Obviously you need to go to a port…Kind of a no brainer.
…Why does Amtrak have to be “gone:”…Make it work and use it. But as I said in a former post, the adminstration will not now put the money in it to allow it to function as it could.
Which bring us to one of the reasons why the interstate highway system was built… Yes, defense… Yet, there aren’t many military bases serviced directly by the interstate highway system… So much for that myth…
Let’s see…make the Chairman of Amtrak a Cabinet level position; add thousands of new bureaucrats, er, civil servants to Amtrak rolls; keep telling anyone who’ll listen that Amtrak is vital to US security and finally, cleave to the ancient philosophy best portrayed by Mel Brooks in “Blazing Saddles”…“Harump, harump.Gentlemen, we must protect our phoney-baloney jobs!”
And if the airlines aren’t flying in hours the interstates would be a parking lot especially around Metropolitan areas and any high population areas. Think back to the pandemonium in NYC in the past year or so when we had the black out…A disruption just causes the total city to shut down…We need plan B.
The railroads may move the equipment such as tanks and other armored equipment to the ports but planes today will move the troops. Am I missing something here or not but I don’t see where Amtrak fits into the picture at all. All of the provisions needed by the troops will also travel to the front by ship. Hasn’t Operation Iraqi freedom taught anyone the new facts of life less passenger rail in wartime.
Are you saying have a passenger train 120 cars long? If so, wouldn’t the HEP cables melt from the load they would have to carry? Also there would be some logistical problems in boarding a train that stretches 1.8 miles give or take. I hope you were thinking several more-manageable-sized trains.
One other problem with this scenario is CRAF: Civilian Reserve Air Force. Several major and minor airlines have pledged to make their wide-body aircraft available to the military with the proper notice to handle any large troop movements anywhere in the world. IIRC 7 out of 10 of the soldiers that went to Desert Storm travelled on a commercial aircraft flying for CRAF. I believe they also included straight freighter aircraft as well, although most of the commercial aircraft cannot handle most military ‘outsized’ cargos like tanks. Those can only go in C5 or C17’s. The ability to draw from this “reserve” wipes out any advantage rail might have had. Sorry.
To clarify a prior post, the interstate highway system is/was sold to congress as a vital part of national defence. One of the design requirements for any interstate highway is that 1 in every 5 miles be straight so it could be converted to a runway in a national emergency.
In that type of scenario, 1) railroads aren’t going to be helping much anyway, and 2) if it is truly that bad, as Tom alludes to, folks will travel in boxcars if they had to.
The entering argument is approaching Amtrak funding as a function of national defense. From that point of view…national defense…there is basically nothing Amtrak has to offer the modern military in terms of logistics. Freight roads already do a significant amount of military movement. If all the oxygen is removed from the skies, preventing aircraft from achieving combustion in thier engines, yes then maybe, Amtrak would be pressed into service to move troops. Other than that, airlift is going to be the primary means of moving personnel and light material, both INCONUS and OCONUS. Our major bases are co-located with airfields for that very purpose. Heavy equipment will be moved by rail or whatever means possible from it’s home base to an APOD (AIrborne Point of Departure) or SPOD (Seaborne Point of Departure). From there it will be transloaded and shipped. The personnel will board aircraft and head out overseas, if they stop at all and marry up with their equipment or use prepositioned equipment.
I am not saying it has to be an either or, but if you say Amtrak is vital to national defense, a military logistician is going to ask where it fits in, and for personnel movement it does not. The best
In 1919 a junior officer named Eisenhower led an Army convoy from Annapolis Md. to San Francisco. It took 3 months. Eisenhower learned highways are vital to national defense.
Meanwhile in Germany, ex-corporal Hitler was fuming that the Army in WWI couldn’t maneuver any distance from the railroads because they could only be supplied by train.
The Autobahn and the Interstate were intended to transform military logistics.
Today, only the Army’s 2 airborne divisions can deploy quickly, the 8 heavier divisions need months to deploy.
In the cold war when NATO war gamed against a Soviet invasion of Western Europe we lost because we couldn’t resupply our troops. After the cold war our military was sized to fight two wars at once but we could never really do this because airlift didn’t have the capacity for one war. In both Iraq wars the 5 month build up of forces was needed because of the slow speed and limited sea lift capacity.
The military doesn’t have the logistics to fight preemptive war and war against mobile terrorists organizations. But I don’t think the scenarios so far; troop trains, grounded civil aviation, gridlocked Interstates make the case that Amtrak is the answer.
I don’t see the issue so much as Amtrak providing a tactical military advantage like most have argued. It is as Greyhound said, where are the trains going to go; one would hope that there will not be a front where Amtrak can take troops to in the near future. Nonetheless, I don’t think you are “kidding” and your argument has some merit.
(1) National security is not just about taking troops to the front; it is about maintaining a stable economy. Osama bin Laden claims his entire strategy against the United States is attacking its economy.
The difference between a first-world nation and a third-world nation is infrastructure. Accordingly, I think Amtrak provides an invaluable alternative for long and medium distance transportation/infrastructure in the event airline transportation is compromised.
(2) Troop movements are not entirely concerned with taking troops to the front. Taking scores of troops from home towns to basic training bases might be more reasonable. That having been said, the abilities of MAC are formidable.
Gabe
…Maintaining a stable country which includes the economic structure during a time of conflict requires all modes of transportation we can muster…In my thoughts, I’ve not been preaching using Amtrak to move troops here and there…although it is possible to do…but to service the remaining folks to try to keep some semblance on normalcy present by using all kinds of transportation…Some of which may not be available at times if we have interruptions in this country.
…And of course most of us agree there is no real substitute for moving heavy equipment around in this country then by rail…I didn’t hear anyone debating against that…Not even an issue…just assuming it’s there and ready to do just that.
I just wish and wonder that the railroads could be used in some meaningful way to transport military stuff, though I do remember that many of the tank divisions went by rail to go to the nearest port.
…In this past year or so I personally saw several trains completely loaded with military equipment.
Maybe, just maybe, we can convince the President that he needs a secret rail-based mobile command center in the event of “nucular” combat. We could equip the train with stealth technology and vertical takeoff and landing. It would be called–AirTrak One–but only when he’s on board. Surely he’d see the wisdom of such a plan and feel compelled to fully fund Amtrak.
[swg]
…Won’t be needed until we find some more WMD someplace.
I was jsut down in the states.
You know there is somehting wrong when a CAR passes a PASSENGER train.
'nuff said.
Amtrak sure is nothing like VIA.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to beat you up. As far as substitute methods of transportation in times of crisis, I’m all for passenger trains. In fact I’m all for passenger trains as primary modes of transportation. I’m not sure a serious argument can be made for passenger trains for long haul as a means of transportation in the US for contingency purposes. As it is, Amtrak long haul makes the transportation a part of the vacation…just like a cruise liner…as long as you don’t need to get there in a hurry. Short haul (NEC, Caltrans, VRE) has their place regardless of situations. Taking the military logistics value out and just moving civilians, some things to consider…
-
Using the protracted WWII example, the government discouraged non-essential travel (auto, rail, etc) to minimize the use of resources dedicated to other than war effort (insert any crisis here), just as they did in the period post 9/11/01. It would be better to keep them off the rails…and as far as that goes, roads and airlines too.
-
Given the capacity of freight roads, single line mains, the need to move materials, and the inherent problems Amtrak has with long haul schedules as it is…it might be better to not create routing conflicts that don’t directly support the effort.
-
Technology has lessened to a degree the need for business travel. Things can be done now that do not require face to face meetings (which can be done via tele-conferencing in many cases) and in the event of a crisis, business will adapt to what it needs to do to operate. So do you really need it?
-
If you are talking about moving large quantitie
I doubt if Amtrak could be considered vital to National security in the same way the railroads were considered vital to national security in WW II. During WW II the railroads had far more capacity to handle passengers than Amtrak seems to have today. Back in the WW II era the demand for passenger rail service was there, however, this is not to imply Amtrak can’t handle its current demand plus some extra.
While the Armed forces shipped troops around the country by train during WW II starting with the Korean Conflict, and ever since, the Armed Forces have mostly shipped troops aroud the country for short distances by bus, and long distance by air.
If Amtrak or the freight railroads were to have some national security passenger rail role they would need reserve equipment and reserve personnel to staff the equipment. how long would it take to get the personnel or the equipment up to speed?