posted
This came in today's Capitol Corridor newsletter:
quote:Beginning August 15, 2006 Capitol Corridor train status and ticket sales will no longer be available via Amtrak’s automated interactive phone voice system (“Julie”). Voice-automated train status reporting has been temporarily suspended, and a new system is under development. For immediate access to train status information and to purchase tickets, go to http://www.capitolcorridor.org
Will Julie no longer be giving train status for all of Amtrak, or just the Capitol Corridor?
rY. Member # 3528
posted
Sounds like Julie is abandoning the Capitol Corridor and not "train status" in general, Mr. Toy!
This probably has to do with the growing distinction that is being made between Amtrak (or Amtrak "California") and the "Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority" (CCJPA) which, as you probably know, oversees the Capitol Corridor trains. The trains all say "Amtrak California" and the tickets all say "Amtrak" (they do for now, anyway), but it seems the "authority" is now being asserted by CCJPA (which is managed by BART).
Clearly, Julie is just reflecting her loyalty.
(Anyone with actual substantial information is welcome to correct any of my assumptions!!)
daniel3197 Member # 27
posted
MR Toy, NO this very foolish, shortsighted and STUPID move will ONLY impact the CAPITOL CORRIDOR in Northern California. Thankfully the remainder of the Amtrak system WILL STAY with the Julie automated train status system. The Capitol Corridor basically operates frequent corridor service from Sacramento to Oakland and San Jose. More information on the Amtrak Capitol Corridor can of course be found as you posted at www.capitolcorridor.org
This shortsighted move is apparently being done to somehow save the Capitol Corridor management some money. NATIONAL Amtrak charges the Capitol Corridor for providing nationwide reservation and information services. The only REAL winners with this new reservation and train status arrangement will of course be the corporate accountants and bean counters at Amtrak. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that this change will BENEFIT the traveling public. It is of course FAR FAR BETTER for to have ALL reservations and information in ONE UNIFIED central operation. This starts us down the pre-Amtrak road when EACH railroad had its own SEPERATE reservation and ticketing organization. The end result of this pre 1971 arrangement was dozens of seperate ticketing offices. OUCH indeed!! --- Daniel
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
I'm most amused (bemused?) when checking train status and Julie says "Hold on, I'll see if I can find your train."
As if somebody misplaced a train.......
Actually, those in the CSX 'black hole' (the formerly double-tracked main between Petersburg, VA and Rocky Mount, NC) often do get misplaced.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Considering the very different market and nature of the service that the "Capital Corridor" has from the rest of the Amtrak system, I do understand Daniel's heat on this subject.
This corridor is approaching a long distance rapid transit type service which means that more and more of the riders using it will be in the mode of going to grab the next train with the barest of looks at the schedule folder.
George
PaulB Member # 4258
posted
There's good and bad points I see.
The bad news is of course this will cause much confusion as long as this arrangement is in place.
However, I think there are several good points. The state of California has been very proactive in corridor development. They don't simply write a check to Amtrak every year; they own equipment, build track, and conduct feasibility studies for future growth. They also manage the marketing for the California Corridors. URPA (which I've been reading quite a bit of lately) says it's a very wise move for California to do marketing, instead of "paying Amtrak to do nothing". When was the last time you saw an ad for a wholly owned and operated Amtrak train?
As I mentioned before, I've been reading lots of material over at URPA's site. While a lot of it is opinionated, some just pure rants, and a lot of material is uncited, they do make several valid points. I've been reading their early material from 2001-2002 and a lot of it is prophetic. But I digress. One of their major stances is that corridors should be owned and operated by the states, not Amtrak. Amtrak was created to operate a national long-haul system, not corridor or commuter routes. With the states able to manage their trains more closely, and Amtrak able to pay more attention to the long-hauls, both products will become better.
PaulB Member # 4258
posted
Let me state my position that I'm pro-RAIL, but not necessarily pro-AMTRAK. If the state or a private company wants to operate new routes, or even compete with Amtrak, I think that's a very good idea.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
Paul, I am also of the pro-rail, not necessarily pro-Amtrak view. But I have yet to see an alternative to Amtrak put forth in sufficient detail to convince me it will work any better than, or even as well as, what we have now.
But getting back to Julie, If the Capitol Corridor is to operate under the Amtrak name, then I think information about such trains should be available through Amtrak. If, however, the CCJPA should decide to operate under the name "Capitol Corridor" or some such, then people would know to go to the Capitol Corridor for information. Amtrak could still be the contract operator, just as it is for Caltrain, which, I note, does operate and promote itself under its own name.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
As I noted elsewhere, what is to stop California from having their own marketing identity for the intercity services that are largely sponsored and funded at State level?
Amtrak California could easily become "Intercity California' or simply "IC". Amtrak would simply have the same contractual relationship such as they presently hold with the Bay Area Caltrain service and, until recently, LA Metrolink.
This possible "metamorphis" appears consistent with the Bush administration vision of intercity rail passenger service, in which the initiative for such will germinate at loacl, as distinct from Federal, level of government.
Beacon Hill Member # 4431
posted
Both the Downeaster and the Amtrak Cascades maintain their own websites and do separate marketing. I don't know how much authority they have over fares structures.
Ken V Member # 1466
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: ... Amtrak California could easily become "Intercity California' or simply "IC". Amtrak would simply have the same contractual relationship such as they presently hold with the Bay Area Caltrain service and, until recently, LA Metrolink.
While the Capitol Corridor (and other state sponsored services) may very well be able to stand on their own, the Amtrak brand offers certain benefits. Not withstanding any centralized services and intraline co-ordination, people know the Amtrak name and think that's who to call when considering a train trip.
quote:This possible "metamorphis" appears consistent with the Bush administration vision of intercity rail passenger service, in which the initiative for such will germinate at loacl, as distinct from Federal, level of government.
posted ![[Smile]](smile.gif)