Do we need "Long Distance " trains?

[crescent-zephyr]

The Skeena works because it is mostly a tourist-populated train.

There are probably routes in the US where the same thing could exist, maybe prosper. The key would be heavy promotion as a tourist excursion, careful choice of the intermediate stopover cities and hotel/dining availability (both cities and venues need to be fabulous enough to attract the tourists!), and decent food served on board during the daytime hours the trains are making miles.

But as basic transportation? Others here have described the folly well.

Also... the Skeena isn’t profitable is it?

 

[jis]

Also... the Skeena isn’t profitable is it?

Revenue C$1.4 Million, Loss C$8.4 Million in 2019

But its performance has been marginally improving over the last ten or so years.

 

[Qapla]

Many Gov't entities and departments do not make a profit - they are still funded as needed to continue operation ... why should Amtrak be any different?

 

[railiner]

Many Gov't entities and departments do not make a profit - they are still funded as needed to continue operation ... why should Amtrak be any different?

Besides the Postal Service, which government entities are you referring to?

 

[Qapla]

I'm sure I can't name them all ... just off the top of my head:

• FCC
• SEC
• Army
• Navy
• Congress itself
• Whitehouse Maintenance
• Secret Service

and no one should say they are "different" because they are not supposed to make a profit because they are not a "business" - Amtrak and the Post Office should not be considered businesses either - they are a "service" just like many of the other services.

 

[Cal]

and no one should say they are "different" because they are not supposed to make a profit because they are not a "business" - Amtrak and the Post Office should not be considered businesses either - they are a "service" just like many of the other services.

Sadly, America doesn't seem to get that. Which is why we have the Amtrak we have today.

 

[MARC Rider]

Why is it that people who claim to be passenger rail enthusiasts spend such an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out how to make the service worse? Seems like some kind of a Stockholm Syndrome or something, possibly worthy of a learned psychological study.

Actually, I was just being a devil's advocate on this. Of course, they should keep the existing through runs. But they should also add daylight runs along the route, too. If they did that, I would consider taking the more leisurely daytime service, for example, a trip to Chicago by taking a day train the Cleveland, spend the night in Cleveland, and then take another day train the next morning to Chicago. Time-wise it's not that much different from driving to Chicago, except if I were driving, I'd probably be able to make it to Toledo before I wanted to find a motel. Of course, the main clientele for such day trains wouldn't be train nerds like me who would enjoy seeing the whole route in daylight. But it would be cool if they put a sightseer lounge on the Washington-Cleveland day train.

 

[MARC Rider]

I'm sure I can't name them all ... just off the top of my head:

• FCC
• SEC
• Army
• Navy
• Congress itself
• Whitehouse Maintenance
• Secret Service

and no one should say they are "different" because they are not supposed to make a profit because they are not a "business" - Amtrak and the Post Office should not be considered businesses either - they are a "service" just like many of the other services.

Don't forget:

EPA
Social Security Administration
USGS (everybody likes good maps!)
National Park Service
FAA

etc., etc..

 

[MARC Rider]

I will also mention that the last few times I've ridden through Chicago, I've scheduled in an overnight stay. I started doing it after the NS meltdown when there were monumental delays and lots of misconnects (which I never experience, but also never wanted to.) I did it once so I could catch the Cardinal, but, in general, I find it makes the trip more relaxing not to have to worry about my connection. And on the trip for the 2019 Gathering, I'm glad I was hanging around Chicago, where 911 took me to Northwestern Memorial Hospital when I had my little Bell's Palsy crisis rather than being on the Texas Eagle somewhere in the middle of the Ozarks in the middle of the night. And when they finally discharged me from the hospital, I didn't have to deal with a missed train, but rather just went to my hotel and had a good night's sleep.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

No need for elaborate meal arrangements, nor sleeping cars...

So anything more complicated than Stouffer's is considered "elaborate" now?

Overall, the individal's journey will take longer, as one is not travelling at night, but it seems to offer a sensible alternative to silly sleeper car prices, and yeuky food?

You've told us you do not travel by sleeper or eat in the diner so how does this affect you and why would you care?

Do we need "Long Distance" trains?

Who is "we" in this sentence? All of these trains & stations are thousands of miles away from you. If you're going to volunteer to give away services other people clearly want while having little or no skin in the game be honest about it.

 

[Ryan]

Revenue C$1.4 Million, Loss C$8.4 Million in 2019

But its performance has been marginally improving over the last ten or so years.

Many Gov't entities and departments do not make a profit - they are still funded as needed to continue operation ... why should Amtrak be any different?

The government isn't in the business of subsidizing leisure. We find value in the government entities you mention outside of profit, they are what is required to have a functioning society (and I would absolutely include the transportation-providing aspect of what Amtrak provides as a part of that). Adding some daytime only land cruise should have to stand on its own merits and earn a profit, or fall by the wayside.

 

[Qapla]

I never said/indicated/agreed with/endorsed an "all sleeper" train ... all coach, maybe

 

[Cal]

I never said/indicated/agreed with/endorsed an "all sleeper" train ... all coach, maybe

I mean.

I wouldn't endorse either

 

[fdaley]

The government isn't in the business of subsidizing leisure.

What about the National Park Service?

 

[Mailliw]

To me personally the ability to travel at night while sleeping comfortably is a huge practical advantage of long distance train travel.

What about the National Park Service?

Or museums, zoos, and municipal golf courses?

 

[Trogdor]

What about the National Park Service?

They also have this fairly minor role of preserving natural (and cultural) resources, which are significant to the environmental and social preservation of our country.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Many Gov't entities and departments do not make a profit - they are still funded as needed to continue operation ... why should Amtrak be any different?

Maybe not make a profit but if they lose money and depend on funding guess where the funding comes from? You can say you don't have a problem paying for Amtrak but ask the people of Columbus, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Louisville who are paying for no Amtrak or the people of Cleveland and Cincinnati who are paying for only graveyard shift Amtrak service.

 

[MARC Rider]

The government isn't in the business of subsidizing leisure.

National Parks Service?
(Darn it., I really need to read all the replies before I post. Someone beat me to it.)

 

[railiner]

Perhaps the question should be, should the government be in the business of subsidizing leisure?

 

[Exvalley]

Perhaps the question should be, should the government be in the business of subsidizing leisure?

I view the National Park service somewhat differently due to the preservation component. Whether or not the lands are used for leisure, it's important to preserve these lands from development.

 

[Mailliw]

Maybe not make a profit but if they lose money and depend on funding guess where the funding comes from? You can say you don't have a problem paying for Amtrak but ask the people of Columbus, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Louisville who are paying for no Amtrak or the people of Cleveland and Cincinnati who are paying for only graveyard shift Amtrak service.

That's a good argument for expanding Amtrak service. Which many of these communities could have if their state legislatures supported it.

 

[jis]

Before even thinking of all Sleeper trains there must exist cost effective Sleeper service, something that is currently unheard of in the US.

Once you have that then all these arguments about Sleeper service being luxury simply vaporizes into thin air.

The argument that no one will use a cost effective Sleeper service because it does not have privacy or what not has got to be an elitist railfan position. It cannot possibly be true for the general public who would go through incredible pains to get the lowest fares and suffer through multiple indignities in the process. This may be another case where the railfan's unrealistic desires are holding back progress in the growth of passenger rail in the US.

 

[tomfuller]

I view the National Park service somewhat differently due to the preservation component. Whether or not the lands are used for leisure, it's important to preserve these lands from development.

This will be my 10th summer (hopefully last) as a United States Forest Service fire lookout. I like to think that the little one or two tree lightning caused fires I report save more than my pay in extinction costs. If they went unreported until they were many acres the cost multiplies. The major trail that runs through many National Forests including the Deschutes where I work is the Pacific Crest Trail which runs from the Mexico border to the Canadian border. There are many trails that connect to it.
It does get very expensive when air drops are made on fires. I've watched an air tanker fly past my tower that came all the way from Nevada to central Oregon to put a load on a fire that I called in.

 

[Deni]

Before even thinking of all Sleeper trains there must exist cost effective Sleeper service, something that is currently unheard of in the US.

Once you have that then all these arguments about Sleeper service being luxury simply vaporizes into thin air.

The argument that no one will use a cost effective Sleeper service because it does not have privacy or what not has got to be an elitist railfan position. It cannot possibly be true for the general public who would go through incredible pains to get the lowest fares and suffer through multiple indignities in the process. This may be another case where the railfan's unrealistic desires are holding back progress in the growth of passenger rail in the US.

I've posted similar argument before, the idea that "Americans won't go for that" has always struck me as so false. Americans traveling overseas do it all the time.

 

[Qapla]

Americans would go for lowering the prices of the existing sleeper service