# Time to Change the Paradigm?



## cocojacoby (Jun 25, 2020)

Can we try some new ideas to restructure Amtrak? Is there some way to radically change the paradigm?

How about a new and improved "Material Handling" concept? Create a high-speed express freight network and combine that train with an Amtrak train. Yes a modern "Mixed Train". Maybe lanes could be developed with the USPS or Amazon or get the Cold Connect back up and running.

Most routes would be only one train a day. Amtrak runs the passenger equipment and infrastructure and the freight railroad operates the train, freight equipment and freight infrastructure. The Amtrak consist basically goes along for the ride in a high-speed freight train.

The host railroad gets to operate the train the way they want and eliminates the pesky separate Amtrak train that always screws things up. There are incentives and rewards for both Amtrak and the host carrier to operate the train efficiently and on time.

This is a good place to bring back an improved RoadRailer or RailRunner product. I read that RoadRailers ran at 90 MPH on the NEC so speed is not a problem.

For example the passenger part of the train leaves a city center. Just outside of the city there is a suburban stop with a small rail yard. The train stops and RoadRailers and/or RailRunner container trailers are added. All is reversed at the other end and everyone is happy. Intermediate locations would also be possible at larger cities.

Priority Express can be rather lucrative I am told especially now with so much online purchasing. What is the cost of adding an Amtrak consist to such a train vs. the cost of running a separate Amtrak train? This could be a win-win for all involved or at least an experiment to at least try somewhere.

How many "Super Priority" containers would be needed to operate such a train say between Los Angeles and Chicago?

UPDATE: To clarify . . . this is a partnership. The freight railroad keeps the revenue from the priority express freight and Amtrak keeps the revenue (and subsidies) from the passenger operation.


----------



## jiml (Jun 25, 2020)

Anything that puts Amtrak in competition with their host railroads is going to be problematic.


----------



## cocojacoby (Jun 25, 2020)

jiml said:


> Anything that puts Amtrak in competition with their host railroads is going to be problematic.


This would not be competition it is a new partnership.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jun 25, 2020)

Pesky? Always screws things up? No.

It’s fair to say that Amtrak has a problem with MRO and a lot of it has to do with a _*lack of funding. *_I work for Delta. We replace most of our aircraft once they hit the 25-30 year range. We fly the heck out of those frames. Up until a few years ago, Amtrak was still running equipment that was from the 50s and 60s. Now, Amtrak’s stuff clearly isn’t subjected to the same types of stresses as an airframe is, but the point is: they’re old. Unimaginably old. And Amtrak isn’t ever given the capital to renew their fleet when needed. There was a big hoopla when the Superliners came out. That was in the 70s and 80s for the Superliner I, and the II variant came out in the 90s. You still see the S-I variants running around on the western LD trains, and they’ve been around almost since inception. Mechanical defects are going to happen and unless you either have the capital to support an extensive MRO base to handle those older cars or the capital to do fleet renewals, the problems isn’t going to go away; it’s going to get worse.

Additionally: Amtrak is the victim of Precision Scheduled Railroading, plain and simple. PSR was a ploy to boost the operating ratio of the freight companies and took the idea of “do more with less” to the absolute extreme. Freight trains are now 10000+ feet in length. The infrastructure they run on was (generally) not upgraded to handle consists of that length. As a result, Amtrak gets the boot because they are the only thing that’ll fit in the hole during a meet. Rather convenient, I’d say.

To truly fix Amtrak’s problems, you need the following:

1) Priority over freight plus enforcement capability when freight companies fail to prioritize Amtrak service.
2) Infrastructure that is designed to handle faster passenger trains
3) Permanently increased subsidies from Congress to allow for increased MRO activities as well as eliminating the maintenance backlog on the NEC and other Amtrak-owned facilities and rights-of-way.
4) Capital delivered in addition to the subsidies at fixed time intervals to allow for fleet renewal and upgrades, lowering overall maintenance costs caused by small and elderly subfleets.
5) A board and CEO who understands not just passenger rail, but railroading in general.

You are not going to find any freight company that wants to take on passenger again. It won’t happen. They gave it up 60 years ago. Nixon’s administration didn’t think Amtrak was going to last through 1975, let alone almost 50 years. Instead of throwing our hands up and declaring defeat on a project that was never given a fair shake to start with, maybe we should, I don’t know, maybe try and fund the thing and truly give it the chance to succeed that it deserves.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jun 25, 2020)

INVITE COMPETITION FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR - just as we've done with the space program. The outcome is better quality, more innovation, and more efficiency. Amtrak is shown to be outmoded and no longer viable. Although we need to get past the pandemic, it would be better for all if the government encouraged this with tax incentives and use of AMTRAK owned infrastructure including right of ways. Not a new idea. 

RAILWAY AGE SAID: "The message to the advocacy community is clear: Stop wasting precious time and resources trying to get Amtrak to behave like something it’s not: a federal transportation program. Stop trying to “reform” Amtrak, and stop playing the mug’s game of trying to “save” threatened trains. Amtrak was never designed to be anything more than an exit strategy from the rail industry’s deficits. Passenger rail advocacy that tries to “fix” Amtrak train by train (or meal by meal) while ignoring the need for fundamental policy reform has turned into a bizarre behavioral psychology experiment in which the pigeons keep pecking at the lever even though no more corn comes out. We need to switch from the 1970 rescue model to a 21st-century USDOT agency model designed to build a modern passenger train infrastructure on which private, for-profit companies can operate trains."

Check out what others are saying:









The Amtrak era is over. It’s time for a replacement - Railway Age


Railway Age editor William C. Vantuono wondered recently what exactly Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson is trying to accomplish by truncating long-distance routes, replacing fresh dining-car meals with MREs*, and replacing station agents with nobody.




www.railwayage.com













Will new, private-sector rail operators change the look of intercity train travel in the US?


The United States’ intercity rail system is a vital lifeline for its tens of millions of annual passengers. However, the existing system can seem maddeningly archaic. I experienced the strengths and weaknesses of that system on




mobilitylab.org













Rail Insider-Transit operations: Service providers compete for passenger-rail business. Information For Rail Career Professionals From Progressive Railroading Magazine







www.progressiverailroading.com


----------



## NSC1109 (Jun 25, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> INVITE COMPETITION FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR - just as we've done with the space program. The outcome is better quality, more innovation, and more efficiency. Amtrak is shown to be outmoded and no longer viable. Although we need to get past the pandemic, it would be better for all if the government encouraged this with tax incentives and use of AMTRAK owned infrastructure including right of ways. Not a new idea.
> 
> RAILWAY AGE SAID: "The message to the advocacy community is clear: Stop wasting precious time and resources trying to get Amtrak to behave like something it’s not: a federal transportation program. Stop trying to “reform” Amtrak, and stop playing the mug’s game of trying to “save” threatened trains. Amtrak was never designed to be anything more than an exit strategy from the rail industry’s deficits. Passenger rail advocacy that tries to “fix” Amtrak train by train (or meal by meal) while ignoring the need for fundamental policy reform has turned into a bizarre behavioral psychology experiment in which the pigeons keep pecking at the lever even though no more corn comes out. We need to switch from the 1970 rescue model to a 21st-century USDOT agency model designed to build a modern passenger train infrastructure on which private, for-profit companies can operate trains."
> 
> ...




Read them all. Not remotely convinced by any. 

The first article is basically what I've been saying is wrong with Amtrak as it is today: It wasn't expected to survive the 70s, let alone almost 50 years. All our incompetent politicians do is kick the can down the road. It's become a political football. They expect Amtrak to make a profit but they don't provide the money to make the changes needed to create a better service. No one and I mean NO ONE, wants to take on a national network. And throwing it out there piece by piece creates a nightmare scenario of having systems talk to each other, making interline connections, etc. If Amtrak is to be expected to operate competitively, then they need to be given the money to be a competitor. Just throwing out the Republican buzzwords of "free market" and "competition" doesn't solve the issue. 

The second article talks about Brightline, and while that's all well and good, there's a pretty glaring elephant in the room that isn't discussed: Brightline was owned by Fortress Investment Group, which also owns FEC. They may be separate companies, but there is a far better operating agreement between those two companies than Amtrak and the other Class I railroads. Right out of the gate, Brightline doesn't really have to deal with one is one of Amtrak's major issues, freight interference. 

The third article is about heavy rail transit. It's not about intercity rail and is therefore *mostly, but not totally,* irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do you seriously expect Amtrak to hand out candy and stuff on Halloween? Conservatives would have a field day with that, going on and on about how it was a grossly inappropriate purchase and how Amtrak isn't fiscally responsible. At the same time, Amtrak has bigger issues to worry about than handing candy out to people on holidays.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jun 25, 2020)

The three examples of innovative thinking [above] demonstrate there is hope for rail in North America. Amtrak is no longer viable; private freight lines don't want to accommodate passenger trains, and high speed rail is coming because of environmental concerns, highway crowding, and gas guzzling cars which are destroying the atmosphere. Maybe not in our lifetime, but it is coming. Instead of candy for the Halloween bag, here's a real big mac. It's coming! It's coming! 

More forward thinking:









Life On The Fast Train — A Better Way To Travel Across Texas


The Texas Train travel experience will be unrivaled in safety, comfort and ease. Whether traveling for leisure, business, or just for fun, the Texas Train will provide passengers a world-class option with a genuine Texas touch. Now that's #LifeOnTheFastTrain




www.texascentral.com


----------



## me_little_me (Jun 25, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> Read them all. Not remotely convinced by any.
> 
> The second article talks about Brightline, and while that's all well and good, there's a pretty glaring elephant in the room that isn't discussed: Brightline was owned by Fortress Investment Group, which also owns FEC. They may be separate companies, but there is a far better operating agreement between those two companies than Amtrak and the other Class I railroads. Right out of the gate, Brightline doesn't really have to deal with one is one of Amtrak's major issues, freight interference.
> 
> The third article is about heavy rail transit. It's not about intercity rail and is therefore *mostly, but not totally,* irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do you seriously expect Amtrak to hand out candy and stuff on Halloween? Conservatives would have a field day with that, going on and on about how it was a grossly inappropriate purchase and how Amtrak isn't fiscally responsible. At the same time, Amtrak has bigger issues to worry about than handing candy out to people on holidays.


Your comment on the second article ignored part of the equation. Brightline provides nice services for their money and that includes the likelihood that they know how to make money at their stations with good but high end food services and how to do even their lounge efficiently. Their agents and onboard crew look to help, not hinder, passengers.

As to the third, your argument about candy at Halloween is silly. The contention is that even VRE has a far better understanding of small, low cost amenities that make a big impact for little money. Amtrak has tried it in the past but the effort was half-baked because IMHO Amtrak management really doesn't care. And if they couldn't justify to critics spending 10 cents worth of candy on customers who might be spending $50-$2000 on tickets then they need to fire their whole PR department for incompetence. That alone would save more money than the cost of candy. My 9 y/o grandson still remembers the cardboard P42 cutout he got on one trip and it's still around.

You are right that there are bigger issues - funding, host RR issues, management and labor that often don't care but it's obvious that Amtrak doesn't see how poorly they are doing and how it could be if they made an effort. Witness the stupidity of their new scheduling. Heck, they can't even figure out that running a coach train between Tampa and Miami and possibly Tampa to Orlando on off days might be good business when they already have the right to run a train on that route and even have the equipment available although shorter intercity trains in lieu of LD was Anderson's dream!


----------



## the_traveler (Jun 25, 2020)

I agree with you on the lack of inter line agreements!

I remember 40-50 years ago, I could fly from say Albany to Chicago on American and then change to say TWA to Phoenix. Now, you stay on American - even if you have to go thru Chicago and Dallas or LAX.

A few years ago, I flew from Grand Junction, CO to Albany, NY on American. I had to fly GJC-DFW-ORD-ALB. I could have flown on Delta going GJC-SLC-ATL-DTW-ALB instead!  

The trains might have interline agreements, but you might need to change stations. Back 70 years or so, I think Chicago had like 7 different train stations. (Some only blocks apart, some had 2-3 railroads but if you had to switch from say Santa Fe to NYC, you may need to go to a different station across town!)


----------



## tricia (Jun 25, 2020)

The key paradigm shift needed is to stop treating Amtrak as a "profit-making" enterprise (doomed to failure), and start treating it as an essential public service.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer (Jun 25, 2020)

Talking about the “for profit” language. Hopefully it can be removed sooner then later. 

Just got this email today. A lot of double talk for a one page letter. She has voted for Amtrak consistently so I’m a little surprised the letter in my opinion is an negative as it is. She is one of Trumps most vulnerable Senators so she probably doesn’t want to get out of line.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jun 25, 2020)

tricia said:


> The key paradigm shift needed is to stop treating Amtrak as a "profit-making" enterprise (doomed to failure), and start treating it as an essential public service.


But to take it a step further... if the space program is considered essential, HS rail is even MORE essential. Consider the miracles created by intuitive inventors... a booster rocket that returns to earth and LANDS, and can be re-used again. HS rail travel will be much better for the environment, and will eventually supplement the car and air travel in a more environmentally friendly way. Much innovation to come is beyond what we can even speculate... but it is waiting for us in the future. 

The Space Shuttle is to the retrievable booster idea as Amtrak is to HS travel to come... that we can't even imagine.


----------



## NSC1109 (Jun 25, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> The three examples of innovative thinking [above] demonstrate there is hope for rail in North America. Amtrak is no longer viable; private freight lines don't want to accommodate passenger trains, and high speed rail is coming because of environmental concerns, highway crowding, and gas guzzling cars which are destroying the atmosphere. Maybe not in our lifetime, but it is coming. Instead of candy for the Halloween bag, here's a real big mac. It's coming! It's coming!
> 
> More forward thinking:
> 
> ...



And why EXACTLY is Amtrak not viable? I want you to tell me, tell us all, in your own words, why Amtrak is no longer viable as you claim. I have stated time and again that Amtrak was never given a fair shake from the start on ANY front. They weren’t given the money to keep their fleet up or change with the times. Their largest source of capital funding is unstable as it shifts every few years when the party in control of the government changes. There isn’t any enforcement of the “Amtrak has priority” policy. Instead, they’re left to suffer on their own.

Let’s explore some numbers provided by the Rail Passengers Association:

Amtrak's Long Distance business line from 2013 to 2019 has been generally stable in terms of ridership. The same can be said for the State Supported corridor routes. The NEC ridership has been steadily climbing since 2013. You can find them here:









Amtrak Ridership Statistics | Rail Passengers Association | Washington, DC


Amtrak ridership data by city, state, route, and congressional district.




www.railpassengers.org





Amtrak was also due to turn its first profit this year, albeit by means that I personally do not agree with. That hardly sounds like an inviable solution to me. 



me_little_me said:


> Your comment on the second article ignored part of the equation. Brightline provides nice services for their money and that includes the likelihood that they know how to make money at their stations with good but high end food services and how to do even their lounge efficiently. Their agents and onboard crew look to help, not hinder, passengers.
> 
> As to the third, your argument about candy at Halloween is silly. The contention is that even VRE has a far better understanding of small, low cost amenities that make a big impact for little money. Amtrak has tried it in the past but the effort was half-baked because IMHO Amtrak management really doesn't care. And if they couldn't justify to critics spending 10 cents worth of candy on customers who might be spending $50-$2000 on tickets then they need to fire their whole PR department for incompetence. That alone would save more money than the cost of candy. My 9 y/o grandson still remembers the cardboard P42 cutout he got on one trip and it's still around.
> 
> You are right that there are bigger issues - funding, host RR issues, management and labor that often don't care but it's obvious that Amtrak doesn't see how poorly they are doing and how it could be if they made an effort. Witness the stupidity of their new scheduling. Heck, they can't even figure out that running a coach train between Tampa and Miami and possibly Tampa to Orlando on off days might be good business when they already have the right to run a train on that route and even have the equipment available although shorter intercity trains in lieu of LD was Anderson's dream!



Trust me, I understand that Brightline offers a great shore-side product, and Amtrak truly needs to work on that and customer service in general. As an example, their social media team on Facebook refers folks to another social media platform and a website for questions regarding specific services. As a consumer, that's inefficient. I don't want to look up more stuff; I want the help quickly. The airlines don't seem to have an issue with it. So that begs the question: are there two different social media teams at Amtrak? If so, why? If not, why is it so difficult for the SM team to get info from Twitter and put it on Facebook?

The third argument, while granted it's a little out there, may not be quite as silly as you think. Amtrak is still dealing with a MASSIVE maintenance backlog on the NEC to say nothing of the rolling stock MRO problems. Spending a not-insignificant amount of money on something like candy system-wide for a one- or two-day promo may score some points with passengers but it would be something that Congress would laugh at. I'm not at all against stuff like that; in fact, I believe it to be very useful from both a marketing and customer service standpoint. However, I would want it to come from some sort of partnership (for example, with Mars), so we still get some risk-sharing out of it plus perhaps some hard currency.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jun 25, 2020)

NSC1109 said:


> And why EXACTLY is Amtrak not viable? I want you to tell me, tell us all, in your own words, why Amtrak is no longer viable as you claim. I have stated time and again that Amtrak was never given a fair shake from the start on ANY front. They weren’t given the money to keep their fleet up or change with the times. Their largest source of capital funding is unstable as it shifts every few years when the party in control of the government changes. There isn’t any enforcement of the “Amtrak has priority” policy. Instead, they’re left to suffer on their own.
> 
> Let’s explore some numbers provided by the Rail Passengers Association:
> 
> ...



You have sent a strong message, and in commonality we both support a vibrant passenger system; I salute you! 

But your point of view hasn't changed my perspective, and the thoughts of many others. If Amtrak were privatized it would be more more efficient. Here's what others are saying...









Privatizing Amtrak


Private passenger rail service thrived in the United States between the mid–19th century and the early–20th century. By the late 1950s, however, passenger rail was struggling because of the rise of automobiles, buses, and airlines. Railroads faced large tax, regulatory, and union burdens not...




www.downsizinggovernment.org







https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44973.pdf








SPLIT AMTRAK – The current structure is dysfunctional – Richard Spotswood – RailPAC







www.railpac.org













To see why Amtrak's losses mount, hop on the Empire Builder train


Its passengers are mostly silver-haired retirees, oil-field workers and a few young families gazing out the windows of Amtrak's least-profitable and third-longest line, rumbling from Chicago through eight states and on to the American West Coast.




www.reuters.com













Rethinking Amtrak


Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson is intent on reshaping the state-owned passenger railway into an economically-efficient inter-city operator. Kevin Smith examines Amtrak’s plans and the challenges facing the United States’ passenger operator.




www.railjournal.com


----------



## neroden (Jul 4, 2020)

No private passenger rail service anywhere in the world makes a standalone profit.

You can make a profit by associated real estate development (as in Japan). Or by associated sale of electricity -- this is why the streetcar companies in the US were hammered when they were forced by law to divest from their electricity generation divisions. Or by other synergies. By all manner of things which *benefit from having* transportation. But not as a standalone passenger railroad operation, not since government-subsidized roads started.

I'll be quite specific here: the problem is the cost of right-of-way construction and maintenance. You can make an "above-the-rails" profit. You can't cover the cost of track maintenance, not while competing with government-subsidized roads.

Since government-subsidized roads seem to be here to stay, my solution is simple: the government should build and maintain tracks in the same way it builds and maintains roads. Mode parity. Practically every other country in the world has done this.

Whether operations are private or not becomes less important at that point, though the history of the UK shows that private operations seem to have some serious problems.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jul 4, 2020)

neroden said:


> No private passenger rail service anywhere in the world makes a standalone profit.
> 
> You can make a profit by associated real estate development (as in Japan). Or by associated sale of electricity -- this is why the streetcar companies in the US were hammered when they were forced by law to divest from their electricity generation divisions. Or by other synergies. By all manner of things which *benefit from having* transportation. But not as a standalone passenger railroad operation, not since government-subsidized roads started.
> 
> ...



Right on! Our government, inclusive of the EPA, has an obligation to the citizenry to meet our transportation needs with respect to the environment... and alleviating congestion on the roads. Most responsible governments financially support public transportation systems as a means to grow the economy. Right now the government is fragmented to the point of being dysfunctional. With strong leadership focused on what is good for all of us... let's just do it!

During the 50's President Eisenhower took on the bold move of creating the interstate system. Construction jobs propelled a robust economy. Now it's time for bringing in a high speed rail system for a comprehensive national system.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 29, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> INVITE COMPETITION FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR - just as we've done with the space program. The outcome is better quality, more innovation, and more efficiency.



Speaking of the space program -- what "competition" from the private sector. It seems that SpaceX is essentially another NASA contractor, which is exactly what Boeing, North American, Douglas et. al. were during the Apollo Program. The only difference seems to be is that the rockets are now being designed by employees of Elon Musk rather than by US Government employees like Werner Von Braun. Everything still needs to be approved by NASA and the launch site is a NASA facility. OK, so Maybe SpaceX does a few private satellite launches (and it wouldn't surprise me if NASA is deeply involved in those as well), but so what? 

And, being a lifetime customer of private sector products, I would say that you don't necessarily get "better quality, more innovation, and more efficiency" from the private sector. In fact, in general, "innovation" and "efficiency" are inversely related.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 29, 2020)

The private sector took on NASA a long time ago... and won. My half-uncle founded the company.





__





PanAmSat - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jul 30, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Speaking of the space program -- what "competition" from the private sector. It seems that SpaceX is essentially another NASA contractor, which is exactly what Boeing, North American, Douglas et. al. were during the Apollo Program. The only difference seems to be is that the rockets are now being designed by employees of Elon Musk rather than by US Government employees like Werner Von Braun. Everything still needs to be approved by NASA and the launch site is a NASA facility. OK, so Maybe SpaceX does a few private satellite launches (and it wouldn't surprise me if NASA is deeply involved in those as well), but so what?
> 
> And, being a lifetime customer of private sector products, I would say that you don't necessarily get "better quality, more innovation, and more efficiency" from the private sector. In fact, in general, "innovation" and "efficiency" are inversely related.


Contractors must compete by creating both innovation and efficiencies. A booster that returns to earth to be re-used again; dynamically designed space capsule with advanced digital technology; and much more as described by reviewers are impressive breakthroughs. So please give examples of how present innovations and efficiencies are inversely related.

Wouldn't it be nice to see such innovations and efficiencies could be applied to developing HS rail in the USA!









SpaceX: Most Innovative Company | Fast Company


Read more about SpaceX on Fast Company




www.fastcompany.com


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 30, 2020)

There is a downside to private running of what was public - they like to cherry pick the profitable things. Many of us have mentioned the fact that one reason for Amtrak is that it acts as (or should act as) a public service. Private enterprise doesn't like doing that. If you think Amtrak dumps baggage handling so they can get rid of local employees, think what private enterprise would do especially for smaller stations. So any thought of private enterprise would have to be a regulated one with enforced requirements ala hotels and restaurants in National Parks.

Given that the government could regulate sans too much politics and keeps the rules at a high level i.e. not too detailed) then private enterprise is at its best. They have the foresight to think up and implement ideas that Amtrak does not. An example would be if the government required free baggage service at any station with over x number of persons per day. A private company could implement remote printing of tags, an onboard baggage person, a fast loading/unloading baggage car capability and/or other features that would provide that service because they have to - and have to do it efficiently to not be a burden on their profits. Amtrak would just rather drop it to save money or do it the old fashioned way, not to save jobs, but because of management inertia.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 30, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> There is a downside to private running of what was public - they like to cherry pick the profitable things. Many of us have mentioned the fact that one reason for Amtrak is that it acts as (or should act as) a public service. Private enterprise doesn't like doing that. If you think Amtrak dumps baggage handling so they can get rid of local employees, think what private enterprise would do especially for smaller stations. So any thought of private enterprise would have to be a regulated one with enforced requirements ala hotels and restaurants in National Parks.
> 
> Given that the government could regulate sans too much politics and keeps the rules at a high level i.e. not too detailed) then private enterprise is at its best. They have the foresight to think up and implement ideas that Amtrak does not. An example would be if the government required free baggage service at any station with over x number of persons per day. A private company could implement remote printing of tags, an onboard baggage person, a fast loading/unloading baggage car capability and/or other features that would provide that service because they have to - and have to do it efficiently to not be a burden on their profits. Amtrak would just rather drop it to save money or do it the old fashioned way, not to save jobs, but because of management inertia.


You're 100% right about the cherry-picking. This also applies to the controversy over the Postal Service and charter schools. 

I don't know about the rest. I don't see any possibility that any sort of private operations could be better in the long term. Passenger rail (and freight rail, too for that matter) has too many fixed costs to be attractive to private-sector investor type managers. And there's no reason why current Amtrak management couldn't be as innovative as anybody else. That they are not might be more related to the individuals involved than how the company is organized. They either don't know enough about rail operations, or they have a fixed idea that, say, passenger ail in the US should be limited to glorified commuter service. I see no reason why contracting with a private company should make any difference. Lots of private companies have clueless management. 

And please don't bring up Virgin/Brightline. That operation is primarily a real estate venture, with the train service an "amenity" like the swimming pool at a condo. After they sell all the property and they find out that running the trains is still an expensive grind, let's see how quickly the on-board service levels drop. In fact, at some point in the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see FEC or Fortress, or whoever it is that owns Virgin/Brightline, tries to dump it on the State of Florida or Amtrak. Passenger rail just isn't something that inherently profitable enough to interest the private sector for the long haul.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jul 30, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> You're 100% right about the cherry-picking. This also applies to the controversy over the Postal Service and charter schools.
> 
> I don't know about the rest. I don't see any possibility that any sort of private operations could be better in the long term. Passenger rail (and freight rail, too for that matter) has too many fixed costs to be attractive to private-sector investor type managers. And there's no reason why current Amtrak management couldn't be as innovative as anybody else. That they are not might be more related to the individuals involved than how the company is organized. They either don't know enough about rail operations, or they have a fixed idea that, say, passenger ail in the US should be limited to glorified commuter service. I see no reason why contracting with a private company should make any difference. Lots of private companies have clueless management.
> 
> And please don't bring up Virgin/Brightline. That operation is primarily a real estate venture, with the train service an "amenity" like the swimming pool at a condo. After they sell all the property and they find out that running the trains is still an expensive grind, let's see how quickly the on-board service levels drop. In fact, at some point in the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see FEC or Fortress, or whoever it is that owns Virgin/Brightline, tries to dump it on the State of Florida or Amtrak. Passenger rail just isn't something that inherently profitable enough to interest the private sector for the long haul.



Agreed! It's complicated... and most local mass transit systems are funded by the tax payers who have the power to vote for a referendum. Any rail operation is dependent on population density [urban need / taxation funding,] availability of land resources, government support fueled by the vote, and on and on. So in the end, it becomes a good argument that rail transportation is a commodity to serve the public and can only come from the public domain.

Interesting how things have changed... in the past, most rail transit came from private entrepreneurs. 

The entire forum has been going around and around in circles regarding rail transit renewal, development needs, and funding; and admittedly so have I. Perhaps some kind of an answer can come from us thinkers that will catch the eye of someone who has the wherewithal to do something.

And then... there's the election


----------



## west point (Jul 31, 2020)

You are right about Cherry picking. The postal service is an example. I cannot remember the number of times have received UPS and FED EX packages thru the post office. Even had to go to PO to sign for said packages sometimes. Note; FED EX and UPS do deliver to my house.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Jul 31, 2020)

I will never be a fan of privatization of any public need, not without significant government oversight and support. That's what we pay taxes for.


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 1, 2020)

Michigan Mom said:


> I will never be a fan of privatization of any public need, not without significant government oversight and support. That's what we pay taxes for.


Depends whether you are referring to private ownership or operation. Big difference. I'd see private ownership as more of a problem than operation as the owner sets the rules for the operator and can remove the operator for violating those rules.


----------



## toddinde (Aug 6, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> You have sent a strong message, and in commonality we both support a vibrant passenger system; I salute you!
> 
> But your point of view hasn't changed my perspective, and the thoughts of many others. If Amtrak were privatized it would be more more efficient. Here's what others are saying...
> 
> ...


The premises are all false. Amtrak is not a failure. Our passenger rail system is far superior to many similar countries including Canada, Mexico, Australia and Argentina to name a few. Amtrak runs a national passenger railroad for what amounts to a rounding error in the federal budget. Pre-pandemic, it almost covered its costs. It generates a huge economic impact nationwide, particularly in the rural communities it serves. Britain privatized their rail system with a franchise system that seems to be what you’re suggesting. It’s been an abject failure, and British Rail is likely to be renationalized in the coming years. There is nothing wrong with Amtrak that good management and a supportive administration can’t fix. Those that consider Amtrak a failure judge it against unrealistic or imaginary visions. Fund Amtrak appropriately, get good management, and quit nit picking it.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 6, 2020)

toddinde said:


> Fund Amtrak appropriately, get good management, and quit nit picking it.


Because Amtrak is poorly funded and has poor management... it is a failure; and for reasons that are way beyond nitpicking.


----------



## west point (Aug 6, 2020)

toddinde said:


> The premises are all false. Amtrak is not a failure. Our passenger rail system is far superior to many similar countries including Canada, Mexico, Australia and Argentina to name a few. Amtrak runs a national passenger railroad for what amounts to a rounding error in the federal budget.



Actually you are correct in your first sentenance. Amtrak is a success in that with the exception of Japan and China it has a higher car miles per day than any of the systems we like to admire. Even the HSR trains in western Europe have a much lower mileage per day than Amtrak. Most of the LD trains in the east run 24 = 40 hours before ending thei trips and then turn back in about 14 -20 hours back. The western LD trains are even more used as their routes are up to 60 hours long before reversing.. The last I read Amtrak has about 85 - 90% of cars ready for service. Of course some are not in the best repair for dispatch.

VIA cannot keep more than about 40% of cars running except during some peak times. Granted the CN delay are terrible but VIA did have 3 RTs a week for the Canadian before cutting back to 2 per week. VIA maintenance is very good and they keep what is assigned running especially their locos. But with all their cars trains are often sold out and VIA will add cars unlike Amtrak to fill out trains when it can. But reliable locos in the north country are a must.


----------



## ehbowen (Aug 7, 2020)

the_traveler said:


> The trains might have interline agreements, but you might need to change stations. Back 70 years or so, I think Chicago had like 7 different train stations. (Some only blocks apart, some had 2-3 railroads but if you had to switch from say Santa Fe to NYC, you may need to go to a different station across town!)



Dear God, if only that was the worst problem we faced today....


----------



## jis (Aug 7, 2020)

For those who are all excited about Brightline, they discontinued service at the first opportunity presented by COVID and are unlikely to restart service until well into next year. That is always a hazard of privately operated service that is not regulated in any way and is basically on an as and when we can and feel like it basis. That would be an inappropriate model for something like Amtrak.

They have withdrawn their original PTC application. They don't have any PTC application pending with the FRA while they figure out how to install I-EYMS instead of their one off eATC. Of course no passenger train will run until said new system is installed and certified. Can you imagine Amtrak pulling such a stunt and getting away with it?


----------



## toddinde (Aug 30, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> Because Amtrak is poorly funded and has poor management... it is a failure; and for reasons that are way beyond nitpicking.


But it’s not a failure for the reasons I cited. The problem is that some feel like if you get rid of Amtrak, the 20th Century Limited and Super Chief will magically appear. That’s disordered thinking at its worst.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 30, 2020)

toddinde said:


> The premises are all false. Amtrak is not a failure. Our passenger rail system is far superior to many similar countries including Canada, Mexico, Australia and Argentina to name a few. Amtrak runs a national passenger railroad for what amounts to a rounding error in the federal budget.



All of these things. Amtrak was _designed_ to fail and the fact that it has not is incredible.

Another thing about High Speed rail: EVERY SINGLE HIGH SPEED RAIL NETWORK IN THE WORLD (except the Acela) WAS:

* Built from the rail ballast up specifically for high speed rail (including building bridges or tunnels to avoid grade crossings)
* Heavily subsidized by the government
* Built between cities that were about 300 miles apart, with major metropolitan areas to be served in between. (Note: China has diverged slightly from this as of late, but the other two points hold.)

High Speed Rail under these conditions is possible, but not without heavy support from the government.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 30, 2020)

To respond to the OP:



cocojacoby said:


> Can we try some new ideas to restructure Amtrak? Is there some way to radically change the paradigm?



Yes. Consider Amtrak as a public service not a for-profit entity, as was previously mentioned.

Force freight railroads to prioritize passenger traffic. Subsidize building sidings and rail network improvements the way that the US Government subsidizes new freeways.

Fund improvements to the rail lines themselves, including building new electrified passenger service railways like they did in Europe after WWII. 



cocojacoby said:


> How about a new and improved "Material Handling" concept? Create a high-speed express freight network and combine that train with an Amtrak train. Yes a modern "Mixed Train".



The market for high speed express freight is simply not that large if it exists at all. It could not compete with trucking (logistical flexibility) or air freight (speed). There are almost no high speed express freight rail services in the world that are not simply extensions of the postal service.

The other thing is high speed rail is designed to get humans from one urban core to another. Freight rail always operates from major ports to major ports and industrial centers, most of which are located far outside of major urban cores. 

The one thing rail freight does really well is getting big, bulky things across large distances at an incredibly low cost. 



cocojacoby said:


> How many "Super Priority" containers would be needed to operate such a train say between Los Angeles and Chicago?



This is a great example: There is no freight I can think of between Los Angeles and Chicago that is time sensitive enough to warrant a high speed rail network where existing trucking or air freight doesn't already serve sufficiently well. There's a reason the market is largely Overnight or 2-Day. 

Chicago and Los Angeles are 2,000 miles apart. Unless you count Ürümqi and a Chinese coastal city, there's no other city pair with a high speed rail connection anywhere in the world of that distance--and even then, none of them are on the same line.

There's really no other country on earth with multiple major population centers along two different coasts that are 2,000 miles apart. 

China's population is concentrated along its coast--but even it had the sense to build a high speed dedicated passenger rail network linking all of its cities. While the US doesn't have the population density of China, it could easily build one or two high speed passenger rail lines from Coast to Coast with the idea being to link up larger population centers and boost regional rail transit networks. 

There are also a lot of other population centers that would benefit from a high speed Auto Train service--but you won't get these developed until you subsidize the rails themselves like the government subsidizes the roads.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 30, 2020)

toddinde said:


> But it’s not a failure for the reasons I cited. The problem is that some feel like if you get rid of Amtrak, the 20th Century Limited and Super Chief will magically appear. That’s disordered thinking at its worst.



I think something like this would be possible if the rails were subsidized, freight networks were mandated to prioritize passenger traffic OR we simply built a new dedicated passenger rail network from the ground up.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 30, 2020)

toddinde said:


> But it’s not a failure for the reasons I cited. The problem is that some feel like if you get rid of Amtrak, the 20th Century Limited and Super Chief will magically appear. That’s disordered thinking at its worst.


Nobody is expecting the 'golden era of rail travel' to reappear but we all want to see updating and upgrading similar to successful rail systems found in most other countries. I do agree with Nick Farr's reply to your same statement but would add that it's unfair for the government to expect Amtrak, a government transit agency... to support itself and make a profit. I would like to see government subsidy [our taxes] for Amtrak because it is a service for the people of this country.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Aug 30, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> While the US doesn't have the population density of China, it could easily build one or two high speed passenger rail lines from Coast to Coast with the idea being to link up larger population centers and boost *regional rail transit networks*.



That, I believe, is the key to the whole thing. Instead of envisioning purpose-built, high-speed long distance trains, we need to concentrate on building strong regional rail networks. Many of the networks will then naturally connect to each other to permit long-distance travel if a need or desire is there.

The FRA has already been working with state DOTs for years developing regional rail plans. In the Midwest plan, the network stretches from Kansas City and Omaha to the West (possibly further if the Dakotas are included), to Pittsburgh and Buffalo to the East, and St. Louis, Memphis, and Nashville to the South. All of those would serve as gateway cities to other regional rail networks. There would be a need to bridge networks that are not immediately adjacent and where the population is sparse, like the Midwest network to the Front Range network (Omaha/KC to Denver).


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 30, 2020)

MisterUptempo said:


> That, I believe, is the key to the whole thing. Instead of envisioning purpose-built, high-speed long distance trains, we need to concentrate on building strong regional rail networks. Many of the networks will then naturally connect to each other to permit long-distance travel if a need or desire is there.
> 
> The FRA has already been working with state DOTs for years developing regional rail plans. In the Midwest plan, the network stretches from Kansas City and Omaha to the West (possibly further if the Dakotas are included), to Pittsburgh and Buffalo to the East, and St. Louis, Memphis, and Nashville to the South. All of those would serve as gateway cities to other regional rail networks. There would be a need to bridge networks that are not immediately adjacent and where the population is sparse, like the Midwest network to the Front Range network (Omaha/KC to Denver).



Yep... and that's what many of us have been saying... as we see natural resources become depleted; urban centers sprawling, and highways forever being more and more clogged with traffic! Passenger rail development with updated technology is inevitable because the need keeps growing for an environmentally compatible solution. 

It would be nice to see the government [we own it, we pay for it, and it is supposed to serve us] bring a massive effort to updating and expanding Amtrak... with local governments cooperating with regional and city systems... all interconnected. It's called creating a strong national infrastructure. And why not!


----------



## jiml (Aug 31, 2020)

Nick Farr said:


> All of these things. Amtrak was _designed_ to fail and the fact that it has not is incredible.
> 
> Another thing about High Speed rail: EVERY SINGLE HIGH SPEED RAIL NETWORK IN THE WORLD (except the Acela) WAS:
> 
> ...


You're not wrong in your three points, but I think it is important to differentiate between true High-speed Rail and _higher_-speed Rail. Acela is the latter - trains capable of higher speeds without the supporting infrastructure being purpose-built. A lot of the British rail network is this way and even some DB ICE trains travel on conventional roadbeds, such as those that follow the banks of the Rhine and share track with conventional trains and freight. Comparisons with France's TGV network, Japan's high-speed trains and recent construction in Asia are somewhat "apples to oranges". In addition to your points, Amtrak, VIA and large segments of the UK are faced with a similar problem in that there is sometimes no place to put new tracks without shutting down what is there during construction. Acquiring the land alone in urban environments would add exponentially to the cost.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 31, 2020)

jiml said:


> You're not wrong in your three points, but I think it is important to differentiate between true High-speed Rail and _higher_-speed Rail.



This is an important distinction. As opposed to when the Acela entered service, I think there is a big opportunity to take advantage of the lull in commercial and industrial real estate and realign the worst curves in the DC-NYC-Boston corridor. Now that COVID is here and service levels are reduced, it would make sense to go ahead and start on a major project like this. I know Bloomberg was a huge fan of this idea, I'm not sure how much was done beyond that.

Acquiring land now is probably going to be a lot easier. Perhaps if it were pitched to the right people as a side-door bailout package for brownfields, it would get a lot more traction. There's got to be a way to align the Republicans and the AOCs of the world behind it.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Aug 31, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> It would be nice to see the government [we own it, we pay for it, and it is supposed to serve us] bring a massive effort to updating and expanding Amtrak... with local governments cooperating with regional and city systems... all interconnected. It's called creating a strong national infrastructure. And why not!



That WOULD be nice!


----------



## neroden (Aug 31, 2020)

cocojacoby said:


> Can we try some new ideas to restructure Amtrak? Is there some way to radically change the paradigm?



A while back, Wick Moorman, when he was CEO of Norfolk Southern, proposed that the federal or state governments own all the tracks, and that the Class Is act as tenants -- the same way many shortlines act as tenants on state-owned lines which are "passenger primary". This would relieve the Class Is of the burden of track and signal maintenance -- helping them compete with trucks, who don't pay for road maintenance -- *while* guaranteeing that passenger traffic came first and was delivered on time.

I thought this was a great idea for changing the paradigm. I love it! Unfortunately it didn't get much attention.


----------



## cocojacoby (Sep 1, 2020)

But trucks and buses do pay for road maintenance through fuel taxes and tolls.









Understanding Fuel Taxes and the IFTA - DrivePFS


Understanding fuel taxes and the IFTA is something many new drivers, as well as experienced drivers leave for accountants and fleet managers.




drivepfs.com


----------



## west point (Sep 1, 2020)

cocojacoby said:


> But trucks and buses do pay for road maintenance through fuel taxes and tolls.


Not even close . Our interstate right lane is all torn up from trucks. Weight on axels actually tires damage roads to the fourth power pf weight . s car tire with 1000 pounds on pavement compared to a truck tire on pavement of over 4000 pounds. Truck tire has damage potential of 264 times the car.


----------



## cocojacoby (Sep 1, 2020)

I was responding to the previous post that said, _"-- helping them compete with trucks, who don't pay for road maintenance --"_. Just saying they don't get a free ride.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Sep 1, 2020)

Ok! No one gets a free ride! So how come we must pay so much money for LD to get such an unhealthful, abusive, and uncaring non connective level of service...which in actuality is in no way the level of 'service' for which is being charged... I mean... I mean, I mean... dedicated travelers are being charged premium pricing for a total lack of service! C'mon... Amtrak is taking advantage of their most loyal passengers willing to pay the big bucks for a somewhat equitable level of basic service! They don't care and are just taking advantage of 'old timers' for which they have no respect for! They have this 'millennial' attitude which is being used as an excuse to provide absolutely nothing... which the equate with millennial needs and desire. Don't pass me off as an old timer without the ability to think and have feelings! I am still a whole person!
Don't pass me off as an old timer without the ability to think and have feelings! I am still a whole person!
Don't pass me off as an old timer without the ability to think and have feelings! I am still a whole person!

I am entitled to what I am paying for.


----------



## neroden (Sep 13, 2020)

Trucks basically get a free ride. The amount they pay in fuel taxes is peanuts, and hardly pays for any of their damage to the roads. 

We rail passengers pay a lot more in ticket prices which goes for rail maintenance (what do you think those "host railroad fees" which Amtrak is charged pay for?)

Toll roads are different. Even there trucks are heavily subsidized by passenger cars, but at least trucks + cars together are paying reasonable amounts on toll roads. However, *most roads are not toll roads*.


----------



## John Bredin (Sep 14, 2020)

American Airlines is threatening to end service to various communities in early October absent more coronavirus relief funding. Article with list. While I think the airlines merit a "bailout" as much as any other* corona-impacted industry, the federal government should make its efforts consistently, pursuant to a considered policy, so that necessary relief is provided but public money isn't wasted.

Note that many of the communities to lose American service are served by Amtrak:
Del Rio, TX
Florence, SC
Huntington, WV
Kalamazoo/Battle Creek, MI
Lake Charles, LA
New Haven, CT
Springfield, IL
Four of those airports serve cities with decent corridor and/or long-distance service, while three are on the less-than-daily _Sunset_ and _Cardinal_ lines.

While some public money should go to the airlines during this unprecedented slowdown due to coronavirus, it should be to maintain a core of longer-distance flights to principal cities, not to provide duplicative subsidized service to smaller communities already served by Amtrak or that could be served by Amtrak more cheaply than the airlines. I would imagine keeping daily service on the _Silver_ trains (Florence) and making the _Sunset_ (Del Rio and Lake Charles) and _Cardinal_ (Huntington) daily would be cheaper than whatever American would want to continue service to those airports.

More generally, the federal government should examine which places receive Essential Air Service subsidies (official list) but are, or could be, served by Amtrak. If part of the calculus in funding Amtrak and officially proposing changes to Amtrak services included the offsetting effect of not having to pay as much for EAS because Amtrak would take up some of the load, keeping and adding Amtrak service looks more attractive to legislators and officials who are not blatantly anti-rail but skeptical. 

To give some examples: 
*Altoona and Johnstown PA being on EAS and the _Pennsylvanian_ line is an argument for a second _Pennsylvanian_.
*Similarly, EAS to Burlington IA and McCook NE are arguments for a second or at least increased-capacity _California Zephyr_. 
*Ditto a bunch of _Empire Builder_ stops in ND and MT. 
*Or Dodge City and Garden City KS with the _Southwest Chief_. 
*Or Meridian, Laurel, and Hattiesburg MS with the _Crescent_. 
*Or Staunton VA and White Sulphur Springs WV as arguments for a daily _Sunset_. 

Even more generally than that, ideally the government (yes, I know those two words shouldn't necessarily be used together ) should formulate an actual transportation policy that determines the best funding and appropriation mix for the best transportation mix in light of existing and projected resources, demand, and environmental concerns. Having a plan and actually consistently implementing it isn't "socialism" (as some would allege) if you're already spending the money but doing so willy-nilly and sometimes at cross-purposes.

In a well-considered transportation plan, aviation has a place, and highways definitely have a place, but so does passenger rail. Some rail opponents seem to believe that rail should get nothing from the federal government because it doesn't go everywhere and can't do everything. I've seen stuff like "95% of travel is by road"** as an *argument* that the government shouldn't pay for rail, completely ignoring that that state is at least as much the *result* of earlier government decisions as the cause of them. If environmental concerns took their proper weight in a comprehensive transportation policy, rail's place in that policy would be at a much more robust level than now. 


*Almost any other. IMHO, the foreign-flagged cruise ship industry should have to go to their low-regulation (and low-budget) flag nations for any relief money. 

**Not necessarily an actual statistic.


----------



## Eric S (Sep 15, 2020)

neroden said:


> Trucks basically get a free ride. The amount they pay in fuel taxes is peanuts, and hardly pays for any of their damage to the roads.
> 
> We rail passengers pay a lot more in ticket prices which goes for rail maintenance (what do you think those "host railroad fees" which Amtrak is charged pay for?)
> 
> Toll roads are different. Even there trucks are heavily subsidized by passenger cars, but at least trucks + cars together are paying reasonable amounts on toll roads. However, *most roads are not toll roads*.


Agree.

Isn't it estimated that the damage done to the road is proportional to the fourth power of the axle load of the vehicle? So that if the axle load is doubled (2x), the damage done is 16 times greater (2x2x2x2). Can't imagine many trucking-related taxes and fees come anywhere close to achieving that.


----------



## MARC Rider (Sep 15, 2020)

John Bredin said:


> American Airlines is threatening to end service to various communities in early October absent more coronavirus relief funding. Article with list. While I think the airlines merit a "bailout" as much as any other* corona-impacted industry, the federal government should make its efforts consistently, pursuant to a considered policy, so that necessary relief is provided but public money isn't wasted.
> 
> Note that many of the communities to lose American service are served by Amtrak:
> Del Rio, TX
> ...


They should start looking at trains as part of the feeder service to regional airports. Of course, that would require building some new tracks to connect the existing rail network to the airport. And service to the more central parts of the metro areas needs to continue, as people shouldn't have to drive out to the airport just to catch a train.

Bus feeder service to airports, like the Van Galder bus that feeds O'Hare from Madison and Beloit is another good idea that could be implemented very quickly. If they could figure out a way to do the TSA check and check bags before you board the buses or feeder trains, they could run into the airport terminals on the airside of security, thus avoiding a lot of the unpleasant congestion at the airport. All of this might be a lot cheaper than subsidizing commuter flights. (I hate flying in small commuter planes, anyway.)


----------



## west point (Sep 16, 2020)

Eric it is actually each tire's load. So a 4000 pound car would have ideally 1000 pounds on each tire. However we know loads in a car are not even so it is more likely 800 on 2 tires and 1200 on 2.
So an eighteen wheeler will have approximately 4500 pounds on each tire. But then it gets complicated. Loads on pavements are not translated straight down. Each type of pavement tranferrs the loads at a different angle thru the pavement to the subgrade. Different types of concrete and asphalt are alll slightly different.h So the thicker the pavement the better loads are spread. However for trucks the 2 tires together the loads will cross over at the sub grade.
An example of the above is airport runways. 2 different type of airplanes that each have a 160,000# weight on main gear has 40,000# on each tire. But the one that the 2 tires on each side with different spacing betweem the tires may be able to operate on a runway and not the other. Montgomery alabama is an example.
Subgrade work at airports has become very good. It has been found a layer if asphalt underneath concrete spreads the load better. Asphalt is classified as a super cooled liquid the will flow under load to fill any voids thereby keeping the concrete intact. Newark airport extended a runway both ends that way .


----------



## jruff001 (Sep 28, 2020)

west point said:


> Actually you are correct in your first sentenance. Amtrak is a success in that with the exception of Japan and China it has a higher car miles per day than any of the systems we like to admire. Even the HSR trains in western Europe have a much lower mileage per day than Amtrak. Most of the LD trains in the east run 24 = 40 hours before ending thei trips and then turn back in about 14 -20 hours back. The western LD trains are even more used as their routes are up to 60 hours long before reversing.. The last I read Amtrak has about 85 - 90% of cars ready for service. Of course some are not in the best repair for dispatch.


Amtrak equipment travels more car _miles_ per day than other countries' HSR equipment? _Hours_ per day I would believe but miles - I dunno, HSR in Japan, France, etc. rack up a lot more miles per hour than Amtrak's LD trains do. A couple hours per day at those speeds would seem to yield more miles than an Amtrak train does in a day.


----------



## ehbowen (Sep 30, 2020)

jruff001 said:


> Amtrak equipment travels more car _miles_ per day than other countries' HSR equipment? _Hours_ per day I would believe but miles - I dunno, HSR in Japan, France, etc. rack up a lot more miles per hour than Amtrak's LD trains do. A couple hours per day at those speeds would seem to yield more miles than an Amtrak train does in a day.


Well, think about it. Run ten hours in Germany or France and you run out of country. Run twenty hours on Amtrak, and you're not even halfway there!

Also...the other countries have enough spare equipment that a quick turnaround and re-dispatch isn't always necessary. On Amtrak, it usually is.


----------



## jruff001 (Sep 30, 2020)

ehbowen said:


> Well, think about it. Run ten hours in Germany or France and you run out of country. Run twenty hours on Amtrak, and you're not even halfway there!


You know trains can turn around and do thing like two hours out A-B, then two hours back B-A, and repeat that a few times per day. Or even go A-B, B-C, then somewhere else. Or A-B, B-A, A-C, then somewhere else.


----------



## jis (Sep 30, 2020)

jruff001 said:


> You know trains can turn around and do thing like two hours out A-B, then two hours back B-A, and repeat that a few times per day. Or even go A-B, B-C, then somewhere else. Or A-B, B-A, A-C, then somewhere else.


Exactly. A Paris to Marseilles is about 480 miles. A single set can do a round trip in a little over 7 hours allowing adequate time to turn. Let's call it 8. A single set can do 2.5 RTs or 5 one ways, in a day. That works out to ~2400 miles. An Amtrak LD train would have to make it from Chicago to Emeryville and then some in 24 hours to beat that.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Oct 4, 2020)

ehbowen said:


> Well, think about it. Run ten hours in Germany or France and you run out of country. Run twenty hours on Amtrak, and you're not even halfway there!


What does Amtrak do when it runs out of Texas? It keeps on moving into the next state unimpeded. Trains in the European Union can travel across borders in a similar no hassle fashion. As in the US there is a method for tracking passenger movement but it's done behind the scenes without formal processing.









Rail transport in Europe - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




Long term plans include an expanding list of long distance city pairs previously considered unworkable. Imagine walking up to a ticket kiosk in London and seeing Lisbon or Rome on the destination list.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Oct 5, 2020)

Imagine going from New York to almost Miami on a train in less than 10 hours! It takes at least 25 hours on Amtrak without delays...


----------



## tgstubbs1 (Oct 5, 2020)

Clearly speed isn't Amtrak's strong point. Even though European trains have impressive times they don't compare with air travel. There are other reasons to take the train.


----------



## MARC Rider (Oct 5, 2020)

tgstubbs1 said:


> Clearly speed isn't Amtrak's strong point. Even though European trains have impressive times they don't compare with air travel. There are other reasons to take the train.


Yeah, mainly for serving the intermediate stops. One train can service a large number of city-pairs on the line. And those shorter trips could well be time-competitive with flying when you factor in dealing with all the airport formalities and traffic to and from the airport. It certainly works that way on the NEC. Very few passengers ride all the way from Washington to Boston (or Roanaoke and Boston, or Norfolk and Boston), but the service is highly patronized and considered successful nonetheless.


----------



## jis (Oct 5, 2020)

Many American analysts and commentators suffer excessively from end-to-end-itis, a disease that cause them to consider only end to end riders to the exclusion of any riders served to/from the enroute stops by the train.


----------



## railiner (Oct 5, 2020)

jis said:


> Many American analysts and commentators suffer excessively from end-to-end-itis, a disease that cause them to consider only end to end riders to the exclusion of any riders served to/from the enroute stops by the train.


Is that where the term "flyover country" comes from?


----------



## MARC Rider (Oct 5, 2020)

railiner said:


> Is that where the term "flyover country" comes from?


There was a period in the 1980s and early 1990s when there was no nonstop service for government travelers between BWI and the west coast, and I ended up spending a lot of time changing planes in airports in various places in the American heartland. Even as recently as 2015, I had to fly to LA for work, and the only flight I could get was a Southwest flight that stopped at Love Field in Dallas. The most out-of-of-the-way flights I ever had were BWI to SFO via DFW, and a flight from Reno to Chicago that actually went west on it's first leg to stop at Sacramento. That was sort of interesting, crossing the Sierra Nevada at relatively low altitude on a clear day.


----------



## Qapla (Oct 5, 2020)

Layovers and plane changes in Atlanta used to be so common there were numerous jokes about having to stop in Atlanta no matter where you were going - like saying to fly from Chicago to NY you would have to change planes in Atlanta.

The fact is, regardless if you want to separate trains by labels like "Long Distance" or "Regional" or "Corridor" - LD trains fill all those slots.

Those going from NYP to MIA are on a LD ride, those who rode from JAX to MIA were taking a regional ride and someone riding from NYP to PHL could be viewed as a corridor train - yet they could all be riding the same Silver train ... so, are the Silvers LD, Regional or corridor?

That is why it does not really work to compare trains to planes. Seldom does the same plane fill all of these categories like many trains do.


----------



## jiml (Oct 6, 2020)

railiner said:


> Is that where the term "flyover country" comes from?


Since those same analysts that @jis mentioned use flying as a comparison, you can see how they reach their conclusions.


----------



## jiml (Oct 6, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Layovers and plane changes in Atlanta used to be so common there were numerous jokes about having to stop in Atlanta no matter where you were going - like saying to fly from Chicago to NY you would have to change planes in Atlanta.


You've just described the "hub and spoke" system still widely used by airlines. Simply substitute Delta's Atlanta with the hub city of your favorite airline. We're long-time AA flyers and to save money we've often flown out of Buffalo, NY. Until AA merged with US Air, getting from Buffalo to New York, Boston, etc., involved flying through Chicago every time. Great for frequent flyer miles, but not very time-friendly.


----------



## MARC Rider (Oct 12, 2020)

jiml said:


> You've just described the "hub and spoke" system still widely used by airlines. Simply substitute Delta's Atlanta with the hub city of your favorite airline. We're long-time AA flyers and to save money we've often flown out of Buffalo, NY. Until AA merged with US Air, getting from Buffalo to New York, Boston, etc., involved flying through Chicago every time. Great for frequent flyer miles, but not very time-friendly.


Northwest Airlines had a code-share agreement with KLM. Back in the 2000s, I took a bunch of trips from BWI to Detroit on Northwest, and I would get seatmates who were flying from Baltimore to Europe, via Detroit.


----------



## railiner (Oct 12, 2020)

jiml said:


> You've just described the "hub and spoke" system still widely used by airlines. Simply substitute Delta's Atlanta with the hub city of your favorite airline. We're long-time AA flyers and to save money we've often flown out of Buffalo, NY. Until AA merged with US Air, getting from Buffalo to New York, Boston, etc., involved flying through Chicago every time. Great for frequent flyer miles, but not very time-friendly.


Prior to the merger with US Air, I recall American Eagle operated at least two daily flights between Buffalo and JFK....


----------



## jiml (Oct 12, 2020)

railiner said:


> Prior to the merger with US Air, I recall American Eagle operated at least two daily flights between Buffalo and JFK....


JetBlue was the end of those. The same two flights were subsequently moved to YYZ-JFK - almost the same route with better business potential. (Previously all AA from Toronto to New York had served LGA.) Buffalo benefited greatly from the merger.


----------



## NSC1109 (Oct 23, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Layovers and plane changes in Atlanta used to be so common there were numerous jokes about having to stop in Atlanta no matter where you were going - like saying to fly from Chicago to NY you would have to change planes in Atlanta.
> 
> The fact is, regardless if you want to separate trains by labels like "Long Distance" or "Regional" or "Corridor" - LD trains fill all those slots.
> 
> ...



It isn't always cut-and-dry like that. There are a number of trains that only dis/embark passengers depending on the location and direction in order to better serve the community. The _City of New Orleans _for example, picks up passengers at Homewood, IL, going south and only discharges going north, the idea being to prevent siphoning passengers from the corridor trains or Metra (I think some of the Chicago-area ones are actually non-compete agreements with Metra, especially along the BNSF route). Then there are others, mostly on the NEC, that stop at most, if not all, stations and act like all three services, something I personally disagree with in high-traffic areas. There are plenty of _Northeast Regional _services available, why are we stopping an LD service at a smaller station to act like a corridor train? Ending that practice would shave off running time, but it has to be done tactically; there are some locations (like Homewood) who are better served by it because there is no easy way to get back there from Chicago Union Station; you'd have to walk to Millennium Street from CUS to get to the Metra Electric District then head back south or wait for the _Illini/Saluki_. But there are others that have so much service it doesn't make sense to stop them there. 



jiml said:


> You've just described the "hub and spoke" system still widely used by airlines. Simply substitute Delta's Atlanta with the hub city of your favorite airline. We're long-time AA flyers and to save money we've often flown out of Buffalo, NY. Until AA merged with US Air, getting from Buffalo to New York, Boston, etc., involved flying through Chicago every time. Great for frequent flyer miles, but not very time-friendly.



A hub-and-spoke system for Amtrak may not be a bad idea. After all, that is essentially what Chicago is at this point: a massive Amtrak corridor hub. You can connect to other corridor trains (think American Eagle, Delta Connection, and United Express) or to the long distance services (mainline American, Delta, and United). Doing the same for Amtrak could create better connectivity and increase ridership, provided the service has *value for money, is sufficiently quick,* and* has VIABLE connectivity. *


----------

