# A proposal to restructure Amtrak



## Tarm (Jul 5, 2017)

The US federal government is running a 500 billion dollar a year annual budget deficit. The national debt is approaching 20 trillion dollars. Discretionary spending is getting squeezed by rising entitlements. I fear that one day Congress will decide that Amtrak is something the nation can no longer afford.

Passenger rail is a niche product. It best serves the 100 mile to 400 mile trip segment. For shorter trips the flexibility of automobiles comes into play and for longer trips the speed of aircraft wins out. To be successful each transportation method must fit its market.

Amtrak is spread too thin. It has attempted to do too much for too long with too few resources and now loses a billion dollars a year. It cannot generate its own capital for infrastructure investments or rolling stock replacement.

AMTRAK SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD TO RUN A NATIONAL SYSTEM.

Looking objectively at a map of the United States there are four areas where there is sufficient population density to support passenger rail.

1.The eastern seaboard, from Maine to Florida.

2.The upper Midwest, a 300 mile radius around Chicago.

3.The Pacific Northwest.

4.Southern California.

My proposal would be to maintain and/or expand the corridor service in those four areas and retain four LD trains for connections among those four areas.

Specifically discontinue the Sunset Limited. Truncate the Empire Builder at St Paul, the SWC at Kansas City, the Texas Eagle at St. Louis, the CONO at Memphis and the Cardinal/Hoosier State a Cincinnati. All five of these former LD trains would have their frequencies doubled (or more) and become part of Midwest corridor trains. Motor coach service would be provided on the discontinued lines to maintain essential rural transportation. Retain the LSL and CL to connect east coast passengers to the Midwest corridors. Maintain the Silver Service and Autotrain but truncate the SC at Atlanta. The CS would be retained to connect Southern California to the PNW and the CZ would connect the Midwest to the West Coast. Texas can do what it wants.

This restructuring will reduce total route miles but maintain train miles. It should increase passenger miles while still allowing train travel from one corridor area to another. It should eliminate the need for an annual operating subsidy and preserve Amtrak in the face of future budget cuts. I feel it is better to be proactive and reactive.

I await your slings and arrows.

Tarm


----------



## Ryan (Jul 5, 2017)

No. Just no.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 5, 2017)

See previous proposals from Philly Amtrak Fan, and the reactions from those proposals.


----------



## TinCan782 (Jul 5, 2017)

Don't know about #1 and 2 but, the Pacific Northwest and Southern California have the Cascades and the Pacific Surfliner which are predominately state-supported and would probably survive. There are other areas with state-supported, Amtrak operated rail as well.


----------



## jis (Jul 5, 2017)

Since I don't agree with the premise I also don't agree with the conclusion.


----------



## Eric S (Jul 5, 2017)

Even if I accept the notion that the annual federal budget deficit and cumulative federal debt necessitate major Amtrak route changes, I don't believe it's been demonstrated that the proposed changes will eliminate Amtrak's operating losses nor that the political reality will allow the changes proposed to actually take place.

In short - what Ryan and Jis wrote.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 5, 2017)

Do you work for the Heritage Foundation or another Right Wing Fantasy Operation?

To expand on Ryan's Post, Not just No, but HELL NO!!!


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 5, 2017)

The CHI hub service is ringed with state supported routes. This proposal is really unworthy of slings, arrows or refutation.


----------



## WICT106 (Jul 5, 2017)

To reiterate what previous posters have stated: No. The long distance, intercity trains serve as placeholders for any future service, as well as serving locations and markets that are not well served by other modes of transportation. The long distance, intercity trains also serve a political purpose, in that they are the return in exchange for taking federal taxpayer dollars to support the NEC. You want "Feddybucks" for the NEC ? Then, places such as ND and WI and NE get their train (s) as well -- even if it is only one train per day each way.


----------



## jis (Jul 5, 2017)

One thing that people forget is that most of the allocated cost is not going to go away just because you got rid of a bunch of trains. the absolute amount will go down only slightly, maybe 10-15%. The rest will simply get allocated to fewer trains raising their net costs, and making them progressively less viable financially too. Actually truncating the run of those long distance trains will not reduce the allocated costs at all, and there will be not enough savings to be able to double their frequency, even if you could somehow shuffle the equipment. So what you will get is one train running a shorter distance each day and not serving beyond the point where its run is truncated off.

As Woody says, what Amtrak needs is more Amtrak to become more viable. not less. So IMHO this whole idea is patently wrong headed and not worthy of further serious consideration.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 5, 2017)

WICT106 said:


> You want "Feddybucks" for the NEC ? Then, places such as ND and WI and NE get their train (s) as well -- even if it is only one train per day each way.


And Las Vegas, Nashville, and Columbus get their train(s). Oh wait. The #1 double standard of Amtrak is either "Amtrak serves/needs to serve everybody" or "Amtrak service is a right". Both statements are Byrd Crap.


----------



## A Voice (Jul 5, 2017)

jis said:


> Since I don't agree with the premise I also don't agree with the conclusion.





Tarm said:


> Passenger rail is a niche product. It best serves the 100 mile to 400 mile trip segment. For shorter trips the flexibility of automobiles comes into play and for longer trips the speed of aircraft wins out. To be successful each transportation method must fit its market.


Your premise is flawed, as JIs already noted above, and thus leads to an erroneous conclusion. But I am particularly interested in how you think Amtrak is not currently fulfilling its market; Most passengers - including long-distance routes - already travel less than 400 to 600 miles or so. For many markets Amtrak serves, air travel is not even a direct competitor.



> Passenger rail is a niche product. It best serves the 100 mile to 400 mile trip segment.


Source please?


----------



## A Voice (Jul 5, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> And Las Vegas, Nashville, and Columbus get their train(s). Oh wait. The #1 double standard of Amtrak is either "Amtrak serves/needs to serve everybody" or "Amtrak service is a right". Both statements are Byrd Crap.


Who said "Amtrak needs to serve everyone"? What other passenger transportation companies do you know of which do this?

Of course, that in no way means the Amtrak route system is not much too skeletal, and careful expansion is objectively both desirable and economically defensible. But because "everyone" is an impractical (impossible) standard to achieve, we shouldn't be concerned with service to untapped markets?


----------



## jis (Jul 5, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> > You want "Feddybucks" for the NEC ? Then, places such as ND and WI and NE get their train (s) as well -- even if it is only one train per day each way.
> ...


And we keep singin' the usual useless strawman arguments which serve no purpose except to distract from serious discussions.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 5, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> > You want "Feddybucks" for the NEC ? Then, places such as ND and WI and NE get their train (s) as well -- even if it is only one train per day each way.
> ...


I don't think that you'll find anyone here arguing that they shouldn't have a train, provided that it doesn't involve just stealing from someone else that already has service.


----------



## WestBerkeleyFlats (Jul 5, 2017)

This proposal makes perfect. I'd get rid of the CZ as well. Such a system reorganization should have been implemented 40 years ago. Amtrak is public transportation, not a land cruise for retirees or a commuter service for rural residents. No more sleepers, no more dining service.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 5, 2017)

You are aware that members of the public live in all of those places, right?


----------



## ehbowen (Jul 5, 2017)

Ryan said:


> You are aware that members of the public live in all of those places, right?


Hey, they can drive anywhere they need to go. If they can't drive, they can walk. If they can't walk, they can die.

[/sarcasm off]


----------



## neroden (Jul 5, 2017)

jis said:


> One thing that people forget is that most of the allocated cost is not going to go away just because you got rid of a bunch of trains. the absolute amount will go down only slightly, maybe 10-15%.


I've calculated this. Cancelling all the long-distance trains would make Amtrak LOSE MORE MONEY, between 15 and 30 million dollars. 1/3 of the LD trains are profitable and another 1/3 are roughly breakeven; all statements to the contrary are due to the misuse of "allocated costs".
Cancelling only the ones which are actually money-losing would save... wait for it... about $64 million per year, max. (And it's been dropping most years as more people take the train.) Peanuts basically. The big cost for Amtrak is in the fixed costs, which don't change no matter how many trains you run...



> As Woody says, what Amtrak needs is more Amtrak to become more viable. not less.


Yep. That's what I say too. Same fixed costs, but more trains making profits, means a lower need for federal money.
Now, if you're worried about the federal budget, there is literally only ONE thing in the federal budget which is large enough to look at: the US's bloated, worthless military spending. The US spends more than the next dozen countries put together on the military, and what do we get for that? We lose every war we get into. It's now running on the order of a TRILLION dollars a year. If you want to straighten out the budget, that is literally the only thing that matters; nothing else amounts to a hill of beans.


----------



## neroden (Jul 5, 2017)

So just for fun I'll respond to the specific proposal:



Tarm said:


> Specifically discontinue the Sunset Limited. Truncate the Empire Builder at St Paul, the SWC at Kansas City, the Texas Eagle at St. Louis, the CONO at Memphis and the Cardinal/Hoosier State a Cincinnati. All five of these former LD trains would have their frequencies doubled (or more) and become part of Midwest corridor trains. Motor coach service would be provided on the discontinued lines to maintain essential rural transportation. Retain the LSL and CL to connect east coast passengers to the Midwest corridors. Maintain the Silver Service and Autotrain but truncate the SC at Atlanta. The CS would be retained to connect Southern California to the PNW and the CZ would connect the Midwest to the West Coast. Texas can do what it wants.


The Empire Builder is crazy popular. It's one of the ones which is breakeven. Based on a lowball estimate of overhead costs, the EB cost about $1.3 million to run as of last year. Those North Dakota and Montana towns punch above their population, as does eastern Washington state. Motor coaches DO NOT WORK on this route because the (two-lane, non-expressway) road is often closed in the winter... which is probably why these cities take the train so much.

The Southwest Chief (yes, one of the 5 "money losing" trains) is so popular that it raised state funds to stay on a frankly inferior route. It's untouchable.

The Texas Eagle (yes, one of the 5 "money losing" trains) was already revived once due to support from localities in Texas and has ridiculously strong support in rural Missouri.

The CONO -- again essentially breakeven -- is extremely popular in Mississippi, which believe it or not provides reliable Amtrak votes. So is the Crescent, which is definitively profitable at this point. New Orleans access is a big deal (well, until it sinks under the waves).

The Cardinal (yes, one of the 5 "money losing" trains) would be profitable if it were daily. It should be daily. The eastern end is very heavily used -- you'd probably be surprised how many people go from Cincy to DC.

I'll admit there really is no constituency fighting for the Sunset Limited, and it does cost more (net of revenue) than any other Amtrak train. It suffers from:

(a) not being daily

(b) not serving Phoenix properly

© the extremely long distance from LA to Tucson

(d) the long distance from Tucson to El Paso

(e) the extraordinarily long distance from El Paso to San Antonio

(f) no intermediate stops between San Antonio and Houston

(g) not going in the right directions for nearly all traffic from Houston

It's an OK route from Houston to New Orleans. Though that entire route is probably going to be destroyed by sea level rise, along with most of the cities along the route, now that I think about it. I could see an argument for getting rid of service to New Orleans on all three routes which serve it, in favor of Baton Rouge, just to get above water level.


----------



## Chessie (Jul 5, 2017)

How about spare .1% of the defense budget?


----------



## Tarm (Jul 6, 2017)

Bob Dylan said:


> Do you work for the Heritage Foundation or another Right Wing Fantasy Operation?


Nope. Just a guy that loves trains and tries to see the world the way it is and not the way I want it to be.


----------



## Tarm (Jul 6, 2017)

FrensicPic said:


> Don't know about #1 and 2 but, the Pacific Northwest and Southern California have the Cascades and the Pacific Surfliner which are predominately state-supported and would probably survive. There are other areas with state-supported, Amtrak operated rail as well.


State supported trains do not add to Amtrak's losses and since states are required to balance their budgets I feel that is responsible governmental spending. If more states stepped up to cover more interstate routes Amtrak would not have to losses it now has.


----------



## Tarm (Jul 6, 2017)

jis said:


> One thing that people forget is that most of the allocated cost is not going to go away just because you got rid of a bunch of trains. the absolute amount will go down only slightly, maybe 10-15%. The rest will simply get allocated to fewer trains raising their net costs, and making them progressively less viable financially too.


The only route to be dropped is the SL all the others are to be restructured. What is better, a single LD train departing at 2 PM and going a 1000 miles or four corridor type trains departing at 7 AM, 10 AM, 2 PM, 5PM and going 250 miles? Which schedule has economies of scale? Which provides the better service? Do you believe there is untapped demand for fast frequent rail service as I do?


----------



## Tarm (Jul 6, 2017)

A Voice said:


> Tarm said:
> 
> 
> > Passenger rail is a niche product. It best serves the 100 mile to 400 mile trip segment. For shorter trips the flexibility of automobiles comes into play and for longer trips the speed of aircraft wins out. To be successful each transportation method must fit its market
> ...


Okay, let's take some trips. (Train fares are from Amtrak website, air fares for 7/25 from Expedia for one way adult ticket.)

1. Short trip, Chicago to Milwaukee, 86 miles.

Train: Arrive at station 15 minutes early, travel 1 hr 20 min, depart station 5 min, total travel time 1 hr 40 min, fare $25.

Plane: Arrive at airport 2 hr early(from Delta Airlines website), travel time 47 min, depart airport 15 min, total travel time 3 hr 2 min, fare $131.

Train wins. Faster, cheaper.

2. Medium trip, Chicago to St. Louis, 284 miles.

Train: Arrive at station 15 minutes early, travel time 5 hr 20 min, depart station 5 min, total travel time 5 hr 40 min, fare $27.

Plane: Arrive at airport 2 hours early, travel time 1 hr 5 min, depart airport 15 min, total travel time 3 hr 20 min, fare $151.

Plane faster but train cheaper. To save the 2 hours 20 min by air cost an additional fare of $124 or $53 per hour of travel time. Most people do not value their time that high.

3. Long trip, Chicago to Denver, 1038 miles.

Train: Arrive at station 30 min early (LD train),travel time 18 hr 15 min, depart station 5 min, total travel time 18 hr 50 min, fare $121.

Plane: Arrive at airport 2 hr early, travel time 2 hr 40 min, depart airport 15 min, total travel time 4 hr 55 min, fare $142.

Plane faster but train cheaper. To save 13 hr 55 min of travel time cost an addition air fare of $21 or $1.50 per hour of travel time. No one is that cheap.

So I hold to my belief that train travel works best in the 100 to 400 mile range.


----------



## Tarm (Jul 6, 2017)

WestBerkeleyFlats said:


> This proposal makes perfect. I'd get rid of the CZ as well. Such a system reorganization should have been implemented 40 years ago. Amtrak is public transportation, not a land cruise for retirees or a commuter service for rural residents. No more sleepers, no more dining service.


Thank you, WBF. At least I'm not the only voice in the wilderness.


----------



## Tarm (Jul 6, 2017)

Ryan said:


> You are aware that members of the public live in all of those places, right?


Yep, like me. I live in Northern Wisconsin, 3 hours from the nearest Amtrak station.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 6, 2017)

neroden said:


> The Cardinal (yes, one of the 5 "money losing" trains) would be profitable if it were daily. It should be daily. The eastern end is very heavily used -- you'd probably be surprised how many people go from Cincy to DC.


Well that's rather easy to guesstimate.

https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1816/cin.pdf

11,862 total passengers in 2016, WAS is 602 miles away, 16.4% of passengers traveled between CIN and WAS (WAS is 2nd behind CHI as CIN's #1 destination). So that rounds to 1945 passengers. Technically BAL is also in the 600-699 mile range so some of those 1945 are traveling to BAL although more than half of them are going to WAS. I'd ballpark it somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500 (about 3/4 WAS and 1/4 BAL). I don't know if that number is surprising or not.


----------



## jis (Jul 6, 2017)

Tarm said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > One thing that people forget is that most of the allocated cost is not going to go away just because you got rid of a bunch of trains. the absolute amount will go down only slightly, maybe 10-15%. The rest will simply get allocated to fewer trains raising their net costs, and making them progressively less viable financially too.
> ...


Your premise that stopping one LD train will make enough money available to start a four train per day corridor is erroneous. It won't.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 6, 2017)

Well let's consider costs alone and ignore political/philosophical issues...

The EB requires 6 sets to run (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/32610-line-numbersconsist-listings/). Running CHI-MSP would require 2 sets. So based on equipment alone, one EB = three CHI-MSP (and you wouldn't even need the sleepers for CHI-MSP unless you ran an overnight between the two cities).

EB: 2205 miles (I'll ignore the PDX branch). CHI-MSP: 418 miles. In terms of train miles (fuel), one EB = five CHI-MSP.

EB from CHI to SEA: 46 hr, 10 min. EB from CHI to MSP: 7 hr, 48 min. In terms of travel time (labor), one EB = almost six CHI-MSP

You don't run the EB between MSP and SPK (assume you can keep service in WA/OR) and you can close about 20 stations and not have to pay the host railroads for 1,451 miles and 29 hr, 20 min. of travel time. The only $ question would be how much it would cost for Amtrak to acquire track usage for the additional CHI-MSP runs and in terms of miles and hours we are talking 1/5 the amount of miles/hours per trip. Is the CHI-MSP track more valuable for freight than MSP-SPK? How much more?

From a cost perspective, if you can't run 3-4 trains between CHI-MSP for the cost to run one EB, I must be missing something here.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 6, 2017)

Tarm said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware that members of the public live in all of those places, right?
> ...


Very Interesting.Your ideas area wrong as other members are pointing out with facts, but you're certainly entitled to them. 
And did you support killing the Madison Train, and also Vote for the Con Man Governor that Wisconsin has?


----------



## keelhauled (Jul 6, 2017)

Bob Dylan said:


> And did you support killing the Madison Train, and also Vote for the Con Man Governor that Wisconsin has?


This right here is why I spend considerably less time on AU than I used. Why must people (collectively) feel the need to insert pointed political jabs and questions into a discussion that has nothing to do with it. This is a perfectly reasonable conversation about Amtrak's purpose and future, what does it possibly gain to drag the guy's personal political beliefs into it. All that ever happens is the discussion devolves into mud slinging that is tangential at best to the original topic.


----------



## GBNorman (Jul 6, 2017)

Wow, did this topic ever ignite a firestorm.

As I have noted at the two other sites at which I regularly participate, joining up for the roads was a "Faustian pact with the Devil" - especially since post-Staggers where rates and services were deregulated, the trains would have been gone - simple as that.

Where the roads badly miscalculated was they did not foresee the grass root political support the trains, economics notwithstanding, would generate. While the 1979 Carter Cuts were thought to be the beginning of the end, such did not become the case (the Clinton cuts simply got rid of the 1980's excesses where it seemed that a new route was being added once a month). I'm sure that when Amtrak ordered new Superliner equipment, those walls at CUS heard "we're stuck with 'em now".

I would guess the roads have become Kubler-Ross Phase V - Acceptance about it all. They are hardly about to encourage expansion, frequencies and/or routes, but then they are not about to pull stunts such as "embargoes", random "safety inspections" (lest we forget that even as the SP "melted down" leading up to the UP merger, the "Sunset" somehow got through), or "pop quizzes" on Amtrak Conductors and Engineers focusing on the most obscure Rule in the Book.

So there we have it, the existing LD's are here to stay. They are the catalyst for obtaining Federal level funding for essentially a regional operation - the NEC. Amtrak is inexpensive and popular - what every politician dreams of - pork on sale!


----------



## A Voice (Jul 6, 2017)

Tarm said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> > Tarm said:
> ...


Nice strawman argument. Anecdotal examples prove absolutely nothing, but more importantly, you are still proceeding from a false assumption; Neither cost nor travel time are necessarily the primary factors in choice of mode of transportation. Indeed, the primary competition for passenger rail - corridor, regional, *and* long-distance - is not the airplane but the automobile (which would be a more valid comparison).

Secondly, Amtrak's real market and true potential lies in travel to and from intermediate points, smaller communities (which combined form a larger market base) that lack frequent and inexpensive air service - if they even _have _air service at all. Passengers travelling from Chicago to Denver may well fly, which is fine, because the one train a day can easily be filled with people going other places. In fact, when you suggest passenger rail is well suited to moderate distance travel of 400 miles or thereabout, you are actually on the right track (pardon the pun), for this is exactly how the long-distance trains - the ones you propose eliminating - are being used. Chicago to Denver (or to California) aren't the primary markets; Rather, passengers are travelling from Chicago to Osceola, Burlington to Omaha, Lincoln to Denver, and so on.

Finally, how do you define the "best serves the 100 mile to 400 mile trip segment" claim. What are you basing this conclusion on? What do the financial numbers look like for several short-distance trains versus one long-distance service? This isn't as simple as it appears, and depends greatly on what the true purpose is for passenger rail in general or Amtrak in particular (provide a rural public transportation service, ostensibly for-profit, mass transit, etc.).



Tarm said:


> Nope. Just a guy that loves trains and tries to see the world the way it is and not the way I want it to be.


Many, many problems in society and the world (even far removed from passenger rail) would vanish tomorrow were most people not so ambivalent and irresolute, and actually did something to change things rather than just take the attitude "well, that's the way the world is today".



Tarm said:


> State supported trains do not add to Amtrak's losses


Amtrak's proposed federal budget includes money for operating state supported services.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 6, 2017)

Tarm said:


> So I hold to my belief that train travel works best in the 100 to 400 mile range.


No one is disputing that belief, I think most if not all of us agree with you. That is the saddest part of the 750 mile rule, you might actually gain significant ridership with increasing potential 100-400 mile trips like LAX-Vegas, DAL-HOS, or CLE-CIN or a second PHL-PGH or CIN-CHI (I'll say CHI-MSP too even though it's 418 miles, LAX-SJC is 423 miles), etc. but the federal government said they won't spend money for it (they would say go ask your state(s) for it).


----------



## TiBike (Jul 6, 2017)

The justification for subsidies is that trains provide a necessary transportation service. Corridor trains do a good job of that. By comparison, long distance trains don't.

The Capitol Corridor and Surfliner have excellent on time performance, clean cars, decent food (and good beer) in the cafe, and invariably courteous, hardworking staff. The Coast Starlight does not.

California would be better served by a state-run Coast Daylight between LA and San Jose, and a daytime extension of the Capitol Corridor north of Sacramento. Same for a Capitol Corridor extension past Auburn to Reno, versus the Zephyr, and, I would guess, for a Cascades extension to Klamath Falls.

Long distance trains are great if you're not particular about when you depart or arrive, and you're willing to put up with service that can go from excellent to miserable and surly in an instant. But that's not the way to provide basic, reliable transportation.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 6, 2017)

Tarm said:


> FrensicPic said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know about #1 and 2 but, the Pacific Northwest and Southern California have the Cascades and the Pacific Surfliner which are predominately state-supported and would probably survive. There are other areas with state-supported, Amtrak operated rail as well.
> ...


That is inherently untrue. Every coach or resource you divert to state supported services takes away from Amtrak's network. Do you realize how long some of the trains were before Amtrak started providing additional equipment to state supported services? If they were running with their own cars (Such as MARC or CDOT) that is one thing. However, the diverted equipment could be used to run additional trains and add to existing services.



Tarm said:


> Okay, let's take some trips. (Train fares are from Amtrak website, air fares for 7/25 from Expedia for one way adult ticket.)
> 
> 1. Short trip, Chicago to Milwaukee, 86 miles.
> 
> ...


That's all well and good but to make the argument, you would have to know which points on the trains you want to cut bring in the most revenue and account for the most ridership. What are the top city pairs of revenue and ridership on the CONO as an example?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 6, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Well let's consider costs alone and ignore political/philosophical issues...
> 
> The EB requires 6 sets to run (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/32610-line-numbersconsist-listings/). Running CHI-MSP would require 2 sets. So based on equipment alone, one EB = three CHI-MSP (and you wouldn't even need the sleepers for CHI-MSP unless you ran an overnight between the two cities).
> 
> ...



You are missing something and that is the costs you never include in your proposals. In other words, while you say you can cut the railroad miles, you have no idea what each railroad charges for various sections? Do you REALLY think CSX charges the same amount of money for their lighter used "S"Line as their congested, heavily used "A" line?" Additionally, a lot of the legacy trains are bound by operating agreements that cap costs. When additional service is negotiated, costs balloon, which is why new service is harder to come by.

Let's also expand on the operations. How many more crews will it take to run corridor service? How many additional mechanical crews will you need for turnaround inspections? How many additional facilities are needed because people fail to remember the operational difference and financial difference between long distance trains. Operationally, the Pennsylvanian and the Vermonter are considered long distance trains which means they must have the support of mechanical at its outlying point.

It is often cheaper to keep the train moving to one location than to have numerous outlying and turnaround points in the middle of nowhere.

I'm always amused at people that are in favor of keeping the NEC since it moves a lot of people. It indeed moves the most people but it also carried the most costs. It takes BILLIONS to run the corridor every year without covering its costs. How many Lond Distance trains and corridor trains could Amtrak have run for the $500 million it just spent on upgrading 22 miles of catenary? How many additional trains could Amtrak finance in the rest of the country if they weren't spending a ton of money upgrading NYP which is a project that helps LIRR and NJT more than Amtrak?

The corridor is a multi billion dollar money pit that still has a 38 billion dollar backlog. Yet, they are spending billion to get a second set of high speed trains since the first set will barely make 20 years. Meanwhile, the Superliners, Amfleets and Diesels will have to keep on plugging away, 20, 30 and 40 years later.


----------



## west point (Jul 6, 2017)

This is an interesting idea of how the LD trains have taken a hit. Seem to recall in the past that the single level LD trains had a lot of Amfleet-1s mainly for shorter haul passengers. Do not recall but believe that more Amfleet-2s were planned for LD trains than were bought ?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 6, 2017)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm always amused at people that are in favor of keeping the NEC


Who's NOT in favor of keeping the NEC?



Thirdrail7 said:


> How many Lond Distance trains and corridor trains could Amtrak have run for the $500 million it just spent on upgrading 22 miles of catenary? How many additional trains could Amtrak finance in the rest of the country if they weren't spending a ton of money upgrading NYP which is a project that helps LIRR and NJT more than Amtrak?


Go ask NS. Go ask CSX. Go ask UP. What would they give us for $500 million? How many more trains would they let us run? Where? At what times? At what speeds? Let's make a deal. Are the host railroads just going to let us "take over" their railroads and actually put passenger service first? They might as well just sell us the tracks then (which we'd all love of course).You make it seem like begging the host railroads for any new service or even rescheduled service to better serve major markets is like pulling teeth (or at least any service additions/changes I would want). If I'm Congress, why shouldn't I spend money on my own tracks that I have more control over vs. paying "more rent" to CSX and getting little if anything of value for it? Why shouldn't I spend money on trainsets that I can use on my own tracks vs. extra trainsets that I have to beg UP to let me run at all?

Amtrak will always be second class as renters on host railroads. If they want to duplicate the "success" of the NEC, they have to own or have more control of the rails outside of the NEC.


----------



## Tarm (Jul 7, 2017)

Bob Dylan said:


> Tarm said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


I supported the Madison train. To this day I am angry at Gov. Doyle. True, Walker had just won election but Doyle was still in office. The fed's had approved the grant and Doyle could have signed the contracts to get construction started. Instead he wimped out and punted to Walker who kill it. A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES.


----------



## Tarm (Jul 7, 2017)

Tarm said:


> State supported trains do not add to Amtrak's losses


A Voice said: Amtrak's proposed federal budget includes money for operating state supported services.

You are right. I stand corrected. But it is better to run a service and get reimbursed for some of the losses than none.


----------



## Tarm (Jul 7, 2017)

A Voice said:


> Secondly, Amtrak's real market and true potential lies in travel to and from intermediate points, smaller communities (which combined form a larger market base) that lack frequent and inexpensive air service - if they even _have _air service at all. Passengers travelling from Chicago to Denver may well fly, which is fine, because the one train a day can easily be filled with people going other places. In fact, when you suggest passenger rail is well suited to moderate distance travel of 400 miles or thereabout, you are actually on the right track (pardon the pun), for this is exactly how the long-distance trains - the ones you propose eliminating - are being used. Chicago to Denver (or to California) aren't the primary markets; Rather, passengers are travelling from Chicago to Osceola, Burlington to Omaha, Lincoln to Denver, and so on.
> 
> Thank you, you have made my point. Most passengers riding on those 100 to 400 mile corridor trains are not going the entire distance. They are getting on and off at intermediate points. Now what provides the most transportation options, one train a day or multiple trains a day? A family is much more likely to go visit Grandma on the train if they can leave on the 7 AM train and return on the 5 PM train.


----------



## Tarm (Jul 7, 2017)

I will conclude my replies on this subject with a summary.

1. I fear that Amtrak's future funding is at risk.

2. The responsible action by Amtrak to deal with this risk is to lower it's need for an operational subsidy.

3. The best way to achieve that and still provide the greatest good to the greatest number is to restructure single frequency LD type trains to multiple frequency corridor type trains.

You may agree or disagree with me but that is why we have this discussion forum.

I wish all of you a good day.

Tarm


----------



## neroden (Jul 8, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> From a cost perspective, if you can't run 3-4 trains between CHI-MSP for the cost to run one EB, I must be missing something here.


One of the *several* things you are missing is freight railroad demands. They really, really, really dislike giving up additional slots. The operations costs are part of it. More is the capital demands.

I'd say, at an guess, that CP would require full double tracking of the entire route from St. Paul to Chicago, and triple tracking in several places. At that point it makes more sense to buy the track so that Amtrak can *secure* the benefits of double tracking *permanently*. After certain cheaty-cheaty behavior by CSX and UP in the past, where they took government money to upgrade tracks for passenger service and then used the capacity for freight service and hosed the passengers, this is the only sane thing to do.

Do you really think that cutting service on a line which BREAKS EVEN is going to pay for BUYING THE ENTIRE ROUTE FROM MSP TO CHI AND DOUBLE TRACKING IT? If so, you are wrong.

I have emphasized over and over again the importance of the passenger rail operator controlling the tracks. Would I be willing to give up a long-distance train service if it meant that Amtrak got its own, wholly-owned tracks from Chicago to Porter, Indiana (where the Amtrak-owned Michigan line branches off)? Well, yeah, actually, I would. That would have huge massive long-term payback. In addition to the Michigan services, the LSL and CL would start running more reliably on time.

But those two things aren't even the same order of magnitude. Cancelling the Sunset Limited gets you, about $14 million dollars per year. (Less for all the others.) Buying South of the Lake costs $510 million dollars. In 2002 dollars. You'd have to cancel the Sunset Limited for 37 years to accumulate enough money, if there's no inflation since 2002, which there is. So this is nonsense.


----------



## neroden (Jul 8, 2017)

TiBike said:


> The justification for subsidies is that trains provide a necessary transportation service. Corridor trains do a good job of that. By comparison, long distance trains don't.


False. Ask anyone on the "High Line" section of the Empire Builder, where the alternative is driving for hundreds of miles on two-lane roads. (The airplane service is minimal and ultra-expensive.) That long distance train sure provides a necessary transportation service.

Of course, as I've said, the Empire Builder breaks even.

One point which is repeatedly missed by almost everyone is that the subsidies for Amtrak are essentially *system* subsidies at this point -- they pay for the national reservations system, the central backshops at Beech Grove, the Amtrak Police, etc. etc. They pay for overhead.

Just like paying for the state police to patrol the roadways, or paying for the snowplows to clear the roads in the winter, or paying for Air Traffic Control.

The individual routes are largely profitable. Many people, including Tarm, are still acting as if they aren't. This is, to put it bluntly "seeing the world as they want to see it, and not as it actually is".


----------



## neroden (Jul 8, 2017)

TiBike said:


> The Capitol Corridor and Surfliner have excellent on time performance, clean cars, decent food (and good beer) in the cafe, and invariably courteous, hardworking staff. The Coast Starlight does not.


The Coast Starlight is, of course, breaking even.



> California would be better served by a state-run Coast Daylight between LA and San Jose, and a daytime extension of the Capitol Corridor north of Sacramento.


And California is free to pay for these at any time. If you think the Feds will pay for them, where have you *been*?
A crucial point: All of these would require MORE subsidy than the Coast Starlight. I think many people here do not understand how badly the corridor trains do financially. It's a little hard to tell now that they don't report the numbers "before state subsidy". Back when they did, it was obvious.

In general, the long-distance trains have *much better* underlying (pre-subsidy, pre-overhead) financial performance than the corridor trains. This was readily apparent from all the reports until a couple of years ago when the PRIIA cost-sharing rules kicked in and numbers stopped being coherently reported; but it's probably possible to back-calculate the numbers to show that this is still true. This has ALWAYS been true -- the longer-distance runs were more profitable for the entire history of railroading back to the 1830s.

(Obviously, the idiotic three-a-week trains are an exception, but that's because they're three-a-week. Daily or nothing, I say.)


----------



## neroden (Jul 8, 2017)

Thirdrail7 said:


> It is often cheaper to keep the train moving to one location than to have numerous outlying and turnaround points in the middle of nowhere.


This is one example of the many, many economies of scale in railroading. It is really a "go big or go home" business. This was understood very early and resulted in both expansion mania and merger mania in the 19th century. It is still true today.
Everything which is "wrong" with the long distance trains could be fixed by running them twice as often. (Well, 7/3 as often in the case of the three-a-week trains.)


----------



## neroden (Jul 8, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Go ask NS. Go ask CSX. Go ask UP. What would they give us for $500 million? How many more trains would they let us run? Where? At what times? At what speeds? Let's make a deal. Are the host railroads just going to let us "take over" their railroads and actually put passenger service first? They might as well just sell us the tracks then (which we'd all love of course).You make it seem like begging the host railroads for any new service or even rescheduled service to better serve major markets is like pulling teeth


It absolutely is. Long record of that. Even the commuter rail agencies complain. A lot. CSX was so obstructionist about expanded service on the Framingham/Worcester line that it involved Massachusetts's US senators, who started threatening to *change federal law* specifically to make it easier for Massachusetts to seize CSX tracks by eminent domain! (CSX eventually backed down.)

There was a three month delay of work at St. Paul Union Depot due to difficulty getting Union Pacific to sign over a sliver of land which it owned from a precedessor and wasn't even *using*. San Diego Trolley had the same delay with Union Pacific; UP doesn't even have any tracks in the *county* but they couldn't get them to hand over old pieces of property (adjacent to the existing lines) which they needed for substations.

I strongly believe the solution is to buy the tracks. Ontario's "Metrolinx" agrees and has bought everything it can; it is building its own parallel lines for the parts where it can't. VIA Rail in Canada agrees and is snapping up track where it can, and campaigning to have its own passenger corridor funded. Metrolink in LA agrees and has commented repeatedly that they wish they'd been able to buy more track cheaply. UTA in Utah agrees and built its own entire track parallel to the UP track for their commuter rail service. So did Denver. After much pressure, New York finally purchased (OK, leased, but indefinitely) the Albany-Poughkeepsie line from CSX. Michigan agrees, and purchased the Michigan line from NS when NS deliberately degraded service. New Mexico agrees, and bought track from BNSF around Albuquerque. *Wick Moorman* agrees and suggested that passenger operators should own the tracks and freight operators should be guests.


----------



## neroden (Jul 8, 2017)

Tarm said:


> I will conclude my replies on this subject with a summary.
> 
> 1. I fear that Amtrak's future funding is at risk.


Always has been.



> 2. The responsible action by Amtrak to deal with this risk is to lower it's need for an operational subsidy.


Certainly true.



> 3. The best way to achieve that and still provide the greatest good to the greatest number is to restructure single frequency LD type trains to multiple frequency corridor type trains.


Absolutely incorrect. Several people have explained to you a substantial number of different reasons why you're wrong. If you choose to stick your fingers in your ears and go "nyah nyah nyah", well, we can't do anything about that.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 8, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Go ask NS. Go ask CSX. Go ask UP. What would they give us for $500 million? How many more trains would they let us run? Where? At what times? At what speeds? Let's make a deal. Are the host railroads just going to let us "take over" their railroads and actually put passenger service first? They might as well just sell us the tracks then (which we'd all love of course).


By CSX's estimate, $500 million is 1/4 of the Gulf Coast train even though it wouldn't meet the OTP standards. However, that would restore service to areas that do not currently have it. It is 1/4 of what CSX wanted to add additional service to the inland route before the service was killed. Again, this would have preserved direct service to FRA, WOR from the NEC and the SPG line. It would have also paved the way for additional service from ALB and points west.

The same $500 is shaving 2-3 minutes off an existing route (although it is upgrade existing infrastructure) and adds no additional service.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Who's NOT in favor of keeping the NEC?


Anyone that carps about the "costs" of operating trains. The NEC costs a fortune to operate and maintain. If everyone is so concerned about the finances, let's start with the the Faberge Egg! The numbers look good when it comes to the amount of travel it accommodates but the billions it takes to achieve somehow doesn't even raise an eyebrow....except to Congress. If you made the NEC state supported service, took the associated money and placed it into long distance service with additional corridor frequencies, there would likely be more service and less losses.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> You make it seem like begging the host railroads for any new service or even rescheduled service to better serve major markets is like pulling teeth (or at least any service additions/changes I would want)


If you're not aware of what it takes to add trains and the struggles that occur with the hosts when service changes are requested, then you're really not paying attention to anything other than your own posts.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Who's NOT in favor of keeping the NEC?
> 
> . If I'm Congress, why shouldn't I spend money on my own tracks that I have more control over vs. paying "more rent" to CSX and getting little if anything of value for it? Why shouldn't I spend money on trainsets that I can use on my own tracks vs. extra trainsets that I have to beg UP to let me run at all?



If you're Congress, you don't really want to spend money on any of this. However, you left avenues in place where the hosts can make it difficult for Amtraku (or others) to add service but it protects existing services. Therefore, you can get bang for your buck if you order standard coaches that can be used anywhere, at anytime on any service as opposed to a specialized train set that can only be used in a few locations that require "billions" to implement.


----------



## Tarm (Jul 8, 2017)

neroden said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > From a cost perspective, if you can't run 3-4 trains between CHI-MSP for the cost to run one EB, I must be missing something here.
> ...


Neroden: I could not agree with you more on the need of Amtrak to own or at least control the tracks it runs on so you have given me an idea, (you'll hate it.)

The SL host railroad wanted $750 million in capital payments to increase the SL from 3X to daily or $187.5 million a day. They have now set the market. So they should be willing to pay 3 X $187.5 million or $562.5 million to get rid of it. THAT'S how you pay for the South of the Lake track. Put the four western LD train routes up for auction. See what the host railroads would pay to get rid of one of them. Highest bidder per route mile is forever free of Amtrak trains. If you don't ask no one will ever know. It might be a billion dollars. Amtrak could do a lot of great things with a billion dollars. Then we will have to ask ourselves "Is it really worth 500 million dollars so passengers in Montana can ride a train instead of a bus?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 9, 2017)

Youre right Tarm, most of us hate your idea, just like we dislike all Train-Off proposals!( See Philly Amtrak Fan and the Cardinal!)


----------



## ehbowen (Jul 9, 2017)

Bob Dylan said:


> Youre right Tarm, most of us hate your idea, just like we dislike all Train-Off proposals!( See Philly Amtrak Fan and the Cardinal!)


Actually, I kind of like it as a negotiating tactic; when UP says they want $500M for a daily _Sunset_ then sit down across the table from them and say, "Okay, you have 90 days to pay us $426M, in cash, and we stop running the _Sunset Limited_ for good. Otherwise, we start running it daily at no additional charge. Dealer's choice."

The danger is that they just might hate passenger service so much that they would cut their nose off to spite their face. Still, if that happened we would be no worse off than if the LD critic congresscritters had their way right now. And, if Congress was ever to implement my own proposal...a complete exemption on state and local ad valorem taxation for any railroad line which hosts a qualifying passenger service, plus equalization and incentive subsidies for passenger seats provided and used...I think that UP would either be on the phone begging Amtrak to come back, or else spray painting some new passenger equipment Armour Yellow.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 9, 2017)

Tarm said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 9, 2017)

I’m not sure where a price for a one time capital upgrade to account for increased service in any way “sets the market” for the continued running of the current train. You’re comparing apples and spaceships at that point.

There is no way that anyone is going to be interested in paying anywhere near the amount of money you’re imagining to get rid of the trains.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 9, 2017)

CCC1007 said:


> Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.


Give me a reason for anyone to come to Malta, MT other than to meet people to feel sorry for them. You have a town where 2,000 people live there and virtually no one outside of the town wants to go there, that makes for a wasteful Amtrak destination. I'll bet the only person on AU that has ever gotten on or off Malta (not counting fresh air breaks) is you. You want to have trains where people live and where people want to visit. The more people ride, the more money they bring to Amtrak, the less it will cost taxpayers. You have to accept the lack of amenities the big cities have. Or fine, take all our benefits of living in big cities and we'll send you our crime, traffic, and higher taxes too. I wonder what it's like to feel safe walking out in the middle of the night. I thought people move to Malta, MT to get away from places like Chicago and New York, not to be able to travel there.

I'll gladly pay my taxes for Amtrak service in Montana the day you pay for Amtrak service in Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, etc. We want a second Pennsylvanian, care to chip in? We want a direct train to Chicago, care to chip in? It doesn't help you? And service to Montana doesn't help me (or the taxpayers in Texas, Florida, and New York, where several other of our AU readers live). Care to chip in money to fund rail service in Michigan? If Michigan pulls the plug on Amtrak, they won't have any trains at all. If Amtrak ever does pull the plug on the EB, go to Helena and ask them to fund rail service in your state the way Pennsylvania, Michigan, Vermont, etc do. It's not like Montana has to pay a ton of money to fight crime.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 9, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.
> ...


PAF, this is a new low for you. How more insulting can you get? I hope we don't find out.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 9, 2017)

" United we stand, Divided we fall..."

Philly:

As I asked another poster, "Do you work for the Heritage Foundation or another Right Wing Fantasy Operation?"

Or do you just believe the drivel they put out?


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 9, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.
> ...


Our daughter lives in a small town in eastern Montana. We visit there several times a year.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 9, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.
> ...


Clearly you have never heard of farming, ranching, or the parable that if you destroy the city the people rebuild, but if you destroy the farms that supply a city the city will starve and cannot rebuild.


----------



## JayPea (Jul 9, 2017)

Philly, what about people from Malta who want to travel to some other destination??? They don't count either????

You like to throw out facts and figures, so here are some of my own. According to the latest data, Malta has a population of 1997. According to 2016 data, from the Great American Stations site, ridership at Malta was 3829. That comes out to 191% of Malta residents using Amtrak. Now, also according to recent estimates,the Philadelphia metro area has a population of 6068975. The ridership figures for 2016 also from Great American Stations show a ridership of 4318728. And, throwing in the 1221 passengers from North Philadelphia (only 1221? Less than a third of Malta??? North Philadelphia is a wasted stop!!!!  ), that comes to a total ridership of 4319949. That comes out to 71% of Philadelphia residents using Amtrak and presumably other rail services. Comparing that to the 191% of Malta residents using Amtrak, then the ridership based on percentages comes out to be 270% more utilization of Amtrak than at Philadelphia. Therefore we should cut service to Philadelphia.  

Of course that's a ridiculous argument and not meant to be taken seriously. But if YOU want to be taken seriously, I suggest you stop insulting Rural America and its hardworking folk.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 9, 2017)

CCC1007 said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > CCC1007 said:
> ...


 With apologies to AmtrakBlue and the rest of the board, when someone goes low, I'm not staying high. I'm going right to their level.

Philly Amtrak Fan, I have the perfect reason for you visit Malta. A visit to Malta may help you expand your narrow little mind just enough to see there is life and functionality outside of the big city and their respective suburbs. Your snobby attitude has shown its head numerous times but let's put it in perspective. No one has to accept big city living or crime as justification for receiving service. Your "suburban soft" ( that's a term that was coined for people that think supplies come from the nearest grocery store, strip mall or convenience store) attitude might be adjusted if you actually got out and saw what happens in some of these places.

You say you want the trains where people live and want to visit? Malta has a population of 2000 people, yet it had almost 4000 riders in 2016. That's twice the population, served by 1 train a day. Clearly, people are using the service. My favorite of all time is Thurmond, WV along the Cardinal route. It has an estimated population of *5! * Yet, the station had almost 300 riders served by a train that operates three times a week. In 2013, 563 riders used the same station. When *100 times* the population uses your station and services, you are clearly in the right place. Do these numbers pale in comparison to the 4 million passengers using PHL/PHN? Sure, but look at the costs. Your stations (which never had 10 times the population utilizing it) is served by 120 trains that pass through the area. These trains cost BILLIONS upon BILLIONS to operate, support and maintain. How much will those Gateway and Baltimore tunnels cost? The Empire Builder and Cardinal do not cost BILLIONS to operate, support or maintain.

As I'm fond of observing, national taxes pay for Amtrak. Every SINGLE person in this country that pays taxes subsidizes certain services, including Amtrak. Don't get it twisted, Philly Amtrak Fan.While the Keystone corridor is state supported service (and only between HAR-PHL), every taxpayer contributed to the Keystone Corridor upgrades. Every taxpayer is contributing to the catenary upgrades in NJ that will shave 3 minutes off the trip to or through your state. Every single taxpayer is paying for services around your state! We've ALREADY chipped in which is why your (admittedly) high fares aren't a lot higher and why your Keystone Corridor is no longer 70mph stick rail like it was 15 years ago. OUR taxes paid for that so there is apparently money left over to fight the crime you keep alluding to.

You're welcome!!

Three minutes off a trip to your cities and towns doesn't help me or people in the rest of the country that don't have numerous, subsidized options (in case you don't realize, the rest of us help you out with Interstates 76,476,676, 81, 95, 495, US 13, US 1 etc). So continue to help out Montana because they have helped your state out. When Pennsylvania pays the FULL COSTS of the NEC and Keystone Corridor through the state (as suggested by the Amtrak Reform Council in 1997), then you can say something. Until then, your state is a the same drain that you accuse others of being.


----------



## jis (Jul 9, 2017)

Very well stated indeed Thirdrail! Very well stated. But you may be trying to communicate with a concrete wall with a loudspeaker mindlessly playing one single loop tape


----------



## TiBike (Jul 9, 2017)

neroden said:


> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> > The justification for subsidies is that trains provide a necessary transportation service. Corridor trains do a good job of that. By comparison, long distance trains don't.
> ...


I didn't say LD trains don't provide a basic transportation service. I said they do it poorly compared to corridor trains. In California, they do it poorly even compared to corridor trains plus thruways – I can rely on getting to Sacramento or LA on time via a thruway connection to the Capitol Corridor or Surfliner. Not so the Coast Starlight.

From everything I've read about the Empire Builder (never been on it myself) it is an important lifeline for the region, and I can believe that its primary role is basic transportation rather than a land cruise. That's not true of the Coast Starlight – there are plenty of options, including from California trains/thruways, that are more reliable, less expensive, cleaner and/or more respectful toward passengers. From what I've seen, that's true of most LD trains. If the Empire Builder is an exception, then the people on that route, and the taxpayers who subsidise it, deserve the same value and respect they would get from a state run train.



neroden said:


> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> > The Capitol Corridor and Surfliner have excellent on time performance, clean cars, decent food (and good beer) in the cafe, and invariably courteous, hardworking staff. The Coast Starlight does not.
> ...


Again, you're missing my point. It's not about financial performance, it's about delivering the kind of service the subsidies are supposed to be providing. California is willing to support more train service, like the Coast Daylight, that puts basic transportation needs ahead of the land cruise market. Every time it comes up on this board, though, the objection is that there's not enough equipment or room on UP's tracks to support it. I don't believe that, but to whatever extent it might be true, it would follow that scrapping the Coast Starlight in favor of a Daylight would improve service between LA and the Bay Area.

That said, operating west coast LD trains like corridor trains, or even eliminating them completely, would save Amtrak more than just the direct operating costs. There's a lot of overhead – staffed stations, baggage handling, maintenance, catering, administration for example – that wouldn't be necessary.

I'm not advocating eliminating long distance trains. If the federal government wants to fund them, that's fine with me, even though I think the money would be better spent on shorter runs that deliver better transportation service. But spending on corridor and LD trains should be prioritised according to the necessity and value to passengers that they deliver.


----------



## Tarm (Jul 9, 2017)

What everyone here seems to be forgetting is in my "A proposal to restructure Amtrak" I stated that motor coach services would be provided to all locations that lost Amtrak service. The people of Malta MT would just get on a bus to travel from their town instead of a train.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 9, 2017)

Tarm said:


> What everyone here seems to be forgetting is in my "A proposal to restructure Amtrak" I stated that motor coach services would be provided to all locations that lost Amtrak service. The people of Malta MT would just get on a bus to travel from their town instead of a train.


What you seem to be missing it that there is no convenient road access to the region. A bus service would be slower and far more uncomfortable than the train. As previously stated, by running trains to shorter turn around points it also would very likely cost more. Why should service be downgraded if the superior service is cheaper to run anyway? In addition, many people have a bias against buses and a bus service would likely fail to gather sufficient ridership in such a lower region. In cases where a train replaced a bus or vise versa, the train often gets 5 to 10 times the ridership of the bus service.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 9, 2017)

Tarm said:


> What everyone here seems to be forgetting is in my "A proposal to restructure Amtrak" I stated that motor coach services would be provided to all locations that lost Amtrak service. The people of Malta MT would just get on a bus to travel from their town instead of a train.


OK, we all know this already happens all over this country, but remember there is no Free Lunch, so supporting this plan would actually raise the subsidies needed for lots of real world reasons. 
"Government Money" is OUR Money, aka Taxes!


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 9, 2017)

Tarm said:


> What everyone here seems to be forgetting is in my "A proposal to restructure Amtrak" I stated that motor coach services would be provided to all locations that lost Amtrak service. The people of Malta MT would just get on a bus to travel from their town instead of a train.


And I'm sure those buses won't get stuck in traffic. And won't be affected by snow. And they'll have a cafe car and diner.


----------



## Tarm (Jul 9, 2017)

For the life of me I can not understand the attraction of so many people on this board for LD trains. The Fifties are OVER!

I have a vision for passenger rail in the US outside of the NEC.

It is modern, (Charger locomotives with Talgo trainsets). Fast, ( 110 MPH or higher.) Frequent, (4 RT per day minimum.) Running in 100 mile to 400 mile corridors, (to far to drive, to short to fly.) Covering their operational cost, (with hopefully some left over for overhead.) Without the need to rely on the good graces of Congress.

If some of the existing LD trains need to be replaced with motor coach service to make this happen, well so be it.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

Tarm


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 9, 2017)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Tarm said:
> 
> 
> > What everyone here seems to be forgetting is in my "A proposal to restructure Amtrak" I stated that motor coach services would be provided to all locations that lost Amtrak service. The people of Malta MT would just get on a bus to travel from their town instead of a train.
> ...


So what you're saying is trains are better than buses and you want trains instead of (or in addition to) buses? So does Columbus, OH.

I'll use the "why not both?" argument. Can we try to get the BL/TR, Floridian, Lone Star, etc. back and keep the current ones? Can we add corridor service and keep the LD system (which although I don't find adequate does have value)? I hear so much about fighting to keep or expand Byrd Crap. Can we do that and meaningfully expand (and service to Roanoke isn't meaningful to most of us outside of Roanoke)? "The best cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak?" Wake me when some "more" Amtrak comes.


----------



## A Voice (Jul 9, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever been to the communities you are proposing eliminating service to, at least those under 10000 population, for any length of time? Have you ever visited those of us whom you are proposing a complete elimination for? Have you ever spent any time in an area where it is 150+ miles to the nearest controlled access highway? Have you tried to fly into a place like Malta, Montana? Please actually do some of these things before trying to eliminate the Empire Builder, as that is one of the roles it has, an essential transportation option for east west travel in northern Montana and North Dakota.
> ...


This has already been said better than I will, but your prejudice against small communities and rural regions of the country is clouding your judgement. Some people living in small towns like Malta would come to Philadelphia and feel sorry for the people that have to live there (traffic, crime, urban sprawl, etc.).



> I'll gladly pay my taxes for Amtrak service in Montana the day you pay for Amtrak service in Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, etc.


As ThirdRail stated better than I could anyway, we already do chip in for these things. That's how government and a nation (state) works. If you don't have any school age children, are you going to argue your taxes should not support schools?



Thirdrail7 said:


> With apologies to AmtrakBlue and the rest of the board, when someone goes low, I'm not staying high. I'm going right to their level.
> 
> Philly Amtrak Fan, I have the perfect reason for you visit Malta. A visit to Malta may help you expand your narrow little mind just enough to see there is life and functionality outside of the big city and their respective suburbs. Your snobby attitude has shown its head numerous times but let's put it in perspective. No one has to accept big city living or crime as justification for receiving service. Your "suburban soft" ( that's a term that was coined for people that think supplies come from the nearest grocery store, strip mall or convenience store) attitude might be adjusted if you actually got out and saw what happens in some of these places.
> 
> ...


Thank You! This is another post for which the forum needs a like button. Badly.



Tarm said:


> What everyone here seems to be forgetting is in my "A proposal to restructure Amtrak" I stated that motor coach services would be provided to all locations that lost Amtrak service. The people of Malta MT would just get on a bus to travel from their town instead of a train.


A motorcoach (bus) is neither the equivalent to nor a reasonable substitute for a train. They're not the same thing and are not interchangeable. Do you think the airlines could get away with substituting a motorcoach for a plane on even their shortest flights? If not, then what makes you think a bus can take the place of a train? You can't say it's because the train is slower, because Amtrak is (generally) not competing on trip time.

If this plan would work, it would be much cheaper to just cancel most regional trains and replace them with buses.


----------



## A Voice (Jul 9, 2017)

jis said:


> Very well stated indeed Thirdrail! Very well stated. But you may be trying to communicate with a concrete wall with a loudspeaker mindlessly playing one single loop tape


So, this morning picking kids up on the church van we blew the horn at a house but nobody came to the door or even to say they weren't going. After several more ignored honks all the neighbor doors opened though. I (half) facetiously suggested we keep blowing until somebody came to church!


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Jul 9, 2017)

You know what happened in Britain when "Sir" Richard Beeching came along in the 1960s? He proposed cutting many, many rural lines, cutting duplicate lines, and building up the main trunk lines. He said that bus service would replace the deleted rural train services. However, the buses were slow and inconvenient, and so many were removed after a short time, which left many parts of Great Britain without public transportation. Some of the lines that were saved from the Beeching cuts, such as the St. Ives Bay Line and the Looe Branch (only because of a train-supportive Transport Minister), are now popular and well-patronized. Others, like the Scottish Far North lines (due to be cut), are still operated, and frequent services run on them. The British governments are now trying to bring back some of the rural services that were cut, and have succeeded, such as the Ebbw Valley Line in Wales. What Tarm first described seems quite similar to the 1960s Beeching cuts.

Richard Beeching is now known by many in Britain as the person who hastily cut train services without seeing the consequences it would bring.

Edit: Sorry, maybe this was mentioned earlier in the thread already...


----------



## A Voice (Jul 9, 2017)

Tarm said:


> For the life of me I can not understand the attraction of so many people on this board for LD trains. The Fifties are OVER!
> 
> I have a vision for passenger rail in the US outside of the NEC.
> 
> ...


It is not modern, it is a fantasy. How are you going to operate 110 mph - outside of a handful of areas, at least - on freight shared right-of-way, at least without billions in _taxpayer funded_ capital improvements? It'd be far less expensive to just subsidize more trains than would this proposal.

What exactly is that you think the fifties have to do with today's long-distance passenger services? People everyday take automobiles and buses on trips of well over 400 miles; But on passenger rail, somehow people have the funny idea trains only make sense for shorter distances where they aren't significantly slower than flying. It is nonsense and absurd, yet a common myth.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 9, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I'll use the "why not both?" argument. Can we try to get the BL/TR, Floridian, Lone Star, etc. back and keep the current ones?


Yes. That's what nearly all of us here argue for when you spout your ignorant "Byrd Crap".



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Can we add corridor service and keep the LD system (which although I don't find adequate does have value)?


Yep.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I hear so much about fighting to keep or expand Byrd Crap*the Cardinal*. Can we do that and meaningfully expand


Yep.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> (and service to Roanoke isn't meaningful to most of us outside of Roanoke)


There are quite a lot of us outside of Roanoke that would enjoy traveling there.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> "The best cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak?" Wake me when some "more" Amtrak comes.


. Or you can spend a small portion of the effort you spend here to actually do something useful to bring that about. Or not, which is why the people you find so miserable still have their trains while your beloved Broadway Limited is just a distant memory. Unlike you, they were willing to work to save their trains, and their elected representatives did their jobs and supported them.


----------



## Chessie (Jul 9, 2017)

Why should people in Malta lose their train services because people in Philly don't know how to live without committing crimes?


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 9, 2017)

Chessie said:


> Why should people in Malta lose their train services because people in Philly don't know how to live without committing crimes?


So, we need to reply to one inaccurate, obnoxious post with another?


----------



## Chessie (Jul 9, 2017)

PRR 60 said:


> Chessie said:
> 
> 
> > Why should people in Malta lose their train services because people in Philly don't know how to live without committing crimes?
> ...


I am falling in line with the culture of this board. :lol:


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 10, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I'll use the "why not both?" argument. Can we try to get the BL/TR, Floridian, Lone Star, etc. back and keep the current ones? Can we add corridor service and keep the LD system (which although I don't find adequate does have value)? I hear so much about fighting to keep or expand Byrd Crap. Can we do that and meaningfully expand (and service to Roanoke isn't meaningful to most of us outside of Roanoke)? "The best cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak?" Wake me when some "more" Amtrak comes.



Congress has indicated that they will not finance anything other than existing trains. If Amtrak decides to operate additional trains, it will come out of existing funds. The thing that you and TARM constantly forget is the freights are lying in wait for the moment Amtrak leaves a route. The door will close right after the last train departs and it will take quite a bit of money to open the door again. That is why there is a reluctance to trade one train for another. You do not know if you'll ever get the route again and if you're able to afford.

Tarm wants frequent service at high speeds. Well, I'm sure he missed this post about adding another train to PGHon a route that previous had multiple trains so I'll quote it here:



> Expanding rail service to the western part of the state just took another step towards becoming a reality. The Pennsylvania Senate approved a resolution to begin examining the idea of adding two more trains to serve Harrisburg to Pittsburgh.
> 
> Up until the 1960’s, people living in the western part of the PA had the option of up to 12 trains a day. That number has since dwindled to one. Senate Resolution 76 will study just how much adding those extra trains would cost. Earlier estimates put the cost around four to $6 million per train along with about $100 million in infrastructure improvements.


Meanwhile, a congressman in the next county had this to say:



> But not everyone is on board with the idea. When I first did this story back in May, Representative Stephen Bloom, ® 199th District, tweeted at me, “For the taxpayer-subsidized cost, we'd probably come out way ahead by simply giving each of the riders Uber vouchers instead.”


A representative from a town right next to Harrisburg doesn't think it is worth it. Do you honestly think he'd vote for a restoration of the the Broadway Limited? With this kind of mindset and no guarantee that funds exist for corridor service, we are trying to hold on to existing service.



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I hear so much about fighting to keep or expand Byrd Crap. Can we do that and meaningfully expand (and service to Roanoke isn't meaningful to most of us outside of Roanoke)? "The best cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak?" Wake me when some "more" Amtrak comes.


You ask for more service and when someone shows it to you, you whine and become dismissive. Roanoke is MORE Amtrak and is an example of what happens when a state is concerned with service.

Pennsylvania is looking at a 100 million dollar bribe (see, there's another use for the 500 million spent on the racetrack) to restore a route for a second train, plus another 4-6 million to operate on a route that had a second train until 1995.

Need something else to wake you up? Since the Broadway was cut in 1995, the Three Rivers came and went. Meanwhile, The Heartland Flyer began in 1999, The Montrealer was cut but The Vermonter assumed its place in 1995, the Palmetto was cut and restored, The Downeasters began service in 2001, The Lynchburg service began in 2009, Norfolk service began in 2012, The Acela Express service debuted in 2001, effectively doubling service to New England, The San Joaquins and Michigan Services expanded.

Let's talk about the Ethan Allen. Vermont (spurred on by the Vermonter) added service to the area for the first time since 1953 in 1996. Vermont has proposed withdrawing funding for the train on a few occasions, but each time their efforts were rebuffed. Not only did they contribute, they teamed with Amtrak and New York to fund upgrades. As such, instead of cutting the train, they are funding an extension to Burlington. If this occurs, it will bring train service to an area that hasn't had trains since 1953!

So don't say there isn't more Amtrak. You just chose to ignore it since it doesn't pass through your backyard. Have you written your Congressman and asked them to eliminate the arbitrary 750 rule? Have you written your state to ask for the to press for more service to your state? Have you written Stephen Bloom and asked him if he intends to block restoration of a second train to PGH? Hell, representatives that are literally around the corner from the state capital are loath to support a train that could benefit them.

Maybe more Amtrak will come when your neighborhood when your own neighbors rally behind it..instead of against it.



Chessie said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > So, we need to reply to one inaccurate, obnoxious post with another?
> ...


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 10, 2017)

Thirdrail7 said:


> You ask for more service and when someone shows it to you, you whine and become dismissive. Roanoke is MORE Amtrak and is an example of what happens when a state is concerned with service.
> 
> Pennsylvania is looking at a 100 million dollar bribe (see, there's another use for the 500 million spent on the racetrack) to restore a route for a second train, plus another 4-6 million to operate on a route that had a second train until 1995.
> 
> ...


When service is reinstated and cut later then while it is a temporary gain the net result in the long run is none. The Palmetto? You think replacing a train that went to Florida with a train that stops in Savannah is a net gain? You think having the Vermonter replace the Montrealer is a net gain? Does the Heartland Flyer help anyone other than Oklahoma? Of course I am selfish but how many of you outside of the state of Oklahoma have even visited there? How many of you outside of the Northeast have visited Vermont? I will admit they have done good things in Michigan. Of course, Amtrak could reward them by giving them an LD train to get to the East Coast (or at least to Toledo like the Lake Cities) but no. The bottom line of what is "meaningful" to me is "how many people live there and how many people want to go there?", not "does it benefit Philly?" I hope they restart Gulf Coast service. I won't likely use it, but it is a link between Florida and New Orleans and even though it would still require an overnight stay would help Florida residents get closer to Texas/California and the other way around.

I don't mind Vermonter, Ethan Allen, Heartland Flyer, etc because while as you pointed out federal tax dollars do support state supported services, a large majority is state funded ("The Keystone Service and Pennsylvanian are financed primarily through funds made available by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.") You may be paying federal tax money towards the Pennsylvanian but unless you live in PA, you're not paying state taxes while I am. On the other hand, West Virginia residents pay ZERO state taxes on the Cardinal so all of us are paying the same federal taxes on the train even though WV benefits from it far more than the rest of us. So there is a big difference between state funded and federal funded service and it doesn't change the fact that if Pennsylvania stops funding the Pennsylvanian it goes away.

In the past, I have heard jjs say (without prompting from me) that he considered it a mistake to kill the BL and questioned Congress's intentions to kill it before it was killed. At least he gets it. Others still would like to see it back. My impression from you has been us in PA deserved to lose the BL and we should've done more to save it. Do you even care it's gone or care if it ever comes back? Do you even want the through cars implemented? You sound like you don't, in fact you sound like you're glad it's gone. If you're trying to change my selfish behavior, pitting the BL on us is only going to make me more selfish. You want me to care that some of you may lose your train, how many of you cared at all that we lost ours? How many of you have lost your #1 train like I have? Maybe if you did, you'd understand my behavior more.

As for contacting Congress/PA government, most contact from a single person goes in one ear and out the other. Even a few NARP campaigns have fallen on deaf ears. If I thought I could make a difference, I would. BTW, I did email Senator Casey and actually got a response back (although i am not sure it was him or one of his staffers).


----------



## ehbowen (Jul 10, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> How many of you have lost your #1 train like I have?


Please look up _Lone Star;_ see also Houston extension of the _Texas Eagle._ Hear me whining about it (much)?

By the way, I miss the _Broadway Limited_ as well; I had a memorable trip over it in 1985 and I consider it the preferred routing from Chicago to most of the East Coast. I would be all in favor of any serious proposal to restore service. But to restore it at the cost of losing what now is an admittedly skeletal but nonetheless usable national rail system...no. Give me Minot, Alpine, Klamath Falls, Texarkana, and all the rest. "More Amtrak", as far as I'm concerned, means *more Amtrak*, not less. Of course, I would trade it for a restructuring of the legal and financial incentives which would make it attractive and profitable for the private railroads to return to operating passenger services....


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 10, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> When service is reinstated and cut later then while it is a temporary gain the net result in the long run is none. The Palmetto? You think replacing a train that went to Florida with a train that stops in Savannah is a net gain? You think having the Vermonter replace the Montrealer is a net gain?


That's not true when trains like the Vermonter realigned the route and add stops that previously had not been served. As for the Palmetto, the concept of this thread is to restructure Amtrak to make it less dependent on funds. What happened to the Palmetto is a classic example of that concept. When the Palmetto operated to JAX, it covered its costs. When the Palmetto was extended as part of a Florida realignment, it LOST MILLIONS. As such, it was canceled and restored as a JAX, then SAV train that once again started bleeding less money. I consider it a net gain for everyone because they have more options and that makes them more likely to use the train. The ridership shows as much. FYI, at some point this decade, restoration to FLA was once again analyzed and it would still bleed money...even though it wouldn't have a dining car.

Besides, you asked for more Amtrak. Restoration of canceled service is more Amtrak. I don;t think it is enough Amtrak, but it is more Amtrak.



> Of course I am selfish but how many of you outside of the state of Oklahoma have even visited there? How many of you outside of the Northeast have visited Vermont? I will admit they have done good things in Michigan. Of course, Amtrak could reward them by giving them an LD train to get to the East Coast (or at least to Toledo like the Lake Cities) but no. The bottom line of what is "meaningful" to me is "how many people live there and how many people want to go there?", not "does it benefit Philly?" I hope they restart Gulf Coast service. I won't likely use it, but it is a link between Florida and New Orleans and even though it would still require an overnight stay would help Florida residents get closer to Texas/California and the other way around.


You are definitely selfish but that doesn't make you a bad person or unreasonable. Most of us are selfish or have selfish tendencies. Your snobby, ,suburban soft attitude is what does you and your arguments in. As I'm fond of saying, meaningful is subjective. Do you think people that visit Thurmond (the town that basically has 500 times its population utilizing the service) gives a hoot about the Keystone Upgrades? Do you think they want a multi-billion tunnel going through Baltimore when they can't even get daily service? Do you think passengers in Texas and OK want to pay the full costs of their service while passengers on the NEC get a free pass? How many of them are going to Philadelphia? How many of them are going to Baltimore? How many of the are going to Mystic, Kingston or Elizabethtown? Why does someone in Hawaii have to subsidize the Auto Train?

Who are you to take away from other taxpayers and give to others? Are you Robin Hood? Are you a Congress person? That's their job and they do it well enough! Why is it satisfactory for you to be selfish but everyone else has to acquiesce to the fund sucking NEC and any other service you "deem" acceptable? It is this line of thinking that brought us the PRIIA funding formula. The whining about what am I getting for my money and why am I paying for such and such.

Along those lines, let's address this:



> I don't mind Vermonter, Ethan Allen, Heartland Flyer, etc because while as you pointed out federal tax dollars do support state supported services, a large majority is state funded ("The Keystone Service and Pennsylvanian are financed primarily through funds made available by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.") You may be paying federal tax money towards the Pennsylvanian but unless you live in PA, you're not paying state taxes while I am. On the other hand, West Virginia residents pay ZERO state taxes on the Cardinal so all of us are paying the same federal taxes on the train even though WV benefits from it far more than the rest of us. So there is a big difference between state funded and federal funded service and it doesn't change the fact that if Pennsylvania stops funding the Pennsylvanian it goes away.


That is hogwash and you know it. For the taxes most of the country pays, they get 2 trains a day....if they're lucky. Some may get a little more service and some may get slightly less service. The same federal taxes that West Virginia and Montana pays contributed to the Keystone Corridor. Hell, Wyoming, Alaska and South Dakota help pay for the Keystone and NEC upgrades and they don't have ANY service.

So, once again I'll say, let's not get it twisted. Your state taxes primarily fund the service. For your contribution, you have 120 trains pass through your area. However, the rest of the nation is financing THE MAJORITY of the infrastructure costs that ALLOWS PA to fund the Keystones. How many trains would PA be able to operate if the rest of the nations wasn't paying the BILLIONS it takes to operate, maintain and support their portion of the NEC (as suggested by the Amtrak Reform Council of 1997) and Keystone service?

I notice you ALWAYS gloss right over that factoid. The reality of the situation is your fares should be a lot higher, your taxes should be a lot higher to cover the service patterns you and the rest of the NEC rider have. You should consider yourself LUCKY that the Northeast Coalition channeled their inner Senator Byrd and got the NEC EXEMPT from the 750 mile rule!



Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> In the past, I have heard jjs say (without prompting from me) that he considered it a mistake to kill the BL and questioned Congress's intentions to kill it before it was killed. At least he gets it. Others still would like to see it back. My impression from you has been us in PA deserved to lose the BL and we should've done more to save it. Do you even care it's gone or care if it ever comes back? Do you even want the through cars implemented? You sound like you don't, in fact you sound like you're glad it's gone.


Whether I care or don't care is quite irrelevant. However, since you're not know for your reading or searching skills, I'll let you know that I've had these types of discussions long before you decided to sign up with your singular message. I think you would enjoy the topic in which I made a post regarding which of the of Chicago trains I would have liked to preserve.. I've mentioned my opinion know to you on this board. It can also be found  on my wish list.

I



> If you're trying to change my selfish behavior, pitting the BL on us is only going to make me more selfish. You want me to care that some of you may lose your train, how many of you cared at all that we lost ours? How many of you have lost your #1 train like I have? Maybe if you did, you'd understand my behavior more.


Here's  another conversation that basically sums up everything I stated here. This time, the target was the Downeasters, which is a service I don't use. I don't like so see any trains cut and I don't necessarily mind selfishness but it shouldn't come at the expense of others. As you can see, my selfishness would eliminate the Downeasters and Pigeon. Why? I want the Cape Codder back. I want the Montrealer back, I want the Auto Train to venture further north/east. I want the Silver Star to serve ST Pete. I want the Gulf Breeze to return.

I also wanted a pony when I was young.

However, I do care about of eliminating service that people actually care about and fight to preserve. So when you ask if I think if Pa could have done more to save it, the answer is a resounding yes. I think they could also do more to resurrect as many of the other states did. However, the states that it would serve have shown minimal desire for it to return. the ADMIN on the other board asked you to cite or link anything concrete that the legislators have done to restore service. He's asked for polls or anything other than All Aboard Ohio or a blog that shows the interest. It is minimal. let's even look at your contribution:

.



> As for contacting Congress/PA government, most contact from a single person goes in one ear and out the other. Even a few NARP campaigns have fallen on deaf ears. If I thought I could make a difference, I would. BTW, I did email Senator Casey and actually got a response back (although i am not sure it was him or one of his staffers).


That's true but clearly you have given up. You have a neighbor that poo-poos the second PGH frequency and you expect us to feel sorry for your plight and steal someones train. You also expect us to attack the trains that exist because they don't fit your narrow vision.

Feel free to be selfish. However, most are tired of hearing it when the reality of the situation is your state gets a HUGE bargain and doesn't lobby for additional long distance service.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jul 10, 2017)

I'm not losing my western connections from MSP.


----------



## west point (Jul 10, 2017)

We actually have no idea what the traffic on various LD trains would be. Example -- Have not seen any advertisements for the Crescent here in years. How many persons on the Cardinal route have seen any ads ? Yet Crescent ( WASH <> ATL ) & Cardinal ( 2nd sleeper this summer ) are selling out many times in sleepers. Maybe the Cardinal if equipment was available one additional train set could make it daily for the summer season ? ( Of course the extra T&E persons would probably cost too much ) ? Have no

idea.. It all comes down to more equipment is needed now. What with the very long delays by CAF and the Nippon (N-S) meltdown Amtrak might have to consider robbing one train for another !f a major incident sidelines some cars ?


----------



## jis (Jul 10, 2017)

If just availability of equipment was the issue for making the Cardinal daily, they could easily have done so for the period 10 July through 1 Sept. But clearly there are other issues like the pound of flesh that CSX might want to extract. Nothing is as simple as that. Equipment is one of the issues, but not the only one.


----------



## west point (Jul 10, 2017)

Absolutely CSX is a problem for daily Cardinal. What we here believe is that there is not any equipment for a daily Cardinal. For instance where would you get 2 V-1 sleepers ? Rob the LSL or Meteor ? If V-2 sleepers had been available ? LD coaches ? Baggage ? Coaches might be available but probably Amfleet -1s ?


----------



## jis (Jul 10, 2017)

Only someone like Thirdrail can provide an informed assessment of that. What we believe here is 50% nonsense based on nothing anyway. So it may or may not be right.  Notwithstanding that some of the discussions are fun


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Jul 11, 2017)

west point said:


> Absolutely CSX is a problem for daily Cardinal. What we here believe is that there is not any equipment for a daily Cardinal. For instance where would you get 2 V-1 sleepers ? Rob the LSL or Meteor ? If V-2 sleepers had been available ? LD coaches ? Baggage ? Coaches might be available but probably Amfleet -1s ?





jis said:


> Only someone like Thirdrail can provide an informed assessment of that. What we believe here is 50% nonsense based on nothing anyway. So it may or may not be right.  Notwithstanding that some of the discussions are fun



If you reduced the Cardinal to one sleeper, utilized a diner lite, eliminated the 18 seat club "business class" and took the risk being short during disruptions, you could run a daily Cardinal with the existing fleet. This is particularly true now that the Cardinal's consist mirrors the Silver Star consist. IF you really had an issue, you could break up the first inbound( usually 98) and make up 51. When 50 arrives that night, you could reimburse 97.

Your protection is slim but it is doable.

You'd still have the problems with reverse flow of the Buckingham Branch, particularly if coal makes even a small comeback.


----------



## neroden (Jul 11, 2017)

Tarm said:


> Neroden: I could not agree with you more on the need of Amtrak to own or at least control the tracks it runs on so you have given me an idea, (you'll hate it.)
> 
> The SL host railroad wanted $750 million in capital payments to increase the SL from 3X to daily or $187.5 million a day. They have now set the market. So they should be willing to pay 3 X $187.5 million or $562.5 million to get rid of it.


You know, it would actually be interesting to see how much UP would offer in exchange for discontinuing the Sunset. What I'd propose if I were suggesting such a thing is running the Texas Eagle "around the corner" from San Antonio through Houston to New Orleans. Why? There seems to be no political support for the Sunset Limited in California, none in Phoenix, very little in Tucson or El Paso, none in West Texas, none in San Antonio, and very low support in Houston -- but there is support between Houston and New Orleans. And some people would take Houston-Austin or Houston-Dallas if it were daily, even if it is circuitous.

I unfortunately suspect that UP would suddenly turn around and not offer anywhere NEAR $560 million.  Their daily Sunset number was a bit dishonest, a gross overestimate. If they were being asked to pay up to remove the Sunset Limited, I suspect they would suddenly go all lowball on us.

The idea of seeing whether they'd entertain a high-priced buyout of the politically least popular line in the couuntry is an interesting one though. At the very least it might call their bluff and force them to turn around and start talking about how easy it is for them to host Amtrak and how little trouble it is.


----------



## neroden (Jul 11, 2017)

Thirdrail7 said:


> You'd still have the problems with reverse flow of the Buckingham Branch, particularly if coal makes even a small comeback.


It won't. To be more specific, thermal coal from the Appalachians is dead and will only decline from here on. (Yes, that's highly specific. I've spent a lot of time looking at energy economics. Appalachian coal is simply price uncompetitive for power production now.)

Met coal is very low volume. And if Illinois or western coal is imported to the east coast (unlikely) it isn't going to take this route.

It's time to start planning for the point when CSX tries to get rid of the Cardinal route through abandonment, downgrading, or sale to shortlines. With the end of West Virginia thermal coal business, they WILL try to do this. It would be good to be amassing a political coalition and possible sources of money to buy the line. That might be the real big opportunity for Amtrak on the Cardinal route -- let's not miss it.


----------



## Tarm (Jul 12, 2017)

neroden said:


> Tarm said:
> 
> 
> > Neroden: I could not agree with you more on the need of Amtrak to own or at least control the tracks it runs on so you have given me an idea, (you'll hate it.)
> ...


Now you're talking! The most valuable part of a discontinued LD train is not the saved operating cost but the value of the slot it opens up for the host railroad. So 187.5 million dollars divided by the SL1995 miles = $93,750 per train mile. Is this reasonable? It has been said on this site that an Amtrak train affects its host railroad from two hours before to two hours after its passing. Four hours total or 1/6th of the day. So $93,750 X 6 = $562,500. Can you build a mile of railroad track for $562,500? NO! In the case of the SL no money needs to change hands. So Amtrak goes to UP and offers "We will discontinue the 3X SL west of Houston, (4896 train miles per week,) if you increase NO to HOU from 3X to 14X, (3993 train miles per week.) Deal? Which schedule do you think would have the most passenger miles? Which would have the lower operating cost?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 12, 2017)

Tarm said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Tarm said:
> ...


The problem I have and what I think the freight railroads would also see as a problem is that it is simply not only a function of train miles, as there are intangible and unquantifiable issues like choke point congestion, terminal congestion, terminal delays, and many more that are different for each and every route... adding a train can cause so much of a headache in these areas that the freight lines are correct in asking for capital upgrades in those areas to help facilitate the new train. Look at whitefish and havre Montana as examples of where BNSF would likely ask for upgrades if anyone were to propose a second empire builder.


----------



## railgeekteen (Mar 23, 2018)

Tarm said:


> The US federal government is running a 500 billion dollar a year annual budget deficit. The national debt is approaching 20 trillion dollars. Discretionary spending is getting squeezed by rising entitlements. I fear that one day Congress will decide that Amtrak is something the nation can no longer afford.
> 
> Passenger rail is a niche product. It best serves the 100 mile to 400 mile trip segment. For shorter trips the flexibility of automobiles comes into play and for longer trips the speed of aircraft wins out. To be successful each transportation method must fit its market.
> 
> ...


In your proposal, Houston, New Orleans, and Dallas lose service, as well as the states of North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kansas, and New Mexico. This is so bad that you might as well have been drawing routes from a hat.


----------

