I agree very much that St. Louis and other points in the Midwest need cross-connecting service. The old National Limited and even the River Cities provided some such connection. One rather inexpensive and more readily accomplishable thing that could really help Western travelers is for Western trains to connect the same day at Chicago. Currently, departing Western trains leave before arrival of other Western trains. The current arrangement makes what could otherwise be a mere two-day or three-night North-South trip on AMTRAK trains in the West a three-day or potentially four-night trip at best because of the currently necessary, approximately 24-hour layover between non-overlapping trains at Chicago.
Congestion might be cited as a reason against same-day connections. However, if local commuter trains are the excuse, my contention is that AMTRAK trains should be locally and regionally usable as national commuter trains themselves—only with transcontinental reach! All conventional-speed AMTRAK trains should make all stops—at least as flag stops—as Inter-corridor Locals. Future (hopefully near future) high-speed (mostly 90-110 mph “Inter-corridor” and potentially 150-225 mph Transcontinental) service should be the new limited-stop Specials or “Expresses”.
All-stop Locals may be criticized as being “too slow’ for through service. In reality, the time should not be that much more. It’s the time of day of departure (such as after usual work hours for most) and arrival (before usual work hours for most) that is generally more important to passengers than how few hours less a train could arrive—and that, potentially, at a less usable time. Disciplined railroading should limit passenger stops to less than five minutes. Only service stops should be potentially longer, as scheduled. Generally, trains should only have as much dwell time at a station as they have in arriving earlier than their timetable departure time. If they’re late (but still on their time—up to halfway until the time the next train, freight or passenger, is due) a stop should only be for as long as passengers can be deboarded and boarded safely (not necessarily seated; that can occur down the track). If they’re going to be an extra on another train’s time (time “slots” are tantamount to timetable-scheduled train times), they need to follow that regular train (which would probably be a freight) as its last section or follow the next scheduled regular train having extra time available for following sections. There is a maximum capacity at which a single railroad track can operate. That includes lengths of trains. That’s basic railroading by simple paper timetable and it does work—as well as any computer program is going to work, and continue working when the largely unnecessary high-tech apparati has failed, only perhaps a little more slowly and safely. Anything other than that, such as running everything extra on each other’s times, is delaying to the schedules of other traffic and is an attempt at potentially hazardous and ultimately unattainable expedience as with driving and flying.
In making new routes possible, I too am “irritated” by the totally lopsided transportation priorities we have. Rail is by far the most efficient form of heavy overland transportation in so many ways. Yet, for the sake of perceived expedience, this culture has all but completely sold out to driving and flying. That culture is based on the lack of knowledge of transportation realities of “passengers in drivers’ seats” seeking unrealistically expedient transportation. Their majority encouragement of politicians to tax all of us to artificially fund such a system enables the wasteful and economically exploitative dominant driving and flying culture to exist.
I certainly think that the highways and airways should only survive on the revenues of their users. If train routes are to be shut down because they don’t earn their own way (a concept that shows a lack of knowledge of the nature of the mobile and complimentary interconnecting system of transportation routes) then so should roads or air routes be shut down that under-perform—a recipe for transportation collapse from a lack of connectivity.
In no way should onboard dining service be eliminated from passenger trains. Onboard dining service is essential to rail passenger service, especially overnight service that is so vitally the key to the usability of passenger trains by the traveling public. Potentially, combination kitchen-roomette sleeping cars (not dissimilar to old “hotel” cars?) could be configured to provide the current number of roomettes along with both separate café and kitchen compartments. The café compartment could sell current lounge car fare (even possibly more of it and with more selections) and the kitchen compartment could be the same as is currently on board dining cars. Only table seating is eliminated. Dining would be at coach or sleeping car compartment seats (all having the fold-down tables). Thus, privately enjoyed yet fully onboard-prepared meals, made to order, could be had on all through trains. Merely not having the kitchen open on such a car used for business first class for a local (commuter) train is an option. Most laudable for labor concerns: all the dining car staffs could be retained—including importantly the chefs—on board all through trains (as they should be retained with any arrangement—staffs should not be eliminated with the elimination of separate dining and lounge cars, perhaps only re-assigned to more trains on more routes). Only the separate dining and lounge car expenses would be eliminated. Accommodation is to the passenger train what potentially break-neck speed is to flying—and the driving habits of many.
It seems bizarre (and is perhaps revealing) that an apparent plea to entitlement has often been offered as the only available objection to the suggestion of merely charging the cost of the food for meals on trains. As I’ve pointed out, there is an argument for offering such a relatively insignificant “freebie” as free meals to passengers as an added value in riding the trains. Yet, in a climate of deficits requiring tax subsidy to rescue AMTRAK from insolvency, I think the recipients of all AMTRAK services, including that of separate baggage cars, should pay for those services. Rail is so inherently efficient, if operated correctly, that its services are affordable to its users if those services are efficiently and usably provided.
Rail freight shippers have to pay for the service they receive. They are also potentially paying for any service passengers are receiving for which the passengers do not pay. Passengers and freight are both users of efficient and economical rail service and should both pay their way, as should users of the arguably inefficient and uneconomical highways and airways, which should also have no subsidy from those who do not use them. Otherwise, there certainly is a good argument for general tax subsidized rail service, and everything else for that matter. There is, however, no incentive to provide good service, or anything else, if funding is guaranteed and the payer has no choice but to pay as with taxes. On the other hand, to retain payment for something not timely rendered in return could be treated as fraud.
