If you love trains, then help them!

[boc61]

Yes, cars in America is something to stay but I feel a great example of rail at work is NJ, since I live in it and also NJ is to me developed rail transit and other forms of transit quite well. As in the case in New York, New Jersey transit system is a state wide agency. Not parts, also they are continuously expanding and improving their system. Like SNCF.

I think NJT does a very good job as well. But New Jersey is a small densely populated state, essentially part of 2 metropolitan regions. Mass transit is in demand, even then, the northwestern part of the state, where I live is not well served by it. Same in New York. Once you leave the NY Metro area and the MTA's domaon, how does the public transit fare? Passenger rail has a future in urban and in some areas inter urban venues, but I don't think a nation wide system like in other countries or as it was here in the past will ever happen.

Blame it all on Henry Ford.

 

[RRSignal]

I think one will find that in general around the world State assistance is in fact the routine norm as it is here in my country where rail is mushrooming continually. Of course we do realise the advance of the motor car into lives and that has happened in Gt Britain too yet passenger numbers keep going up. Those who will of course argue that there is only so much money to go round but when you consider the USA spends half the total world military budget in an imperial pointlessness and still opening more bases (more recently in Africa now) just think what could be done with a smidgeon of that bill that is ruining the economy! One American friend I communicate with normally outside of rail matters said to me "But we are a big country." Yep true but so too is Russia and China and they are progressing rail rather than want to bankrupt themselves trying to run the world. In two visits to the "ex-Colonies", I travelled on Amtrak and did enjoy my trips but felt so sad that what was left was a skeleton of greatness and worth keeping. Of all the developed nations it must now be the worst as far as passenger rail is concerned and only emphasises my sadness.

Was intervening in WWII "imperialist"? Even if we had the money that we could have saved by avoiding wars of liberation/imperialism/police action, it doesn't change the fact that passenger rail is inherently unprofitable and, outside of key areas and certain corridors, probably isn't a good fit for America. Frankly, passenger rail probably would have failed sooner had we not been so militarized; certainly, a lot of lines hung on because of wartme needs. Look at the post-WWII and the post-Vietnam declines.

 

[nathanmallard]

Anyway, back on topic, I can't see Amtrak going or even being significantly cut. Railways are having a resurgence across the world due to dwindling fuel supplies, and I can only see Amtrak expanding it's network rather than cutting it. By 2050, Amtrak will probably be making loads of profit as petrol gets prohibitively expensive. Even further in to the future, Amtrak might not need to exist as private companies get on the passenger rail bandwagon. All aboard the Norfolk Southern Broadway Limited, anyone?

 

[RRSignal]

--deleted--

 

[nathanmallard]

The person (I assume) you refer to has now been banned, deleting his posts is now a matter for the moderators. Sorry about my little WW2 rant, I didn't know you had European/Jewish ancestry. I will remove that part of my post.

 

[boc61]

Anyway, back on topic, I can't see Amtrak going or even being significantly cut. Railways are having a resurgence across the world due to dwindling fuel supplies, and I can only see Amtrak expanding it's network rather than cutting it. By 2050, Amtrak will probably be making loads of profit as petrol gets prohibitively expensive. Even further in to the future, Amtrak might not need to exist as private companies get on the passenger rail bandwagon. All aboard the Norfolk Southern Broadway Limited, anyone?

Dwindling fuel supplies are a myth. Refinery capacity is kept low to artificially increase demand. There is plenty of oil, and natural gas and new technology is making it accessible. The US will become the world's biggest oil producer in less than 10 years and become energy independent 10 years after that. Coupled with better fuel efficiency and environmentally friendlier engine technology, we'll be driving our cars for the next 100 years.

As much as I'd like to see it, resurrecting the Golden Age of Railroading in this country is a pipe dream.

 

[RRSignal]

The person (I assume) you refer to has now been banned, deleting his posts is now a matter for the moderators. Sorry about my little WW2 rant, I didn't know you had European/Jewish ancestry. I will remove that part of my post.

Ah, ok, no problem, and I think I know who the guy was who got banned, but that's not to whom I was replying to earlier. Look at post #17. I'm not sure if that's a first for that poster, but there are several people who routinely take the occasional cheap shot at the U.S. who aren't among the banned.

In any case, no point in fanning the flames. I'm modify my posts as well.

 

[rjhowie]

I wasn't referring in my satirical remarks to imperialism in WW2 but today which is a global fact! As for car ownership, yes, I fully understand that the car has been and increasingly an important thing in America. Car ownership is lower in large nations like Russia and China but growing fast yet they are still investing in rail aren't they? Big Russian cities are choked with cars now. In Europe even with smaller countries rail is a balued fact of life and even here in GB with great car ownership than ever rail is getting pressed to cope with travellers! Longer routes say 3 or 400 miles have several trains a day. I dare say it is more a localised contrasting thing in the US unlike elsewhere but the thread starter has a point of maintaining national rail which is now very much a skeleton service and always being threatened. Must say that on my 2 visits over there I travelled on Amtrak and had a cumfy journey, enjoyed my snack and the chat to other passengers. Indeed ended up teaching children in the coach Scots songs to their great delight that half the coach waved at me when I left the train a couple of hours later(!). In addition it was a more relaxing way to enjoy what was passing by my window. So can understand the feelings of the thread starter whilst understanding the social and local internal reasons for rail decline. Boy, oh boy being a rail supporter am I glad I live here!

 

[RRSignal]

I wasn't referring in my satirical remarks to imperialism in WW2 but today which is a global fact!

It's just as untrue/true today as it was back then. It's "liberation" if it's your country whose rear gets saved; it's "imperialism" if it's somebody else's. Putting aside the inaccuracy/subjectiveness of your claims, how about not bringing it into the discussion at all? I realize you can't completely separate rail and politics, but, at the end of the day, international policy and rail policy really have very little to do with each other. Again, regardless of how many or few taxpayer dollars we have to squander on this or that, widespread passenger rail is inherently unprofitable - severely unprofitable.

 

[H222]

I assume this would have to do with the States being severely in the red?

Amtrak probably could cut a few corners, specifically, their long-distance trains could be more of a seasonal thing or even just one weekly train etc. But it'll end badly considering politicians will find somewhere else to waste all the savings. Maybe some more cash into the Defence budget?

 

[opus722]

Most rail lines are profitable and accomplish that with far fewer subsidies than Amtrak. Russia's new lines are massively profitable, DB and SNCF have been for years, and heck, even bankrupt Spain is getting a return on rail. British trains are privately owned for that matter and must be profitable to ensure thier survival. The Koch... err Cato Institute's argument is based on figures that include the major infrastructure expenses associated with rail. Only the oldest lines, mostly TGV ones, managed to pay off those costs so far. In 5-10 years dozens more will reach that point and that number will continue to grow. Long distance rail will never be profitable, but most of the population in the US is clustered on the coasts anyways. It just takes a large upfront investment. US culture is too impatient and rail isn't some penny stock you cash out after a few days. It is a trust fund that takes years to reach its potential, but when it does the rewards are great. So yeah, I used to be optimistic about the future of rail in the US, but now I figure the status quo will remain for a while so they can keep stockpiling stuff to fight the Soviet Union in the event of an invasion of West Germany.

 

[rjhowie]

Well, we agree to disagree RRSignal (!). Considering the increasing number of military bases everywhere that are unaffordable in a near bankrupt situ and constant wars whilst at home so many lose homes and in poverty the internal infrastructure should be more important than trying to maintain world dominance. As for including rail in reviewing nearer home, I can appreciate that the cluster argument has indeed a good point and the lack of seeing immediate benefits will unfortunately continue to stimy US passenger rail. On this wider matter suggesting in this thread that services be reduced even further would not be some wonderful answer as all that would do is create a terrible decline. From what I understand there are more passengers than before but with such a stretched and skeleton service as I state, decline would be inevitable with inter-stae becoming almost heritage status.

Being train minded it is easy for one to go for the push but the background is something else and the best that can be hoped across there is to maintain what is left for people to use. Suppose it is easy for me to fall back on us being so rail minded and tremendous numbers using it but each country will have it's own tradition. Just unfortunate that a nation amongst all the other Western ones no longer has the attachement the rest of us has. Without Amtrak there would be nothing in America.

ps. Neat satire there opus722 so do let all knw the USSR and West germany no longer exists, ha, ha.

 

[RooRocz]

IIRC, the long-distance trains are all booked solid for months in advance because they're essentially "rail cruises" - ain't no one using them for transportation, more for seeing the scenery.

I think if subsidies are cut, you'll see ticket prices go up accordingly to where it'll be comparable to a 3 or 4 day cruise, but you won't see them completely die off.

Federal and state funding should concentrate on 100-300 mile higher-speed high-density routes, not "rail cruises" which serve no purpose that can't be done better by airlines.

 

[deadpoolmx55]

I just cant wait to here my kid someday ask, "daddy' what was amtrak?" and I will reply, a mistake kiddo, a big mistake.

 

[Bluewater]

I just cant wait to here my kid someday ask, "daddy' what was amtrak?" and I will reply, a mistake kiddo, a big mistake.

EDIT: Amtrak was the only good thing that came from the Government. Other than Conrail. XD

 

[rjhowie]

Well I think in the circumstances over there Amtrak was the only solution or you would be the only modern nation in the West with nothing. As I pointed out in the world in general there is some kind of assistance in passenger rail. Equally, I know that Americans are very divided on government spending even though a lot of that tax money is spent overseas and wasted in a time it could be used at home. Perhaps in the future when not trillions in debt and things might be rosier the idea of fast trains may be a possibility but for now holding on to what is there would be something minutely possible.

 

[JCitron]

Amtrak would do better if they have better service and much boils down to the concentration of population. They put their money where the people live while hoping to get the big ROI on that population, and pretty much forget the rest of the country. We don't need HST here. We need good consistent and on-time service which is lacking in the middle part of this country.

What?

We have awesome service on the NEC from Boston to Washington and spotty service between Chicago and Boston and worse service between Chicago and the west. California has awesome service. Now to get from Boston to Oklahoma City this spring, a trip of only 1800 miles, would have taken me 4 days in order to guarantee a specific arrival day. This trip had no guarantee of on-time connections and the layovers were something like 8-10 hours in between. In then end it was 3-days of traveling and not even getting close to my destination. I would actually have to backtrack 4-hours because there is no direct route. In the end I flew to OKC. It was guaranteed to get there in a reasonable amount of time even though I truly hate flying. It's because of this that people wonder why Amtrak is not favored in the western and mid-western states! If they had better service, they'd push their congress members to do something about it.

Sadly though, much of this has happened due to some political points of view and control by people who don't believe in trains or supported infrastructure. Let's say they were paid well by the airline industry and the highway industry and still are today. These people sadly are still in control, and until gasoline prices skyrocket beyond anything people are willing to swallow, nothing is going to change. It's as though they're deliberately squeezing the system while hoping it will fail. It's like starving out an enemy. Eventually they'll die from the lack of supplies (money).

John

 

[Bluewater]

Actually, JCitron, in some Midwestern states Amtrak is favored over other modes. Such as in Michigan. Ridership's been on the rise for 3+ years, and the service is starting to get better on-time record, and its going to get even better with the MDOT/Amtrak purchase of the NS Michigan Line. With new 110 MPH speeds between Porter and Kalamazoo, and the soon-to-be-raised speeds between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, the Wolverine and the Bluewater (my beloved namesake) are both going to have better service that can compete with shuttle flights between DTW and CHI. I'm sure Amtrak wouldn't raise speeds in a low-interest corridor if they didn't see a chance to improve service. Same with the Lincoln Service. A line owned by UP but is increased to 110 MPH for the sake of improving service on a highly-travelled corridor.

 

[JCitron]

Actually, JCitron, in some Midwestern states Amtrak is favored over other modes. Such as in Michigan. Ridership's been on the rise for 3+ years, and the service is starting to get better on-time record, and its going to get even better with the MDOT/Amtrak purchase of the NS Michigan Line. With new 110 MPH speeds between Porter and Kalamazoo, and the soon-to-be-raised speeds between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, the Wolverine and the Bluewater (my beloved namesake) are both going to have better service that can compete with shuttle flights between DTW and CHI. I'm sure Amtrak wouldn't raise speeds in a low-interest corridor if they didn't see a chance to improve service. Same with the Lincoln Service. A line owned by UP but is increased to 110 MPH for the sake of improving service on a highly-travelled corridor.

Michigan is lucky and very much part of the "east" even though it's Midwest. The rest of the region could still use service. You know there's no direct route between OKC and KSC? You have to take a bus instead. This would be a no brainer since OKC is a gateway city with connections east and west as well as north and south.

John

 

[amtrak2041864]

I think everyone knows, where I may stand on the whole Amtrak matter. Just look down at my signature. But I feel as if Amtrak, would become the mode of transport state to state if they were for one on time. I was on the FRA website, to see where trains were on time. And the lake shore limited was 8 Hours late! That is crazy. CSX must really hate passenger trains. If trains ran more frequent, not once a day but several times a day. Twice at least. Giving Americans the option to take the train at night or day. But I think I said this earlier but Amtrak connects cities to cities, cities need to start the develop their own public transit systems or improve existing ones. And over time those long distance lines may show a trend between two certain cities and that is when states will know that a track upgrade is needed, faster service, and also a new service. So on time performance and frequent service are whats needed. HSR doesn't always have to be looked as 200mph trains, that is claimed to expensive to build. But if the investment process is started now, later on the state can grade separate it and electrify it, increasing speeds as the demand becomes great. Like the NEC but the thing with the NEC is it is needed, like Now.