I though I would move this a thread on its own. I know some people think that the only way Bush will maintain if not improve Amtrak’s funding, is to make a case that it would be in the best interest for national security.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this particularly on how this could happen and please friendly debate on it if you wish.
One has only to look at history to see the advantages that such an asset cqn be to a nation at war. From the two front war in WWII for the us or the movement of the Mongolian Army to the Eastern Front in the old Soviet Union. Its cheaper than flying and not as fuel hungry as trucks.
…And it moves masses of people like no other type of transportation. And of course as we saw at 9-11 when air travel was rendered useless…the rails looked pretty important. Something that can happen in the blink of an eye…We never know from where it’s coming and where it might happen…that one tragedy that can paralyze some form of transportation.
You could literally move an entire division on a train. 6000 troops in a division (or is it 10000?) say 6,000. At least 50 per car=120 cars at the most. Lash up 4 or 5 P-42s and away you go. You can’t do that on 1 747 and a convoy screws up traffic on the road.
Amtrak has the largest concentration of long distance passenger equipment in the country and the rights to travel anywhere there are rails.
Amtrak is a government controlled corporation that would be relatively simple to mobilize for large scale troop and equipment movements.
Rail movement of troops and equipment is easier, safer and more easily concealled than alternative methods of travel such as road or air travel.
Most major military installations retain a rail connection.
I’m sure I’ll think of a few more as I go…
LC
Not a reason in the world.
Amtrak does not have the equipment to move any credible number of troops and airplane are so much faster.
How many troop trains have moved in the past 20 years?
Mac
I don’t understand. Outside the NEC Amtrak uses somebody else tracks!! Why are they vital? Worse case the GOV’T orders UP to take Amtraks moth-balled cars and run them.
Yes!
…Our interstates are busy at best now…we all know that…and ANY hickup in some kind of tragedy in this country that disrupts air travel…and we all now know that can happen, will cause expanded interstate travel. In some areas any great amount of expanded I S travel will paralyze that system and what then…Gridlock…! So, having a viable rail transportation system to move people surely makes sense. A no brainer. But don’t hold your breath as the government we now have will not…not support it.
Let’s be clear here…Any hiccup disrupts CIVILIAN air travel. Surprising how easy it is to fly from Pt A to Pt B with all the civils out of my way.
I like Amtrak, but critcal to defense isn’t even a viable argument. Freight carriers, absolutely, the only method of moving unit’s heavy equipment efficiently and cohesively other than ships, is by rail. But troops is another matter, this isn’t WWII. By default nearly everything we have now is required to be worldwide deployable in hours, not days. The airlift is the most efficient, expiditious way to go…period. The only case I can think of for Amtrak is to roll it’s budget into buying more airlift capacity.
Sorry guys…I like trains too, but this is a non-argument.
Could Amtrak help out with munitions and weapons that way the railroads can concentrate on the raw materials and other industrial demands associated in a war build up?
If need be…(lets hope not)…Amtrak could help by staying out of the way!
Exactly.
The railroads are, do and will continue to support any war effort, just doing what they do. Moving large quantities of material between points, be it military equipment or raw materials to support production. We don’t move troops by ship anymore, except for Marines, and that is a different example all together. Maintaining a viable and efficient rail network is extremely important to national defense. Maintaining Amtrak is not. If for some reason, airlift was not available, through military or charter means, and there was no other way to move a large numbers of troops, then Amtrak equipment could be pressed into service, but it would be as a special movement. It is possible…not real likely even within the confines of the continental US. If I had the choice, in the name of national defense, to buy passenger cars or more airlift aircraft, there is no choice. Additional airlift capacity is of greater flexibilty (ie it is not restrained by limits of rail), and greater strategic and tactical value. From a efficiency point of view, I can move 400 troops on a 747 from the west coast to east coast in hours and don’t have to worry about feeding, sleeping or supporting them for days in a railcar. If the move is that important, I can ATC route them directly to where they need to go.
Hmmmm. I see that the President of the Flight Attendants Union is calling for a national strike against the airlines in retaliation for their allegedly using the Bankruptcy proceedings to bust the union…
This should be good. I’m guessing that whatever major carriers are left will be bankrupt after this and the entire union will suffer. As they say on my favorite Guinness commercial…
BRILLIANT!!
Well now Southwest, Airtran and Jet Blue can really sweep the skies…
Hope Amtrak ridership goes up…
LC
This is a joke, right?
After you load 6,000 troops in a 120 car passenger train, where would you take them? The train’s gotta go someplace.
To a port of embarkation and a waiting troopship?
Questions: Does the military get a discount when using the rails? Do the railroads have to bid on normal military traffic?
…In this “non-argument” situation…I am one that is thinking in a calamity of sort in this country people other than military personal have to move about…and if civilian aircraft are not flying for a period of time…and the panic clogs the Interstates…How does it happen…? How do ordinary folks move about…Well one solution is a viable rail transportation system…What’s so wrong about that…It does not specifically have to be Amtrak, but I’m simply saying a viable rail passenger transportation system.
If that is the case then I will be willing to more in anything (passenger car, boxcar, open hopper). The question is not about the rails but about AMTRAK.
Plus why can’t UP/BNSF/CSX/NS/KCS use old amtrak cars after amtrak is/if gone??
For many years “land grant railroads” were required to carry goverment shipments for reduced rates to “pay” for the land they received. I believe this requirement was ended (in the 1970’s or 80’s?) It was determined that the railroads had “paid” many times the value of the land.
I don’t think there are many old Amtrak, old railroad passenger cars left…they have all been scrapped…or nearly so…
As far as troop movement is concerned, airlift has won the day… However, as far as moving the army’s freight…the railroads are still doing it… and will be doing it in the future…