The U.S. Senate just passed the stimulus package by one vote. The President will be signing the
stimulus package next monday. Amtrak will recieve $1.3 billion dollars with the passage of the
stimulus package.
Well it’s a step in the right direction. Now maby Amtrak will be able to fix and upgrade some of it’s older equipment. Or maby evan buy some new. Hope we see some more of this $$$ come our way again sometime soon.
If I recall correctly, Illinois has about $100 million in unmet obligations to freight railroads for capacity improvements related to expanded services, needs $50-$60 million for new services to Dubuque, IA and the Quad Cities (Moline, IL), and needs $40 million for cab signals for the Chicago - Saint Louis Corridor for 110 mph service.
Sen Richard Durbin also wanted Amtrak to repair cars at Beech Grove for the new Illinois services and elsewhere.
I agree with bubbajustin that the best use of any “additional” federal dollars would be to rehab older coaches and get them up to running specs, especially in the NEC, which gives every indication of being saturated – to the point of turning prospective passengers away. That should probably take care of money from this particular spending allocations.
Second up on my agenda would be to improve track conditions (track itself, fewer gated crossings, higher degree of signaling and so on) – and thus raise the classification to get the highest federal speed limit permissible – on corridor routes.
In an article in the 2/21 Wall Street Journal the head of Amtrak said not to expect any improvements of any kind with the money so don’t hold your breath. Amtrak has become the rolling version of the Post Office in my opinion.
I hope Amtrak does not waste this 1.3 Billion.[2c]
Hadn’t Amtrak been receiving about $1 billion a year anyway?
Is this the annual apprpriation or extra?
This is intended to be extra at least for now. Secretary LaHood has indicated additional money will also be forthcoming in the regular budget process, but of course that may be subject to change as the budget is developed.
I certainly hope that more passenger cars will be rehabed.
I have photos that I took back in the 1980s and early 90s when Amtrak’s Silver Star was running 12 to 15 cars long on the Tampa to NY run! Today, demand for seats and sleeper space is still high but due to equipment shortages, 8 cars ( sometimes 11) is the typical consist. That’s pretty sad.
I just have one question that maybe Sam 1 or some of the others might be able to answer.
The Government nationalized passenger trains in 1971 and they went to h*** now in 2009 there is serious talk about nationalizing some banks and they will probably go to h***. What is the difference?
Al - in - Stockton
But remember, the key point that plagued Amtrak was that it was expected to become self-sufficient after a number of years. Totally ridiculous and unrealistic as the majority of the freight railroads worked hard to dump thier passenger trains, yet this was the mandate. Had president Nixon and congress taken a more “Europeon” attitude, Amtrak would have been treated as a viable alternative that would receive permanent funding year to year with developments of key corridor’s as the goal.
The expectatioin of self sufficiency was based on the notion that they could roll-out new short haul corridors and cut back on the LD trains. The short haul was supposed to produce a small net operating profit to cross subsidize the few remaining LD services.
Politics never allowed that to happen. It wasn’t just Nixon. In fact, the opposite happened. Instead of expanding into corridors, the system map added more single trains thru and to low density locations
They did try, at least a bit. Once Amtrak got a real president, (Reistrup), one of the first things they did was place an order for the single, largest number of passenger cars in US history, 492, double vestibuled, day coaches. (and cafes).
The banking system is the keystone for the economy. If it collapses, the economy, which is say our way of life, will go down with it. The government has no choice but to fix it, although according to the Administration nationalization is not in the cards at this point.
Amtrak is a nice to have in a nation with excellent air and highway systems. Technically, the government did not nationalize it. It formed a quasi private corporation that issued stock to the railroads that bought into it, if I remember correctly. Of course, in reality it is a government entity.
In retrospect, the government take over in 1971 of intercity passenger rail via Amtrak was a mistake. The market place should have been allowed to dictate the outcomes. Had Amtrak not been formed most intercity trains would have gone the way of the stagecoach.
The NEC might have survived with a modest investment of government money. It serves a high density regional corridor where people are used to taking the train. Oh, did I fail to say by the state governments benefit by the regional NEC?
Penn Central had upgraded the service before the formation of Amtrak. I think it got a little government money to do so. Other corridors might have surfaced as the nation grew and became more congested in the process.
So I take it that the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is totaly ridiculous and unrealistic?
I actually read some of the literature I was handing out at the Madison Model Railroad Show last weekend, and the projections are that the MWRRI would need an initial infusion of 7 billion for 3000 route miles, but after that, it would operate at a small profit. And the proposed fares are little different from current Hiawatha fares. Yes. Really.
So instead of spending 2 billion/year on 4 billion passenger miles and collecting 1 billion/year in fares, the MWRRI would spend .5 billion/year on 2 billion passenger miles/year and collect about .5 billion/year in fares.
Of course that is only operating – not the initial capital infusion, but what the hey, that is pocket change for the highways.
But think of it. If Amtrak could have been breaking even on operating costs, the 1 billion/year in 2000 dollars for operating subsidy could have provided the seed money for 4 MWRRI’s for a total of 12000 route miles handling double Amtrak’s current passenger miles.
That is what Sam is trying to tell us – the half billion/year in LD operating subsidies do not seem like much, but if it could have been allocated to building up corridors on the MWRRI model, who knows what we would have today.
That’s an interesting question - what if no Amtrak?
I’m fairly certain the NEC would have wound up very different. Amtrak was a tenant on PC fro
What we know is that Penn Central hoisted the Metroliners between New York and Washington from 1969 to 1971. The service stared on January 16, 1969, nearly 2.5 years before the coming of Amtrak, with some funding provided through the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965.
The best time from New York to Washington was 2 hours and 59 minutes. By the summer of 1969 the service was hoisting at least four round trips per day, including one non-stop, and they were apparently well patronized, thanks in part of a strike at Eastern Airlines that shut down the shuttle.
The rest of the story is largely speculative, including my premise that it could have survived. It could have survived. And it could have collapsed for some or all of the reasons cited. The operative word is could. No one knows!
Frankly, had the states served by the NEC not been willing to put up the money to help support the NEC or the market would not support it, it should have been allowed to die. No one knows whether they would have or would not have. Having lived in the New York area for years, I came to realize that they are much better at regional cooperation than most other areas of the country where I have lived. And I have lived in seven states as well as DC and four other countries.
I worked in the electric utility industry for more than three decades. When I started it was a regulated monopoly that functioned like a government agency. It had no competition. By the time I retired a couple of years ago it had become a competitive business. The waste, prior to competition, was mind blowing. It took competition to weed it out. This is the reason that I favor fair market competition, especially when it comes to the operation of commercial transport services, as opposed to having the government perform the serv
Interesting question and answer. I see the possibility that states would want more regional services and routes than for the focus of a national system. A Northeast Compact might have come together more quickly.
I don’t know why Rhode Island wouldn’t cooperate with Massachusetts and Connecticut. Providence would want service to Boston, New Haven, and New York, but the line might be single-tracked initially. My guess is that cab signals would be retained.
Connecticut and Massachusetts might separately or jointly in through services provide at least a pair of trains each to Springfield, MA.
Philadelphia, PA - Harrisburg, PA would be maintained, as would a pair of Pittsburgh, PA - New York, NY day trains. It’s quite possible a pair of Scranton, PA - Philadelphia, PA round trips might be restored.
New Jersey would want the Atlantic City, NJ service, and possibly a Cape May, NJ - New York, NY train connecting with PATCO.
You write off Delaware; but restored service Dover, DE - New York, NY might be the political price for continued Wilmington and Newark, DE service.
Maryland would want to connect Baltimore with Washington, DC and New York, NY as an adjunct to commuter services. A Cumberland - Washington, DC round trip and a pair of Cumberland - Baltimore round trips also might be desired in addition to commuter services.
Virginia almost certainly would want to maintain service from the north to Richmond, with branches to Roanoke, and to Newport News.
Quite possibly the Turbo Train or Xplorer/Daniel Webster may have become a sizable fleet with curvy routes everywhere.
It’s interesting to speculate on whether the wires would come down south of New York, at least on segregated freight tracks, for double stack clearances. Then one might wonder whether the inevitable Auto Train might go to Oak Island or Jersey City, NJ.
In the Midwest, Illinois would have stayed with a train each from Carbondale, Qui
Perhaps there would be some horse trading that could have kept more corridor service going. The states along the NEC are very parochial when it comes to spending their money on trains. NJ and Conn know that the economic engine that drives their states is NYC, so being connected to NYC is paramount. Similar for MD and Wash DC, and RI and Boston.
I can’t think of a good reason for Conn to spend much staying connected to Boston, nor Delaware staying connected to NY or DC. The bulk of the benefit of keeping these stretches of track going are would accrue to those living outside the state (DC to Philly and NY passengers) and states have a difficult time justifying spending their money in another state. You should have heard the howl in NJ when NJT decided to build a maintenance facility in Morrisville PA! (even though the benefits were all for NJT passengers)
Outside of that, it gets really squishy. The best examples I can think of are how poorly the NY-Albany and Phila to Harrisburg service faired given the uneven support by just one state - even when they had Amtrak as a partner to carry some of the load. NY got off to a good start upgrading the Hudson line with equipment and improved track, but then has spent the last 20 year sputtering along. PA pretty much left the Harrisburg line to rot until the upgrade of the past few years. (Actually, this route would have been kept in much better shape had Conrail owned it. It is a much better route from the west to Phila and NY than the RDG - LV route Conrail had to resort to)
Another example is the Downeaster. ME and MA are carrying the whole load for this service even though NH gains a good chunk of the benefit. Negotiations to date have been fruitless.
If Conrail had gained ownership of the corridor, you can be sure that it would have good amounts of freight on
SAM: Sorry but the only Eastern strike during that time was July - August 1966. Metroliner service was not that good after the strike.