Is the lounge car important to you or your trip?

[Qapla]

how do the Chinese and the Russians manage

The Chinese and Russian government owns the rails ... and may also own the trains ... giving them total control of who runs what, when and where in a rail system they generously fund.

In the US, the freight companies own most of the tracks and the freight trains ... giving these "freight for profit" companies control over the who runs what, when and where ... allowing them to dictate to the underfunded government owned passenger trains a less than optimal schedule.

 

[jis]

The Chinese and Russian government owns the rails ... and may also own the trains ... giving them total control of who runs what, when and where in a rail system they generously fund.

In the US, the freight companies own most of the tracks and the freight trains ... giving these "freight for profit" companies control over the who runs what, when and where ... allowing them to dictate to the underfunded government owned passenger trains a less than optimal schedule.

Wait, so your position really isn't that freight trains must be eliminated. It is more about what operational goals should be met by the track owning companies. Which seems to be similar to what I was saying. The fact that it is hard to achieve in the US is arguably a serious governance problem peculiar to the setup in the US.

 

[iplaybass]

Focusing on safety, OTP, cleanliness, friendly service and modern tech is important. Anything that doesn't directly support those objectives isn't important. Anything that distracts attention from those objectives or presents a needless point of failure that could prevent achieving those objectives should be eliminated.

Amtrak will never be Japan Rail, or comparable to European or Chinese (PRC or ROC) railroads. But those examples show that an excellent transportation service 1. does not depend on lounges or on board kitchens, or even on board food service in many cases, and 2. is safe, clean and on time, with professional and courteous staff and up to date technology.

1. The US will NEVER have a rail service comparable to Japan/Europe/et al. Our rail model doesn't allow for that. Our population density (except for a few locations) doesn't fit that model. Finally, our geographic expanse doesn't fit that model.

The hub/spoke rail model (since you show this as the one Amtrak should emulate) only works when you have several small towns near an urban center. The railroad can focus on point to point delivery of passengers between urban centers, and the spokes run with enough traffic to the urban centers to justify the service frequency. Driving is a much less popular option, which affects both hub service (grade crossings are few, allowing higher speeds due to dedicated right of way) and sending passengers to the spoke line.

True high speed rail reduces the need for in-train amenities. Short (<4 hours, for argument's sake) trips don't need food services-in-station pickup before boarding works fine. The longer the trip, the more critical the amenities. I'd hate to try CHI-LAX without a meal or a drink or a place to go that is not my designated/chosen seat.

You can argue that Amtrak needs to focus on the transportation aspect of being a common carrier, and that's an accurate statement. However, to state that nothing else should matter ignores the unique environment and requirements of US train travel.

 

[Skyline]

Back before his untimely demise, US Sen. John Heinz (R-PA) proposed nationalizing all or most tracks on a par with Federal ownership or at least Federal oversight of the US Highway Interstate system. This still makes a lot of sense.

Then, any rail carrier would only need to pay to use those tracks. They no longer would have to maintain the infrastructure; presumably user fees would cover a lot of it. As a necessary public "utility," the Federal government, perhaps with State and Local governments, would also contribute to costs.

In such a scenario, it is conceivable passenger rail (local, state, interstate) could be given a higher position when traffic scheduling is decided. No longer would a single host railroad do so based mostly on their own profit motives. And under this scenario, where new tracks need to be added due to capacity (often to replace those abandoned by said profit-oriented railroads) this could be a long term national priority.

There are lots of win-wins in this view. Sen. Heinz knew what he was talking about.

 

[me_little_me]

Back before his untimely demise, US Sen. John Heinz (R-PA) proposed nationalizing all or most tracks on a par with Federal ownership or at least Federal oversight of the US Highway Interstate system. This still makes a lot of sense.

Then, any rail carrier would only need to pay to use those tracks. They no longer would have to maintain the infrastructure; presumably user fees would cover a lot of it. As a necessary public "utility," the Federal government, perhaps with State and Local governments, would also contribute to costs.

In such a scenario, it is conceivable passenger rail (local, state, interstate) could be given a higher position when traffic scheduling is decided. No longer would a single host railroad do so based mostly on their own profit motives. And under this scenario, where new tracks need to be added due to capacity (often to replace those abandoned by said profit-oriented railroads) this could be a long term national priority.

There are lots of win-wins in this view. Sen. Heinz knew what he was talking about.

That works to a certain extent but brings up other issues - political ones.

If the local reps are in the party in power or are trading an important vote, then your state/community can get "tracks to nowhere", faster tracks, freight bypasses, bigger and longer sidings, etc. Otherwise, you may find yours are abandoned, downgraded, rarely repaired, bumpy, etc.

If the states have to share in the cost, some won't care that long distance freights or passenger trains need features you don't want to pay for. Unlike auto traffic, most rail is long distance and who in Montana cares that trains are slow when they may mostly consist of Chinese goods moving to Chicago. The only concerns are local farmers, mines, etc.

There is no "dispatching" to speak of on highways except in a few congested areas. So dispatching also needs to be government owned.

Just like the issue of privatizing vs government employees elsewhere, this issue will constantly arise.

The "cost" of maintenance and capital spending will become a more noticeable issue and people are less likely to support a budget that, in most cases, has little direct affect on them locally as do highways. That's why certain groups fight defense spending and others fight social spending. "I don't need it so why are we paying so much for it?" syndrome.

 

[Skyline]

That works to a certain extent but brings up other issues - political ones.

If the local reps are in the party in power or are trading an important vote, then your state/community can get "tracks to nowhere", faster tracks, freight bypasses, bigger and longer sidings, etc. Otherwise, you may find yours are abandoned, downgraded, rarely repaired, bumpy, etc.

If the states have to share in the cost, some won't care that long distance freights or passenger trains need features you don't want to pay for. Unlike auto traffic, most rail is long distance and who in Montana cares that trains are slow when they may mostly consist of Chinese goods moving to Chicago. The only concerns are local farmers, mines, etc.

There is no "dispatching" to speak of on highways except in a few congested areas. So dispatching also needs to be government owned.

Just like the issue of privatizing vs government employees elsewhere, this issue will constantly arise.

The "cost" of maintenance and capital spending will become a more noticeable issue and people are less likely to support a budget that, in most cases, has little direct affect on them locally as do highways. That's why certain groups fight defense spending and others fight social spending. "I don't need it so why are we paying so much for it?" syndrome.

I can't argue with some of your points. If he tried before that plane crash, I bet the late Sen. Heinz came up against some of them a generation ago. And here we are in 2019 with an even worse situation.

I don't have the detailed Proposal, but I'm sure dispatching was envisioned as part of it. It would have to be, with the private RRs out of the track ownership biz.

Yes, the government(s) and ultimately taxpayers are going to have to foot some of the administrative, maintenance, and dispatching costs. As they do for almost every other form of transportation. But relieved of these responsibilities, the private RRs should be expected to pay fairly for their being released from direct responsibility for them.

It would take a helluva PR effort to get this project passed. But it's worth resurrecting and trying.

 

[railiner]

Wasn’t public infrastructure / private trains, more or less tried in Britain?

And how is that going?

 

[ScouseAndy]

Wasn’t public infrastructure / private trains, more or less tried in Britain?

And how is that going?

Badly!! There is growing public opinion and pressure to nationalise the UK rail network. Especially as a larger and larger portion of UK rail is perceived to actually be owned and ran by EU nationalised rail companies such as SNCF, Tren Italia and DBahn.

 

[railiner]

Badly!! There is growing public opinion and pressure to nationalise the UK rail network. Especially as a larger and larger portion of UK rail is perceived to actually be owned and ran by EU nationalised rail companies such as SNCF, Tren Italia and DBahn.

Wait...not clear what you are saying...
The foreign roads own part of the infrastructure, or just some of the trains?

 

[jis]

1. The US will NEVER have a rail service comparable to Japan/Europe/et al. Our rail model doesn't allow for that. Our population density (except for a few locations) doesn't fit that model. Finally, our geographic expanse doesn't fit that model.

The population density east of the Mississippi is similar to that of France.

Russia's geographical size is to put it mildly - way greater than the US.

So while those are cliches rolled out by many in the US about why rail would not work in the US, they are factually not supportable as why passenger rail would not work anywhere in the US. Yes there are other factors in play, like an active anti-rail posture of the US establishment, but the cliched ones are not the primary ones, even though the first one is true in some part of the US, that should not be enough to paint all of the US with the same broad brush.

Even in Europe and the et. al. no one expects fast frequent rail service in the boonies. Even in France they have rail service that is only borderline usable, if that, and heavily subsidized by local governments, down in Southern France and the Pyrenees. And while Russia has great railway service in the European more densely populated parts, it is a completely different story in Siberia. So basically the same rules of having better rail service where population is denser applies pretty uniformly everywhere, and is really no different in the US.

And finally, this has nothing to do with lounge cars, so the discussion in this thread is misplaced, and I would invite the mods to hive this off to somewhere else or hide it.

 

[jis]

Wait...not clear what you are saying...
The foreign roads own part of the infrastructure, or just some of the trains?

Actually they own neither the infrastructure nor the trains in most cases. What they have are time limited franchises as part of consortia of which they are usually not majority participants. Often trains are leased from the so called ROSCOEs who actually own them. The infrastructure was nationalized a while back after the private run fiasco that it became. Some of the TOCs are run by the government too at this time (East Coast LNER). The West Coast franchise just went to a consortium First Group and Trenitalia in which Trenitalia is a minority (30%) stakeholder and fulfills the requirement that the bidders must have high speed rail operations experience.

Again, this has nothing to do with lounges, and belongs somewhere else.

 

[iplaybass]

Apologies for going off-topic. I did answer the question in my post. For a 6 hour trip, I don't need a lounge car. It's critical for an overnight trip with extended day travel. Even in a sleeper, I need somewhere other than my designated seat/room to be.

I would also say having food and drink options onboard is a required amenity for trips over 3 hours.

 

[Siegmund]

Returning to the original topic: yes, it's important to me. If the only amenity you offer is a seat, my choice between train plane and bus is just how comfortable the seat is and how fast it gets me there. The HUGE plus of a train is being able to get up, walk around, decide for yourself when you want a snack rather than waiting for the flight attendant to come down the aisle / waiting for a long stop at a bus station somewhere.

Running any train on a route longer than Chicago-Milwaukee or LA-San Diego without a food service car would be a big mistake. And the scenery viewing is a major plus - at least until we have Viewliner coaches, or glass ceilings in every car like the Princess cars on the Alaska Railroad, the big windows in the lounge car are a big draw. (For that matter, larger windows and avoiding the airliner-tube feel was a big plus of Superliner and Heritage coaches over Amfleet.)

So, for me, there are three separate needs -- food service, viewing, and the simple ability to move from car to car -- and providing a lounge car solves all three. (Where as a dining car really only provides one - one and a half if you can sit at the not-particularly-roomy-or-comfortable tables between meals.)

 

[neroden]

1. The US will NEVER have a rail service comparable to Japan/Europe/et al. Our rail model doesn't allow for that. Our population density (except for a few locations) doesn't fit that model. Finally, our geographic expanse doesn't fit that model.

Those "few places" include everything east of the Appalachians, everything between the Appalachians and the Missouri River, East Texas, and everything west of the Rockies, which also includes nearly all of the US population. Yes, we have the population density -- Ohio is denser than France. The geographic expanse is irrelevant; passenger rail scales up as far as you like. Wyoming and Alaska will never have good passenger trains, but who cares? Nobody lives there; Wyoming's population is only a bit bigger than Ithaca's. Ohio and Georgia can and should, and it is politics which prevents it.

The hub/spoke rail model (since you show this as the one Amtrak should emulate) only works when you have several small towns near an urban center. The railroad can focus on point to point delivery of passengers between urban centers, and the spokes run with enough traffic to the urban centers to justify the service frequency. Driving is a much less popular option, which affects both hub service (grade crossings are few, allowing higher speeds due to dedicated right of way) and sending passengers to the spoke line.

Of course, this is exactly what the US HAS. Amtrak provides the lines between hubs, while commuter rail and urban rail provides the spokes. The lack of ticket integration is a political failure, but they have the same failure in Europe and Japan.

True high speed rail reduces the need for in-train amenities. Short (<4 hours, for argument's sake) trips don't need food services-in-station pickup before boarding works fine. The longer the trip, the more critical the amenities. I'd hate to try CHI-LAX without a meal or a drink or a place to go that is not my designated/chosen seat.

This is true. And you will note that Austria is now running many successful sleeper car services, because they are far enough from Western Europe that they need them.

The US is not that different... We just pretend we are and don't really look into the details of what other countries did.

 

[IndyLions]

An important function of lounges on many trains is as a place to get work done. Those who are considerate (many are) take up much less space than a full booth.