Anderson possible changes: Dismantling LD, Corridor, Etc.

CarterB wrote:Amtrak ..except NE corridor, keystone and the Californicate corridors... is doomed to disappear. A noble experiment that at least lasted 47 years. Some states such as NC, may takeover some services in state. LD trains are a thing of the past. You can fly cheaper and much quicker.

There is a significant part of the population that will not fly. It is a dehumanizing, degrading, and humiliating experience. And no, it's not cheaper; it's heavily subsidized, just as highways are subsidized, by taxpayers. The airports, air traffic control, and other infrastructure are bult and maintained at public expense with taxpayer dollars. That's not including the cost of the environmental impact of the airline industry; that, too, will be borne by taxpayers.

The long distance rail network needs to be expanded and made more convenient.

mtuandrew wrote:

ryanov wrote:I don’t know why he’s going after the Amtrak sleeper passengers like he is.

Because they lose money.

You’re not trying to tell me it’s the coach passengers that generate the larger portion of revenues on these trains, are you?

ryanov wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:

ryanov wrote:I don’t know why he’s going after the Amtrak sleeper passengers like he is.

Because they lose money.

You’re not trying to tell me it’s the coach passengers that generate the larger portion of revenues on these trains, are you?

I don’t think coach loses as much per passenger, simply due to the comparative volume. Equation might be different if you’re looking at coach vs. all added fare passengers (Business, First, and Sleeper.)

It’s also very possible I’m wrong, and that adding sleeper capacity (and cutting staff) will put LD sleeper passengers in/near the black revenue-wise. I hope that’s the case for Amtrak’s fairly unique type of passenger railroad.

Save Amtrak FIRE Anderson photographed from Amtrak train 159 (16).

As I recall, Mr Bennett Levin is a member here. I suspect he's right upset.

John_Perkowski wrote:As I recall, Mr Bennett Levin is a member here. I suspect he's right upset.

I think you mean in relation to the ban on back porch occupancy on moving PV's, which I can't see actually mentioned in this thread ?

David Benton wrote:

John_Perkowski wrote:As I recall, Mr Bennett Levin is a member here. I suspect he's right upset.

I think you mean in relation to the ban on back porch occupancy on moving PV's, which I can't see actually mentioned in this thread ?

No, it goes back to the initial policy published by Amtrak a while back. The back porch occupancy ban is only recent.

charlesriverbranch wrote: There is a significant part of the population that will not fly. It is a dehumanizing, degrading, and humiliating experience.

Wahh wahh wahh.

Should we have government subsidized horse drawn carriages, for those who refuse to get into those evil, newfangled auto-mo-biles?

90% of the 'problem' with flying is the passengers turn off their brains the second they step foot onto the airport property. If rail was as popular, it'd be just as crappy a way to go, too.

Hint: Next time you go overseas, choose a foreign carrier and opt for premium economy. Makes a world of difference.

charlesriverbranch wrote: There is a significant part of the population that will not fly. It is a dehumanizing, degrading, and humiliating experience.

Also painful (I sometimes have trouble with my inner ears, for instance) and often impractical in its own right.

Nasadowsk wrote:Wahh wahh wahh.

Should we have government subsidized horse drawn carriages, for those who refuse to get into those evil, newfangled auto-mo-biles?

90% of the 'problem' with flying is the passengers turn off their brains the second they step foot onto the airport property. If rail was as popular, it'd be just as crappy a way to go, too.

Hint: Next time you go overseas, choose a foreign carrier and opt for premium economy. Makes a world of difference.

Next time I go overseas, I’ll be choosing rail for intranational and international travel, and yes, a foreign-flag carrier for the trip there. Such a carrier isn’t available for domestic flight, and I (and most casual/infrequent travelers) have neither the means nor the membership for upgrades out of cattle class. Even five-wide, a train gives me more room and much more possibility to stretch, and I’m willing to take the time penalty on mid-length trips when I don’t want to drive.

Nasadowsk wrote:

charlesriverbranch wrote: There is a significant part of the population that will not fly. It is a dehumanizing, degrading, and humiliating experience.

Wahh wahh wahh.

Should we have government subsidized horse drawn carriages, for those who refuse to get into those evil, newfangled auto-mo-biles?

Apparently there were enough people who thought that it was a good idea to have government subsided cars and airplanes.

Are there any pro passenger rail forums on this site?

jamoldover wrote:adamj023 wrote:

If I had my way at Amtrak, I would electrify all the parts of the system that would continue to keep service and provide low cost nuclear power to feed the electrified trains. The biggest expense Amtrak will have is the cost of diesel fuel which is on the rise especialy on the lesser used longer haul routes.

Before you push the "electrify, electrify, electrify" button, keep in mind that the only places Amtrak can string wires is over track they own - and all of that (except for the New Haven-Springfield line) already has wires over it. The freight railroads aren't going to let Amtrak put clearance-restricting wires up over non-Amtrak-owned rails.

Michigan Services isn't electrified.

benboston wrote:Michigan Services isn't electrified.

One of these days I think I’ll do a back-of-the-napkin feasibility study on electrifying the Wolverine and Pere Marquette routes, under either 25 kVAC (using the MCRR) or 1500 VDC (via NICTD.)

Anyway. The Michigan Services are exactly the type of routes that Anderson wants to have DMUs on, if the states haven’t provided their own equipment already.

benboston wrote:

jamoldover wrote:adamj023 wrote:

If I had my way at Amtrak, I would electrify all the parts of the system that would continue to keep service and provide low cost nuclear power to feed the electrified trains. The biggest expense Amtrak will have is the cost of diesel fuel which is on the rise especialy on the lesser used longer haul routes.

Before you push the "electrify, electrify, electrify" button, keep in mind that the only places Amtrak can string wires is over track they own - and all of that (except for the New Haven-Springfield line) already has wires over it. The freight railroads aren't going to let Amtrak put clearance-restricting wires up over non-Amtrak-owned rails.

Michigan Services isn't electrified.

BNSF seriously looked at electrifying the CHI-LA transcon.

frequentflyer wrote:BNSF seriously looked at electrifying the CHI-LA transcon.

And Conrail considered electrifying through Pittsburgh, but we aren’t in either of those realities. And what does it have to do with Richard Anderson?

mtuandrew wrote:

frequentflyer wrote:BNSF seriously looked at electrifying the CHI-LA transcon.

And Conrail considered electrifying through Pittsburgh, but we aren’t in either of those realities. And what does it have to do with Richard Anderson?

Has nothing to do with Anderson, just making a point.

Besides this whole post is a sham anyways, has nothing to do with Anderson. It isn't like someone with half the business sense would take such a thankless political................errrrrrr..............CEO job anyways. It comes down to this, one wants Amtrak to stay the same as it has been for 47 years or break the mold and evolve. Breaking things and traditions are never popular, but at times needed.