Hampton Roads/Norfolk/Newport News NE Regional Service

Conrail4014 wrote:I'm ready to put my money where my mouth is--so lets stop debating about the supposed skulduggery of New York City and figure out how to get America back on TRACK.

Well then, by all means, buy some equipment, hire some conductors and engineers, negotiate access with the freight roads (or buy/build your own track), and run some trains.

Nothing is stopping you, or any other private investor, from doing so. If someone can figure out how to run the Southwest Chief at a profit, please call David Gunn (he has requested as much).

If you can launch your own long-distance train and can pay the freight railroads a competitive price for access, I'm sure they'll listen (yes, they have said they don't want to deal with any passenger operators other than Amtrak, but wave enough Benjamins in front of them and they'll go for anything; after all, they're for-profit corporations). Again, nothing is stopping you.

Conrail4014 wrote:I'm ready to put my money where my mouth is

A good place to start would have been here. Were we ready for that?

As for the state of the passenger-train system before May 1, 1971, I refer the correspondent to the Steve Goodman song "City of New Orleans."

RMadisonWI wrote:

LI Loco wrote:However, if you can argue a good business reason for having the only train from Cincinnati, etc. to the east come through New York in the middle of the night, I'm all ears.

Based on my (hypothetical) proposal, it would have provided daily service along the entire Cardinal route (not to mention a one-seat ride as far as Boston). This would enable many passengers to ride the train that would like to but can't due to it's thrice-weekly schedule.

I suppose a compromise could work where the Cardinal coaches run to New York under the current schedule, and the sleeper would be hooked up to the overnight regional train. But, this is all academic since there's still that whole lack of equipment thing to worry about.

If there were enough equipment - and enough demand - to field daily service over the Cardinal route and to provide sleeping car service on the overnight Boston - Washington train, wouldn't it make more sense to run the Cardinal to New York (with decent calling times) and let the Boston passengers transfer at Washington? We're only talking three hours or so, which could be spent enjoying the delights of Union Station's shops and restaurants or with a quick visit to the Capitol or other Washington attraction.

I read somewhere that the SCL was actually making money with its NY-Florida trains in 1971, or at least recovering their expenses. The only reason it joined Amtrak was to get rid of the local trains which lost money, and there was still doubt as to whether it would join almost until A-day. Wouldn't this suggest that if Amtrak were to shut down outside of the corridors, as it may, a company could make money running trains NY-Florida? Sunnyside Yard would get less crowded, and the best of the Viewliner, Heritage Diner, and Amfleet II fleets could probably be bought for not much, since probably all that could be got for them otherwise would be their scrap value. It would, I suppose, all depend on the cost of running rights on CSX and space in the NEC and in Sunnyside.

Here in a nutshell is what makes the idea of pure private financing for an Amtrak car order is a nonstarter:

[If Amtrak shuts down outside the corridor] the best of the Viewliner, Heritage Diner, and Amfleet II fleets could probably be bought for not much,

There it is, the passive voice and an unbegged question: by whom? Ponder that question, and you've come a long way toward understanding who's pushing for an Amtrak breakup and why.

since probably all that could be got for them otherwise would be their scrap value.

Another way to put this is that if Amtrak shuts down, any loan secured by cars becomes de-collateralized. That's too much risk. As long as Congress keeps Amtrak on the annual appropriations merry-go-round, this issue won't go away. Further, those cars represent an investment by taxpayers. I am unwilling to see my investment obliterated because somebody wants to play trains with real cars.

You read it right here, Mr. Pennsy, and I posted it.

I did learn that the lights burned late at 500 Water (SCL HQ) and then CEO Osborn personally participated in the decision process regarding whether SCL would join Amtrak.

Reports were that the entire passenger operation was putting more into the cookie jar than it was removing, which says to me that SCL was realizing a short term out of pocket profit from passengers.

Reasons for concern were the obvious that the equipment would need replacement but in addition that a "break' in the interchange of equipment at either Wash or Richmond would be "fatal".

Having been a patron of the East Coast services, both pre and post Amtrak, be assured that there would be considerable resistance on the part of passengers originating from or destined to Corridor points. On that point, reiterating an earlier posting of mine here, Amtrak once contemplated a Superliner equipped Chicago-Miami "Capitol-Star", but discarded the plan when they reviewed the effect on Corridor passengers, accustomed to through service being required to change at Wash.

Ignoring the political facts of life, even if Federal level sponsorship of rail passenger service was to be limited to the Corridor, I cannot envision any Class One of their own accord to begin offering intercity service again. Too much water has flowed over the dam in the past 33+ years. To offer more specific points would simply exhaust this site's host of available bandwidth.

It's pointless to keep spinning this legend about "the beast that ate SCL's passenger trains." Two words: Southern Crescent.

mattfels wrote:

LI Loco wrote:I couldn't care what time the train left here for Clifton Forge, Charleston, WV, Ashland, KY or Cincinnati because I have little reason to travel to those places. But there are many people in these and other communities who have reason to come here.

In other words, LI Loco favors only a regional system with New York City as the sole hub and spokes radiating out from it. Not a national network.

LI Loco wrote:But I'm also a realist

Not even close. No realist would maintain this strange obsession with George Warrington and his supposed sins, nearly TWO AND A HALF YEARS after his departure from Amtrak.

Mr. Fels -

I'm curious as to how you reconcile your fervent support for the national system with your seemingly undying devotion to praising George Warrington's stewardship of Amtrak. Everything I know about the Warrington years suggests that he wanted to junk the national system in favor of focusing on the NEC and other corridors.

Consider the following:

1. His strategy literally bet the bank on the Acela project.

2. During his tenure, Intercity's infrastructure was neglected. Damaged cars would be sent to Beech Grove and left to rust. When Amtrak went into cost-cutting mode, Beech Grove was one if its key targets as most positions there were eliminated.

3. Business initiatives initiated under Warrington, such as express freight and the "satisfaction guarantee," wound up hurting long distance trains' financial performance, not helping them.

4. Mr. Warrington had no problem with the less sufficiency mandate. He maintained almost till the end of his tenure that Amtrak was on a "glidepath" to meet that goal. He did object, however, to Amtrak's public service mandate, which Congress would not let it shake loose from.

5. In early 2002, Mr. Warrington made his position on long distance transparent by threatening to eliminate all overnight trains save Auto Train. Had that plan been executed, the national system would have disappeared and the remaining service would have consisted of clusters of lines in the Northeast, Midwest, California and Pacific Northwest.

I agree: "There is no need to "rehabilitate" George Warrington's reputation. The facts, all of them, speak for themselves."

Lest we forget, "the beast" ate the Southern Crescent during 1979 (corrected).

Let's review the reasons that I understood were underlying SRY's eight (corrected) year delay in entering Amtrak.

The principal reason is that SRY was comparatively successful in removing passenger trains during the period between 1969 and A-Day. The tactic used, which I understand was devised by none other than a WWII Naval Officer (who participated in the Indinapolis rescue at War's end) initialed WGC, was a "divide and conquer". They would petition a "friendly" State regulatory agency to kill a "target" train within that agency's jurisdiction. This resulted in such anomalies as the Agusta Special, in which once upon a time would enable passengers to board their Pullman in "Old Penn' and be deposited next morning in time for first tee at The Masters, becoming a "nowhere to nowhere' train running Ft Mill-Warrenville, SC. Another notable "truncating" resulted in the Birmingham Special terminating in York, AL. Needless to say, the "nowhere to nowhere Special' became a quick casualty. Result was a train removed without any need to petition the Federal regulators as the matter was outside their jurisdiction.

Because the measuring period to determine a road's "entry fee' into Amtrak, namely 200% of "out of pocket" or 100% of "fully allocated" passenger losses, was calendar 1969, SRY simply determined that they would receive comeasuately less benefit for the entry fee and accordingly declined to join.

Or we can cut to the chase by saying "less bang for the buck".

That SRY and Amtrak agreed to work together as "travel partners" I believe was a wise decision that benefitted both parties. To what extent such a "partnership" was contemplated by SCL as an alternative to joining, I know not.

Even though "mother lode" loves to tell it as SRY's decision was all about corporate pride, I believe the decision was reduced to the "secret ingredient" - and, for the benefit of folks residing away from the New York area where a major regional brand of coffee was marketed using that slogan, is also known as $$$$$$$$$$.

I'm curious as to how you reconcile your fervent support for the national system with your seemingly undying devotion to praising George Warrington's stewardship of Amtrak.

Argumentative. No basis for this latest personal insult. "Undying devotion"? Show me where.

Everything I know about the Warrington years suggests that he wanted to junk the national system in favor of focusing on the NEC and other corridors.

Better make that "everything I want to know." How many long-distance trains did George Warrington cut? Zero.

Mr. Warrington had no problem with the less sufficiency mandate.

That's wishful thinking masquerading as fact. The "problem" Warrington has was called the Amtrak "Reform" Council. Bombardier's shocking incomptence, which LI Loco prefers not to acknowledge, put Amtrak in a precarious position.

He maintained almost till the end of his tenure that Amtrak was on a "glidepath" to meet that goal.

Because Bombardier made such a complete botch of the Acela trainsets, full rollout was delayed to the end of summer 2001. Getting that accomplished meant holding off the "finding" from the Reform Council. Holding off the finding meant paying lip service to the "glidepath."

In early 2002, Mr. Warrington made his position on long distance transparent by threatening to eliminate all overnight trains save Auto Train. Had that plan been executed, the national system would have disappeared

But it didn't. Instead, like a good soldier, Mr. Warrington did. His job was to hold Amtrak together and get Acela launched. He did both. Did Warrington make mistakes? Sure, every Amtrak CEO has. In fact--and here's another fact that LI Loco prefers not to "know"--I've mentioned them myself on this forum.

Besides, by that "logic" one must really hate David Gunn. He "made his position" transparent by "threatening" to shut down the ENTIRE SYSTEM.

If you have to ignore key facts--and make things up--in order to "prove" your point, you don't have a point worth proving. Only a mean-spirited personal agenda.

No basis for this latest personal insult. "Undying devotion"?

Undying devotion is a personal insult? My are we touchy! I would consider undying devotion a positive attribute. Does your support for Mr. Warrington's tenure make you uncomfortable, Mr. Fels?

Let me rephrase me original question sans adjectives that may be deemed prejudicial: How do your reconcile your support for the national system with your support for Mr. Warrington's policies as Amtrak CEO.

How many long-distance trains did George Warrington cut? Zero.

How many did he propose eliminating? 17. Fortunately, he was replaced before he could carry out that threat.

Bombardier's shocking incomptence, which LI Loco prefers not to acknowledge, put Amtrak in a precarious position.

Did Bombardier order the Acela to be built four inches too wide to use its tilting mechanism on Metro North? Did Bombardier waste months making decisions on interior color schemes? Did Bombardier order hundreds of other design changes that contributed to delays and cost overruns on Acela? No. Amtrak did. These are facts that Mr. Fels prefers not to acknowledge.

Because Bombardier made such a complete botch of the Acela trainsets, full rollout was delayed to the end of summer 2001. Getting that accomplished meant holding off the "finding" from the Reform Council. Holding off the finding meant paying lip service to the "glidepath."

There's a word for that. It's called fraud. Had Mr. Warrington been running a publicly traded corporation Wall Street and the SEC would have been all over his butt like flies on sh-t.

If you have to ignore key facts--and make things up--in order to "prove" your point, you don't have a point worth proving. Only a mean-spirited personal agenda.

What's made up? What's ignored? If I've made mistatements of fact or have ignored factual information please point out the specifics. Don't BS us with spin or generalizations!

As for "mean-spirited personal agendas," isn't it mean spirited to accuse someone of not supporting the national system because he doesn't want to go to Clifton Forge by train? Isn't it mean-spirited to make baseless accusations that someone has been carrying a "strange obsession" George Warrington for 2 1/2 years?

Mr. Fels, you ought not be throwing stones. You might get cut by broken glass.

P.S. - It's also mean spirited to put "you don't have a point worth proving" in bold face. It illustrates your objective is merely to hurl insults at anyone who disagrees with your POV. BTW, I wear your barbs as a badge of honor.

To Mr. Fels and others,

If Amtrak shuts down, obligations collateralized by the equipment does not simply de-collateralize. The equipment remains encumbered and Amtrak (or its estate) still is required to service the obligation, or the equipment can be taken by the financial institution.

I don't know how running the Super Chief (oops, I meant Southwest Chief) at a profit is "playing train" with real cars, but fear not, if David Gunn will let me run my Super Chief at a profit in place of #s 3 and 4, I am ready to go.

Also, I don't see what bearing the failed fantrip has to do with this discussion. First, its focused at railfans who like trains but won't pay to ride them. After all, if we did, then I'm sure we would have MORE trains than we did in the golden era. Second, since railfans don't spend money, paying $185 (or whatever it was) per-person to ride modern-day Amtrak equipment, pulled by modern-day Amtrak locomotives sounds like an overpriced trip on Amtrak, except of course that it was over the Erie main.

Oh, and by the way, for all the grousing about potential private operators that goes on, I have the following queries: Do you want to see strong passenger rail in this country, that is safe, strong, flexible, marketable, and utilized by the public--even if the sides of the locomotives say "Conrail4014's Privately-owned/operated/financed RR" on the side? Or, are you married to a '70s era philosophy that has done nothing less than reduce an already emiciated national treasure?

How many long-distance trains did George Warrington cut? Zero.

How many did he propose eliminating? 17. Fortunately, he was replaced

Yes, by a fellow who threatened eliminating ALL Amtrak service. To my way of thinking that tends to validate what Warrington said.

Did Bombardier order the Acela to be built four inches too wide

According to one report I read on trainorders, the answer is yes. In other words, this is an open question, not a rhetorical one.

Did Bombardier order hundreds of other design changes that contributed to delays and cost overruns on Acela?

That's what Bombardier alleged in its news relations and the lawsuit it pre-emptively filed in order to duck contractually obligated penalties that it faced as a result of its incompetence. Because this suit and Amtrak's countersuit were settled without a finding of fact, this is all speculation. Nothing more.

What's made up?

Passing off willful speculation as fact is a way of making things up.

If I've made misstatements of fact or have ignored factual information please point out the specifics.

The claim that Warrington "had no problem" with the "less sufficiency" test. Once again, that's willful speculation not based on fact. Like the lie that the Hoosier State "is rarely on time."

This "if you don't endorse X then you must be 100% for Y" line occasionally works on talk radio, an aural medium in which replay and crosscheck are difficult. But this ain't radio.

The claim that Warrington "had no problem" with the "less sufficiency" [sic] test. Once again, willful speculation not based on fact.

Mr. Fels -
Here's what I wrote concern self sufficiency:

Mr. Warrington had no problem with the less sufficiency mandate. He maintained almost till the end of his tenure that Amtrak was on a "glidepath" to meet that goal. He did object, however, to Amtrak's public service mandate, which Congress would not let it shake loose from.

In other words, (Warrington) was angry that Congress wanted it both ways - to make a profit and to run "money losing trains." In a speech to the National Press Club, he called the dual mandate "wacky." In the February 1, 2002, news release announcing plans to seek elimination of the LD trains he said: "Everyone knows that you can't make a profit while running a network of unprofitable trains, but that is exactly what we're expected to do." http://www.amtrak.com/press/atk20020201020.html If there are statements he made during his tenure objecting to the self sufficiency mandate per se rather than this double standard, please direct me to them.

RE: Mr. Gunn's shutdown threat in mid 2002 was predicated by the fact that Amtrak was running out of cash. It's hardly apples to apples to compare the two situations.

And I don't hate him for it. I actually admire him because he was one of the few people in Washington who had the guts to stand up to George W. Bush in 2002.

In subsequent years Gunn has warned that budgets proposed by the White House and House of Representatives would result in a shutdown for the same reason; not enough money to cover operations. Thus, he has chosen to demonstrate his commitment to the national system by taking a "we're in this together" stance rather than pit region against region.

Lastly, Mr. Fels stated:

This "if you don't endorse X then you must be 100% for Y" line occasionally works on talk radio, an aural medium in which replay and crosscheck are difficult. But this ain't radio.

So why do you do it if this "ain't radio?" FWIW, anyone so inclined could always check radio transcripts, etc. It just takes more than a few mouse clips to find what you're looking for.

Regarding 2am stops in NYC...

I think that if anywhere should have a train stop at 2 or 3 am, it would be New York. Where else could you conveniently get a cab at that time? Where else would there be as many people going somewhere at that time?