel there is a demand for Coast Starlight coffee mugs or Sierra Nevada Pale Ale (neither of which are now available), they can stock these items. The Empire Builder attendants might see different needs, like Moose Drool Ale and Cheese-Head-Hats. Whatever-but empower them with more discretionary authority to make their train unique from the others. It could introduce a more competitive environment between routes, instill additional pride among crews, and generate new ideas on making a train trip even more pleasurable. And I don't see that it would be a budget-breaker (actually might provide a return on investment).
Does every Amtrak train need to be cut from the same cloth? It seems that's the fork in the road we've taken, and some seem quite happy going down this path. But I'm not.
[This message has been edited by zephyr (edited 11-13-2003).]
posted
But I don't like the current trend toward eliminating those little things that once made each train unique
Uniqueness is a luxury reserved for profitable operations. Besides, as I stated in other threads, Amtrak has de-standardized by getting away from the past prevalence of single-level equipment and towards Superliners, Amfleets, Viewliners, Talgos, Acela Expresses—and ending up hurting itself consequently. Try getting out of a Superliner at a high platform or an Acela Express at a low platform—neither can be done.
Again, with "little things that once made each train unique", you are comparing apples and oranges, Amtrak with private operators of the past. Certainly, bus or airliner operators are not concerned with designing "unique" equipment...
posted
Zephyr makes some good points, and I don't necessarily disagree. On menus, regional meals would be great as long as it can be done affordably. But they switched to standard menus because they could save money. Gunn modified that to enable riders on connecting trains to have some variety, which is a good thing.
As for equipment standardization, its important to have compatibility so that cars can be switched from train to train as travel demand dictates. Standardization doesn't necessarily mean the Parlour Car would come off the Starlight. It could also mean that every train gets a Parlour Car.
But regional needs also come into play. The short tunnels in the east come to mind.
David Gunn has been adamant that the equipment have a standard livery rather than a hodge podge of Phase III, phase IV, phase V etc. It may be only a small part of what Amtrak is about, but it is one of the main things the public sees.
Standardization of quality control procedures is probably the most important of all, and that's what I think ShaLeah was getting at.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
irishchieftan, how do you make the leap in logic from my statement of "those little things that once made each train unique" to your views on major capital investment issues? My thoughts of giving crews on different routes more authority to make decisions in their area of work responsibility is not on the same scale as deciding which trainsets to purchase for the route. I gave the example of empowering lounge car attendants with the authority to stock Moose Drool Ale if they perceived a demand for it. That's hardly a major capital investment. But it's a step toward making that train unique and different from the next one you board.
You also state "...you are comparing apples and oranges, Amtrak with private operators of the past." Where did you get that from anything I said. I have no experience with "private operators of the past." I did compare Amtrak today with Amtrak of a while back. You could say that once you've seen one Superliner, you've seen them all. But minor service and amenity differences just seemed to provide each route with a different atmosphere, character and "feel." It does for me. And I'm just not convinced that this is so much of a budget issue as it is a management style.
Finally, I question your statement of "uniqueness is a luxury reserved for profitable operations." Is it really a "luxury", or is uniqueness an important factor that "creates" successful (profitable to use your word) operations. Think of businesses that you frequent and that are successful. Speaking for myself, my favorite restaurants, museums, entertainers, professionals, hotels, car rental companies, etc., are those that offer something that is not readily available to me elsewhere. In a word, they are unique, and this quality contributed to earning my business and that of many others. It's not a "luxury" that only the successful can offer, it's a factor that can make an enterprise successful.
Standardization has it's place. Major capital equipment might be such a place. My point is simply that micro-managing and standardizing every aspect of any endeavor is not a something that contributes to its success. Then standardization just becomes simply a refuge for the uninspired.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
