Inside Amtrak’s Dying Long-Distance Trains | WSJ

Wall Street Journal

"Published on Jul 16, 2019

SUBSCRIBE 1.5M

Am

[quote user=“Victrola1”]

Wall Street Journal

"Published on Jul 16, 2019

SUBSCRIBE 1.5M

The American people, if not the previous poster, do not expecdt the elderly and handicaipped to pay for the facilities they require in public accomodation places and venues.

Long-distance trains serve a number of purposes, and the American economy would suffer if they were removed. But the primary purpose is to serve the specific elderly and handicapped who cannot fly.

In which Amtrak-related legislation or organizational mission statement has it ever said anything remotely like that?

Your view puts the people in most Texas cities between a rock and a hard place.

The elderly and handicapped in Abilene, Amarillo, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Harlingen, Laredo, Lubbock, McAllen, Midland, and Odessa, all of which have sizeable populations, are just out of luck. No Amtrak services!

Except for the most severely handicapped, who cannot travel without the aid of a support person, most handicapped people in Texas can fly or take the bus. I have been on Southwest when as many as ten of the passengers needed a wheelchair to get to the gate.

If the long-distance trains were discontinued today, very few people in Texas would even know that they had disappeared. Because very few people use them.

Nope, not before and not now. How about the great majority of people who don’t live on Amtrak routes and never will?

Amtrak’s mission statement, to provide transportation, does Not specify all its potential markets. It does not specifiy for able-bodied only, for long-distance, or tourists, for corridor only, or any such limitation. It is my Opinion that its long-distance trains are most useful for the elderly and handicapped who cannot fly. Amtrak historically has addressed this market with the handicapped room on the ground floor of the Superliner sleepers. But the owners of a hotel at the gateway to a national park regulalry served by Amtrak would be of the opinion that its long-distancd trains are primarily to serve tourists. And a military expert, and believe this may be happening, who advises Trump not to veto, may have the opinion that Amtrak’s long-distance trains should be kept around to serve in emergencies.

Obviously corridor trains have greater ridership. But the facr that most of this ridership is repeat ridership, often even commuter ridership, means that the reduced patronage of the long-distance trains actually involves a greater number of People, of US Citizens paying taxes. If the Grandpa and Grandmother are deprived of their yearly trip to see their children and grandchildren, why should they wish to subidize the corridor commuter?

If you deprive the small town of the benefit they get from the subsidy (I don’t use the train, bur I want it to stay in case i need it!), why should they agree to subsidize the big city.

And a two-hour car or bus trip to connect with a comfortable long-distance train is not the same as a more-than-a-day bus or car trip for an handicapped and/or elderly person who cannot flyl.

Charlie, please look up the definition of “ideologue,” or “ideolog.” Do you wish to be one?

Do you reallyl wish to deprive many people from the privilege of visitng the entire continental USA?

When Grandma and Grandpa cannnot make their trip, the children miss solmething tooi.

I am a pragmatist and prefer evidence, hopefully hard empirical data.

You made a claim and you were wrong. Now you claim more more people ride LD trains than corridor trains. Let’s see your evidence.

I believe in democracy in which government strives to serve the most people with the least waste, i.e. the greatest good for the greatest number.

Didn’t figure you to be a “let them eat cake” guy Charlie.

I’m with Dave

Dave, you still haven’t addressed the majority of people in the US (old, young, handicapped, ablebodied) that Amtrak doesn’t serve.

Also, the military doesn’t care about passenger trains. Freight trains are very useful, but passenger ones are useless. Ever hear of CRAF? The military flies troops everywhere. Trains and ships are just for heavy equipment. How many years has it been since you’ve been in the States? Things change…

That’s nasty and erroneous name-calling. Dave is wanting some elitist approach to serving the small minority of the elderly, handicapped etc. who happen to live near an Amtrak LD route. He has no data to support his contentions. I think Amtrak should serve the greatest number of people in ways where rail passenger service makes sense. LD trains are an impractical means of transportation for any distance over 500-800 miles and thus used by very few people. A lot of their ridership in sleeping cars are well-off seniors taking heavily-subsidized land cruises. Sounds pretty elitist to me.

In spending OPM - Amtrak needs to continue the present LD ‘network’. Where it views that ‘corridor opportunities’ will support higher frequency service between designated end points that are intemediate to the LD service - negotiate with the serving carriers to provide the service. There are those that actually use the LD trains from Origin to Destination as well as intermediate locations to intermediate locations and also intermediate locations to final destinations.

Balkanizing service to only intermediate O-D pairs is in fact killing the overall product.

Of course the death of Amtrak is what many want so they can ‘save’ 10 mills on their federal tax liabilities.

IF you want to serve the various “special” people in little bitty towns along the railroad, why not have a railbus or an RDC make the entire run, instead of a big old passenger train? Then said people can get on and off in their little town. And get on and off in a big city so they can catch the plane or bus for the long distance part (if needed/desired).

Then: no food service. no sleepers. no lounge. no services personnel. Two employees: engineer and conductor/baggageman. Essentially a Greyhound bus on rails. THAT can’t be that expensive. Maybe we’ll call it the Zephyrette.

And it would make every stop where there was a flag station (flagstop).

Thus a cost effective method to serve those along the railroad who need rail transportation.

Ed

Ahh Yes! Sundial Scheduling!

Dave’s argument is ridiculous, but I give him credit for originality at least. It’s not worth commenting on THAT “concept” anymore than someone wanting the government to run a scheduled Ocean-Liner services for the old people. Good try, but, really, grasping a straws…

Amtrak needs to get out of LD cruise train business, which it has shown (and the railroads in the 1950’s DID show) is worthless to the majority of the population. What the majority of the population needs is: good public TRANSPORTATION, widely available, regardless of what mode it is.

Rural areas should have good bus systems. The congested urban areas should have good train and plane services. The buses should feed that train system, the trains should connect to the airports. The entire system - together - should be as fast a possible, and as convenient as possible for a MAJORITY of the population (you know, like how most of the 1st world countries are doing it NOW).

As an old-fart myself, the LAST thing I’d want is a RANDOM SMATTERING of old-farts in the country relying on a 1920’s passenger-train if they get sick. It’s an insane argument. The LD trains should have been eliminated decades ago. If a company wants to run a sight-seeing tourist train, let them do so.

Ideally, Amtrak would be providing the INFRASTRUCTURE to support a modern passenger rail and bus system. INFRASTRUCTURE, not operations. Then franchise out the routes to whoever wants to run the trains and buses; because after 50+ years now it’s pretty obvious that Amtrak is incapable of providing good service. But, as an INFRASTRUCTURE provider, they should be capable of spending loot with the same uninhibited enthusiasm that the airport and highway people do now.

Bus systems are deserting rural areas for the same reasons you want Amtrak to eliminate service in rural areas.

Please define.

Ed

Sundial time? Balt may be referring to how train schedules were published before the adoption of standard time.

For instance, it was possible to travel, in one day, from Bristol, Virginia, to Chattanooga, Tennessee, with a change from one road to another in Knoxville. However, if you simply looked at the published schedules, you would say, “Impossible!” for the schedules showed the train from Bristol arriving in Knoxville after the train for Chattanooga departed. But–the ET&V operated on Bristol time, and the ET&G operated on Knoxville time, which is a few minutes later than Bristol time.

Indeed, in the 1850’s it was possible to travel from Norfolk, Virginia, to Memphis, Tennessee, changing from one road to another in several places–as I recall, the changes were in Petersburg, Roanoke, and Bristol in VIrginia, and in Knoxville and Chattanooga in Tennessee. The greatest difference on local times on any one road was between Chattanooga and Memphis; as I recall the Memphis and Charleston operated on the same sun dial all the way. (I do not have my copy of the 1851 or so Guide that shows these schedules here–it is in a box at my daughter’s house, and I will not ask her to look for it, for she does enough for me already.)

Re: Bus systems are deserting rural areas for the same reasons you want Amtrak to eliminate service in rural areas.

Exactly. But, it’s a #HECK# of a lot cheaper to run subsidized “throughway buses” on rural routes, than 1920’s passenger trains waiting in sidings for 5 mile long freights running at 30 mph on single track lines with alignments from the 1880’s.

Run the trains where they can serve the MAJORITY of the population in a way that is USEFUL to modern people (meaning: people in the 21st Century, NOT the early-20th century). And, run the buses where having trains isn’t viable.

Amtrak should be running passenger trains for the 21st century, NOT the 19th century. They aren’t competing the stage-coaches anymore.

LD trains haul 40% of Amtrak’s passenger-miles. It meets the practical needs of those people. Where is your data to say that there are any more well-to-do land-cruisers, than people riding the train because it is physically the easiest for them?