Where to begin...
I have given comprehensive reasons in the other thread where this has been posted as to why I believe this claim about Marshall Plan having anything to do with major basic reconstruction of the European network is bunk. However, he seems tio be unwilling to enter into a constructive discussion about the validity or lack thereof of that bit of rewriting of history.
It is my slant and I do own it. I stand by my article. That article has been published in numerous venues and the overwhelming favorable responses outnumber the very few (just two of you) negative responses.
Your 'comprehensive reasons' have been countered in the other thread. Constructive discussion can be had if you set aside your 'romance of the rails' and look objectively and realistically at the state of rail travel in this country. Passenger railroads can only compete with the airlines in the 500 mile and under market. Transcontinental trains should be operated as sightseeing excursions in the summer months only.
Why should transcontinental trains be cut? If the infrastructure is maintained to passenger quality for sightseeing excurisions, than it would not cost much extra to run the trains year-round. If you travelled extensively by long distance train, you would know that they are often sold out or very close to it, even during times other than the summer. Planes are the primary way of getting coast to coast, but trains and highways are also used by people for various reasons. You also must remember that many of the passengers travel to large urban intermediate cities or towns without convenient airplane access. That is why it makes sense to run trains on the NEC Boston to Washington rather than just two separate lines out of New York. Most people on those trains are not travelling the full route, but instead boarding in places like New York and Philadelphia. However, it still makes sense to run trains the whole way to introduce more city pairs. The same concept is applied to long distance trains. By your logic, why don't we just stop funding all roads in the rural west? They, in the same way as long distance trains, connect urban centers and are important to people living in certain rural areas. Just because planes get more passengers than the trains does not mean that the trains should be discontinued.
False. The passenger trains' primary competition is not the airplane but the automobile.
It does not cost that much to run long distance trains year round? There is a thread on here where a long distance train is 40 hours late is there not? I assume there are attendant expenses that are out of the norm i.e. bus transportation, refunds, hotel rooms etc. for those situations that occur frequently in the winter months. It does cost that much more to run long distance trains (Chicago to California) in the fall(snow),winter(snow), spring (washouts) months.
How can you pronounce something false that was not said? Who said anything about automobiles versus trains?
There is also a thread on here that shows that much of the costs accosiated with long distance trains would not go away and would simply be reallocated if the LDs were stopped. I believe the subsidy that would be eliminated would only be about $59 million. That number becomes even less when you factor in that infrastructure must be maintained and employees must be paid for your summer excursion trips.
Yes the monies could be reallocated to good use in the 500 mile and under market where trains with their midtown to midtown service can compete with the airlines.
The railroads must be maintained to passenger standards; PTC may also be an issue in the coming years. In addition, stations must be maintained if they will be used during the summer season. Although this is not related to infrastructure, what would you plan on doing with the equipment during the rest of the year? You are clearly trying to appeal to tourists, so I don't think standard regional equipment would be operated on a summer excursion train.
What do you base your money prognostications on? Are you privy to the inner financial workings of Amtrak or are you speculating? I stand by my statements that Amtrak can only compete in the 500 mile and under market and that transcontinental trains are dinosaurs and should be operated only in the summer(warmer) months.
Exactly. Had they been riding the Zephyr instead of relying on their own transportation, there would have been no disaster. But you cancelled the train during the off season and cannibalized the equipment for other routes, leaving them to their fate.
You seem to be misunderstanding my posts. Where do I state that any of that equipment, i.e. Superliners, be used on the NEC? What I stated was "the 'center to center trains' can be operated with the equipment that is not being used on the transcontinentals.' I was referring to the heavily traveled segments of the transcontinental routes.
The long-distance (LD) trains lose money (on fully allocated costs), anything further is just speculation and guesswork based on limited access to (possibly inaccurate) financial data which paint an incomplete and thus misleading picture. In fairness, however to those making the calculations, I am anxious to see the breakdown of Short Term Avoidable Costs (STAC) when that methodology is available. Done fairly and equitably, we should have a much clearer picture of just how the LD services are performing.
It's not a race; No single mode of transport 'wins' anything. Prospective passengers chose a mode of travel based on a host of factors, and not just which is quickest or least expensive. You have people flying the 225 miles from Washington to New York while others drive (or take the train or bus) for trips over 1,000 miles. There further remains the matter of matching capacity to demand; You don't need much of a market share to sell out one train a day - a few hundred seats at prevailing market prices (I would have thought that last part went without saying, but apparently not).
So you are agreeing that service should be increased because more than a few hundred people a day are traveling between Chicago and Denver and Chicago and Kansas City?
Fully allocated costs are speculation and guesswork. Amtrak has never properly documented its allocation methods, and there's ample evidence that they're arbitrary (i.e. guesswork).
The fully allocated costs are certainly incomplete and misleading.
Me too! Amtrak was required to provide that information 9 years ago and haven't done so yet. At this point, I have to conclude they're not going to provide it. I'm not sure whether this is because they're trying to hide something, or because they simply haven't paid their accounting people enough to actually do the work.
Yeah, I'd love to see this.
This entirely.
Tell that to the consistently-sell-out crowds on the train there.Casey Jones said:
Tell that to the consistently-sell-out crowds on the train there. That's facts, and you're using hypotheticals based on your personal biases.Casey Jones said:
A Voice said:
Yes and yes (though I don't have it available within seconds, I *have* researched this in the past; there is significant unserved demand). Are you remotely interested in seeing data or are you just going to continue with your baseless, evidence-free speculation?
Please produce the "facts"you say you possess on the Chicago to Denver and Chicago to Kansas City services. No bias here just realism.
