# What will Amtrak do with $800M?



## jcl653 (Jan 28, 2009)

With the house "poised to pass economic stimulus bill," it appears that Amtrak may actually get $800M in stimulus funding.

If this bill actually passes, how do you think Amtrak will spend it?


----------



## gswager (Jan 28, 2009)

More passenger cars!


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Jan 28, 2009)

gswager said:


> More passenger cars!


I don't think thats enough for the order there trying to place though


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 28, 2009)

When you consider that we are now talking many multiplies of a thousand billion dollars, its like a token after thought. So much for our Amtrak supporting administration and congress men. Didn't the presidents favorite illegal vote getting group just get two billion? Shows where the priorities really are.


----------



## sky12065 (Jan 28, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> When you consider that we are now talking many multiplies of a thousand billion dollars, its like a token after thought. So much for our Amtrak supporting administration and congress men. Didn't the presidents favorite illegal vote getting group just get two billion? Shows where the priorities really are.


Larry, don't forget some of the other pork barrel spending that's being slipped into the stimulus package, like a polar bear exibit in RI and a water park in FL. If public hearings aren't held to expose and minimize the pork barrel before the stimilus package goes to vote, Amtrak may wind up getting some of the pork barrel fat to grease their wheels in comparison to what they're long overdue for. Let's not forget to write our representatives to support Amtrak as suggested in the following post: *CLICK HERE*


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 28, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> When you consider that we are now talking many multiplies of a thousand billion dollars, its like a token after thought. So much for our Amtrak supporting administration and congress men. Didn't the presidents favorite illegal vote getting group just get two billion? Shows where the priorities really are.


Their short term priorities are to create jobs with shovel-ready projects. That means anything that's important to the Obama administration that wasn't important to last year's President and Congress isn't on the table at this stage, because nobody has bothered to draw up the plans for such projects yet.

I'm a little disappointed by the auto-centric focus of the oil reduction policies discussed on whitehouse.gov, but I'm also wondering if the potential automaker bailout is a factor there.


----------



## daveyb99 (Jan 28, 2009)

I propose AMTRAK spend a few hundred dollars to immediately notify ALL stations in ARIZONA that service will be discontinued.

Once again, false information and a flawed (and rejected) amendment by REP FLAKE (R-AZ) to cut AMTRAK funding in HR1 was proposed.

The false info? FLAKE claimed last year AMTRAK was subsidized by an average of $210 per passenger. It is more like $45.

Seems the delegation from Arizona has no desire for AMTRAK service, so I propose that service be eliminated entirely.

discuss....................


----------



## Guest_gp35_* (Jan 28, 2009)

Amtrak should make Sunset and Cardinal daily. Then add sleepers on LD trains so each LD train runs with 8-10 sleepers.

This would raise the revenue the highest. EB would hsave a profit with 10 sleepers per train.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jan 28, 2009)

Guest_gp35_* said:


> Amtrak should make Sunset and Cardinal daily. Then add sleepers on LD trains so each LD train runs with 8-10 sleepers. This would raise the revenue the highest. EB would hsave a profit with 10 sleepers per train.


They'd have to add another diner, or be serving meal for 18 hours straight.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 28, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Didn't the presidents favorite illegal vote getting group just get two billion? Shows where the priorities really are.


Got a link to back up that wild assertion?


----------



## access bob (Jan 28, 2009)

jcl653 said:


> With the house "poised to pass economic stimulus bill," it appears that Amtrak may actually get $800M in stimulus funding.
> If this bill actually passes, how do you think Amtrak will spend it?


they will fix infrastructure on the NEC

Bob


----------



## Acela150 (Jan 28, 2009)

As far as boarding up every station in AZ. Amtrak wouldn't do that due to the fact the there's a decent amount of people that use the AZ station.

I think a item in the NEC NEEDS between WAS-NYP is constant tension catenary. There's a good strech in DE, and NJ where Acela could go 150 but is limited to 135 due to lack of tension. Between Ragan and Bacon that's good for 135 and Bacon and Prince 130, which is in mostly DE a part of MD. In NJ Ham and County is good for 135. All of that could be good for 150.


----------



## Spokker (Jan 29, 2009)

In my view the stimulus being considered for rail, whether it be local, regional, intercity, or high speed bullet trains is woefully small.

Our inadequate rail network proved itself in 2008 with record ridership. Yet we continue to focus on dangerous and inefficient highways while giving passenger rail the finger. I just don't get it.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jan 29, 2009)

it might be enough to get some of the cars out of mothballs and restore them. that would be a start. they got the power to move the cars they just need the $$$ to rebuild them. it might be cheaper then building new. maybe bring back some slumber coaches.


----------



## DaveKCMO (Jan 29, 2009)

one man's amtrak is another man's polar bear exhibit. who's to say the job created by building a zoo exhibit is better for the economy than a job building a highway?


----------



## had8ley (Jan 29, 2009)

daveyb99 said:


> I propose AMTRAK spend a few hundred dollars to immediately notify ALL stations in ARIZONA that service will be discontinued.
> Once again, false information and a flawed (and rejected) amendment by REP FLAKE (R-AZ) to cut AMTRAK funding in HR1 was proposed.
> 
> The false info? FLAKE claimed last year AMTRAK was subsidized by an average of $210 per passenger. It is more like $45.
> ...


All I'm going to say is our honorable representative from Arizona is appropriately named.


----------



## jis (Jan 29, 2009)

To jog all your memories Bill Crosbie of Amtrak gave a testimony to the House on what Amtrak might use money from a recovery plan. The material can be found here.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 29, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't the presidents favorite illegal vote getting group just get two billion? Shows where the priorities really are.
> ...


Nothing wild about it, the news reported again last night that the Community Redevelopment act or what ever there calling it, which is a front for funneling money into democratic vote getting blocks, is up for 3 billion, not the 2 I mentioned so in reality its even worse. I can find a link if I look I am sure, but then so can you, I am not making it up, an as usual if someone doesn't want to see something they won't.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 29, 2009)

DaveKCMO said:


> one man's amtrak is another man's polar bear exhibit. who's to say the job created by building a zoo exhibit is better for the economy than a job building a highway?


A polar bear exhibit can't get me to a job, or to a business meeting in another city, or bring food from a farm to where I live. It might bring tourists, but only if there's some way for those tourists to get to the polar bear exhibit.

While highways may not be the best way to invest in transportation, I think that if we made a decision to let our transportation infrastructure deteriorate to the point where it had less capacity than it did 10 or 20 years ago, that would probably not be good for the economy.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 29, 2009)

I guess I got on the NRPA mailing list, most likely by using my Guest Rewards points last year. I was interested in the map they propose for expanded, or should I say, Restored, rail service. That is something I have long proposed to which would increase the usage of the rail service immensely. I have a feeling that if we had decent dependable rail to many more locations it would not be the quoted as having 1% of the traveling public use. Duh!!, you have to go somewhere to have passengers.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 29, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > Larry H. said:
> ...


Actually, the first several news.google.com hits for

Community Redevelopment Act

don't seem to have anything about this at all. When it's not clear that you even know the correct name of this thing, it's hard for us to reasonably expect that you reasonably have a solid understanding of the other details of it.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 29, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't the presidents favorite illegal vote getting group just get two billion? Shows where the priorities really are.
> ...


There's all kind of links if you choose to look for them.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272009/news/...r_ac_152276.htm

I hope this one works, if not just google Money for Acorn in Stimulus Plan and you will find all the information to back my "wild" claim. You see most people don't know what a mess they vote for. That said, I voted FOR obama, mostly on health and rail issues, but I don't like the politics as usual in the guise of change that is going on. Fleeceing of America I think they have been calling it for some time now. Just because I voted for someone doesn't mean I like everything he does, or dislikes everything he does which is a far cry from what the others have done to the past president.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 29, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> I guess I got on the NRPA mailing list, most likely by using my Guest Rewards points last year. I was interested in the map they propose for expanded, or should I say, Restored, rail service. That is something I have long proposed to which would increase the usage of the rail service immensely. I have a feeling that if we had decent dependable rail to many more locations it would not be the quoted as having 1% of the traveling public use. Duh!!, you have to go somewhere to have passengers.


If you're talking about NARP, the National Association of Railroad Passengers, I don't think their plan really goes far enough at all. The countries that have successful rail systems haven't been merely restoring the service levels that were available 60 years ago, which seems to be some approximation of NARP's goal; they've been building new high speed lines (which the Acela is not an example of) on their major routes.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 29, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > HokieNav said:
> ...


Incorrect, not sure who is unclear now! I really don't want to argue about the issue, I just want to point out that money is being tossed around to groups that support the presidents friends and keeps them in office while things that really need help and serve everyone are taking a back seat. Read the links and you will see what I am talking about, then make a useful comment. I am amazed at the people who always complain someone is wrong or uninformed when they themselves are in the wrong.


----------



## daveyb99 (Jan 29, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't the presidents favorite illegal vote getting group just get two billion? Shows where the priorities really are.
> ...


no link, just comedian Rush Limbaugh.

and No, this is not true.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 29, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I got on the NRPA mailing list, most likely by using my Guest Rewards points last year. I was interested in the map they propose for expanded, or should I say, Restored, rail service. That is something I have long proposed to which would increase the usage of the rail service immensely. I have a feeling that if we had decent dependable rail to many more locations it would not be the quoted as having 1% of the traveling public use. Duh!!, you have to go somewhere to have passengers.
> ...


Well hopefully you can admit that by joining all the cities that with useful connections, even if its the way it was in the 60's is certainly better than having no connections at all, which is where we are now. Sure I would be for all kinds of new services but we have to start somewhere and having a reasonably convenient way to get places is a necessary first step. Having to go though Chicago, while seemingly fine by many, is not the way to get the most people on board when they are going from points that take over a day or mores travel in each direction out of there way.. It would be almost like having high speed rail to save all that time and expense by more direct routes. That is the biggest flaw in the system as it is. Not to mention of course having many more sleepers and diners, cars in general.

That comment above about having two diners with 10 sleepers might indeed be true. I just was reading an old article about the updated 20th century and other trains in the heyday of travel, they mentioned in it that some trains had either full length diners with a second car as kitchen or two diners on board. Many trains ran with 6 or more sleepers on a regular basis, they surely could do it now. The whole idea that you can't or it takes too many people is where we seem to have been stuck for ever..


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 29, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272009/news/...r_ac_152276.htm
> I hope this one works, if not just google Money for Acorn in Stimulus Plan and you will find all the information to back my "wild" claim. You see most people don't know what a mess they vote for. That said, I voted FOR obama, mostly on health and rail issues, but I don't like the politics as usual in the guise of change that is going on. Fleeceing of America I think they have been calling it for some time now. Just because I voted for someone doesn't mean I like everything he does, or dislikes everything he does which is a far cry from what the others have done to the past president.


When you have an organization handling billions of dollars, I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect that there couldn't possibly be one percent of one percent of the organization that's corrupt, regardless of what that organization is doing. The article you've linked to doesn't provide me with any reason to think that they're not doing truly valuable work with at least 99% of that money, which is more than can be said for an awful lot of government programs.

Also, even if they do have a few people who are corrupt, where did those people come from? Are you absolutely sure that the organization's opponents didn't decide to get hired by that organization and then intentionally do something wrong?


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 29, 2009)

daveyb99 said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > Larry H. said:
> ...


The link is above several post and is working, they have plenty of more links to it if you only really wished to find out the truth instead of playing "gotcha" games. This is why we are where we are in todays world, people just blinding take one side or the other with no regard to actual circumstances.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 29, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Well hopefully you can admit that by joining all the cities that with useful connections, even if its the way it was in the 60's is certainly better than having no connections at all, which is where we are now. Sure I would be for all kinds of new services but we have to start somewhere and having a reasonably convenient way to get places is a necessary first step.


The only problem with this is that the airplane and automobile redefined convenient when they became popular.



Larry H. said:


> Having to go though Chicago, while seemingly fine by many, is not the way to get the most people on board when they are going from points that take over a day or mores travel in each direction out of there way.. It would be almost like having high speed rail to save all that time and expense by more direct routes.


There's also the problem that running on freight railroads is not ideal for on time performance, ride quality, speed, or service frequencies. You can see this particularily clearly when you compare the experiences of commuter rail agencies that largely own their tracks (like the MBTA) to the commuter agencies that largely rely on freight railroads (like MARC).


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 29, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272009/news/...r_ac_152276.htm
> ...


Lets put it this way.. Is the money really a Job stimulus or a political game to increase or pay back votes. I would much rather have better Amtrak service instead of what actually turned out to be 4 billion.. Even higher than I kept mentioning. To me there is a difference between rewarding some instead of providing a service which serves all, and could serve them much better.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 29, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Well hopefully you can admit that by joining all the cities that with useful connections, even if its the way it was in the 60's is certainly better than having no connections at all, which is where we are now. Sure I would be for all kinds of new services but we have to start somewhere and having a reasonably convenient way to get places is a necessary first step.
> ...


I am really not trying to pick at your post, even though that is what is happening from both parties. But again, lets face reality here. All passenger service used to operate on Freight Railroads. They owned the lines. Many prided them selves in people being able to set their watches by there on time performance. I can still remember often seeing trains stopping exactly at the moment of scheduled arrival. A rarity in todays world. I will say that where I live now I can hear the Chicago Carbondale trains passing within a mile or so and often to this day they are within a few minutes of being on time unless some uncontrollable circumstance has happened on the CN. I know that is more or less the minority of service today, but it used to be the way things were run. They aren't today because the railroads no longer care in some cases and have created trains that will not allow for being sided to let the passenger trains to pass without having to wait.

I would be for separate tracks, but that expense is so great, particularly if it only being used by one long distance train a day in each direction as to be impossible to justify. What should be and could be done is to "double track" once again where the other track was removed in the 70's when rail was thought to be in a loosing situation. That would apply to the CN as well. I hated to see them rip up the second "mainline as they called it" some years ago. I know they wish they had it now, and even better on time performance could be obtained if they did. But double tracking other major routes would be a great start, for both removing so many trucks from the road, but allowing for increased and more on time passenger service on existing routes. The cost of a set of high speed tracks in areas other than a few heavy use areas would be an expense no one can justify. But double tracking would have put all kinds of people to work building, grading, installing, planing for the work.. That is where some of those Community billions should have gone..


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 29, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> http://www.nypost.com/seven/01272009/news/...r_ac_152276.htm


I am not going to argue your point Larry, because I can't be bothered to figure out how much validity there is to it, I don't know and don't particularly care. However, you just linked to the NYPost, a news paper owned by raghound Rupert Murdoch. Who owns a lot of different papers- including the Enquirer. I've stopped reading the WSJ since he bought it- the decline in the quality and objectivity of the news within was palpable. The stuff his papers report tend to range from highly exaggerated to outright untrue nonsense. And that includes recent WSJ stuff, too.

I question the validity of your source.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 29, 2009)

Its interesting indeed that when you search say the New York Times you get no mention of this, as well as several other known liberal papers. So I went to CNN which brought up the following list of references. Frankly I didn't know a thing about the New York Post. But I would say that nearly every newspaper seems to have a leaning one way or the other when it comes to politics. So its not surprising that some will mention it and others will not. At any rate here are the pages that CNN have on their list. It won't prove anything to anyone that wishes not to believe it, but I doubt all of them are lying.

http://search.cnn.com/search.jsp?query=mon...web&sortBy=


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 29, 2009)

As I said, I don't care to argue with you on the subject because I don't really care- its politics. This **** happens. Had your guy won, we'd have people on my side accusing your guy of whatever claptrap nonsense people like to dream up.

Check the ownership of the sources you check. Murdoch owns most right-leaning publications in the country- including Fox News. The company is called "News Corp".


----------



## AlanB (Jan 29, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> As I said, I don't care to argue with you on the subject because I don't really care- its politics. This **** happens. Had your guy won, we'd have people on my side accusing your guy of whatever claptrap nonsense people like to dream up.


Just for the record, his guy did win. He said that he voted for President Obama and I have no reason to doubt him.

And now that said, let me put on my moderator's hat here and remind people to keep things both civil and off politics except where those politics directly affect Amtrak. I'm not saying that anyone has not been civil, but I fear that we're getting very close here and we're definately getting of course as far as how this political discussion affects Amtrak.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 29, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Its interesting indeed that when you search say the New York Times you get no mention of this, as well as several other known liberal papers. So I went to CNN which brought up the following list of references. Frankly I didn't know a thing about the New York Post. But I would say that nearly every newspaper seems to have a leaning one way or the other when it comes to politics. So its not surprising that some will mention it and others will not. At any rate here are the pages that CNN have on their list. It won't prove anything to anyone that wishes not to believe it, but I doubt all of them are lying.
> http://search.cnn.com/search.jsp?query=mon...web&sortBy=


The fact that mainstream news outlets aren't reporting on this tells you something - that list is nothing but a bunch of right leaning blogs that hardly qualify for "news" (I mean c'mon, _newsmax_???).

So what you're saying is that perhaps maybe an organization that perhaps maybe had some unethical dealings tied to Obama maybe perhaps may be getting some money that maybe perhaps might be in "payback" for "gathering votes" in what was a "not even close" election is a shining example of politics as usual???

Right. 

Sorry for the dearail folks, but this kind of polarizing BS that does nothing to get this country any closer to where we need to be really gets my dander up.

Edit: Sorry Alan, your post wasn't there when I started - feel free to mod as you see fit. Either way, I'll let it drop.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 29, 2009)

Yes Allan,

Any discussion that brings up the way in which Amtrak was short changed is most likely political. Yes I indeed did vote for Obama.. But as I said, I did it with the hopes that Amtrak would at least garner some real support. When I see the unbalanced way the money is alloted, just makes one wonder about the fairness of it. Where the money goes should be the peoples business and fair to point out how it could be better spent.

Polarizing is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## frj1983 (Jan 30, 2009)

OK,

I'm going to add my 2 cents here:

Use whatever monies Amtrak gets to repair as many sidelined passenger cars as possible!


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 30, 2009)

Joel,

Politics aside. I read with some wonder your comments about the plane and car now defining convenience so that it no longer should apply to rail? And the idea that anyone is then going to build a separate set of high speed tracks all across the country is almost completely the opposite of the first comment. Why build it if no one wants it? If you read the UPRA newsletter above yesterdays edition it shows clearly that when the government decided to limit the places trains ran the ridership plummeted. That isn't rocket science. Besides its a lot easier to feel like rail service is convenient when one is living on the eastern rail hubs. Nothing remotely like that any where else. The rest of the public deserves it too.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 30, 2009)

frj1983 said:


> OK,
> I'm going to add my 2 cents here:
> 
> Use whatever monies Amtrak gets to repair as many sidelined passenger cars as possible!


Everything that's repairable would be repaired with a lot of money left over. What people like to forget is some of those 81 Amfleet cars and those numerous Superliners are actually beyond repair. Also, I believe the repair price for the average Amfleet is 100,000 a car, give or take. Which would mean 8.1 million would cover it.


----------



## WICT106 (Jan 30, 2009)

If that is the case, Green mane Lion, then Amtrak could do with some new rolling stock. many of the coaches are beginning to look very high mileage. Amtrak could also start doling out grants to certain states where a simple re-routing would increase ridership. For Example, routing the empire Builder through Madison, Wisconsin, between Portage and Milwaukee, would dramatically increase the number of passengers on that train. The main problem is that neither Amtrak nor the State of Wisconsin have the funds necessary ( some $ 350 to 400 million at last estimate) to upgrade the tracks to FRA Class 3 (59 mph passenger speed limit) or better.

$ 800 million would also go some ways towards setting up a Trust Fund, in which Amtrak could start paying the "landlord" freight railroads to reduce the number of speed restrictions, slower speed zones, and areas of congestion along the various passenger rail routes. Before anyone entertains any thought of high speed rail, it should be pointed out that there might be more value for the money ("bang for the buck") by increasing the average train speed, straightening curves, et cetera.


----------



## Larry H. (Jan 30, 2009)

WICT106 said:


> If that is the case, Green mane Lion, then Amtrak could do with some new rolling stock. many of the coaches are beginning to look very high mileage. Amtrak could also start doling out grants to certain states where a simple re-routing would increase ridership. For Example, routing the empire Builder through Madison, Wisconsin, between Portage and Milwaukee, would dramatically increase the number of passengers on that train. The main problem is that neither Amtrak nor the State of Wisconsin have the funds necessary ( some $ 350 to 400 million at last estimate) to upgrade the tracks to FRA Class 3 (59 mph passenger speed limit) or better.
> $ 800 million would also go some ways towards setting up a Trust Fund, in which Amtrak could start paying the "landlord" freight railroads to reduce the number of speed restrictions, slower speed zones, and areas of congestion along the various passenger rail routes. Before anyone entertains any thought of high speed rail, it should be pointed out that there might be more value for the money ("bang for the buck") by increasing the average train speed, straightening curves, et cetera.


They could run a heck of a lot of diners and lounges with real people and cooks for ever with what that would cost. Maybe even add sleepers that they desperately need. No one really can say what kind of demand is for rail service when most of the time you get "sold out" on rooms. Like how many passengers are we talking about, does anyone really know?


----------



## AlanB (Jan 30, 2009)

Back in 2002, Amtrak VP Stan Bagley reported that of 58 Superliners out of service at BG, only 42 were awaiting repair. While he didn't explicity state it, most people at the time assumed that mean that the other 16 were beyond repair and were only there either for parts, insurance reasons, or simply waiting to be scrapped.


----------



## gaspeamtrak (Jan 31, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Back in 2002, Amtrak VP Stan Bagley reported that of 58 Superliners out of service at BG, only 42 were awaiting repair. While he didn't explicity state it, most people at the time assumed that mean that the other 16 were beyond repair and were only there either for parts, insurance reasons, or simply waiting to be scrapped.



Alan, does anybody have and idea how many Superliners are awaiting repairs at BG this moment???


----------



## AlanB (Jan 31, 2009)

gaspeamtrak said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Back in 2002, Amtrak VP Stan Bagley reported that of 58 Superliners out of service at BG, only 42 were awaiting repair. While he didn't explicity state it, most people at the time assumed that mean that the other 16 were beyond repair and were only there either for parts, insurance reasons, or simply waiting to be scrapped.
> ...


Yeah, Amtrak does. :lol:

Outside of Amtrak I haven't heard if anyone else knows precisely. However there have been a few more accidents since Stan's report, at least a few cars were scrapped, and I suspect that a few more cars were wrecked beyond repair. As of 10/20/08 there were 41 Superliners sitting in Beech Grove. Exactly how many of them are repairable is up for debate, but I'd say that it's probably a pretty safe guess to conclude that at least 15 of them are beyond repair. So that would leave us with some 25 or so that could be repaired with stimulous money.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 31, 2009)

AlanB said:


> gaspeamtrak said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


And that is probably one of Amtrak's worst self-defeating stances. They'll scream bloody murder, almost standing at each station door with a tin cup, about the needs and wants of a taxpayer subsidized entity yet won't release basic information, such as how many and much it would take to repair shopped cars, in order to justify the filling of the tin cup.


----------



## wayman (Jan 31, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> frj1983 said:
> 
> 
> > OK,
> ...


Given how cheap repairing everything would be and how "shovel-ready" those repairs are, Amtrak has no excuse for not starting with getting absolutely everything that can be repaired through the shops and out on the rails. I mean, it sounds like it'll cost _peanuts_ out of the 800-million, but the benefits would be huge and nationwide.

And yet, this is Amtrak. I have this sinking feeling that while they _could_ spend 8-million on car repair and 792-million on NEC catenary, they'll just wind up spending all 800-million on NEC catenary... so they can ask for more money to repair cars.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 31, 2009)

wayman said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > frj1983 said:
> ...


I'm impressed; somebody else has been watching the Amtrak shell game also. Don't take this as a cheap shot ; I like riding as much as the next poster BUT when something so very obvious pops up it's almost a sin not to point it out. BTW, what's a 100 grand in comparison to letting a car rot on the rip track and order a new one at the million plus prices? Now, where's that tin cup???


----------



## birdy (Jan 31, 2009)

daveyb99 said:


> I propose AMTRAK spend a few hundred dollars to immediately notify ALL stations in ARIZONA that service will be discontinued.
> Once again, false information and a flawed (and rejected) amendment by REP FLAKE (R-AZ) to cut AMTRAK funding in HR1 was proposed.
> 
> The false info? FLAKE claimed last year AMTRAK was subsidized by an average of $210 per passenger. It is more like $45.
> ...


Don't get me started on Arizona politicans. Just be thankful you don't live there. The days of the Goldwaters, Udalls, and Rhodes are long gone. the 'Zonies customarily spend more on their prisons than they do their universities. The bi-weekly publicity stunt by Sheiff Joe counts as statesmanship. Now they are busily dismantling their three universities too. They make the locals here look like the Roman Senate. Janet Napolitano is practically a refugee at Homeland Security.

* * * *

One thing I found out: A lot of the public just assumes that Amtrak is roughly the size of the US postal service, about as efficient, and much less necessary, hence all the animosity. $800 mill is NOTHING.

As a matter of fact, why can't we have true high speed service? You guys are so downcast you sound like characters out of Dickens when it comes to this stuff. It defies logic to think that usage patterns in europe, where lines typically grow loadings at 10% compounded per year are so radically different than here. High speed is for city pairs roughly 350 miles apart or so. We have plenty of those. Not just on the east coast, either. Its not transcontintental service, nor commuter rail. At a generous $30 million per mile, we should easily pay for a new one every year, at least outside of the ultra high expense California and NE corridor. (well, realistically, four built over a period of five years). Thats only $10-$12 billion dollars per year or so.

No need for a dime of new debt, either. (although I don't have a problem saddling my children with debt for stuff they will use). IRS reported yesterday that the top 400 taxpayers as measured by AGI reported last year paid a puny 17% in aggregate federal income tax, down from an aggregate 26% in the communistic days of 1992. If we raised their rates back up to 1992 levels we could collect $10 bil right there.

By the way, the cut off for Mr. 400 is about $270 million per year income. At 26%, he has to limp along on $200 million per year. The repubs have resorted to party-line votes and grandstanding on this stuff, so why should Rahm Emmanuel and O'Bama play the patsy for those guys. Raise their taxes, build these systems and see whose side the public takes. I'm betting its on the side of rail instead of the guys who buy a new G5 every year.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 31, 2009)

had8ley said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Meh, they've been doing this for decades. Think of all the Heritage cars they scrapped and didn't have to.


----------



## GG-1 (Jan 31, 2009)

Aloha

Bet this upset some of you, but maybe Amtrak should not get stimulus money, but Congress, Should provide some real Capitol Investment as stewards for our National Railroad Passenger Corporation.

Please don't tell me I am being Ideological, I know that 

Mahalo


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 1, 2009)

birdy said:


> High speed is for city pairs roughly 350 miles apart or so. We have plenty of those. Not just on the east coast, either. Its not transcontintental service, nor commuter rail. At a generous $30 million per mile, we should easily pay for a new one every year, at least outside of the ultra high expense California and NE corridor. (well, realistically, four built over a period of five years). Thats only $10-$12 billion dollars per year or so.


What fraction of Congress is going to vote to approve just one project which consists of one corridor which will serve less than 5% of the US population?


----------



## birdy (Feb 1, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> birdy said:
> 
> 
> > High speed is for city pairs roughly 350 miles apart or so. We have plenty of those. Not just on the east coast, either. Its not transcontintental service, nor commuter rail. At a generous $30 million per mile, we should easily pay for a new one every year, at least outside of the ultra high expense California and NE corridor. (well, realistically, four built over a period of five years). Thats only $10-$12 billion dollars per year or so.
> ...


I fundamentally disagree with your premise Joel, that there is only local support for these projects because the benefit is regional. Look at the "Big Dig" project in Boston, aka the "worst case scenario" In my part of the world, Teddy Kennedy is like The Devil. The Big Dig was a very local project conducted at the height of the neo-con movement. The project did not go particularly well. Yet, the "boondoggle" accusations and the demonizing did not go very far, and people would make weekend trips to watch the construction. After two hundred years, Americans have a track record. We are happiest in these five circumstances: 1. Fighting pirates. 2. Building railroads, 3. Pouring concrete. 4. Exploring things. 5. Showing up the foreigners. The fact is, we hunger for this. It might as well be in our DNA. But the general public and even the posters on this board have been convinced that this is an impossible dream.

To answer your question, I expect it would be a party-line vote. That's OK. The Dems are on the right side of this (I hope) and should reap the political benefit, and the Republicans are on the wrong side and should suffer the pain of a wrong political bet.

As a practical matter, funded at a measly $10 $12 bil per year (which, as I have pointed out could theoretically be raised from only 400 taxpayers without even causing discomfort to them), you could start work on three or four projects. The FRA already has some proposed corridors, but I would look to put them in the places where there is already grass-roots support. right now, that's Charlotte-Atlanta, San Antonio-Houston (via Austin) Minneapolis-Chicago (via Milwaukee). You would have to federalize the permitting and condemnation process to expedite things, but you could start pouring concrete in a couple of years if you were serious. The beneficiaries of the first few projects would be pleased, of course, and once that starts, then there is clamor from other parts of the country. It really isn't that expensive for us. The main limiting factor is that we have allowed our industrial base to atrophy in favor of the financial base and we just don't have big project capability the way we used to.

Anyway, I've got to hang up now and fax my senator.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 1, 2009)

birdy said:


> I fundamentally disagree with your premise Joel, that there is only local support for these projects because the benefit is regional. Look at the "Big Dig" project in Boston, aka the "worst case scenario" In my part of the world, Teddy Kennedy is like The Devil. The Big Dig was a very local project conducted at the height of the neo-con movement. The project did not go particularly well. Yet, the "boondoggle" accusations and the demonizing did not go very far, and people would make weekend trips to watch the construction.


The Big Dig was a highway project. We've had other highway tunnels built in the US, too; I think New York City and Hampton Roads Bay are examples. I'd be sort of surprised if the Big Dig was even the only federally funded highway tunnel project being worked on for its entire duration.

If you want to use the Big Dig as a metaphor for high speed rail construction, it might make sense to compare the Big Dig to a high speed rail route from California to Texas or Kansas.



birdy said:


> As a practical matter, funded at a measly $10 $12 bil per year (which, as I have pointed out could theoretically be raised from only 400 taxpayers without even causing discomfort to them), you could start work on three or four projects. The FRA already has some proposed corridors, but I would look to put them in the places where there is already grass-roots support. right now, that's Charlotte-Atlanta, San Antonio-Houston (via Austin) Minneapolis-Chicago (via Milwaukee).


I'd been thinking Milwaukee ought to be a separate spur from Chicago, but as I'm looking at it, maybe not. Madison to Chicago via Milwaukee probably only adds 60ish miles, which is probably about 15-20 minutes at 220 MPH.

Also, why should an Atlanta HSR project terminate at Charlotte? Atlanta to DC is 700ish miles, which if the track is built for 300 MPH most of the way, should be able to be covered in about three hours.

The Treasury has some capacity to just print more money. The real question is, are there workers who can operate the shovels? In addition to those who may be unemployed now, I think we should be looking at whether there are truck drivers who could be reallocated to track construction, first to work towards getting long haul freight in intermodal containers off the highways for the intercity portions of the trip and onto rails, and once that's done, they could work on high speed passenger track. Also, I believe most of the soldiers currently in Iraq probably have the abilities needed to construct track.


----------



## wayman (Feb 1, 2009)

birdy said:


> After two hundred years, Americans have a track record. We are happiest in these five circumstances: 1. Fighting pirates. 2. Building railroads, 3. Pouring concrete. 4. Exploring things. 5. Showing up the foreigners. The fact is, we hunger for this. It might as well be in our DNA. But the general public and even the posters on this board have been convinced that this is an impossible dream.


So clearly, we need to re-frame the dialog about building railroads.

Evil foreign *rail pirates* may already be already _exploring our nation_!












Their _pirate trains_ may even be carrying *weapons of mass destruction*!!! *gasp*






How can America defend herself? *We need to build railroads to fight pirates!*






*New railroads* will bring us _pirate treasure_!






Etc.


----------



## Sue in KY (Feb 1, 2009)

wayman said:


> birdy said:
> 
> 
> > After two hundred years, Americans have a track record. We are happiest in these five circumstances: 1. Fighting pirates. 2. Building railroads, 3. Pouring concrete. 4. Exploring things. 5. Showing up the foreigners. The fact is, we hunger for this. It might as well be in our DNA. But the general public and even the posters on this board have been convinced that this is an impossible dream.
> ...


[snip]

Yah, and pouring enough concrete to show up all the rest of the foreigners in the world.

(Thanks for making me laugh out loud, and I loved all the piratical photos! AARRRRR!)


----------



## Larry H. (Feb 2, 2009)

Joel,

Some seem to want 300 mile an hour service, but some how it just doesn't seem like a train anymore at that speed. I don't fly because I want to enjoy the ride and see the countryside, at 300 miles an hour I don't think I would enjoy either but maybe some would? I would rather see the money spent on decent service and equipment at the expense of flying on the ground.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 2, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Some seem to want 300 mile an hour service, but some how it just doesn't seem like a train anymore at that speed. I don't fly because I want to enjoy the ride and see the countryside, at 300 miles an hour I don't think I would enjoy either but maybe some would? I would rather see the money spent on decent service and equipment at the expense of flying on the ground.


New York City is the largest metro area in the US, and Chicago the third largest. That has got to be a major travel market. 300-350 MPH would be about the right ballpark to get the train travel time down to about three hours, which would be great for reducing airport congestion, being able to use clean energy sources on that route, etc. If you want to watch the scenery go by, you can still take a commuter train or the Empire Builder or catch an airplane and rent a car to get to a tourist railroad; I don't see either of those going anywhere near 300 MPH in my lifetime.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 2, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Some seem to want 300 mile an hour service, but some how it just doesn't seem like a train anymore at that speed. I don't fly because I want to enjoy the ride and see the countryside, at 300 miles an hour I don't think I would enjoy either but maybe some would? I would rather see the money spent on decent service and equipment at the expense of flying on the ground.
> ...


I would disagree with that Joel, I don't think that 300 MPH is necessary at all. Frankly if Amtrak could just speed things up a bit, provide more sleepers on the LSL, and depart at say 6:00 or 7:00 PM in both directions and arrive by 8:00 AM guaranteed, I think that they could easily triple their ridership on that route. Instead of a business person needing to get up super early, or fly in the night before and take a hotel room, they could work through the day, board the train, have dinner, sleep, wake up shower, do breakfast, and arrive into the cities in time to do business that day.

And all of that could be achieved with far less money, simply by adding a second or third track in places, speeding up some of the slow spots, and removing the interferance and therefore the padding.

Would higher speeds be nice, yes to some extent. But I still don't think that Amtrak needs to be 1 on 1 competative with the airlines in terms of speed. They need to come closer than they do now, and they need to provide a superior environment, but I don't think that they have to match the airlines for speed.


----------



## haolerider (Feb 2, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Larry H. said:
> ...


I would agree with the need to focus on getting the damaged equipment back on the tracks, getting orders in for new equipment and then being able to focus on the ability to add routes, increase frequencies and be able to better serve the traveling public. The demand for high speed rail is not as great as needed right now; however that being said, there are quite a few states and cities doing initial planning for the future - the long term future.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 2, 2009)

AlanB said:


> I would disagree with that Joel, I don't think that 300 MPH is necessary at all. Frankly if Amtrak could just speed things up a bit, provide more sleepers on the LSL, and depart at say 6:00 or 7:00 PM in both directions and arrive by 8:00 AM guaranteed, I think that they could easily triple their ridership on that route. Instead of a business person needing to get up super early, or fly in the night before and take a hotel room, they could work through the day, board the train, have dinner, sleep, wake up shower, do breakfast, and arrive into the cities in time to do business that day.


Is there any city pair anywhere in the world with an 8-10 hour train route where the sleeper train has at least 25% of the market share for that city pair? Or even 5%?

My other question is: what about Boston to New Orleans? If an AU gathering were happening in New Orleans, and I could board a sleeper at South Station on a Thursday evening, and arrive in New Orleans on a Friday morning, and then board a sleeper on the Sunday evening and get back to South Station Monday morning, I'd basically have to be away from Boston for one weekday to attend the Gathering. With the current schedules, I'd basically have to miss five weekdays of being in Boston to spend the same amount of time in New Orleans if I was traveling between Boston and New Orleans by train.

Trippling ridership on the CHI-NYP trains isn't terribly exciting if Amtrak's market share would still be under 5-10% for the Chicago-New York City city pair.


----------



## wayman (Feb 3, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Is there any city pair anywhere in the world with an 8-10 hour train route where the sleeper train has at least 25% of the market share for that city pair? Or even 5%?


Sure, I'd bet heavily that the slow sleeper night-train between Paris and Marseilles has well over 25% of the market share. Nobody but nobody flies within France and more than three consecutive hours driving an automobile is inconceivable to many Europeans. So that leaves the TGV, which is faster and more expensive than many travelers need/want; the day train, which is cheapest but takes an entire day, which is ok for budget travelers; and the night train, which is somewhere in the middle, lets you leave after dinner and arrive by breakfast and have a comfy night's sleep in a berth, and works well for both individuals (who can share a room with five strangers) or families (who can take a whole six-bed compartment).

8-10-hour sleeper train for the win.


----------



## zoltan (Feb 3, 2009)

wayman said:


> -10-hour sleeper train for the win.


European sleepers are wonderful!

And for this reason: they are affordable. As you say, they are not the most expensive option, whereas an Amtrak sleeper always is.

And that brings me to where I think the money needs to be: More sleepers for the existing trains.

At the moment, Amtrak sleepers are a pretty elitist thing; the general traveler going from A to B can't afford a sleeper; only those on expense accounts or those with money for an Amtrak holiday. While these people are important, with more sleepers, it would no longer be necessary to price off demand, and therefore the price of sleepers could drop, and bring the cost within reach of the general American - perhaps making his or her journey by sleeper cheaper than flying (which isn't that damned cheap).

I would also say that some passengers do prefer a long daytime trip to an overnight trip, particularly as it's quite unpleasant traveling overnight if you can't afford a sleeper, very unpleasant in fact, and if you haven't slept in your seat you lose a day anyway in recovering. So I'd say if the money was available for it, you could justify a second schedule:

- Houston to San Antonio at a vaguely sensible time.

- Leaving Penn Station very early and arriving at Chicago at midnight or a bit after, via the LSL route.

- Leaving Penn Station very early, DC about 10:00, and arriving at Atlanta by midnight, then proceeding to offer an overnight service from Atlanta to New Orleans.

- Extension of the Palmetto to Tampa, to provide a daytime service to Northern Florida.

Finally, if Amtrak were able to commence operation on one route on which service doesn't exist already (though I think this takes us beyond the existing $800M funding) it would be this:

- Corridor service between New Orleans and Mobile, AL, with two or three extra stations at reasonably sized places like Gautier, MS, with one daily extension to Orlando, bearing in mind particularly that this region has huge potential for recovery, being still not what it was before Katrina.

I would also mention frequent commuter rail service between Raleigh, Durham and Greensboro, NC, but while this corridor really ought to have commuter rail service, I would say that funding of this should rest mainly on the state of North Carolina.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 3, 2009)

zoltan said:


> And for this reason: they are affordable. As you say, they are not the most expensive option, whereas an Amtrak sleeper always is.
> And that brings me to where I think the money needs to be: More sleepers for the existing trains.
> 
> At the moment, Amtrak sleepers are a pretty elitist thing; the general traveler going from A to B can't afford a sleeper; only those on expense accounts or those with money for an Amtrak holiday. While these people are important, with more sleepers, it would no longer be necessary to price off demand, and therefore the price of sleepers could drop, and bring the cost within reach of the general American - perhaps making his or her journey by sleeper cheaper than flying (which isn't that damned cheap).
> ...


If we had a 30 car long LSL, and you took the total fuel costs of the train and divided it by the number of sleepers plus coaches (exclude the lounge, diner, and baggage cars), then divided the per-car fuel consumption among the passengers with a bedroom assumed to account for double the fuel consumption of the roomette (since I think the bedroom has about double the floor area), how would the per passenger mile fuel consumption of a roomette compare to the per passenger mile fuel consumption of a coach seat on an airplane? As long as you're running diesel locomotives, I'm not sure there's much argument for making roomettes as cheap as coach airline seats if it turns out that the roomettes don't save fuel. Get the trains powered by something we don't import, and then the picture may change.

And it will still be necessary to price sleepers based upon demand, but the low bucket prices could certainly drop a lot given a bunch more equipment.


----------



## birdy (Feb 4, 2009)

Well, TGV type trains have an actual average speed of about 100 mph with stops and all. That limits their range to about 350 miles. But that's a huge amount of air traffic displaced. My hypothetical Atlanta-Charlotte, Chicago-Milwaukee--Minneapolis, and San Antonio-Austin-Houston routes would take about 150 passenger planes per day out of the sky. But unquestionably, they win head to head competition with air lines in that range. What they do to passenger car traffic on the same route is an open question. The technology is 1980's. We aren't talking Maglev. Passenger loadings grow very smartly on TGV, 10% or so per year, compounded. One of the "advantages" to being 25 years behind the times is that at least there aren't a lot of surprises about what you can expect.

Remember, there is a considerable hidden savings in the program in the avoided cost of building new airports. The Fedex chairman Smith was on a talking head program Sunday alluding to this. by getting rid of some of the short-haul air traffic, we devote the airports to what they do best, which is long-haul air traffic. If you take the San Diego to Phoenix, and San Diego to San Francisco traffic out of the pattern, even creaky old Lindbergh field in San Diego gets a new lease on life--A new, inconvenient, multi-billion dollar airport doesn't have to be built. A really important side benefit.

Of course, a few hundred extra million can be spent fixing up Amtrak. It would be well worthwhile, a trivial expense and it could be done immediately. Also, not every route lends itself to high speed. But adding sleeper cars to Amtrak is not the same as a program.

Believe me, the public hungers for this. Just dial up the Talking Points Memo center-left blog. The non-railhead lefties there are spontaneously talking about this.

Its a good thing the Neo-Cons weren't around in the old days. the interstate highways would be chip-seal two lane asphalt and Hoover dam would have been rammed earth.

P.S. I like the pirate photos. I'm thinking of a way to use high speed trains to get the Somali pirates. I'll let you know first, when I figure it out.


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Is there any city pair anywhere in the world with an 8-10 hour train route where the sleeper train has at least 25% of the market share for that city pair? Or even 5%?


Oh just to pick random examples ....

Moscow - St. Petersburg with the 5 overnight sleeper expresses each some 20 cars long probably is a good bet where the sleepers have 25% of the market.

New Delhi/Delhi to Kolkata (about 900 miles 17 hours by the fastest trains) in India with around 6 trains of which 4 involve a single night (the other two involve two nights), each 16 to 20 cars worth of sleepers probably carries a considerable proportion of passengers considering that there are only about 12 - 15 flights flown using 737s or 320s between the two cities per day, and through travel by road is negligible.

I am sure there are other such city pair examples in India and quite likely in China.

The world looks very different from the US in many ways, specially when viewed more locally rather than from the US


----------



## Larry H. (Feb 4, 2009)

I tried to point out some time ago that Sleepers or "Pullman Service" as it used to be considered here was only about one half more than the price of a coach ticket till someone decided that having a sleeper was a tuned to becoming royalty. When I did the comparisons it showed that you now are charged 18 times for a room what the cost would have been before amtrak took over in comparison to the coach ticket. This is not a mistake, its easily seen when studying old fare schedules. Somewhere along the line we lost what the Europeans still enjoy, a reasonable price for using a sleeper. What makes it worse the incredible loss of amenities that might have endeared the somewhat higher cost, but when your removing the lounges, first class diners, many of the nice surroundings and then raising the prices though the roof, well its beyond belief to me. I know it isn't to others.


----------



## zoltan (Feb 4, 2009)

birdy said:


> Remember, there is a considerable hidden savings in the program in the avoided cost of building new airports. The Fedex chairman Smith was on a talking head program Sunday alluding to this. by getting rid of some of the short-haul air traffic, we devote the airports to what they do best, which is long-haul air traffic. If you take the San Diego to Phoenix, and San Diego to San Francisco traffic out of the pattern, even creaky old Lindbergh field in San Diego gets a new lease on life--A new, inconvenient, multi-billion dollar airport doesn't have to be built. A really important side benefit.


I very often make this point regarding the construction of a third runway at London Heathrow Airport.

This will cause huge environmental damage, demolition of homes and noise and annoyance to local residents, and for what?

The runway won't be as long as the others, and not sufficient for the size of planes that undertake long haul flights. What the runway will do is get the domestic and European short haul flights out of the way of those flights.

But is that the only way to get such flights out of the way? How about getting those markets onto rail instead? Build a high speed line to bypass the speed restricted sections of one of the present main lines to the North of England and Scotland, and get the current high speed rail service to Paris and Brussels to run through to other European cities direct.

And then all the monetary costs and environmental costs of that third runway are avoided.

The same is quite true of many places in the United States. In both countries, planners need to follow the examples of some parts of Continental Europe, and instead of thinking "this many people want to travel this way, how do we provide them with capacity?", thinking "why are these people traveling this way, and is there another way they could travel instead?".


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 4, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> I tried to point out some time ago that Sleepers or "Pullman Service" as it used to be considered here was only about one half more than the price of a coach ticket till someone decided that having a sleeper was a tuned to becoming royalty. When I did the comparisons it showed that you now are charged 18 times for a room what the cost would have been before amtrak took over in comparison to the coach ticket. This is not a mistake, its easily seen when studying old fare schedules. Somewhere along the line we lost what the Europeans still enjoy, a reasonable price for using a sleeper. What makes it worse the incredible loss of amenities that might have endeared the somewhat higher cost, but when your removing the lounges, first class diners, many of the nice surroundings and then raising the prices though the roof, well its beyond belief to me. I know it isn't to others.


And I often make the point that sleepers are currently cheaper than they ever have been! Only the highest bucket prices approach the overall cost for 2 people to travel by sleeper, and that's not including the fact that meals are included!

Amtrak coach is subsidized and much cheaper than ever, by a long shot. Before Amtrak started playing with fares and lowering prices, and so on, in mid 1971- according to the November timetable, a ride to Chicago in coach cost $51.25, and $98.11 in a roomette, one person. Keep in mind neither price includes meals. In today's cost that was $259.69 (as of 2007- its probably even more now) for coach and $497.14 for a roomette.

Today, that same fare for Chicago is $80-157 for coach ($179.69-102.69 less) and $257-494 for a roomette ($240.14 - 3.14 less). So even at the highest bucket, the prices are cheaper than they were 38 years ago. AND THEY INCLUDE MEALS. Priced for the rich and elite? My gluteus maximus!

And guess what? If you wanted to put 2 people in roomettes back then, ya needed two of them at $497.14 today's money each. I think the Bedroom back then cost more, but I don't have the bedroom pricing handy. So to travel with two people in first class accomodation then cost $994.28 today's money. But today? Well you need one (1) roomette and two (2) railfares. For a cost range of $337-577 which is between $417.28 and $657.28 less

Don't get me wrong- I'd love sleepers to be cheaper. But don't fall into the trap that sleepers are more expensive then they once were. They are, in fact, cheaper. It's just that sleepers are a little cheaper than they used to be, and coach is a lot cheaper than it used to be.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 4, 2009)

I think it's also interesting to try to put the additional runway vs trains question in terms of amount of urban land consumed.

If there are existing rights of way from the edge of a city to the city center that have space for more trains/tracks, it may be possible to build HSR without taking any urban land at all.

Are there any cases where a reasonable HSR project in the USA would require taking even 5% of the amount of land that a new runway would require at an airport that's already using all of its land?

And then there's noise. People seem to hate airport noise; I live several miles from Logan Airport, and one of my elected officials occasionally mentions Logan Airport noise complaints in her email newsletter to her constituents. I'd think that's a NIMBY argument in favor of some HSR construction: perhaps get those who object to airport noise to agree to support HSR if it includes an agreement to reduce the number of flights from a given airport. This also has the potential to benefit air travelers and probably even airlines by having the airport schedule require fewer cancelations during marginal weather.

It even ought to be possible to deliver benefit to Senator McCain's constitutents by building some high speed rail for shorter haul traffic. Getting more Southwest long haul flights into Reagon National Airport seems to be on his agenda, at least according to the Wikipedia article which is somewhat lacking in sources


----------



## Ryan (Feb 4, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> It even ought to be possible to deliver benefit to Senator McCain's constitutents by building some high speed rail for shorter haul traffic. Getting more *Southwest long haul* flights into Reagon National Airport seems to be on his agenda, at least according to the Wikipedia article which is somewhat lacking in sources


"long haul flights to the southwest" is what I think you mean.

DCA is the only airport here in DC that Southwest doesn't serve.


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I think it's also interesting to try to put the additional runway vs trains question in terms of amount of urban land consumed.


The real problem eventually boils down to figuring out how to price and monetize the environmental costs fairly. Once we can figure out how to do that perhaps through institution of various cap and trade schemes, then one can do an aplles to apples comparison of the costs of the various modal alternatives.



> If there are existing rights of way from the edge of a city to the city center that have space for more trains/tracks, it may be possible to build HSR without taking any urban land at all.


Folks that are serious about the net environmental costs often go for building the high speed line right on top of the existing right of way on elevated structures, notwithstanding the slight unsightliness of the same. The other alternative, the more expensive one is to dig it under an existing ROW, as was done with the HSR approach to St. Pancras station in London for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Either of those two require zero additional land. The same can be applied to any highway ROW too provided it is reasonably straight and missing any sharp curvatures.


----------



## Neil_M (Feb 4, 2009)

wayman said:


> Sure, I'd bet heavily that the slow sleeper night-train between Paris and Marseilles has well over 25% of the market share. Nobody but nobody flies within France and more than three consecutive hours driving an automobile is inconceivable to many Europeans. So that leaves the TGV, which is faster and more expensive than many travelers need/want; the day train, which is cheapest but takes an entire day, which is ok for budget travelers; and the night train, which is somewhere in the middle, lets you leave after dinner and arrive by breakfast and have a comfy night's sleep in a berth, and works well for both individuals (who can share a room with five strangers) or families (who can take a whole six-bed compartment).


What sleeper train from Paris to Marseille?! The only sleeper option now to Marseille is to get the Paris to Nice/Ventmilglia sleeper as far as Toulon, then double back. The only non TGV options now is the few loco hauled Paris to Lyon trains to Lyon then change trains there. The cost saving over the TGV would be next to minimal. In 3 hours on the slow train you might just be at Dijon. On the TGV you will be slowing for Marseille.....


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 4, 2009)

jis said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's also interesting to try to put the additional runway vs trains question in terms of amount of urban land consumed.
> ...


You don't have to figure out the costs in dollars of each kind of environmental cost to start working this out. Noise, greenhouse gas emissions, land consumed, etc, are all numeric quantities that can be put into a simple table to compare potential projects.

There's also the cost of using fuel that's not available domestically in sufficient quantities, which may not be an environmental cost, but it's one that we're reluctant to pass onto the consumer.



jis said:


> > If there are existing rights of way from the edge of a city to the city center that have space for more trains/tracks, it may be possible to build HSR without taking any urban land at all.
> 
> 
> Folks that are serious about the net environmental costs often go for building the high speed line right on top of the existing right of way on elevated structures, notwithstanding the slight unsightliness of the same. The other alternative, the more expensive one is to dig it under an existing ROW, as was done with the HSR approach to St. Pancras station in London for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Either of those two require zero additional land. The same can be applied to any highway ROW too provided it is reasonably straight and missing any sharp curvatures.


While it's not likely politically acceptable at the moment, another option is to subtract a highway lane from the automobiles and give it to the trains. That is certainly an effective way to increase passengers per hour in congested areas.


----------



## wayman (Feb 4, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, I'd bet heavily that the slow sleeper night-train between Paris and Marseilles has well over 25% of the market share. Nobody but nobody flies within France and more than three consecutive hours driving an automobile is inconceivable to many Europeans. So that leaves the TGV, which is faster and more expensive than many travelers need/want; the day train, which is cheapest but takes an entire day, which is ok for budget travelers; and the night train, which is somewhere in the middle, lets you leave after dinner and arrive by breakfast and have a comfy night's sleep in a berth, and works well for both individuals (who can share a room with five strangers) or families (who can take a whole six-bed compartment).
> ...


Er, you're right, I meant Nice. It's been so long since I did this... it was the night train from Nice to Paris, which I took I think in 1994.


----------



## Larry H. (Feb 4, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to point out some time ago that Sleepers or "Pullman Service" as it used to be considered here was only about one half more than the price of a coach ticket till someone decided that having a sleeper was a tuned to becoming royalty. When I did the comparisons it showed that you now are charged 18 times for a room what the cost would have been before amtrak took over in comparison to the coach ticket. This is not a mistake, its easily seen when studying old fare schedules. Somewhere along the line we lost what the Europeans still enjoy, a reasonable price for using a sleeper. What makes it worse the incredible loss of amenities that might have endeared the somewhat higher cost, but when your removing the lounges, first class diners, many of the nice surroundings and then raising the prices though the roof, well its beyond belief to me. I know it isn't to others.
> ...


Cheaper may be in the eye of the beholder. Some how the prices then didn't seem quite as out of reach as they are today. Perhaps being on the low end of the salary scale all my life I didn't keep up with inflation. I would also guess that as things have been going in the past with jobs being eliminated and sent abroad, that many others are not feeling so flush either. If you recall the schedule put up from the early 50's bedrooms were only half more than a coach fare. ( I am not arguing wether I think its right or wrong as a policy). But in real terms when I divided todays fares by those old rate ratios it came up 18 times higher than it was compared to coach in that pre amtrak era. So I would say it is inflation in that respect. And in no way reflects the per Amtrak theory that sleeper service was a option that easily could be afforded by by the masses without costing 18 times the coach fare for the same trip. That isn't to say that it may not be a bargain in many peoples eyes. I for one do not think so.


----------



## Neil_M (Feb 4, 2009)

wayman said:


> Er, you're right, I meant Nice. It's been so long since I did this... it was the night train from Nice to Paris, which I took I think in 1994.


No problem. Even a long distance trip like Paris to Nice only takes just over 5 hours for 700 miles, so the sleeper services are not as numerous as they once were. In the summer the Paris to Nice TGVs are about every 2 hours and very full.


----------



## Neil_M (Feb 4, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> That isn't to say that it may not be a bargain in many peoples eyes. I for one do not think so.


I just picked a random date at the beginning of March for 2 people travelling from Chicago to Emeryville in a bedroom. $1461. That's an awful lot of money no matter which way you approach it, and no matter how much it cost 20 or 30 years ago.

To anyone not interested in rail travel, you may as well have 2 nights either end of your journey in a really really good hotel and bag yourself a cheapish airline seat and put up with being squashed for 5 or 6 hours. If Amtrak can sell the room at that price then fair play to them, but does paying top dollar get you a better class of service than someone who paid low bucket?


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 4, 2009)

zoltan said:


> At the moment, Amtrak sleepers are a pretty elitist thing; the general traveler going from A to B can't afford a sleeper; only those on expense accounts or those with money for an Amtrak holiday. While these people are important, with more sleepers, it would no longer be necessary to price off demand, and therefore the price of sleepers could drop, and bring the cost within reach of the general American - perhaps making his or her journey by sleeper cheaper than flying (which isn't that damned cheap).


Or, of course, those travelers who are so boring that they can plan their vacations 11 months ahead of time.

Like you say, the big problem that Amtrak has is its success. In the summer the Empire Builder (and I imagine the other western trains) could easily fill double their sleepers, and probably 25-50% more of their coaches. While I'm not so familiar with the single-deck trains, I found last month that on #48 for 11/21 all bedrooms and all but three roomettes were already booked!

Alas, even with all the money and good will in the world, I imagine that it will take years to sort this out. How quickly can new sleepers be produced? I'd scoff at Amtrak's priority for baggage cars and diners if I hadn't seen several last Christmas in Chicago, filled with snow because their doors were stuck open, and I'd hate to imagine keeping a 50-60 year-old Heritage diner in service. But given the time to agree on plans, let the contract, and actually have cars built, is it reasonable to expect much improvement before 2011-2012?


----------



## printman2000 (Feb 4, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> Or, of course, those travelers who are so boring that they can plan their vacations 11 months ahead of time.


I am sorry, how does planning 11 months out make you "boring"? There are many people who have no choice but to pick there days off far in advance. Not sure how that makes them boring.


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 4, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> > Or, of course, those travelers who are so boring that they can plan their vacations 11 months ahead of time.
> ...


I have often been told there is something to be said for spontaneity. I will leave that to others. In any case, I would never refer to another traveler as boring. I was referring to myself. Later in the post I described how I myself was disturbed to find limited pickings 11 months out on the eastbound Lake Shore Limited.

Self-deprecation is very popular in the upper Midwest.

In any case, those of us who can plan far ahead of time do leave slimmer pickings for those with greater responsibilities.


----------



## birdy (Feb 5, 2009)

Re: Sleepers. Amtrak seems to have no trouble selling them for the long bucks. therefore, I think they should charge what the market will bear. That should be a price signal to Amtrak to do more sleeper service and probably better diner car service. Perhaps some improvements could be made after all these years to make them more efficient. Not high tech stuff, to be sure, but a matter of following the market.


----------



## Larry H. (Feb 5, 2009)

birdy said:


> Re: Sleepers. Amtrak seems to have no trouble selling them for the long bucks. therefore, I think they should charge what the market will bear. That should be a price signal to Amtrak to do more sleeper service and probably better diner car service. Perhaps some improvements could be made after all these years to make them more efficient. Not high tech stuff, to be sure, but a matter of following the market.


Your right about the sleepers, what few there are, selling well. Now is that because the person who wishes to travel by train is so willing to pay that price? Or is it because its the only game in town and the price keeps going up. I don't buy the "well people pay for them so the price is fine theory". Did any one want to pay over 4.00 a gallon for gasoline? Or do you prefer it being closer to 1.50? You pay because you want to be able to get a good nights rest and granted a bit more comfort but not necessarily because you think the price is right. I see a number of people on the sleepers that I am positive could have easily used there money to a better purpose but had to make the trip and would have found coach in there situations nearly impossible. I still content that as a "people" subsidized service some consideration should be given to cost and not charge every last cent someone is willing to pay. I know that if your a well heeled rail fan and money means nothing, you can easily say "well its just the way it is", but that doesn't make the price seem very reasonable, no matter what inflation may say. I agree with the poster that quoted the bedroom fares to california. It is a major expense no matter how one looks at it, unless money is no object.


----------



## printman2000 (Feb 5, 2009)

Larry, I believe you and I have disagreed on this point in the past, so I do not want to rehash it all again. While we disagree, I do appreciate your position.

For me (who thinks they should charge what the market will pay), if I cannot afford it (which is often), I do not go. If I were in a position where I HAD to travel, I would do whatever I had to do, even if I had to travel in coach.

If I HAD to go on a long international flight (airlines are subsidized, too), should I demand that the lay flat seats be affordable?

I have said this before and I will say it again, if sleeper prices were much lower, they would be filled to capacity in no time. Then that last-minute-have-to-travel-person would not even have the option of a sleeper.


----------



## sky12065 (Feb 5, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> birdy said:
> 
> 
> > Re: Sleepers. Amtrak seems to have no trouble selling them for the long bucks. therefore, I think they should charge what the market will bear. That should be a price signal to Amtrak to do more sleeper service and probably better diner car service. Perhaps some improvements could be made after all these years to make them more efficient. Not high tech stuff, to be sure, but a matter of following the market.
> ...


Larry, I agree with what you say. Not withstanding the laws of supply and demand, to me providing a service at the best price possible is good customer service, however to go for the highest price that the market will bear is just plain greed, not good customer service. Our nation's current financial situation certainly shows what money + greed results in! If better service is wanted then a greater price would be warranted with the deliverance of better service, but to say that prices should be maxed then hope for better service just doesn't fly in my book!


----------



## printman2000 (Feb 5, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> to go for the highest price that the market will bear is just plain greed, not good customer service.


I would say that is good business, not greed. That is what the law of supply and demand is, get the most you can while still selling all of your product. That is what Amtrak is doing.

Something I think we can all agree with is that Amtrak should have more supply. If that were so, I suspect the prices would go down (because of the law of supply and demand). But lowering prices right now with Amtrak's current supply would mean sold out sleepers 10 months in advance.


----------



## sky12065 (Feb 5, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > to go for the highest price that the market will bear is just plain greed, not good customer service.
> ...


I agree completely with your second paragraph, however I respectfully disagree with you on your description of "that is what the law of supply and demand is." The law of supply and demand is primarily about an effect and not necessarily about an objective. At least that was the impression and understanding I got when I took economics in college! Also, If I gave the impression that I feel that sleeper prices should be lowered at this time, I apologize. Although I would like that to happen like probably most others would, it wasn't my intention to actually suggest that it should. :blush:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 5, 2009)

Your greed comment would have validity if Amtrak was profitable. But it isn't. The sleepers make a small profit on their over-the-rails expense, but not much of one. Amtrak isn't greedy. They are doing what they have been doing for the past 39 years: trying to demonstrate they have a purpose for existing.

If Amtrak cut the price of the sleepers, they'd lose money on them. If they lose money on them directly, they are gone.


----------



## printman2000 (Feb 5, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> I agree completely with your second paragraph, however I respectfully disagree with you on your description of "that is what the law of supply and demand is." The law of supply and demand is primarily about an effect and not necessarily about an objective. At least that was the impression and understanding I got when I took economics in college! Also, If I gave the impression that I feel that sleeper prices should be lowered at this time, I apologize. Although I would like that to happen like probably most others would, it wasn't my intention to actually suggest that it should. :blush:


Okay, I am not an economics major either. You are probably right about the "law of S & P".

Here is what I believe Amtrak should be doing...

Filling sleepers while maximizing revenue. It seems to me they are doing that pretty well right now. Some trains are sold out while other still have a few rooms available at departure time.


----------



## sky12065 (Feb 5, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Your greed comment would have validity if Amtrak was profitable. But it isn't. The sleepers make a small profit on their over-the-rails expense, but not much of one. Amtrak isn't greedy. They are doing what they have been doing for the past 39 years: trying to demonstrate they have a purpose for existing.
> If Amtrak cut the price of the sleepers, they'd lose money on them. If they lose money on them directly, they are gone.


:huh: I was speaking in generalities and not Amtrak specific. Otherwise I agree with what you've stated!


----------



## sky12065 (Feb 5, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree completely with your second paragraph, however I respectfully disagree with you on your description of "that is what the law of supply and demand is." The law of supply and demand is primarily about an effect and not necessarily about an objective. At least that was the impression and understanding I got when I took economics in college! Also, If I gave the impression that I feel that sleeper prices should be lowered at this time, I apologize. Although I would like that to happen like probably most others would, it wasn't my intention to actually suggest that it should. :blush:
> ...


So you have "Standards & Poors" on your mind? 

If by "maximizing revenue" you mean a goal of cost + reasonable profit then I agree. When I refer to "greed" I am referring to those who would go for cost + all the profit they can squeeze out of you... which to me is ripping off the consumer. Amtrak I agree is doing pretty well right now!

In conclusion we are probably thinking basicly the same, but one of us is on the steam engine end of the train and the other is on the caboose at the end of the train with the steam cloud pouring out of the smoke stack blocking each others views! :lol:


----------



## printman2000 (Feb 5, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> If by "maximizing revenue" you mean a goal of cost + reasonable profit then I agree. When I refer to "greed" I am referring to those who would go for cost + all the profit they can squeeze out of you... which to me is ripping off the consumer. Amtrak I agree is doing pretty well right now!


There is no way in the world to define reasonable profit. Everyone would say a different amount. I would define reasonable profit differently. No, I would not say "all they can squeeze from you."

I would word it as the most profit they can get and still fill up the sleepers. That is the way business is run. I guess they mean the same thing, but one is worded as business would word it.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Feb 5, 2009)

The other significant difference between Amtrak Sleeping Car Service and pre Amtrak Sleeping Car service is the type of service you receive. Even when private railroads were downgrading passenger service, if the train still carried a Sleeping car, the service provided on that car was excellent. Since most the Sleeping Car attendants were trained by Pullman, they were very attentive. Shoes placed the overnight compartment were shined when you woke up in the morning. The attendant was very knowledgeable about the train, the route of the train and could answer just about any question a passenger might ask. Nearly all the attendants were very customer friendly. They would offer to provide meals in your room or even cocktails from the lounge. Of course they received sizeable tips for their excellant service. In recent years, the Sleeping Car attendants are very hit or miss. There have been a few excellant ones, a fair number that are mediocre and quite a few attendants that provided almost no service. For those of us who remember, the fine service one received when traveling in a Sleeping Car, Amtrak's Sleeping car seems to be over price based on the value of what you receive compared to pre Amtrak.


----------



## sky12065 (Feb 5, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > If by "maximizing revenue" you mean a goal of cost + reasonable profit then I agree. When I refer to "greed" I am referring to those who would go for cost + all the profit they can squeeze out of you... which to me is ripping off the consumer. Amtrak I agree is doing pretty well right now!
> ...


I guess then that we'll have to agree to disagree! The readers can decide for themselves!


----------



## printman2000 (Feb 5, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> I guess then that we'll have to agree to disagree!


Sorry, I disagree with you about that.

Just kidding.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 5, 2009)

jphjaxfl said:


> The other significant difference between Amtrak Sleeping Car Service and pre Amtrak Sleeping Car service is the type of service you receive. Even when private railroads were downgrading passenger service, if the train still carried a Sleeping car, the service provided on that car was excellent. Since most the Sleeping Car attendants were trained by Pullman, they were very attentive. Shoes placed the overnight compartment were shined when you woke up in the morning. The attendant was very knowledgeable about the train, the route of the train and could answer just about any question a passenger might ask. Nearly all the attendants were very customer friendly. They would offer to provide meals in your room or even cocktails from the lounge. Of course they received sizeable tips for their excellant service. In recent years, the Sleeping Car attendants are very hit or miss. There have been a few excellant ones, a fair number that are mediocre and quite a few attendants that provided almost no service. For those of us who remember, the fine service one received when traveling in a Sleeping Car, Amtrak's Sleeping car seems to be over price based on the value of what you receive compared to pre Amtrak.


That's not an Amtrak thing. That's a world thing. Give me other places where you get top grade service out of pride and training! Nobody does good work anymore. Nobody has pride in their job. I'd say Amtrak's attendants are better than average. Compared to 50 years ago? Irrelevant. People don't do anything right anymore.

Lets remove Amtrak and focus elsewhere for a second. Name one company that builds a good automobile. What's a good automobile? As such:

Solidly engineered- All items that don't have to be wear items aren't- and that includes valve-train timing gear. Car can go 200,000 miles with basic oil, filter, fluid, and wiper blade changes alone. (On sale in 1995, I can think of about 2 dozen cars that qualify. On sale today, I can think of 3- the Volvo S60, the Lincoln Town Car, and the Mercury Grand Marquis)

Assembled properly- you don't find any butchered welds, paint runs, paint drips, orange peel paint, parts that break off easily, squeaks, rattles, or creaks. (On this alone we can probably eliminate 90% of cars sold now)

Good ergonomics- you can get in the car and simply drive it. You can access all basic features of the car necessary to adjust to, be comfortable in, and drive safely.

Comfortable seats- Seats comfortably accommodate 95% of drivers. Allow you to drive the car for 6 hours or more without severe back pain. Provide sufficient support for moderate cornering. (In 1995, just about every car Mercedes, Volvo, Saab, BMW, Volkswagen, Audi, Honda, and Subaru made got this right. Nowadays, the only company I know of that actually gets this right is Volvo.)

No major design mistakes- People are not liable to bang their head getting in or out, are not likely to hurt themselves inside the car, opening doors, closing doors, opening the hood, closing the hood, opening the trunk, closing the trunk, or utilizing any interior components that reasonable use requires. (It is honestly unbelievable, but I can't think of a car on the road right now that fits in here!)

This is where humanity goes. Bad decisions, bad design, bad execution, and bad bloody service!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 5, 2009)

Having plentiful legroom in every seat for someone of my size is also something most modern automobiles fail at. Though I've been in a VW that was surprisingly decent in the back seat compared to any of the competition.

The GMC Suburban certainly got this right in 1985. I haven't carefully checked out the newer body style models to see how they compare.


----------



## Larry H. (Feb 5, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Your greed comment would have validity if Amtrak was profitable. But it isn't. The sleepers make a small profit on their over-the-rails expense, but not much of one. Amtrak isn't greedy. They are doing what they have been doing for the past 39 years: trying to demonstrate they have a purpose for existing.
> If Amtrak cut the price of the sleepers, they'd lose money on them. If they lose money on them directly, they are gone.


The difference in our thinking here is that Amtrak is not going to be a profitable business, its a hoax promoted by congress people who wish to stop all rail service. IE, if it doesn't pay for it self we don't need it. Well they don't claim that about highways conveniently. You an I both know that rail is subsidized the world over.

Yes and to the other comment about service. Well in some instances it is quite true. In others such as Cruise lines, better hotels, restaurants, service still is considered the norm. Service on amtrak is poor because it is not properly supervised in my opinion.


----------



## Larry H. (Feb 5, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> sky12065 said:
> 
> 
> > If by "maximizing revenue" you mean a goal of cost + reasonable profit then I agree. When I refer to "greed" I am referring to those who would go for cost + all the profit they can squeeze out of you... which to me is ripping off the consumer. Amtrak I agree is doing pretty well right now!
> ...


Your right, we don't always or even often agree, it may be a age difference perhaps. If we really want a successful rail service then the idea of many sleepers filled should be a natural to me. To think that one might sell out too soon, so we better price them higher only supports the idea that they are priced too high if lots more would ride if they weren't. Maybe that is why in the old days they could run whole trains of only sleepers.. If price were the guiding decision, then they would have only needed one car as well.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Feb 5, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Your greed comment would have validity if Amtrak was profitable. But it isn't. The sleepers make a small profit on their over-the-rails expense, but not much of one. Amtrak isn't greedy. They are doing what they have been doing for the past 39 years: trying to demonstrate they have a purpose for existing.
> ...


I agree with you. I travel a great deal on business mostly by air and stay at better hotels. The service in first class on airlines is similar to the service in pre Amtrak Sleeping Cars. The same is true of better hotels and restaurants. Many times even mid tier hotels like Marriott Courtyard have excellent service. Their Staff is well trained, pleasant, is able to answer most questions. I feel like I am getting the service I am paying for. That is not true in Amtrak's Sleeping Cars...it is a premium price with very little service. It has nothing to do with 2009 vs 1969, but the culture of the organization. I have often wondered why Amtrak doesn't contract with Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt etc to operate their Sleeping and Dining Cars. It would be similar to what was done with Pullman.


----------



## printman2000 (Feb 5, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Your right, we don't always or even often agree, it may be a age difference perhaps. If we really want a successful rail service then the idea of many sleepers filled should be a natural to me. To think that one might sell out too soon, so we better price them higher only supports the idea that they are priced too high if lots more would ride if they weren't. Maybe that is why in the old days they could run whole trains of only sleepers.. If price were the guiding decision, then they would have only needed one car as well.


I am speaking from the position of Amtrak right now, not what I wish it was. Right now, with the number of sleepers they have, I believe they are priced right. If they had enough sleepers to run entire trains of them, then naturally, supply is up so price would go down. They would, as I said before, get the most profit they can get while still filling up the sleepers.

If the sleepers are filling up at the prices they charge now, how can lots more people ride sleepers if they price was less?


----------



## sky12065 (Feb 5, 2009)

sky12065 said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > sky12065 said:
> ...


Printman, I found this page that I thought you'd find interesting and somewhat amusing. It's on the question of defining profit. I'm not attempting to espouse who is right or wrong. As a matter fact I do think this issue is complex enough where we both can be right and wrong without either of us being completely wrong... or right. Right? Enjoy! 

Whoops! Forgot to give the link. Sorry! Make sure to read all responses and not just the first.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...23172220AAQ3tos


----------



## Larry H. (Feb 5, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Your right, we don't always or even often agree, it may be a age difference perhaps. If we really want a successful rail service then the idea of many sleepers filled should be a natural to me. To think that one might sell out too soon, so we better price them higher only supports the idea that they are priced too high if lots more would ride if they weren't. Maybe that is why in the old days they could run whole trains of only sleepers.. If price were the guiding decision, then they would have only needed one car as well.
> ...


Printman, please read that it says Many Sleepers filled. I said that because of your comment that if the prices were lower the cars now would be filled and someone who wanted to go at the last minute wouldn't have access, even if it at a huge cost. So I am saying wouldn't lots of sleepers filled be better which of course would mean that many more were able to travel by rail. Yes I know we can't do it with the current set of cars, or even attitude at Amtrak and in Congress. But if the demand were so high as to fill a train full of more reasonably priced sleepers, well for those of us who want to see a resurgence of rail travel, not just a skeleton set of cars and lines, if would be a great day. I am afraid that the powers that be at amtrak are content to run one or two sleepers and not go after the additional business. On second thought, they don't do a very great job of running the few they do, so maybe a lot of sleepers would really be a disaster. I will save you all and not include a list of those sort comings here, most of us know them well.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 5, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> or even attitude at Amtrak and in Congress. But if the demand were so high as to fill a train full of more reasonably priced sleepers, well for those of us who want to see a resurgence of rail travel, not just a skeleton set of cars and lines, if would be a great day. I am afraid that the powers that be at amtrak are content to run one or two sleepers and not go after the additional business.


I think that's a massive assumption based on nothing more than conjecture. Given the meager budget that Amtrak as worked with for its entire lifetime, I'm not sure how you would expect them to go after that business with nonexistent sleepers.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 5, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> The difference in our thinking here is that Amtrak is not going to be a profitable business, its a hoax promoted by congress people who wish to stop all rail service. IE, if it doesn't pay for it self we don't need it. Well they don't claim that about highways conveniently. You an I both know that rail is subsidized the world over.


Larry,

IMHO you came very close to hitting the nail right on the head here with this entire problem. It goes just a bit beyond what you've stated, that Congress wants a profitable rail service or that it should stop. Yes, there are those that advocate for exactly that. But there are others who support the idea of subsidized rail service, but not subsidized sleeping car service. Therefore, if Amtrak does work towards maximizing profits on the sleepers, they will surely get cut by Congress sooner or later.

The biggest argument going right now in sleeping car's favor, is the fact that they don't require a subsidy to operate and equally important, actually reduce the subsidy to actually move the passenger from point A to point B, aka the railfare. Put another way, if Amtrak lowered sleeping car prices, the subsidy for railfares would need to go up.

I’m not saying that this is right or wrong, but this is the way it is unfortunately.


----------



## Larry H. (Feb 5, 2009)

Alan,

Unfortunately then its a rather sad day that those who are in control of the railroads have no idea of what rail travel is about. Its a bit like saying that only Volkswagens can travel on the interstate be cause its state supported and only cheaper cars are allowed. Well then they did just send one Limousine rider home, I wonder if he had to pay extra for the ride?


----------



## AlanB (Feb 5, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Alan,
> Unfortunately then its a rather sad day that those who are in control of the railroads have no idea of what rail travel is about. Its a bit like saying that only Volkswagens can travel on the interstate be cause its state supported and only cheaper cars are allowed. Well then they did just send one Limousine rider home, I wonder if he had to pay extra for the ride?


Which is precisely why I've long said that the 500+ Congresscritters shouldn't be trying to run a railroad. Not suggesting that they should just hand Amtrak a blank check either. But when they start micro-managing something that they have no clue about, we get stupid funding provisions like "cut the food service losses." Yes, Amtrak choose the way to do that, but Amtrak should never have been forced into such a decision in the first place.

A simple look at history shows that by and large food service cars never turned a profit when the freight's ran passenger service. So how can Amtrak possibly be expected to do so. Furthermore, the shear lunacy of the idea that you've just said to Amtrak "here's a check for $1.4 Billion, but you have to figure out how to plug a $100 M hole in food service. I continue to be reminded of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger into the hole in the dike trying to hold back the flood.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 5, 2009)

I'm not sure I understand why farm subsidies are OK if Amtrak food service losses aren't.


----------



## wayman (Feb 5, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I'm not sure I understand why farm subsidies are OK if Amtrak food service losses aren't.


Because agribusiness has a strong lobby and Amtrak doesn't.


----------

