Discussion: Efficacy of Long Distance Trains

The title of this thread is "efficacy of long distance trains." But its focusing on current day Amtrak operations is the equivalent of an Efficacy of Railroads discussion in the fifties focusing on the NY Ontario and Western. (This beloved but dilapidated and inefficient railroad, often nicknamed the Old & Weary, got liquidated and scrapped in 1957.)
For historical and political reasons, Amtrak's "network" doesn't make sense. Often, "you can't get there from here." Last week I needed to go on a business trip to Columbus, OH. I would have liked to take Amtrak but it doesn't go there. Go to Cleveland and rent a car? Trains arrive in the middle of the night, and may be hours late.
Amtrak's per-passenger costs are needlessly high because of its infrequent service. Utility is low because of its infrequent service and non-connectivity. Timekeeping is reminiscent of a third world country. And, micromanaging of Amtrak by DOT and Congress only makes things worse.
The fact is, we are going to need an integrated public transportation network. We need one now, but we will need one much more in the future.
We will face millions of aging boomers who will become increasingly dangerous drivers. Personal vehicles cost more to buy and run every year; the IRS mileage rate for 2007 is likely to be about 50 cents per mile. And, as our population density increases, so does traffic congestion. In my youth in the sixties, I could zoom down pristine, almost traffic-free stretches of the new I80, as fast as I dared go in my family's '62 Ford Fairlane. Now? It's a parking lot.
What we need is vision and planning for future transportation needs. We absolutely must have national transportation planning that extends beyond road building. When I read threads like this one, where people are haggling over an annual government subsidy that amounts to $1 per person per year, I just get depressed.
In 1956 President Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway bill, which pretty much finished off railroad long distance passenger service.
Maybe, in 2007, with a new Democratic majority in Congress, with a President hoping to stave off a Democratic presidential victory in 2008, and an Iraq war most likely finally coming to an end, some transportation vision can be found and acted on. Maybe the President can sign a Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Act which will provide funding for public transportation improvements, including freight railroad capacity improvements. There is no reason that American public tranportation has to lag behind that in Europe and Asia. If we spend the money to make our public transportation, including passenger railroads, the equal of that in France, Germany and Japan, it will be money well spent.
It is said that we currently spend $2 billion a week on the Iraq war. Now that the war's end is in sight, if we spent a fraction of this on our transportation infrastructure it would be money well spent. If it has to be borrowed, at least it will be borrowed to our national benefit.
Is this vision likely to be realized? I guess we don't have the national optimism we did in the fifties. But I can hope.

Mr. JoeG has identified the issues well, but the fact remains that for the vast majority of the travellling public, particularly those who are best able to adapt and function, the present system, heavily underwriiten at the infrastructural level and built around airlines and auto rental, works well in most cases. The same can be said of Amtrak in the limited areas for which it is a good ft.

The problem, as always, lies at the fringes of the system, whether they be rural areas which can't justify much air service, or aging suburbanites no longer able to drive and unwilling to fly. And the organization of a system to meet these neeeds usually adds greater marginal cost. That's precisely why those who become dependent upon the "safety net" are jaded by its thinness.

For Amtrak, and any other player such as the bus operators, to be developed into an efficient and reliable system for the needs envisioned in Mr. JoeG's post, the effort will have to be centrally co-ordinated, and some guaranteed rationale beyond personal travel, such as mail traffic, would have to be included in order to substantiate the large investment required.

And as previously outlined, the resolution of the freight/passenger conflict, which often manifiests itself most directly at the "pinch points" on the fringes of the corridors and commuter services, has to be resolved, particularly if fuel costs argue in favor of redirecting moderate-value/shorter-distance hauls back onto the rails. Multiple-track mains with more sophisticated signalling are going to cost plenty of money, but the silver lining here is that economies of scale will probably drive down the per-unit cost if a large-scale rebuild can be justified.

Finally, it should be noted that the divisive nature of this issue lies in an unfortunate paralell to many of the red-vs-blue state issues which divide us. For many Americans in both countryside and suburb, the moment we climb behind the wheel and turn the key for the trip home is the point in our day when we again regain some control over our daily lives. A homily emphasizing someone's desire that we give up more of this for someone else's definition of "common good" just doesn't play well in Peoria...or lots of other places. Empasizing the less-intrusive, but more-positive side effects of a reorientation of our transport system, such as getting a lot of freight off the highways, would be an easier sell.

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

All,

This has been a rather insightful exercise in the lab project called Amtrak. Deferring back to my right-hand man Mr. Perkowski, any change that will occur with Amtrak will result by the actions of the majorities on the House and Senate, and with the approval of the President. 218+51+1 = 270 individuals, with whom Amtrak's fate rests in.

With that said, I think we've discussed quite a bit, and it's time to give it a break and focus on some other topics with Amtrak. Thanks to all who participated, I hope we all learned something...and by all means while this thread might be locked, this should not be construed to being "answered" in one way or another. We still need those 270 elected representatives to make that decision.

OK advocates around here, pile on. But this is where I foresee the Long Distance system a going.

First, we all know the Superliners will drop dead; you can't rebuild 'em forever.

Now it's going to take time, and there will be fights along the way, but, while likely I'll be gone, what should have happened forty years ago as was the plan, will come to pass within the next fifteen years. The LD system will be gone and Amtrak will become an operator of Corridors centered around the Northeast and into N. Carolina, Chicago, Seattle, Oakland, LA, and whatever local jurisdiction agrees to fund such and that can reasonably and practicably be operated.

Col. Perkowski, who in addition to his credentials as a US Army Commissioned Officer, also holds a Masters in Public Administration, has noted that Amtrak has the votes in Congress to be funded in a Spending Bill without support from the "flyover" states where the LD's operate. As a result, I believe tri-weekly is here to stay until such time as the routes can be discontinued in an orderly manner (Sunset and Cardinal first to go; so long as Builder, Zephyr, and Chief hold on, Lake Shore and Silver will be last. I can further foresee Auto Train returned to the private sector). As consolation, I can foresee Federally funded "busteetoots" operating over the routes, possibly with "two a day Daily" frequencies for a period of time after discontinuance occurs. Unlike Canada, all existing Amtrak stations can be reached by public highway.

Now in virtual certainty, the System will outlast the existing Superliners, so new equipment will need to come from somewhere. What I envision will be trains emulating those operated by the States in Eastern Australia, two a day, between Melbourne and Brisbane (never been, so can't say first hand). Those trains, actually run by the NSW State System, comprise one Sleeper which is sold as Day Rooms during the Daylight trains, a Café Car, and Coaches.

To operate the existing Amtrak LD system with tri-weekly frequency will require twenty five sets. If the eighty single level Sleepers can be roadworthy, that would allow at least two per set (1.5 where the Dorms would be assigned), the V-II Diners converted to a Café, offering Flex meals to anyone with an EFT card good for the $15 or so Amtrak would want for such, configuration, would need some augmentation for spares.

The 150 or so Coaches needed (five per train) would be part of the NEC replacement order which simply must be placed. They, unlike the existing A-II's, would be completely and readily convertible to Corridor use replacing the California cars as they drop and the LD's come off.

Again, even if unwritten, no one envisioned that fifty years after A-Day there would be any LD's remaining. They were supposed to be gone in an orderly manner starting about '76. The '79 Carter Cuts were the first step, but politics got in the way. Now those "old Lions" are gone; and I believe Col. Perkowski's thoughts are operative. Further, Precision Railroading, which I think is analogous to a Grand Chess Master envisioning every move he will make before sitting down for an entire railroad over, say, a three day period (and much like an experienced Train Dispatcher does for his territory at the start of his trick). Any train out there, such as a scheduled passenger train, will severely disrupt that "op plan", so I think the disruption that the advocates contend of "what can some iddy-bitty train do to this plan" is greater than they choose to believe to be the case.

If this is the future, it will push this centrist Democrat further to the left. If it takes a "Green New Deal" type of massive infrastructure investment to avoid the type of withering on the vine future you describe, then so be it. I'd hate to lose what precious little national passenger rail service remains while we watch China and the rest of Asia build the type of infrastructure that reflects true first world nation status.

The other possibility is that a stimulus plan is passed perhaps after the election that includes more Amtrak funding and service goes back to daily by Christmas. A lot of ways this can play out. I don’t think Amtrak would want to let the auto train go even if it is the only long distance service it is running.

I do think that absent a congressional mandate, they may only return certain trains to daily service.

Why would there even need to be an Amtrak if all that remains is corridors? Herzog and Brightline and friends could operate coach+cafe service for the same or lower subsidies, with far more transparent pricing. Transfer Amtrak infrastructure and equipment to states or regional entities and bid out multi-year contracts for operations and maintenance with negotiated subsidies and performance incentives. Since Amtrak doesn’t seem interested in running a national network anymore, might as well start that process now.

Mr. Norman’s vision of a slimmed-down LD fleet seems plausible and likely, though the LDs may be gone before the Superliners expire. Amtrak was heading towards an all single-level fleet under Anderson anyway.

I don't agree that the mandate with senators and congressmen has suddenly disappeared. They don't need Amtrak most oft heir constituents don't use Amtrak , but its nice to have , and try and take it away at your peril.

I think if we weren't so close to the election the 3x weekly may not have come to pass. Both sides want to pass a stimulus that will likely include the Amtrak issue. The problem is no one wants to make too many waves before the election and risk giving the other side an advantage. The only one that would probably sign off on a completed stimulus at this point is the president. Senate Republicans are pushing a number they know is too low as compromising right now could anger their fiscal conservative supporters and the Democrats are pushing a number they know the Republicans would never agree to this close to an election because they don't want to give the president a victory - neither side wants to give the other side an advantage before the election - it's just politics. Once we get to the lame duck period after the election I would not be surprised to see some sort of compromise stimulus to take some of the pressure off the besieged industries and it could very well include Amtrak funding - perhaps at a level to restore daily service and bring back some of the furloughed workers.

Mr. Flynn said that daily service will be restored in one of two cases. Either:
- if bookings on a specific route warrant it based on the formulas they released.
- if funding via appropriations becomes available.

I'd guess that the number of people who have ridden a long distance Amtrak route in the last 10 years combined is probably less than 5% of the country today. The majority of those are tourists. The math isn't difficult -- long distance ridership hasn't exceeded 5M per year for decades, and many are repeat riders.

That's not a national priority by any means.

I've said for a while that the future of the fleet would be single level, and caught quite a bit of flack for it from faithful advocates, but it's the way things are going. It's not unlike the approach the Chicago North Western took with their last long distance order with Pullman -- they bought a platform that could be converted to commuter or short haul use after a week or so in the shops, and that's exactly what happened with all but six or seven of them.

The future in North America looks like it will be predominantly Siemens Viaggio platform with a few Viewliners thrown in because they're too young to scrap. States who want to maintain service can do so.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:54 am OK advocates around here, pile on. But this is where I foresee the Long Distance system a going...

That seems to be the endgame of government control of passenger rail in the USA. Destroy the system and let some leftist president rebuild it in his own image. But with "regional" operators, as some already on here have noted, why have a federal operator, unless said federal operator is going to take the regional operators too?

Always wondered why Nixon created Amtrak instead of deregulating the private railroads.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 9:54 am OK advocates around here, pile on. But this is where I foresee the Long Distance system a going...

You’ve thought the plan out well, and I suspect had you been a member of the younger Bush’s administration, you would’ve been forwarding that scenario.

I don’t agree in a lot of senses that Amtrak should go down that road. There will be privatization of some systems, or state control further separated from Amtrak (North Carolina seems to be headed that direction for instance), but I don’t see the LD skeleton disappearing to the extent you think. Politics will go back to something closer to “normal” once the Trump era sputters to an end (assuming it doesn’t come crashing down) and the next President will have to unify a badly divided country. If that president is Amtrak Joe Biden - not at all a leftist to my chagrin - one of his favorite methods is the application of nationwide Federal funding and I expect it to be delivered by the figurative and literal trainload.

amtrakowitz wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:57 amThat seems to be the endgame of government control of passenger rail in the USA. Destroy the system and let some leftist president rebuild it in his own image. But with "regional" operators, as some already on here have noted, why have a federal operator, unless said federal operator is going to take the regional operators too?

Always wondered why Nixon created Amtrak instead of deregulating the private railroads.

I’m not sure why everyone thinks leftists want to dismantle Amtrak and rebuild it in the image of Bernie or whoever. All my leftist train friends want to build on the Amtrak system, slowly (or quickly) moving Amtrak off their Class I hosts onto self-owned tracks where feasible, but I don’t think any of them seriously think it’s feasible to build HSR all the way across the Great Plains & Rocky Mountains. They’re just looking for high enough speeds on existing railroads west of the Mississippi to outpace auto traffic, like 90/110 mph. (I would absolutely toss BNSF several tens of millions to install integral Automatic Train Stop OMA-DEN, MSP-GFK, SPK-SEA and SPK-POR for instance, and to certify the CP Rail PTC for 110 mph between MSP-MKE.)

And Nixon didn’t dismantle because he personally had a lot of socialist tendencies and a left-leaning Congress - perhaps the most socialist president in the last 50 years, including Obama. Coming up in California politics and as an extension of Eisenhowerian politics, I think he had a far different view of the importance of government employment - and of taxation & regulation - than does the modern Republican Party. It also wasn’t clear that any roads besides the Penn Central would utterly cease to function; he was out by the time Consolidated Rail Corporation was founded and the Rock & Milwaukee went into final bankruptcy.

Matt Johnson wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 8:09 pm If this is the future, it will push this centrist Democrat further to the left. If it takes a "Green New Deal" type of massive infrastructure investment to avoid the type of withering on the vine future you describe, then so be it. I'd hate to lose what precious little national passenger rail service remains while we watch China and the rest of Asia build the type of infrastructure that reflects true first world nation status.

Oh boy. Where to start…for one thing, it is the USA’s own shift left that has resulted in the state of affairs with passenger rail today—almost all that exists is under government control and that which is not does not operate out of the farebox fully. For another, by definition no communist state can ever be the “first world”—it is always the “second world” (and yes, the “rest of the world” with its government-run HSR is indeed under its own left-wing governance, making it more second-world than first-world although still straddling the fence). And all of the government spending that “the rest of the world” engages in with respect to infrastructure is leading to its own financial bubbles. Lastly, nothing about passenger rail of any form is about anything “green”, with respect to all of the propaganda that such rhetoric consists of (got $21 trillion laying around anywhere? didn’t think so).

Remember, going left is about far, far more than a country’s transportation infrastructure.

amtrakowitz wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:56 pmRemember, going left is about far, far more than a country’s transportation infrastructure.

It is, which is why HSR only plays a minor part in progressive policy initiatives compared to single-payer healthcare, a Green New Deal (of which HSR is a small part), student loan cancellation, and police & immigration reform among others.

Wendell Willkie for president.