WP ran an RDC the length of their mainline, and actually called it the Zephyrette. They couldn’t even fill the RDC combo. At the same time the CZ was well patronized. The Zephyrette did not last long.
Charlie, you know perfectly well that I am NOT saying more people, more citizens, use LD trains than corridior trains. But on one train vs another train, defintiely, yes. i am in no position to obtain the specific statistics, even if Amtrak would provide it. But any long distance train obviously have almost zero repeat ridership one day to the very next day, where as most corridor trains possibly half the ridership is repeat one day to the next day. Sure, I don’t have statistics, but personal observation from anyone riding the trains fan come up with the same answer.
From what most of us undrstand, with Amtrak created under the Nixon administation, most believe it was creted specifically to put the long distdance trains painlessly out of business. So you have the real mission in mind that the Nixon Administration intended. Hats of to you for that. But the stated legal mission statement is to oprovide a National System. Remove the LDTs and you no longer have a Nationlal System.
I think people who actually ride the trains and contribute to this forum will back me up on my statements concerning ridership.
Again, if you tell the rural areas, if you want the minimum service you now have, you have to pay for it, they will be justified in responding, then if you want the maxium corridor service you now have, you have to pay for it, including such hings as catenary replacement, repairs of tunnels, expasion of capacity, and new euipment.
The passenger loads on the existing long distance trains happen to be greater than one bus, or one diesel railcar, or even two togher, can handle.
The average 1920s train did not have air-condiitoning or reclining-seat coaches. Come off it. Long distance trains today are far more comfortable.
I would disagree with that statement. It depends on the rail transportation system and country. The military used a lot of mixed passenger trains in Europe during the 1980’s where they couple the passenger cars to the flatcars carrying the equipment. Similar to the Auto-Train concept the troops move with the equipment. They do not do this as much anymore in Europe because the realignment of the bases put most of the training areas within a much shorter driving distance. They could not do this in the United States of course because the distances are greater and lets face it both the train dispatching and rail speed limits are fairly poor. Within the United States though the Army at least is still using Amtrak to move troops, you may not realize it and it might not be on a large scale but to and from Basic Training posts they use Amtrak. My Nephew went through initial training in 2007 and more than one of his cohorts had travel orders via Amtrak.
Depends on the mission. Much of the earthquake relief military mission to Haiti was done by ships with both the Army and Marines traveling on the Navy ships not by plane. Additionally the British used the cruise ships of the Cunard Line to move troops to the Falklands. They do rely on flying a lot but most of the time they fly for speed of deployment because it is an emergency to get there. Both Airborne Divisions have a wheels up time limit to deploy because they are both members of the “Rapid” Deployment force. I have seen both the 101st and 82nd Airborne Convoy across a few states though vs flying. Again it depends on the mission. The first troops deployed to Poland from G
I was speaking strictly about the military not caring about American passenger trains. It was in reply to Dave’s stating “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”. They may ship individuals to Basic that way, but it’s not a national resource needed in case of emergency.
I’m well aware of Marines riding on ships in ARGs, they are members of an MEU.
Amtrak now? Europe now, not 30+ years ago.
Even when I went for basic at Ft. Leonard Wood 50 years ago, it was by plane and bus from Chicago. And the number of inductees was much higher back then.
I think he was supporting your general opinion, but…
Seems highly logical to me that there might be some ‘conspiracy’ to help subsidize Amtrak by routing some percentage of military orders on Amtrak trains, particularly those on routes more heavily subsidized through ‘lack of riders’. It doesn’t matter that this is one hand of the Government putting money into another; if it’s money to the good side of Amtrak’s secret ledgers, or perceived reason to retain otherwise-questionable passenger coverage, I’d be all for it, and perhaps so should we all.
Much of this thread, however, continues to dance around the elephant in the room that is the 2015 mandate requiring “profitable operation” by 2020. I don’t see any wiggle room there for perceived benefits to elderly and disabled, even though there are clear avenues for funds to be provided Amtrak to improve and perhaps start toward optimizing them. Perhaps some of you can comment on how to substantiate the economic ‘stakeholder benefits’ of the LD trains as a whole, as opposed to neo-Balkanization into politically-willing corridors.
Supporting or differing doesn’t matter.
It seems to me Amtrak doesn’t serve basic training camps or large military facilities very well today, so counting on a military subsidy seems a forlorn hope.
The 2020 deadline is likely taken less seriously than the debt ceiling. That said, Amtrak will likely be able to show Congress a neutral balance sheet if LD services are drastically curtailed or modi
In FY18 the NEC had an operating profit of $526 million. But it was more than wiped out by the long-distance train operating losses of $541 million.
Assuming the NEC wears 80 percent of Amtrak’s depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous operating expenses, which may be high, it would have had a fully allocated operating loss of $123 million in FY18 if all of its operating profit covered depreciation, etc. expenses. Assuming the remaining depreciation, etc. expenses flow to the state supported and long-distance train operations equally, the fully allocated operating losses for the long-distance trains would have been $622 million.
If Amtrak were able to isolate the operating results of the NEC, the operating profit over time would go a long way toward covering the cost of upgrading and maintaining the NEC infrastructure.
A bus cannot carry as many passengers as a train. Assuming the same demand for commercial ground transportation, however, a bus company could schedule more than one bus a day, and it could provide more convenient service to those that need it. In fact, this is what happens in Alpine, TX.
-
An emergency that grounds commercial airlines, may such never occur again, may also ground other aircraft.
-
An analogy, not quite as long as the apartment hunt one:
Every Sat morning when in NYCity around 7am I helped distribute bags
of food to poor people, some probably homeless. Many came every week.
But there were occasionally new faces and some who came only
occasionally.
The food and bagging had been prepared by other volunteers and was
kept overnight in a refrigorator. Uusally. there was more than
enough, with each person on line receiving only one bag. There was
also a pile of used clothes, and anyone on the line could take one
item. Not everyone who took food also took clothing. Most did not.
But, you see, we’re talking about REMOVING the (Amtrak replacement for) CZ because it costs too much to run.
So then the option would be no passenger service at all on the railroad. Or. Running RDC’s for the few people who needed the service.
You are apparently trying to make the point that there would be inadequate ridership for the RDC’s, and thus that option should not be tried.
And thus, NO passenger service on those routes.
Ok.
Ed
Can we stop discussing ridiculous “concepts” of trains being needed for sick people or (of all things) the movement of troops (! Seriously? We might as well “discuss” the moon landing conspiracy. It’s pointless)
Amtrak ruins the FUTURE of passenger trains in this country. Amtrak cannot and will not EVER be able to provide “good” LD passenger trains because Congress AND the people with a particular kind of political/morality-OCD will forever be interfering with it.
And, what is worse is: the MAJORITY of the population view the future of passenger trains through the distorted lens of Amtrak LD trains.
Amtrak is the only government agency trying to provide operational customer service. It’s absolutely insane to expect a government agency to be able to do this. Government Agencies should be dispensing loot. That’s why the airports and highways are so big. Dispensing loot is simple, customer service is HARD.
We need modern passenger train INFRASTRUCTURE so that others can provide the services.
But, you see, this as presented is a Hobson’s choice, and a relatively skewed one.
The “problem” is to a large degree precisely what John Privara just hinted it was: Amtrak is NOT in the business of providing ‘a basic transportation service’, is not particularly good at that, is certainly not cost-effective at that, and has little institutional reason to change.
What would be “needed” for the intermediate passenger service is a bit like a cross between the ‘missions’ for the SPV2000 and the prospective amenities of the Daylight Speedliner trains. Not just a bunch of upright seats with surly attendants and messed-up toilets, shoehorned between increasingly PSR’d freight traffic. Instead – develop decent ways to provide snacks and food. Decent work comfort. Reasonable provision for ‘quiet’ or dark sections if no outright sleeping facilities. A schedule you can keep, ideally providing reasonable (and attended!) stations for entraining or detraining even when wee hours are unavoidable for particular origin/destination pairs.
Better still to provide dedicated pathing, if not in fact passenger-priority routes … and you may be likelier to get it with a short train that has reasonable acceleration rate and the capability of using short runaround sidings for non-fleeting ‘meets’. But that’s orders of magnitude more money than a really good bus service would cost to provide equivalent ‘transportation service’ at comparable price.
I’m not saying this is preferable to a ‘greater’ perception of LD service, and in fact many if not most of its ‘amenities’ would constitute great advantage to a more conventional train makeup. But there is no future in providing bus-grade service a
Dave, your analogy is pointless. Amtrak is not a charity.
You still haven’t answered these two questions…
-
How often do you come to the US, and
-
How do you get here?
But it has worked so well for the Post Office and the DMV 
This seems to be a good opportunity for the Virgin Group to create a Rocky Mountaineer type of service out of the LD trains.
“surly attendants” and “messed-up toilets” are unacceptable for ANY service. Except, I suppose, for Amtrak.
Snacks and food are OK, but bring your own. When I rode the Empire Builder in 1964, there was a mother with some kids nearby. She boarded with a grocery bag. I wondered what could be in it. Why, it was FOOD. Impressed me, for one.
Maybe a bit of a modification to the above: if a bar/lounge turned a profit, I’d endorse that. Of course, that probably couldn’t/wouldn’t happen on a single car train–but maybe on a longer one. Same for other amenities, I guess. If it breaks even or better, do it.
“Decent work comfort”? I thought we were talking about the poor and the invalid. But, yes, I am against providing seating so bad you don’t want to sit in it–somewhere between a Bart car and the Heywood seat I have in the next room.
[quote]
Better still to provide dedicated pathing, if not in fact passenger-priority routes … and you may be likelier to get it with a short train that has reasonable acceleration rate and the capability of using short runaround sidings for non-fleeting 'm
But there’s no reason not to have a range of snacks on board, light meals brought on periodically, a coordinated service that ‘delivers’ orders ordered on phones or via the train’s Internet connection to the train at intermediate stops. Look back over John White’s history of dining cars and all sorts of cost-effective possibilities will suggest themselves to you now that the commissary/fine dining model of ‘diner’ service is recognized for the expense-inflating loss leader it really always was. Even the moral equivalent of Electroburgers is a possibility (and yes, I’ve carefully worked out the equipment, service, and provisioning for that).
Moral is not to WASTE food people won’t eat, or provide service that doesn’t make friends and profit. There’s a lot of wiggle room shy of running a McDonald’s or Burger King operation on the train (which wouldn’t work) and providing reasonable refreshments quickly or meals almost ‘to order’ remotely.
Note that this can be expanded somewhat into providing for those situations where the train must be held out of contact with ‘the outside world’ for some period of time, stupid or otherwise. It also rather easily expands into appropriate reasonable accommodation of many of the needs of the elderly and infirm, although I have yet to see this more than casually discussed in the context of regional-scale passenger service.
We were talking about a train that actually serves all the little destination pairs between ‘major stops’ that could
If not subsidized by taxpayers, then by whom?
An elderly friend recently rode the Pennsylvanian service from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, then connect to the Capital Limited to Chicago. He took this rather than Mega bus as on prior trips because they no longer have service from Pittsburgh or State College to Chicago. Train was five hours late to Chicago, uncomfortable. Next time he said he’ll fly unless Mega bus is reinstated. It is more comfortable than the train and even has working Wi-Fi. So let’s not assume LD service is the answer for seniors who have mobility issues. Not unless they have the bucks for a sleeper, which makes me think again this service for the infirm is really only accessible to the well-off.
Amtrak is very effective in destroying their product under the guise of improving it
A lot of the problems with Amtrak LD, at least with my friend’s train journey, lay with delays from dependency on freight railroads. He said a number of times his train was not moving or moving slowly. That did not occur so much prior to 1971.